Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 23, 1995 - Art Bell

03:10:37

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard C. Hoagland - Mars and Moon

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the high desert and the great American southwest, I bid you all a gracious
	good morning, good evening, wherever you may be, from Tahiti to the U.S.
	Virgin Islands, north to the North Pole, and south into South America.
	This is still called Coast to Coast AM, And I guess beyond.
	Welcome to the show, everybody.
	It is a Friday night, Saturday morning, and I have for you Richard C. Hoagland.
	Well, I know a lot of you at the news stations are probably going, well, so what?
	Who's he?
	Richard C. Hoagland is a former science consultant to Walter Cronkite of CBS News, the cable network NASA, Everybody by now ought to know about, well, not everybody knows, so we'll cover it.
	At NASA's request, he has now repeatedly presented his continuing Mars findings regarding the Cydonia region of Mars to thousands of NASA engineers and scientists at the Goddard Space Flight Center and Lewis Research Center.
	Pogland was also a featured speaker on his team's Cydonia investigation at the 1990 Aerospace Education Services Project.
	That was a conference at the Lewis Research Center designed to train and brief specialists on current NASA projects.
	Then, in February of 92, he presented his team's results regarding Cydonia.
	It was all in an invited address to delegates and staff at the United Nations.
	There has been a lot of water under the bridge since that time.
	A lot of water under the bridge.
	And there is some new, fast-flowing water under the bridge.
	However, I would like to remind my audience, just before we get to Richard, that we now have a bulletin board service up.
	And you can... There are two photographs up there.
	that are relevant to some of what we are going to discuss this morning.
	One of them is the famous Face on Mars.
	If you have never seen the Face on Mars, you may download that.
	If you have never seen something called the Cydonia Study or CY Study, you may also download that.
	That's in addition to a whole lot of other pictures and photographs that are up there.
	So our bulletin board service is open at this hour, and you can get those photographs.
	And they will be, to some degree, what we are going to talk about.
	That telephone number is area code 702-727-1709.
	Let me repeat that right now.
	And again, the face on Mars ends with something called CY Study, which means Cydonia Study.
	Are up there, and I think you'll find them very relevant to what you're about to hear.
	Area code 702-727-1709.
	And now, Richard C. Hoagland.
	I'm here.
	Excellent.
	There's been some static, but it went away.
	Yes, it went away.
	First of all, wonderful to have you back on the program.
	It's great to be back with you.
	It's been a long time.
	In your introduction, let me make one addition.
	Last year, just about a year ago, a little over a year ago, we did a presentation at Ohio State University, which is important because it's the largest land-grant college in the United States.
	I did not go to Ohio State, but I wanted to get that in.
	But more important, it was the home of the first private SETI project, Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.
	There's a radio astronomer there who's been running basically in a cow pasture, now turning into a golf course.
	a radio antenna listening out up into the dark for radio signals from somebody who might be out there and he's been doing it very quietly with a small amount of funds for almost thirty years so it was fitting that last year we made our first presentation on our expanding investigation of the moon and possible artifacts there at Ohio State well I should say so and uh... my recollection is the greeting was great I think so.
	I think that is a fair assessment.
	You're referring, of course, to the videotape which we made of the events and which we have made available to anybody who calls in any other number we have.
	That's right.
	Let's, I guess, go all the way back, if we can, to Mars.
	And we'll try and encapsulate so we can come forward fairly quickly.
	But there are a lot of people out there and all these radio stations we have now.
	And they've not heard one word you've ever said about Mars.
	OK.
	So let's begin there.
	What's on Mars?
	Well, all right.
	In a nutshell, this is an investigation, an independent, privately financed, basically publicly financed, scientific investigation, a multidisciplinary investigation.
	That means we have lots of scientists involved who have different areas of expertise and study from computer imaging to geology.
	To astronomy, to even chemistry now that we're getting into looking at lunar samples.
	And we've all been for the last dozen years or so, since I really got into this back in 83, we've been looking at the possibility that there is extraterrestrial archaeology out there in our own solar system.
	That there are things left by someone on Mars, initially, that was the focus of our original years of inquiry, And lately, in the last couple, three years, we've been looking at the moon, at the Apollo and other photography taken by NASA and returned by the astronauts.
	Correct.
	And that, for some reason, Art, NASA has known this, A, and has not deigned to tell us, B. By the way, I should tell you, NASA is definitely listening to us this morning.
	I've got a couple of faxes from people who work at Uh, NASA, and they say, as a matter of fact, my program on a regular basis, not just tonight, is piped into NASA.
	So they sit there and listen.
	You mean the Joplin Space Center in Houston?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Okay, well, NASA, when I say NASA, let me, let me hurry to make the distinction.
	There are about 28,000 current employees of NASA.
	Unfortunately, if this administration has its way at the end of the next couple years, there will be maybe 5,000 left, because he wants to eliminate something like 20,000 NASA employees.
	That's one thing.
	I've got a little release here.
	It says, following statement from NASA Administrator Daniel Golden on the proposed cuts to the agency's Mission to Planet Earth program released today through the President's Office of Science and Technology, it's a $2.7 billion reduction on how they look even back at Earth.
	Where we live and where there's been some extraordinarily important science in terms of the environment and how to maintain the environment in which we live.
	Exactly.
	When I say NASA, I want to make very clear, most of, 99.9999% of those 28,000 people who currently work for NASA, or the up to 400,000 who worked for NASA in the past, in its heyday, in its golden years, at the height of the Apollo program, for instance, including contractors, most of those people are, 99 plus percent of them, We're and are, I believe, completely in the dark about what we're going to talk about tonight.
	If there has been management of information, if there has been censorship, if there has been withholding of the fundamental discoveries that our team has made, it is by a very tiny handful of people located deep in the bowels of the agency and or in other parts of the federal government, including potentially past White Houses, But it has not been most of NASA.
	Most of those people deserve medals because of the long hours, the dedication, the unstinting efforts, the enormous resources that they bring to their job every day without pay, without overtime, because they believed in the dream.
	And part of my reason for doing shows like yours over and over again is because they, and all the rest of us, have been cheated by the fact that they were not told what we had found on the Moon and Mars As well as all the rest of us, and that, of course, we have to correct.
	All right, tell me this.
	Having said that about the employees, could it really be that nobody at NASA knows, essentially, what you know, or has concluded what you have concluded, or can you not say that?
	It's an excellent question, Art, and because I try to stick with evidence and data, let me give you some evidence.
	And we're really starting at the back end of the story now, because we have much more evidence now That data on the moon, on the structures on the moon, has been when held than we do on Mars.
	Mars is still a kind of open question.
	It's like, did anybody really know, except long after the fact?
	In terms of the moon, it is clear now from our three years of inquiry, which we laid out at Ohio State last year, that someone, based on the unmanned robotic probes that were sent to the moon in the early and mid-60s, before the astronauts went, Had to have looked at and analyzed and discovered what was on those pictures, and then directed the specific Apollo missions to acquire key data in such a way that A, there would be new information, and B, the astronauts would not kill themselves.
	If they had flown to the moon, Art, without knowing where the things we have found were sticking up, The orbiting spacecraft and the landers would have bumped into it and would have led to many astronauts literally dying and disappearing on the radio calls, so that they would not have returned home.
	That means someone had to know.
	Now, what is our specific evidence?
	Yes, well, stop there for a second.
	This is what I mean to ask.
	You suggested that there is a small kernel of people, perhaps at the very top, that know these things.
	It seems to me, in the discovery Of these things, in the discovery process, there would have been a lot of middle-level people involved, wouldn't there?
	Not necessarily, because you're dealing with a system, and this of course gets into the art of big systems.
	When you're dealing with an organization that has 400,000 employees and contractors, there's no one individual who can possibly manage that whole thing.
	And what you do is you break the system up into subcomponents, subsystems, you know, specialties and all that.
	Each of these people, in a kind of a pyramid, reports to the guy above him.
	And those people report to guys above them.
	And most of these people, by the way, were guys.
	There were very few women, even in management or technical positions in the NASA program in the 60s.
	If the folks at the top are not telling the folks below them on the pyramid the truth, but the folks down below on the pyramid never question, for an instant, it never enters their mind that the guys up at the top are not telling them the absolute truth, Then the guys at the top can get away with it, if they can control the flow of information, and that is apparently what has taken place.
	Now, how can I say that with absolute certainty?
	Because we have now had ex-NASA employees, and we're going to talk about a couple tonight anonymously, we're not going to give names, who have come to us, have looked at our data, and have said, holy whatever, you're right.
	Not only is this stuff real, but at the time I was doing so-and-so and so-and-so, And I was instructed to do so-and-so and so-and-so, and I never questioned why, but now I understand.
	Uh-huh.
	Well, that is interesting.
	All right, but again, let me drag you back to Mars, and let's see if we can just get it out quickly.
	What's on Mars that is anomalous?
	What's on Mars other than red dust or whatever else?
	Let me set the scene.
	Sure.
	In 1976, in the bicentennial of this nation, We embarked on a very bold, unmanned set of missions to Mars called Viking.
	It was the culmination of about a hundred years of longing and hopes and dreams and speculation and all that about possible life on the Red Planet.
	It was NASA's first and last official search for life on Mars.
	It came in the end of a century that began with Percival Lowell, not too far from you out there in the southwest up in Arizona, And Flagstaff with his Lowell Observatory dedicated to looking for possible life on Mars at the turn of the century.
	It was a brilliant technological achievement.
	Four unmanned spacecraft, two landers about the size of VWs, and two orbiters about twice as big with windmill-shaped solar panels orbiting overhead a thousand miles above the sands of Mars.
	The missions lasted about four or five years total.
	The landers landed at two spots on the planet separated equivalently Moscow and Mexico City, in terms of their latitudes and their respective positions on opposite sides of the planet Mars.
	I have a dumb question, and I don't remember.
	Something the size of a Volkswagen is pretty good size.
	Yeah, right.
	Mars has a pretty good gravitational field.
	How does it compare to ours?
	One-third.
	One-third our gravity.
	Okay, about a third our gravity.
	And the size of the planet is about half the size of Earth.
	Wouldn't that require quite a bit of retrofire fuel to keep from crashing instead of landing?
	They use parachutes.
	Mars has a thin atmosphere.
	Unlike the Moon, you can use parachutes to get down safely to the surface.
	And the last few hundred feet or so, they used not retro rockets, but like descent rockets that cushioned the final hundred feet so they could land without the parachutes falling over the spacecraft.
	That answers it.
	Just one other question takes you away for a second.
	There's a recent story, Richard, about the atmosphere on Mars changing.
	Yeah.
	A big story.
	Now, I don't know if you've heard this, but they now claim there's a lot more... Suddenly, there is more moisture in the atmosphere, and how can that be?
	Well, we know that there's a lot of stuff locked up in the soil and in the polar caps, in what's called the regolith, or in this term, in this sense, it's really permafrost.
	If you warm the place up a little bit, More of that stuff is going to thaw and be released into the atmosphere.
	In fact, there are some geologists, based on the Viking data and previous observations from the Mariner series, and even going back to the terrestrial telescopic data, who think that Mars, like the Earth, goes through long, cyclic ice age swings in its climate, and that during warm periods, you know, you can actually get the surface to thaw out a bit, and the stuff comes out and fills the atmosphere, So the atmosphere goes up and down in pressure and in composition.
	It changes.
	And there is more moisture.
	And if it gets far enough, you actually get enough moisture in the air where it could rain.
	But it hasn't rained in probably half a billion years, according to these geologists.
	So we're not looking at something that drastic.
	But there are subtle variations.
	And Viking data actually predicted that those things could possibly occur.
	And I guess now the new Hubble data, new observations made from the Hubble telescope, Now that it has been, hmm, fixed, which you've seen on the Internet, some of those stunning, you know, full-disc images in color.
	Oh, yes.
	Those indicate that, yes, there are changes in the atmosphere, and that these are accounted for by possible changes in solar energy output, or other things that would change the whole climatology over a long time.
	So, in an interesting way, you could say that Mars has global warming, even though it doesn't have a lot of factories and people in trouble.
	That's right.
	And that, of course, gets to why the Earth is going through global warming.
	And this, to leap far ahead in our story, we think, in fact, is accounted for in terms of the hyperdimensional physics that we've been discussing many times on your show.
	But that may be too detailed to get into tonight, or then again, maybe not.
	We have a lot of time.
	Well, somebody's going to ask.
	They're going to say, all right, you've determined these objects are not natural by the use of your hyperdimensional physics.
	Among other techniques.
	And then they're going to say, this guy's a crackpot.
	Hyperdimensional physics?
	Come on.
	So, come on.
	What is it?
	Well, let's not anticipate them until they say that.
	Well, I can.
	I've been doing this a lot of years.
	I got a medal for the physics from the Angstrom Foundation in Stockholm.
	Thank you.
	And Jonas Angstrom was one of the founders of the modern physics.
	And the Angstrom is the international unit used all over the world by physicists and scientists.
	And I feel extremely proud that that foundation decided in 1993 to award me the medal for the physics based on our work on the monuments of Mars.
	Because, frankly, I think of anything we've done Probably the physics itself is that which is the most important.
	Well, okay, good.
	It's just the name that is going to throw people, hyperdimensional physics.
	But why is it any weirder than quantum physics?
	Or population genetics, to coin a term from the OG system?
	The answer is because it's new.
	Oh, well.
	Are we afraid of new things?
	I'm not, I'm just trying to... Actually, it's not new, it's very old.
	If you can...
	The founder of hyperdimensional physics is not me.
	Yes.
	It is a gentleman named James Clerk Maxwell, who was an English physicist, writing and working and studying and trying to figure this stuff out over a hundred years ago in London.
	And he was basically the founder of modern electromagnetic theory.
	And it was he who coined the term hyperdimensional, not me.
	All right.
	In a nutshell, what does it mean?
	It means the physics of more than three spatial dimensions.
	Oh, okay.
	Length, breadth, and height, we are familiar with.
	Yes.
	Alright, something can be deep, something can be wide, something can be high.
	Right.
	Well, suppose there are unseen dimensions, which cannot be seen with our current senses, but in fact can be modeled mathematically, and if you come up with the right amount of technology, might be detected with some kind of instrument.
	Just as we can detect ghost particles at the subatomic level that you cannot hear or see or taste or touch.
	That's what hyperdimensional physics is.
	It is a physics of the unseen, but not the unavailable or the unaffectable.
	In other words, proven by the end result of the mathematics.
	Exactly.
	The predictive quality of a unified theory, which says that if this is going on behind the scenes, it should have this effect.
	And if you look in the real world and you observe the effect, Then you have to believe the mathematics that leads you back to the cause, even if you can't see it.
	I can accept that.
	Is there a way... Well, I'll tell you what, we're going to take a break here, but when we come back, I would like to ask you if there is a way, in the real world, that you can take what you know to be true, mathematically, and in some way reach out and prove it.
	Stay right there.
	Richard Hoagland.
	Richard C. Hoagland is my guest.
	The subject will be Mars, and then, yes, A lot of new information about the moon.
	You're listening to the CBZ Radio Network.
	Art Bell is taking calls on the wild card line.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	All right, back now to Richard Hoagland.
	Are you there?
	I'm here.
	first-time dollars can recharge bell at seven oh two seven two seven one two
	two two seven oh two
	seven two seven one two two two now here again
	art bell all right back now to richard hoagland are you there i'm here okay
	good uh... what i was about to ask you was about some sort of
	whether you think there ever might be anyway to
	demonstrate a physical manifestation of uh...
	your new physics Oh, not only might there be, there is.
	Oh, good.
	There's all kinds of stunning evidence that we're, if not right, well on the way to being right.
	And that's what good science is, but are we getting the cart before the horse?
	Because we were starting at Mars, and you wanted to be logical, and we got diverted... Well, it is true, except that I believe the objects on Mars are established as being other than something natural by this process.
	That is one of the ways in which we apparently have done it.
	So let me try to be logical, and you can interrupt if you think... Sure, go ahead.
	Okay.
	During that Viking summer, while the landers were on the surface, At the equivalent of Moscow and Mexico City doing cores and, you know, surface samples and running atmosphere tests and trying to find little, you know, Mars bugs in the soil, which turned up nothing.
	Overhead, the orbiters were orbiting, you know, very long orbits, 24 hours to take one orbit, closest point, 1,000 miles up, and they took lots and lots of pictures.
	Over the four years, they probably amassed something like 100,000 images of Mars with the TV cameras Taken from orbit and radioed back to Earth to the computers at NASA.
	Right.
	On a few of those frames, taken on the afternoon of July 25th, 1976, over a region in the northern deserts called Cydonia, at about the latitude on Mars equivalent to the latitude on Earth I'm talking to you from tonight, which is just outside New York City, 41 degrees north latitude, they found on those orbital frames this remarkable thing, That now has come to be known all around the world as The Face on Mars.
	A while long.
	Do you know how they reacted to it when they first saw it?
	Do you have any info on that?
	Yeah, I have excellent info.
	When some of my early investigators, some scientists from Cal Berkeley, up north in California, and a member of President Reagan's Space Committee, who was a colleague of our team at that time, And I made a special visit to the downtown offices of the former Viking mission scientist, Dr. Jerry Safin.
	I pointedly asked him, as we were showing him our early data at that point, I said, Jerry, what did you guys say when you saw this thing?
	Right.
	And he reported to me that there was a geologist, actually an atmospheric physicist, from Stony Brook University here in New York State.
	Who found it on a Sunday morning, several days after it had been taken, and telemetered from Mars to Earth, to the computers, and spit out, as they said, a Polaroid picture.
	They would look at these little kind of snapshots to plan the next mission photography.
	Sure.
	And they had these all spread all over the floor, and they were trying basically to find a safe place to land the second Viking lander, which was supposed to go down a few weeks from then.
	And Toby Owen was literally crawling around on the floor, and I report all this in the book, Monuments, looking for a place where there was no rocks and no mesas where they could set a lander down safely.
	And he suddenly came across this one frame, 35A72 was its number, and there on it was this little mesa, little in terms of the scale of the picture, and Jerry Soffens said to all of us, he said, Toby looked at me and he said, oh my god, look at this!
	A face on Mars!
	And that was the first and last official NASA reaction art in almost 20 years to this date.
	That's amazing.
	They've done everything they can to hide it, to deny it, to get rid of it, to denigrate it, to ignore it, and to castigate any of those of us who are dumb enough out here to try to explore it.
	But the fact is that the face on Mars, which is 1,500 feet high, Bilaterally symmetric.
	That means it has a left and a right half.
	It looks like a statue.
	All of our independent analysis now says it probably is a statue.
	Much, much bigger than the Sphinx.
	Much bigger than any monument on Earth.
	Looking straight up into space.
	At those orbiters, a thousand miles overhead.
	In a complex of pyramids and other remarkable geometric structures laid out in a redundant mathematical, you know, plan or design.
	All of that came down on the telemetry pipeline that Sunday with this picture of the face
	on Mars and began what to this day is probably NASA's worst nightmare.
	Because somebody in NASA has not wanted to explore this in public or to admit that in
	fact Vikings succeeded.
	And we found evidence of life on Mars, very ancient, former, now long gone, extinct life,
	and the agency has done everything in terms of those handful of people who know to try
	not to tell all the rest of you out there tonight or anybody else.
	Well, I know you're not a UFO kind of guy.
	You better believe it.
	And the audience ought to know that, too.
	But you are talking, after all, about an intelligence that at least at one time existed on Mars.
	I'm talking about stuff, Art, that stands still.
	You can kick the tires.
	If we ever sent the rovers and the robots back there and landed at Cydonia, The photographs and the amazing things that would come in over live TV would blow your socks off, but on the next mission back, two years ago, Mars Observer, when we and all our scientists and a lot of you guys out there tried to get NASA to go to Cydonia, orbit over with Mars Observer, and take new pictures, instead of NASA saying, okay, that's what science is, you know, hypothesis and test, we'll take the pictures, you put enough evidence together here to indicate this might be something interesting,
	Instead, they did everything they could, Art, to not take the pictures, to lie about the difficulty of taking the pictures, and then two days before going into orbit, the whole spacecraft disappeared.
	They lost it.
	And they were planning never to show us any live imagery, which of course, to me, was a dead giveaway.
	Because if you lock the photos in a drawer or in a computer for six months, with today's computer technology, I mean, you're enough of a technophile That you know you could make the whole damn solar system disappear if I gave you, you know, six months with a paint program or a touch or whatever.
	Absolutely.
	What's always surprised me, and it is true, Mars is full of a lot of very uninteresting topography.
	And so if you had something that was at least controversial and interesting, they would go back there first.
	Not at all, but first.
	And they didn't.
	They didn't want to.
	Which gives credence to the suspicion that maybe there's a hidden agenda.
	Maybe there are people in NASA who know that this is not kooky and crazy, but in fact is real, and for reasons that we can of course speculate about freely, They don't want the American people or the rest of the world to know that there were ruins on Mars because, and you may fill in the blanks.
	Well, I'd rather have you do that.
	Give me your best shot.
	Well, we don't have to speculate because, Art, we found a document.
	You know, I'm this boring guy that demands evidence.
	When Stan McDaniel, who was a late comer to this investigation, who wrote a brilliant report called the McDaniel Report, Which is also available to the 800 number, which we can probably give out at some point this morning.
	When he kind of joined our effort, he came to this completely independent.
	Now, science is supposed to be, you know, scientists look at stuff, they make some bold speculations, they hypothesize, and they're supposed to gather more data to try to prove themselves wrong or right.
	In that process, other scientists are supposed to kind of stand on the sidelines, like a referee, you know, at halftime at an Oakland Raiders game, be it played in L.A.
	or in Oakland, and they're supposed to referee.
	They're supposed to decide if the field is level, if the playing field is level, if the players are playing by the rules.
	That's what Stan McDaniel did in terms of our independent investigation, looking at our stuff and looking at NASA's response.
	He was, and still is, the former chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Sonoma State University in Northern California.
	By the way, you know we've never met?
	To this day, we have not met.
	I've not met Stan McDaniel face-to-face.
	Really?
	We've talked by phone, we've talked by computer.
	We have yet to physically meet in the same room.
	He got onto this because of a comment he heard about going back to Mars on National Public Radio, and he had come across my book at some point, and he wondered why.
	Carl Sagan, in this interview with Ira Flato on NPR, was not mentioning that they might go and look at Cydonia and either prove or disprove this wacky theory.
	And the more he got into this, the more he found that his naive curiosity was in fact that, it was naive.
	Because he began to document the most bizarre, anti-scientific, unscientific, strange, hidden agenda kind of actions by NASA that anyone could imagine.
	And he wound up writing a several hundred page document With hundreds of footnotes and references and sourcing and all that, which was hand-carried, couriered, to the program scientist for Mars Observer on the morning, I'm trying to remember the dates now, I think of August 22nd, a few hours later, Mars Observer disappeared.
	In this report, Dr. McDaniel, who was an historian of science, an epistemologist, that's someone who basically asks, you know, how do we know what we know?
	And this philosopher, chairman of the department, on his own time, with his own money, laboriously, over two years, put this report together.
	He interviewed all the members of our team.
	He interviewed people at NASA.
	He went looking at other independent investigators.
	He did a top-to-bottom job.
	So then this paper he handed was a demand, in essence, a scientific demand.
	They examined this... For fairness!
	For absolute logical fairness in testing what was a robust hypothesis, which he thought we, as independent investigators, Had done a bang-up job in making a case for inquiry.
	Not that we had proven it, but that we'd made a case that was worth looking at.
	Had he not delivered that paper, would that spacecraft have disappeared?
	You know, it's interesting, because in this document, one of the things he says outright is that he felt this was on the eve of going into orbit, with NASA still declaring they had no guarantee that they were ever going to take even one picture in two years of Cydonia.
	The pyramids, the face, whatever.
	He said, NASA is about to make one of the most egregious errors in the history of science, in the history of science.
	And a few hours after that statement was delivered to NASA headquarters, that whole spacecraft just up and disappeared.
	Well, I say it again.
	Had that report not shown up, do you think the spacecraft would still be winging its way around the Red Planet?
	Well, it was one of many factors.
	I was on Good Morning America.
	Uh, the morning that NASA announced it had disappeared, I was debating, by satellite, from New York here, with Devin French, who was the program scientist that McDaniel delivered his report to.
	Disappeared on a Saturday, didn't it?
	It disappeared 14 hours before they announced that it disappeared, Art.
	Oh.
	They waited 14 hours to let us know!
	And I said to one reporter, were they waiting to notify the next of kin?
	We're talking a robot here, guys.
	There had been several glitches on the way from Earth to Mars.
	It was launched in September of 92, And it was supposed to arrive on August 24th of 1993, and several times during the flight out, the cruise out to Mars, there had been hiccups where it had kind of gotten off track on the sun and gone into a spin mode and kind of, you know, yelled for help.
	NASA, JPL had told reporters gathered in California within minutes of each of these glitches.
	On this particular glitch, when it disappeared, they waited.
	And they waited and they waited.
	They waited 14 hours until exactly when the interview and the debate between me and Bevan French on ABC ended.
	And then NASA, when their man came off very badly because he couldn't answer the question, why not take the pictures of Sidoni and show these guys are crazy if they're crazy?
	When that interview ended, when that debate ended, that's when NASA said, oh, by the way, guys, we lost Mars Observer last night, 14 hours ago.
	And so you were on the show making the case, uh... That we had a right to find out from live television, with no censoring, with new photography, if this hypothesis will stand the test of science, the test of time, which is simply take the damn pictures.
	Like I said that.
	And Bevan French temporized and said, what pictures?
	Why were they saying they wouldn't?
	In other words, again, with so much topography that's boring up there, and that at least controversial and interesting, It just doesn't make sense.
	And what did they come up with?
	I mean, what did they say?
	Well, they basically said that you could not base a valid scientific hypothesis on two pictures at two sun angles, and that we were all arguing over tricks of light and shadow, and there were much more important scientific things to be done with the taxpayer money.
	Really?
	Really?
	Like what?
	Well, take pictures of those boring things that you're talking about.
	Exactly.
	I mean, we were not talking about basically diverting the mission.
	We had done calculations, and we had put them in our own documents, and McDaniel had included them in this report, which demonstrated that if they did nothing, Art, absolutely nothing, they would pass over the Cydonia region, which is where the city and the face and the pyramids and all that are located, at least 40 different times in the course of the two-year mission.
	And all we said was, every time you cross over this region, take some pictures, guys, and let us see them.
	Don't do anything different.
	Don't do anything special.
	Don't, you know, make special orbit changes.
	Just every time you pass over this region, take some pictures and send them home.
	Right.
	And they wouldn't do it.
	They would not do it.
	In fact, they lied and said basically they were only going to get one chance in two years to pass over the face, ignoring the fact that all around the face are all these other objects.
	And if I'm flying over L.A., all right, to use an analogy, in a satellite.
	Right.
	And I'm aiming for, you know, City Hall.
	Remember City Hall in the day that they stood still?
	Yes, of course.
	When Martians invade with Gene Berry?
	Remember that great scene where the City Hall is blown up by the... Are you talking about the one with the robot?
	Yeah, well, the big robot.
	You know, it was Orson Welles' Invaders from Mars.
	It was a 1954 movie.
	It was the day, wasn't it the day that Dearest Stood Still?
	No, that was with Michael Rennie.
	This is Gene Barry.
	It's set in Los Angeles, and there's this great scene where City Hall is destroyed by one of the invader's spacecraft.
	If you were targeting that City Hall from orbit, all right?
	In a spacecraft that couldn't look sideways, it could only look straight down, which is what Mars Observer was.
	Right.
	You know, yeah, it would be difficult in order to guarantee photographing City Hall.
	But like Los Angeles, you know, City Hall in LA is surrounded by LA.
	Right.
	If you take pictures of any of the streets, You know, La Cienega, the Hollywood and Vine, whatever.
	You prove there's life on Earth, intelligent life, because it's got this crisscross geometric pattern.
	We were saying that around the face and pyramids on Mars, there would be, if you had sufficient pictures to show it, that kind of geometry that would unquestionably be an indication that somebody had once been down there doing intelligent things.
	Just take a strip of pictures almost anywhere in the vicinity, and more than likely you'll find it.
	And they would not do that, Art.
	They bent themselves like pretzels out of shape to not do it.
	And then, when McDaniel's document hit the fan at headquarters, a few hours later, the whole thing just went away.
	It disappeared.
	Did it really?
	No.
	I remember asking you that a long time ago, and you said, you gave me the same answer, and you said you thought that spacecraft still was up there taking photographs.
	We have figured out how they did it.
	Really?
	We have figured it out.
	And it's kind of interesting, and it may be a little complicated, so I'd like to save that for after the next break.
	But I will track through.
	I laid this out for our audience in L.A.
	because, as you know, I've recently done some presentations in L.A.
	Yes.
	And everyone was quite impressed.
	In fact, I asked for a show of hands as to whether people felt that we had put together a circumstantial case.
	It's amazing now how much of this depends on circumstantial evidence.
	We have no eyewitnesses in the O.J.
	trial, but we're going to hang a man on circumstantial evidence.
	Well, I've got enough circumstantial evidence to hang somebody in NASA for basically lying to the American people that Mars Observer disappeared.
	And when we have the time later this morning, we will lay out the evidence and let your audience decide if we have figured it out.
	All right.
	I recall saying to you a little while ago, you're not a UFO type of guy, but what you're endeavoring to tell us is that there was at one point a civilization on Mars.
	Apparently.
	Who built very big and rather extraordinary structures, and then something happened, and they are no longer there.
	They're no longer home.
	Would it be your view that these were the original inhabitants of Mars, evolving as we have here on Earth, or that they came from elsewhere?
	I still favor the model that they came from elsewhere, that they were visitors, migrants, people looking to set up, you know, a new home.
	And from where they came, I'm not so sure.
	I used to think that it had to be from beyond the solar system.
	Now, I'm beginning to think that maybe they came from another planet within the solar system, a planet that no longer exists, that used to orbit between Mars and Jupiter, that has been modeled very carefully by my friend and colleague Tom Van Flandern, who I imagine you had on your show.
	Yes, indeed.
	The former head of the Celestial Mechanics Division at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.
	Tom is absolutely, unquestionably not a flake.
	And he has done some very wondrous and interesting science piecing together the orbits of comets and asteroids and has came up with about 20-25 years ago with the idea that all those little bits and pieces of rock and ice and whatever that's out there that are orbiting the sun in some very peculiar orbits can all be traced back to an explosion event between Mars and Jupiter and that event would have been the destruction of a rather major additional planet So knowing this was coming, this race may have, for a time,
	colonized Mars.
	Or maybe they didn't know it was coming, and because they were colonizing a lot of other places in the solar system,
	the things they put on Mars, basically, they were stranded and they had to make the best of it.
	All right, hold it right... We cannot reconstruct the history, but there are wondrous clues which we can follow up someday.
	All right, hold it right there.
	We'll be right back.
	you're listening to the cbc radio network and
	the the
	Oh, I...
	West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	And my guest is Richard C. Oakland.
	1-800-618-8255 East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033
	1-800-825-5033 This is the CBC Radio Network.
	And my guest is Richard C. Hoagland.
	He was the science advisor to Walter Cronkite.
	He was advisor to NASA.
	He has spoken in front of the UN.
	And he's got a lot to say about Mars and the Moon.
	And we'll get back to him in just a moment.
	You're listening to another cut from the Kuzco album that I'm now beginning to fall in love with.
	It's also on their second Apurimac album.
	Kuzco probably accounts for about 70% of my bumper music, I would say.
	I love them.
	Now, back to Richard Hoagland.
	Richard.
	Yes, sir.
	All right.
	I'm dying to know.
	You think the Mars probe is still alive?
	No, I said it was.
	I think it's been deep-sixed by now.
	Oh.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	This is going to be difficult because we're going to have to do this without any pictures or diagrams or graphs or any of the photos that we had in Los Angeles a couple weeks ago.
	Well, that's because this is radio.
	This is radio.
	But radio audiences are used to imagining, so I'll try to paint some weird pictures here, and if you need to give me some help, you obviously will.
	When Mars Observer disappeared, we began getting calls.
	In fact, I think I was on your show, and I told you how we had four calls from NASA people who called people that we knew, that we trusted, and who basically said, it's still out there, it's still functioning, it's basically a ruse.
	And I think I described how I had talked with some NASA people, engineers, at Goddard, at the Goddard Space Flight Center, and that we had made some recommendations to them for finding it, and we were a little mystified when those recommendations not only were not pursued, they were even provided by some NASA people, and they weren't pursued.
	And there was one particular procedure that was most mystifying, which is that when you lose a piece of high-tech equipment nowadays, The first thing you suspect is the computer, right?
	How many times, Art, have you had a file and for some reason the computer locks up and you can't get the thing to do anything?
	So basically what do you do?
	You reboot.
	You reboot.
	You turn it off, turn it back on.
	Right.
	Well, there were some people at NASA who basically said when they were going through that desperate week, let's just reboot the computer.
	And I now have the transcript Day by day of the meetings at which these things were discussed.
	This was sent to me from some folks inside.
	And it took them an awful long time to decide to reboot the primary computer.
	I mean, when you've got a billion dollar mission on the line and you're not hearing from it because you told it to turn off the radio, which is what they did, which is also the first time in NASA history that any spacecraft has ever been told at the height of a key mission event, turn off the radio, don't talk to it.
	Why did they do that?
	Well, they claimed it was to prevent damage to a sensitive piece of equipment on board, because one of the events was going to be to fire explosive bolts to pressurize the retrorocket system that would allow the spacecraft to be put into orbit around Mars.
	But we have been flying those kinds of equipment.
	They're called traveling wave tubes, or TWTs.
	Right.
	For 30 years, they're the heart of the radio system of spacecraft going back to Ranger and Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter.
	And no one had ever, even in the, quote, primitive days of spaceflight, ever said, turn off the radio to protect the TWTs.
	On this mission, for some reason, the mission rules said, you know, turn off the traveling wave tube, which in essence made the radio go silent, and have the onboard computer turn it back on in about 15 minutes after this event.
	That guaranteed arc that the engineers on Earth, during that mysterious 15 minutes, Would never get any data at all coming down on the radio.
	I still don't understand what the fear was.
	Was it that the traveling wave tube would be damaged when the bolts went, or that it would cause the explosive to detonate once it was armed?
	No, it was vibration.
	It was like the old-style vacuum tubes.
	If they're hot, if they're energized, they're more susceptible to damage during a vibratory event than if they're cold.
	Right.
	For those in the audience who may have at one time had an Atwater tent, Or an old Zenith 2 radio.
	Yes.
	They'll know what we're talking about.
	You and I are not old enough to have those, alright?
	Except I do remember them from my childhood.
	And they were somewhat delicate.
	Richard, I still have a tube radio in my closet.
	Oh.
	But you don't turn it on.
	And you don't drop it when it's on.
	No, you don't.
	Okay.
	Anyway, that was the so-called fear, but it's kind of belied by the fact that we've been using this kind of technology for 30 years, and previous missions have been more primitive.
	You know, the bolts and the shocks and the art of getting better at doing this stuff.
	When you begin, you're less good at something than when you are in the middle, right?
	Sure.
	So why, if this was a problem, with that more primitive version of these TWTs, didn't they have it then, as opposed to now?
	Anyway, it was part of a series of weirdnesses that just didn't add up.
	Like delaying and delaying and delaying, not rebooting the primary computer.
	What was the fear?
	The fear was that... This is really interesting.
	Some of the guys at JPL basically said, but if you do that, you'll wipe out the mission.
	Now, wait a minute.
	We have lost the spacecraft.
	It's not communicating.
	No one knows whether it's gone into orbit around Mars automatically or it's a million miles away orbiting the sun as a piece of lifeless junk.
	And they're saying, oh, we can't reboot the computer because we might wipe out the mission.
	Doesn't make any sense.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	Eventually, according to my documents, they did reboot the primary computer, but And this should appeal to all those, particularly the truckers tonight who are listening out there.
	And I would like to say a special hello to a special guy named Zeke, who is at some truck stop somewhere around New Orleans arguing furiously with his fellows on the CB as to whether what we're talking about is real or it's all made up.
	Okay.
	And to Zeke, hang in there.
	Yo, Zeke!
	Anyway, and Carrie says hi.
	Anyway, the interesting thing is spacecraft carry two of most of everything.
	It's called backups, right?
	Sure.
	Um, there's a great story.
	I'm going to digress here.
	I want to tell a funny story.
	Some years ago, I met Dennis Weir for the first time.
	He's one of my heroes, you know, played Marshall McLeod.
	Yes.
	Remember the scene where he's, you know, the theory was that Marshall McLeod was brought in from Taos, New Mexico to New York City, and he was like a fish out of water, and the whole plot line is always revolving around the Marshall gets into trouble, gets out of trouble, and the New York Police Department is furious at him.
	I've seen it.
	One of these shows opened up.
	With a line right out of NASA.
	He's shown at the Bronx Zoo, famous zoo up here in New York, standing in front of a beaver cage.
	And the zoo director is looking at him and says, Marshall, we asked you to come over because, you know, you kind of have experience with these critters out there in the West.
	We have a problem with our beaver.
	He's really sad.
	And we can't get him to eat and can't get him to do anything.
	And, you know, can you help?
	And Dennis stands there, you know, as McLeod, looks down at the beaver and You know, kind of twirls his hat and says, well, I see your problem.
	You don't have a BB.
	And the curator says, what's a BB?
	Dennis strolls, you don't have a backup beaver.
	You know, two?
	Noah?
	Anyway, so NASA had a backup of everything, including beavers.
	If they ever would carry a beaver into space, there'd be two of them.
	They had a backup computer.
	Guess what, Art?
	They discussed But they never sent the reboot command to the backup computer.
	We have the paperwork.
	Now, why is that important?
	Because just imagine you've got a little tiny group of guys, again, inside the system, unbeknownst to everybody else, whose job it is to, at the critical moment, sidetrack a billion-dollar mission, to make it look to NASA and the world as if it has, quote, up and just disappeared.
	Right.
	In these days of high tech, it is incredibly easy to pull such a scam off.
	It's frighteningly easy.
	Did you see Jurassic Park?
	Oh, yes.
	Remember the guy over in the corner who used to eat all the candy and swig the Pepsis or whatever they were?
	Yes.
	The big fat computer programmer?
	Right.
	Keep your eye on the computer programmers.
	They are taking over the world.
	What do they do with the computer programmer?
	They basically bought him.
	They offered him money.
	And what he did was to sabotage the entire park with the computer.
	A few keystrokes and suddenly this multi-billion dollar thing that this billionaire had invented... All went down.
	...was a pile of junk.
	That's right.
	Imagine five guys in a basement somewhere with a radio link to the spacecraft.
	Imagine they have one of their members on the flight controller list at JPL the night that the last commands were being uploaded to the spacecraft.
	Because on Friday night, remember they lost it on a Saturday, They told the world on a Sunday, right after I got off the air with Bevan French, on Friday night, two nights before, they sent up the last computer commands for what the spacecraft should do on its own to put itself safely into orbit around Mars.
	Right.
	Which included navigation, you know, last minute instructions for what star sites, everything you need to do it by itself, because you can't do these things from Earth because of the radio lag time.
	You know, it's like 35 minutes to make a one-way phone call to Mars.
	Sure.
	So you pre-instruct.
	You have to pre-instruct, and the computer has to have a clock, and it says, OK, it's 1037.
	I will execute Command A957 now.
	Right.
	And it does it.
	Right.
	And then it reports home that it did it.
	Except in this case, it never reported home.
	Because part of those commands said, oh, by the way, before you begin any of this stuff, turn off your radio.
	Dumb!
	Really dumb, Art.
	This is NASA.
	It's amazing.
	So, in other words, Richard, at the moment of loss, which was when they were supposedly pressurizing, I'm trying to pull this from my memory, they're pressurizing tanks, the radio at that point was off?
	Deliberately turned off.
	So there was no engineering data.
	Now, in all kinds of other scenarios, and I could spend the rest of the evening or morning discussing all the wonderful ups and downs of the space program, where there's been a failure, a problem, And it's because the engineers have telemetry that they were able to reconstruct the problem, what went wrong, and prevent it in the future.
	That's the whole idea.
	You know, you don't keep doing the same dumb thing if you learn from your dumb thing, right?
	So, I mean, it's like a golden rule in space.
	Never turn off the radio.
	It's like shooting yourself in the head.
	Apparently not Golden's rule.
	Apparently not Golden's rule.
	Yes, very good.
	Very good, Art.
	Okay.
	Anyway, so imagine this scenario.
	You got five guys, and one of them is up on the flight line in the main control center, and as part of the computer command load that's sent up that Friday night, there is a little instruction which basically says, oh, and by the way, you know, when you turn off the radio, if anybody calls you on this extension, don't answer.
	Don't answer the phone.
	Only answer if this code is included.
	And that is logged in the backup computer.
	All right?
	With a spacecraft, dutifully turns off the radio, goes through the sequence, and then when all the guys, most of NASA, frantically tries to get it to restore communication, but it doesn't come back up in 15 minutes, it's quietly following its pre-instruction, which is, don't listen to those guys.
	They no longer are in control.
	Listen for another signal, another computer code from a different antenna somewhere on the Earth.
	And the fact that they never rebooted the backup computer It's a very important piece of circumstantial evidence.
	Remember, we're now in the world of circumstantial evidence.
	That, in fact, this weird scenario is possibly not as weird as you might think.
	Well, when they rebooted the main computer, did it come back up properly?
	No, nothing happened.
	Nothing happened?
	Nothing happened.
	Because if controllability shifted to the backup, of course nothing would happen.
	What reasoning did they give in the transcripts for not trying to reboot the backup?
	I mean, that's... They don't.
	It just falls between the cracks.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	It's like, oh wait, and then it just kind of dribbles away.
	It's like they get... Attention seems focused on trying to turn on the Russian transmitter.
	the Mars Observer carried a little Russian radio device that was supposed to be used in two years after the
	spacecraft had been in orbit about two years
	to relay images and data from a Russian space probe that was due to arrive at
	Mars then and it was completely independent and there was a lot of
	talk about getting the Russians to
	send signals and eventually they got John Relbank in England
	to uh... try to activate it but they waited so long that Mars was behind the sun so that they couldn't really
	hear the signal even if they managed to get it on. In other words,
	everything they were supposed to do they did but grudgingly and it kind of got delayed and then
	it didn't really And as you look at this and stand back, it's like they were going through the motions art, but something was wrong.
	And the most interesting, glaring weirdness that we found was when we suggested, and our friends at NASA also suggested, that they do a very simple thing to at least let them know that it was still out there.
	Mars Observer carried.
	Unlike any previous mission, except for the Apollo missions in lunar orbit, a laser.
	Basically a high-tech flashlight.
	Right.
	It was supposed to bounce laser pulses off Mars and to measure topography.
	Sure.
	To give us exquisite global maps of the height of mountains and the depth of valleys and craters and all that kind of stuff.
	Right.
	Our suggestion, in fact paralleling the suggestion of the principal investigator of the laser, was that NASA send radio instructions in the blind.
	To Mars Observer to turn around, aim the laser at the Earth, and begin firing pulses.
	A telescope, just an ordinary optical telescope, Art, in Hawaii, at Palomar, wherever, looking at Mars, could have detected, if it had an infrared sensor, because the pulses were in infrared radiation, this laser blinking like a flashlight.
	You know, when a plane is down, one of the survival instructions is they say, take a Right.
	They try to bounce, you know, light to planes orbiting overhead so that they will see you.
	Sure.
	Or, you know, send a Morse code with a flashlight, if you've got a flashlight that works at night.
	Same thing, except this was a high-tech laser across half the solar system, beamed from a spacecraft in orbit around Mars, if it was still there.
	And they wouldn't do it?
	Oh, guess what they said.
	The guys at NASA... This wasn't coming from the outside, although we'd also thought of it.
	This came from within the system, from their own guys' heart.
	They sent down this very urgent request, let's do this to NASA headquarters.
	And headquarters sent the message back to Goddard, no, we can't, it's too expensive.
	They've just lost a billion dollar mission!
	They've got egg all over their face, the Congress is up in arms, and it's too expensive to aim a flashlight at the Earth and try to see it?
	None of this makes any sense.
	None of it makes any sense, unless, guys, gals, somebody's got a hidden agenda.
	Okay, let's talk about what that could... In other words, speculate for me, what could possibly be so important that they would wreck a spacecraft?
	No, not pretend to wreck a spacecraft.
	Well, you now suggest they have since Deep Six did.
	Oh, yeah.
	All right, well... So... It served its purpose.
	Uh-huh.
	All right, what could be so big that they would pull off this big conspiracy to hide the fact that this spacecraft does still existed.
	What could it be?
	Oh, it's very obvious.
	The photos of Cydonia.
	Confirmatory, high resolution, 50 times better than Viking photos of Cydonia.
	Richard, the reason we're going to space is for science.
	I mean, to try and find if there's other microbes.
	We're even looking for microbes, for goodness sakes, or signs of life.
	And so, my God, If there's giant relics of a civilization once there, that's big news!
	Big news!
	And, of course, you're going to say that's why they did it.
	Why don't they want us to know?
	Well, that's the $64 question, isn't it?
	Yeah, of course.
	And up until McDaniel assiduously did his work, all we could do was speculate.
	But as part of his investigatory process, Stan McDaniel, with a little help from us and a few other folks, like Don Ecker over in L.A., We found a report from the government, from NASA, from the U.S.
	Congress, dated April 1961, commissioned by NASA, of the prestigious Brookings Institute in 1959.
	All right, hold it right there.
	It's a good cliffhanger, actually.
	I like cliffhangers.
	Hold it right there.
	Richard Hoagland is my guest.
	We are discussing now the Mars mission.
	Still ahead, the big stuff, the new stuff.
	The pictures, the nuance of the moon.
	Wait till you hear about that.
	Stay right where you are.
	Art Bell is taking you to the next level.
	Art Bell is taking calls on the wild card line.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Here again I am.
	We will get the phone calls.
	First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Here again I am. We will get the phone calls.
	Richard C. Hoagland is my guest, and we'll be back to him in just a moment.
	All right, we will get to phone lines, but we've got much more to get on the air.
	Richard?
	All right, where were we?
	Somewhere, something about a civilization, I believe, that might have existed on Mars, and why they wouldn't want us to know, or why we couldn't know, or what was the big secret?
	Well, this Brookings document has turned out to be extremely revealing, because, as you know, Washington, the government, runs on paperwork.
	And for years and years, this was, of course, the $64 question.
	If we were right, if NASA's official position on Cydonia was wrong, if somebody missed it, or even worse, if they didn't miss it and they've been lying to us all these years trying to keep us from knowing what's really there, why?
	This would be, by everyone's assessment, a gold card for NASA.
	Right.
	If we found evidence of an ET civilization, there would be no funding worries.
	The American people would open their hearts, their pocketbooks, and their minds, And we would be off to inherit the solar system.
	Everybody would get wildly rich.
	Right.
	And I mean that literally.
	Yes.
	And a whole new era would dawn.
	That's a very powerful argument.
	That is why I'm so upset that it hasn't happened, because it should have happened and somebody didn't want it to happen.
	And the question, of course, from the beginning of our investigation is, why didn't it happen if we were correct?
	It's the kind of thing that I used to think about.
	At 3 o'clock in the morning, before I got into the habit of talking to you on the radio.
	So, I mean, what is, what possible explanation... Brookings said, this was, remember, NASA was founded by President Eisenhower back in 1958.
	We were at the height of the Cold War.
	We were incredibly paranoid about the Reds, the Red Menace, the Russians, the commies were coming, you know, we were going to be bombed in our beds, back to the Stone Age, etc., etc., etc.
	In that spirit, In 59, literally a few months after NASA was founded, NASA headquarters turned to Brookings and basically said, look, assemble a bunch of academics and tell us what to do.
	Look in the out years, 10, 20, 30 years, and tell us what are the things we should be looking at.
	And more important, tell us what the effect might be on American society.
	And Brookings did that.
	They assembled, with NASA's help, some of the best and the brightest.
	Including people like Margaret Mead.
	I don't know whether you remember Margaret Mead, but I used to work with her when I was at the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Science here in New York City.
	She was an anthropologist.
	She held the Tower Room.
	She then went on to be up at the end of our complex there on Central Park West.
	She went on to become the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the first woman in its history to hold that august position.
	This was in the early mid-70s.
	Margaret Mead had basically gained her experience in anthropology in a remote place on this planet called American Samoa, a little tiny dot of an island in the middle of nowhere in the South Pacific, which basically harbored Polynesians and happy islanders, etc., etc.
	And from studying them after she received her PhD, Margaret Mead came to an awful conclusion.
	That basically, when a primitive, unsophisticated, non-technical civilization comes in contact with an advanced, high-tech civilization.
	Notice I didn't say advanced, okay?
	Right, well, okay.
	That basically, the primitive culture suffers.
	It becomes extinct.
	It goes away.
	And there are all kinds of horror stories throughout history, over and over and over again.
	Cortez in Mexico, You know, the Aztecs, the whole South American experience, Columbus and the Indians and the Indies, etc., etc.
	It literally goes away, Richard, or is absorbed by it?
	Well, it is made extinct.
	There's genocide.
	There's mass genocide.
	People are killed in all kinds of various ways, and their culture is trampled, and ultimately, there isn't even a damp spot left.
	And there are pale little stories of what they used to do and what they used to believe.
	And Margaret Mead firmly believed, and said so in this report, along with many other prestigious scientists, that if NASA were to discover evidence of either active life out there, on the Moon, Mars or Venus, they even were specific in terms of where, by manned missions or unmanned probes, or even their ruins arc, that the result could be that kind of catastrophe for civilization on this planet.
	Not even a wet spot left.
	And they made the recommendation that NASA should seriously consider not telling anybody if they found such evidence.
	That's the smoking gun.
	Fear.
	The fear of Margaret Mead, which 20 years after her death still hangs over the space program, the American people, and this discovery.
	Having said all that, do you agree or disagree with Ms.
	Mead's conclusions?
	I disagree.
	And I'll tell you why I disagree.
	Because cultures must grow or die.
	And having been raised with the gentle, loving care of Gene Roddenberry, and part of what I call the Star Trek generation, and part of that contingent that has dreamed and hoped and wondered what it would be like to find that humankind is part of a much larger community that could place our humanness in some kind of context, I find that view very fearful, very short-sighted, and frankly, outdated.
	And I believe it was kind of part of the whole McCarthy-esque era, which was paranoia and fear of the other, compounded by her personal experiences in Samoa, that led to those recommendations.
	And I can see a lot of alternative scenarios, most of them infinitely brighter, that would have guaranteed all kinds of riches, both material and non-material, for both our culture and the entire planet.
	If we had discovered, and had openly acknowledged to have discovered, the ruins of an extraordinary culture.
	Because remember, Art, we're not talking about E.T.' 's landing and guys coming out and eating it alive.
	We're talking about the danger of knowledge.
	Sure.
	And the only thing that I can now look at in hindsight and say that the real danger was, from that knowledge, was not to all the rest of us.
	It was to those in control.
	Because knowledge has a way of undermining control, particularly if it's democratized and made available to everybody.
	Indeed, but what you have just laid out, the scenario and reason for the cover-up, is exactly the same scenario the UFO people lay out.
	Exactly the same, for the same reasons.
	And it's virtually, if not the same knowledge, close enough for government work.
	The difference is, they don't have a document, and we do.
	And it says on page 216, serious consideration should be given to withholding this information from the American people, if it ever comes to pass.
	It's a good point.
	And they also discussed in the footnotes all kinds of groups that were very worried would be incredibly destabilized by this kind of knowledge and certainty.
	Well, there are many, Richard.
	Well, they started with religious fanatics.
	And they're right.
	Not truly religious people, but fanatics.
	They're right.
	And they also targeted scientists.
	They said that of most of the cultures that they thought of, those who could potentially be the most frightened and the most destabilized and the most demoralized were the scientists themselves.
	Well, scientists in some ways are not totally dissimilar to religious fanatics.
	Amazing, you should notice that.
	And the fact that NASA has been run by scientists for the last 30 years, with an absolute aggressive abhorrence of letting the democratization win of ordinary folks from the outside ever intrude on NASA policy at high or mid-level.
	You know, what I'm basically painting here is where a few have made decisions for the many, in a manner in which Thomas Jefferson, I'm sure, is spinning in his grave tonight, because the upside of walking into these ruins, of basically reading the libraries, of putting this extraordinary legacy to use for the benefit of Americans and all mankind, we have paid dearly For 30 years of retarded information and lack of progress in so many fields, given even a look at one of the so-called books in this library, of which there have to be many, because you can't build the kind of civilization that we seem to be seeing in terms of these ruins without incredible long-term recording and preservation of information, i.e., libraries.
	Sure.
	Alright, so then I guess that theory extends across from the The remains, the ruins, on Mars, to what you have now found on the Moon.
	Well, we haven't finished with Mars Observer.
	No, that's true.
	But the theory is linear, isn't it?
	Exactly.
	In other words, this plan, this fear, this control by a few, at the recommendation of a few academics.
	Remember, you've got to remember back to how government worked in the 1950s.
	It doesn't work this way anymore.
	You can basically, you know, buy and pay for scientists, depending upon how much money you got.
	Remember the nuclear power issue?
	Back in the 70s, where you had nuclear scientists basically saying there was nothing wrong with nuclear power and, you know, build more reactors?
	Yes.
	Then you had other groups, ecological groups like Greenpeace, with their nuclear scientists saying, you can't build one more reactor, you'll destroy civilization?
	Yes.
	Well, science now is for hire.
	Look at what's going to go on in the Simpson trial.
	You've got geneticists, you've got DNA experts, you've got criminalists, you know, on both sides, willing to, basically, depending on who pays them.
	And I'm sounding a little cynical here, and I mean to deliberately.
	Well, basically, you know, decide the issue based on who pays them, as opposed to the merit.
	Except maybe for Kerry Mullis.
	I am dying to see what Kerry Mullis has to say.
	It's not hard to be cynical about the Simpson trial.
	It is not.
	Well, but in the 50s, when academia and science still meant something.
	When scientists were valued as people looking for truth first, and maybe money second, and that really, we did go through that era, alright?
	When these academics made their recommendations to NASA, and there wasn't any money in it because basically it was almost a labor of love, they were serving God and country, and, you know, a new administration coming in, the Kennedy administration.
	When they made these recommendations, the policy people, the bureaucrats, the politicos, really listened.
	And I think, frankly, that their recommendations scared some people to death.
	They really thought, because they respected the academics as knowing more than they did, alright, that this would destroy civilization.
	And what you have now, I believe, is a perpetuating myth, which has been used and abused and manipulated for the benefit of a few.
	And whenever anybody inside maybe says, well, maybe we ought to tell them, somebody else will say, remember Brookings, you know, And they don't really believe Brookings anymore because, of course, they've seen Star Trek, and they know that we're much more sophisticated.
	But it's become, like, settled law.
	Exactly, and it's become a wondrous excuse.
	It's like national security.
	How many incredible sins and horrible acts have been excused in the name of national security?
	Well, it brings up another point.
	Hazel O'Leary has told us of many of them.
	Precisely.
	And so then, why not this?
	Tramplings of the Constitution, aberrations of people's rights, etc., all in the name Of keeping us safe from the Red Menace.
	So then why not tell us about this?
	Well, I mean, with the Red Menace, it was only us versus them on Earth.
	With the possible destruction of civilization, you're basically looking at all the value that we hold near and dear on this entire planet against the unknown out there that might somehow destroy it, even by knowledge of its sheer existence.
	Fair enough.
	But a counter-argument would be that of Ronald Reagan's, that some other something Would pull the world together.
	It would even argue that these conspiratorials who think about, you know, all these organizations, the Council on Foreign Relations and all the rest of that, would just jump for joy at having something like this that would bring the world together.
	And what would they supposedly want?
	The one world something or another?
	Well, remember, though, that there is a difference between an active threat or a perceived threat and the sedition of new knowledge.
	It's true.
	New knowledge is much more dangerous art than cannons or lasers or beam weapons or starships
	or whatever, because you can fight them.
	You can organize people and they can rally around battle cries and they can be led off
	to the new crusade, because you basically put the wagons in a circle and it's us versus
	them.
	But new knowledge, which insinuates itself into the fabric and sinew of culture, which
	contaminates delicate, fragile young minds, that makes them maybe question the idea of
	raping forests or ruining oceans or any of the other things that we're doing in our mindless
	quest for profit and greed.
	Maybe that's the thing we're not supposed to know, that somebody else had another way, and it worked, and, oh no, we should not know that at all.
	And I suppose the destruction, or possible destruction of religious institutions, that sort of thing.
	Which is the best control of all.
	If you sanction what you're doing, in the name of God, That is, your divine right.
	And we're only one step removed from the divine right of kings.
	Remember, it was very, very... just a little while ago that social Darwinism basically, you know, acknowledged or tried to justify poor people and people dying on the basis that, well, God didn't love them and that they weren't fit to live.
	I mean, that's a rather remarkable way to look at human history in recent years, but in fact, it is still with us.
	And it seems to be taking a resurgence in some quarters in our land, where people are being, uh... Well, we won't get into that.
	All right, well, look, Mars is... The point is that this information could have been too hot to handle for a whole bunch of reasons, and if somebody could make that decision out of sight, out of mind, without the rest of us, you know, basically having a vote, they would.
	And apparently, they did.
	Now, how did they pull it off?
	That's what I want to get to, and I need to know how much time we got.
	Well, I don't know.
	It depends on how fast you can pull it off.
	So go ahead, give it a try.
	Well, it's kind of an interesting story, but it's a little technical, and I don't want to be interrupted by commercials or news or whatever.
	Well, there's always that.
	Give it your best shot.
	Okay.
	Well, we left Mars Observer, you know, silent, incommunicative, out there, presumed lost, and NASA running around like a chicken without a head, at least in public, trying to regain control, sending radio commands, waiting for onboard computer signals, time codes, and all that.
	And that went on for like a month or so, and then people kind of forgot, and they went away, and you know, it's now history, right?
	NASA turned to the Naval Research Laboratory to basically do a review of what happened, and to write a report, and to make recommendations.
	And in January of 1994, the head of the NRL called a press conference, and a NASA headquarters issued the The findings of their review.
	What's interesting is this independent review panel, supposedly independent of NASA, starts out by basically saying what we all, you know, in the industry knew anyway.
	That without any radio data from the spacecraft, with that deliberate command to turn off the radio, in essence, the whole NRL review board was a guess.
	They didn't know.
	They were just guessing.
	No firm conclusion would ever be possible because there was no data.
	The pipeline had been broken.
	The data stream had been severed.
	There was no engineering telemetry on which to base any real scientific conclusion.
	So basically, my housecat and the NRL, you know, panel could reach the same conclusion.
	And one would be just as good as the other, in terms of strict science.
	I agree.
	Without the radio on, they had nothing to go on.
	Nothing.
	So they were basing their guess on a probable scenario.
	And they guessed, including rather remarkable 3D color computer graphics to back it up, the first time that we've ever had computer graphics for this kind of scenario, that when the spacecraft computer asked for the onboard control system to pressurize those tanks for the retro rocket burn into orbit, a piece of tubing basically failed because some propellant leaked through a check valve and ignited, causing an overpressure and raising the temperature Now, let me tell you what we really think happened.
	then caused the spacecraft to tumble out of control and because of mechanical systems
	on board basically silenced the radio and the computer and made the mission fail.
	That was their scenario, but it was a guess.
	It was a most probable thing given that there was no real information on which to base any
	conclusion.
	Now, let me tell you what we really think happened.
	And this is where you have to really go into the guts of another inexplicability in the
	history of NASA, which is the story of the Hubble telescope.
	Bye.
	Did you ever wonder, Art, how one could launch a $2 billion telescope whose heart was this incredible mirror that was going to give us all these stunning images, and you get it into orbit, and then you discover that you haven't tested the mirror?
	No, it seems impossible.
	Well, not only to you, but to a lot of people, particularly me.
	I think it is definitely impossible.
	Because when I was teaching, you know, how to make telescopes to fourth graders and, you know, housewives and bakers and plumbers in Springfield, Massachusetts at the museum, one of the first things we did was to give them a very simple test for how to test the accuracy of their mirror so they would know whether it was polished correctly.
	We're talking a test It could be applied by a fourth grader that would give you the accuracy of a home-grown amateur telescope mirror to within a millionth of an inch.
	What about the effects of the cold?
	Now, obviously, they would have tried to have taken those... No, no, no.
	The whole telescope was designed with all of those things.
	That was not the problem, all right?
	All right.
	Hold that thought.
	When we come back, it's Hubble Trouble.
	And Richard C. Hoagland is my guest.
	We're talking about Mars, the Moon, and the moment, Hubble.
	We'll be right back.
	You're listening to the CBC Radio Network.
	Call Art Bell toll free.
	West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	It absolutely is.
	Good morning everybody and welcome back to the program.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	It absolutely is.
	Good morning everybody and welcome back to the program.
	My guest is Richard Hoagland.
	And we've been discussing thus far the monuments on Mars, the face on Mars,
	which by the way for somebody who just faxed me is available to be seen on our bulletin board service,
	the face on Mars, and something called CY Study,
	which stands for Cydonia Study, and you can get them both on the bulletin board.
	It's area code 702-727-1709.
	702-727-1709.
	And if you have a viewer, you can zoom in on the face of Mars, and it holds together pretty well, and you can get a pretty good look.
	All right, once again, a science advisor to Walter Cronkite, an advisor to NASA, somebody who has spoken in front of the UN, somebody well-respected for the work he does on Mars, the Moon, And related topics.
	Here is Richard C. Hoagland, all the way from New York.
	Richard, we were talking about Hubble and the reflector.
	Yeah, it sounds like a diversion, but I guarantee you it is not.
	All right.
	Because we've now discovered there was a wondrous connection between the problem with Hubble, the Hubble trouble, as you said before the break.
	Yes.
	And maybe what happened to the missing Mars Observer.
	Uh-huh.
	Anyway, let me continue.
	When this thing happened, which was in May, in the spring of 1990, when Hubble was launched in April, and a few weeks later they announced that this mirror had this incredible flaw, that they just didn't get around to catching.
	I and a number of other people who have worked with amateurs to make telescope mirrors, you know, frankly, didn't buy it.
	Because, you know, we live in an era where every imaginable test was and could have been performed on this mirror.
	It was the heart of the system.
	An old colleague of mine, Lyman Spitzer, at Princeton, had been the founder of the idea of a space telescope back, oh, 50 years ago.
	One of my duties as a consultant to NASA, to Goddard, was to work on the history of all the observatory programs, the orbiting astronomical observatory programs that NASA has launched, of which there have been three of them.
	That was my job there, among other things.
	And I can tell you that the mirror was lavished With the most attention, because without a good mirror, you ain't got a project.
	I recall a Reader's Digest article which went to great pains to explain the tremendous detail and tolerance work they were doing on that mirror.
	Oh, yeah.
	Perkin Elmer was supposed to have designed it, you know, ground it and polished it.
	And, you know, these are techniques and technologies that are hundreds of years old.
	They've been upgraded.
	Like, for instance, the simple amateur test to see how well your mirror is.
	Yes.
	You basically take a tin can.
	Okay, NASA's got plenty of tin cans, right?
	Go to the soda machine down the hall.
	And you put a little hole in it.
	You empty the tin can and you cut the bottom out and you have a little hole in the side with a pin.
	Yes.
	You stick a pin in the side of the tin can.
	You put the tin can over a candle, alright?
	NASA could probably afford a candle, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You then put this little flame burning in the tin can with the light coming out the pinhole.
	Uh, at one end of a long bench at the other end of which you have your mirror propped up against the wall so it's looking sideways.
	And you're looking at it.
	In other words, the reflective part.
	Sure.
	Now, on that axis, looking straight down the mirror, beside the tin can, you put a little stick with a little notch in the top in which you put a razor blade.
	You know, an ordinary Gillette single-edge or double-edge razor blade.
	Right.
	You then look down towards the mirror.
	Turn out all the lights in the room, okay?
	You look down toward the mirror with your eye just behind the edge of the razor blade.
	Right.
	And you are seeing the mirror illuminated by the pinhole from the candle in the can next to you.
	All right?
	And you can detect changes in the curvature of that mirror arc accurate to within one millionth of an inch.
	Wow.
	No high tech here.
	This is a technique that's over 150 years old.
	All right?
	Now, what we do now with amateurs is we upgrade it.
	We replace the can and the mirror and the pinhole with a laser, alright?
	The idea that NASA did not test the hell out of this mirror, and it launched it not knowing it was flawed, is frankly an insult to every American taxpayer.
	A major insult.
	So then you've got to say to yourself, why in the world would NASA deliberately lie?
	Somebody in NASA, remember we're not talking all of NASA, Well, let me tell you what happened.
	When the mirror problem was, quote, discovered, the first thing that NASA did was to move in on the contractor, Perkin Elmer, and confiscated, impounded, and sealed all the contractor records of their tests.
	Right.
	And all we have had is NASA versions of those tests.
	There has never been any independent review outside of NASA of what went wrong with Hubble.
	Well, I'm sure in the scientific community, Perkin Elmer has tried to defend itself in some way.
	Not really.
	No?
	They basically caved in and said, yeah, mea culpa, mea culpa, we, we, we, we blew it.
	Okay, now, money will buy anything, Art, alright?
	Particularly if you want to get new contracts down the road.
	Oh, yes.
	They all take care of themselves, so there was no, you know, Barbara McCluskey, who is the Senator on the House Committee, Science Committee, was steamed.
	She was furious.
	She was promising a full up-and-down investigation.
	Did you ever hear anything from that investigation?
	No.
	Nope.
	And I don't think you ever will.
	The head of the NASA review panel that NASA set up to decide what went wrong, how they blew it, was a gentleman at JPL, the director of JPL, Lou Allen.
	Lou Allen just happened to have come to JPL from a previous post in the U.S.
	government, which was head of the most secret agency of government, the National Security Agency, the NSA.
	Indeed.
	This man knows how to keep secrets.
	He controlled that panel.
	So the long and the short of it is, If there was something not wrong with Hubble's mirror, and there was an agenda, and we were being told the mirror was flawed for some bizarre reason, there's no way, independently, that you and I would ever gain access to the records that would prove it.
	So why do you think?
	Well, let me track a little further on this.
	Now, you know that from the beginning, the shuttle has been plagued with problems, right?
	Correct.
	And you know that in the wake of Challenger, this nation, in the words of Scotty, couldn't beam up a fly.
	That after that event and the blow-up of the Titan booster and a Delta, basically NASA, the Air Force, the Pentagon, everybody was grounded over here and we could not put anything into orbit for months and months and months, almost two and a half years.
	That's true.
	All right.
	We had pegged all our hopes, we meaning the country, on the shuttle, which is called technically the Space Transportation System, which is why shuttle missions have numbers like the current Uh, mission of the shuttle, which was supposed to have been launched this afternoon and is being held up at the Cape because of bad weather, is called STS-71.
	Which, Force Space Transportation System number 71.
	Right.
	And the same mission where we found the funny things flying around at the end of the UN briefing tape?
	That's right.
	Is called STS-48.
	Correct.
	And so on.
	Okay.
	Well, when the shuttle had this incredible problem, that the Challenger blew up and everything was grounded, A lot of payloads kind of got stacked up in the queue.
	Sure.
	And because the military was as dependent upon the shuttle to launch reconnaissance satellites and, you know, eavesdropping satellites and a lot of other things as NASA, everybody basically paid because the shuttle was not working.
	So for two and a half years until the flight of discovery, nobody was launching anything until the shuttle system got fixed.
	Very curious thing happened.
	In the fall of 1988, when Mr. Schultz, our then Secretary of State, was in Moscow signing an agreement with the Soviets in the Reagan administration to basically collaborate and cooperate on space data.
	The very afternoon of 1988 that that document was signed, NASA headquarters turned around and told JPL then to postpone trying to launch Mars Observer by two years, from 1990 to 1992.
	Now remember, I'm going to do this now without diagrams.
	You got to keep this stuff in mind, guys, all right?
	All right.
	At the same time, 88, fall of 88, the Pentagon suddenly says, well, you know, we've had all these backed up reconnaissance satellites and everything, but you know, we're such good guys, we're going to make way on the shuttle for the Hubble telescope.
	And the Hubble telescope was put in the queue ahead of a military reconnaissance satellite to be launched in the spring of 1990.
	Wow.
	That is a surprise.
	And I've got the timeline.
	Any science project put ahead of the military is... Oh, no way!
	The military, from the beginning, had first dibs on the shuttle.
	In fact, a lot of NASA people think that the reason NASA's in trouble today is because it bet its soul and its grandmother on the shuttle, and the military basically designed it, but didn't pay for it.
	That NASA wound up paying for a shuttle designed to military specs, with all kinds of very expensive things that it can do, that they don't ever need.
	And then when push came to shove in the wake of the two-year hiatus on the Challenger, suddenly the Pentagon says, OK guys, you can launch your civilian telescopes.
	Now, that's where I get suspicious.
	Because what this all meant was that because of the delay in the launching of Mars Observer, when it was launched and it got to Mars, the geometry of the Earth-Mars system was such that basically Mars was almost due to go behind the Sun as seen from Earth.
	Now, if it had been launched two years earlier on the original time frame, in 1990, that would not have occurred.
	So here is what we have reconstructed.
	And this is really incredibly elegant and brilliant, and I gotta hand it to whoever came up with this plan.
	It's diabolical, it's incredible, and it worked.
	Okay.
	Because this is what I think was done, and I've got a way to prove it.
	Alright?
	Alright.
	I believe that the Hubble was launched, with everybody knowing, in the top echelon, there was nothing wrong.
	And with a deliberate decision to tell everybody that there was something wrong, so that three years later, astronauts would have to go up and fix it.
	You can't launch astronauts in a program as open as NASA, without people knowing what they're doing.
	It's very difficult, alright?
	Because there's so many eyes watching.
	You're suggesting they did this to justify the manned aspect?
	To justify the manned visit in December of 1994.
	of the hubble telescope by the astronaut
	story must rave in the other guys who on the on the on the endeavor basically
	that that not endeavor on the uh... on on on on the endeavor
	shuttle went up and replace the instrument you know replace that
	the uh... one instrument and yes the coast are in all that i watched it all yes
	this is where things get a little complicated to please bear with me
	at that precise moment mars
	was going behind the sun as seen from Earth.
	A month before, Mars Observer had been in position, at Mars, because of the delay of its launch, to basically go into orbit and take a lot of extraordinary pictures of Cydonia, provided it had a foolproof way of getting them home in absolute secrecy.
	It is my contention that basically what they did was they used Hubble as a optical light bucket.
	To catch the laser signal carried by the Mars Observer, and they coded the transmission of the secret Cydonia images on the laser and beamed them halfway across the solar system to Hubble in Earth orbit.
	Wow.
	And the only telescope on Earth that could even see Mars, or see this signal, would have been one in Earth orbit.
	If you tried to intercept this from the ground, Because of the sunlight in the sky and the fact that Mars is very close within a few degrees of the sun, you would have gotten nothing but noise.
	All right, so you think they laser-beamed the images back?
	Right.
	Or data on laser?
	Right.
	Because with the onboard computers, it would have been very simple to change the programming so that the laser became the downlink as opposed to the radio.
	Oh, it's true.
	All right.
	It's all solid state.
	Now, here's where things get really cute.
	If that's true, You then have to get the data from Hubble down to Earth with nobody knowing.
	All right?
	The Hubble Telescope carried a device on its original mission into orbit called the High-Speed Photometer, which was designed ostensibly to look at flickering stars and celestial events, quasars and things like that.
	Okay.
	It could detect the flickering of a star a million light-years away, flickering at over 100,000 times per second.
	It could also detect A flickering, coated laser beam, blinking at 100,000 times per second, which is how many bits per second, Art?
	100,000.
	100,000 bits per second.
	Yes.
	You can very quickly send a lot of images.
	Oh, yes.
	At 100,000 bits per second.
	Would you like to know the one instrument the astronauts physically removed from Hubble and physically returned to Earth when they came back from the repair?
	Yes, I would.
	It's the high-speed photometer.
	And it's onboard computer.
	That was the instrument that was changed out when they put in the so-called CoStar optics to affect the, quote, repair.
	They sacrificed one instrument, and it just happened to be the photometer, which would have been used to detect the laser signal.
	They then brought it down to Earth, all right?
	Now, remember, the astronauts in my scenario know nothing.
	99% of NASA know nothing, because what they're doing is they're looking at computer readouts that say the mirror is flawed.
	What if there is a program?
	Remember our mad programmer over in the corner?
	Oh, yes.
	Suppose there's a program somewhere in the computers deliberately put in that says, blur.
	Then it blur us.
	Because we're living in a virtual reality world, everybody.
	We don't see images from space.
	We see computer versions of images from space.
	Remember our paint programs?
	Remember our photo styler?
	I can take a photograph and give me half an hour and I can remove your grandmother, I can remove the Earth, I can remove the solar system.
	That's right.
	Alright?
	Now, if this is all a very artful dodge to create a foolproof, totally secure way, without the Russians knowing, for one thing, or the American people, that we were securing 50 times better images from Mars Observer, this would have been the way to do it.
	And then, when Mars went behind the sun, and that window, that brief window was over, that's when the astronauts went up.
	Remember, they waited three years.
	If this telescope was so damn important, that the military were willing to step aside to put it up there, why did they wait three years to fix it, Art?
	Alright, let's go from there.
	So now... So now what the astronauts do is they bring back the photometer, they take it to Goddard, somebody with a laptop basically downloads the computer, wipes the memory, takes the disk over to the CIA, Guess where President Clinton went on a sudden surprise visit a few days after Hubble came back to Earth?
	Where?
	The CIA.
	Did the President get to see stunning images of Mars?
	Or was he shown a carefully contrived alternative which would convince him there was nothing there?
	Because that's not where the power is.
	There are other folks in government who basically have been running the show for a long time.
	And Clinton is just another one of a series of presidents that we elect that don't really run the show.
	So you make the decision.
	No, thank you.
	Now, let me tell you something that really should bring you up short.
	All right.
	In my scenario, if this hypothesis was true, there is a smoking gun.
	In fact, there are two smoking guns.
	That somewhere in the Hubble computer system, there had to have been inserted a very sophisticated program to blur the images, which was then removed when the telescope was, quote, fixed.
	Right.
	Now, there's a lot of scientists, and I've got them on tape, who are absolutely stunned at the efficiency of the fix.
	In fact, they're saying things like, you know, my God, it's working even better than we designed it.
	Now, remember, the only data they had to go on was coming down my computer.
	I don't care how good they are.
	To make little tiny corrective lenses to be put on that gadget they put in in place of the photometer, that will correct out the flaw and make the optics better.
	So then, what do you do?
	You go in and look at the computer memory and look for maybe a hole where the program was?
	It's even more interesting.
	Because, and nobody knows this, this got by everybody, you know, we're all being diverted by other things, like trials on television.
	So the news, the real news, is not getting through?
	But in the summer of 1993, one month before Mars Observer disappears, and a little while before the Hubble was to be fixed, alright?
	A few months before that magic December date, a federal employee was found shot to death in a roadside rest just outside Washington, D.C.
	Now, you think I'm talking about Mr. Foster, don't you?
	No.
	This man was a eight-year computer veteran who worked for the Hubble Telescope Institute.
	And two days before Vince Foster was found in a roadside rest, dead, with a large handgun in his hand, this NASA scientist, computer expert, was found a few miles away, also in a roadside rest, dead, with a large handgun in his hand.
	And you think he might have been the guy in the corner?
	How many people commit suicide with large handguns in roadside risk?
	i've got to go home and
	from the kingdom of nine this year This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the CBC Radio Network.
	Now, once again, here's Art.
	Here I am, and here, once again, well, in just a moment, is Richard Hoagland.
	Richard C. Hoagland.
	And now it gets a little more intriguing, and we're hearing something we've never heard before about a murder surrounding the Hubble telescope.
	A computer operator.
	Okay, so Richard, you think that this man was killed for his knowledge, or what he did?
	Well, let me just tell you the facts, and you can draw your own conclusions.
	Sure.
	Given that we have figured this scenario out, and given all the intriguing things that don't fit, including the inability to use the laser to even let us know Mars is still out there, and given the fact that it's inconceivable that Hubble could really have been broken, Given that that mirror was the reason for sending it up in the first place, and these are people who pulled so many technical chestnuts out of the fire, I mean, NASA, that it just boggles the mind that you would make an error that huge when that was what you're supposed to be worrying about.
	You begin to add up these inconsistencies, and it gets a little weird.
	Then we have this death.
	Now, I didn't say it was a murder.
	I said he was found, you know, in a roadside rest a few miles from Washington, in Maryland, Two days before Vince Foster is found under identical circumstances, by the way.
	And when I discovered that this guy had worked for Hubble for eight years and he was a computer expert, you've got to imagine how I felt.
	What was the cause of death?
	Well, this was interesting because initially there was going to be an inquest.
	And one day later, the inquest was overruled and suddenly there was no inquest and it was ruled a suicide.
	But there was no inquiry.
	And the state police, the Maryland State Police, basically are not answering any questions.
	And it has all the earmarks of the feds moving in and basically taking control.
	And I have tried quietly to get investigators, you know, former police people, whatever, to put some time on this one, and nobody seems to be interested.
	Alright.
	Can you imagine why?
	This man had been missing, by the way, for a week.
	He was found at the other end of the state from the Institute, alright?
	His car was found on the roadside rest by the state cops initially, and then they found his body a short way Off into the woods.
	His wife reported him missing on a Monday.
	He was not found until Friday.
	Vince Foster was found on Monday or Tuesday, I think.
	All right?
	So he was murdered or he killed himself a few days before, but this is really weird.
	Do people who are going to kill and commit suicide make ready-teller withdraws during the week from their ready-teller when they don't come home?
	No.
	And he did.
	And the way I reconstruct it again in scenario is that if he wasn't the culprit, Maybe he found that there was a problem.
	Maybe as an expert, as a veteran, he discovered as part of the getting ready for the fix that there was a computer program that didn't really belong in those computers.
	Okay, look, you're right.
	Maybe he took it to his bosses.
	Maybe, but Richard, you're on 177 radio stations right now.
	Where's your bullet?
	You mean, how do we prove this?
	No, I mean, why haven't they killed you?
	Because I'm not an expert working for Hubble.
	I don't have a smoking gun.
	I don't have the program in front of me.
	I cannot prove this is a hypothesis.
	All right?
	This man, with his expertise, if he was trying to hot-dog it or James Bond it, all right?
	Right.
	Maybe he was set up.
	Maybe he tried to launch an investigation.
	Maybe he tried to, you know, get ahold of somebody at Justice.
	We can play all kinds of scenario games.
	The fact is, he wound up at the other end of the state.
	In a roadside rest, which is an ideal place, by the way, to pass information to somebody.
	How many times have you been driven by a roadside rest?
	You guys out there on the road tonight, you know, when you come up on your next roadside rest, look in, look to the side, you know, in your mirror, out that window, and just ask yourself, what's going on out there that you don't know about?
	Yeah, that'd be a good meeting spot, sure.
	Oh, for any, nobody cares, nobody gives a second thought.
	It's the perfect place for the anonymity to meet and talk and pass information.
	Was he set up?
	We'll never know unless someone investigates.
	What is stunning is that two days later, a major senior White House counselor and friend of the President of the United States, and the First Lady, winds up dead in a roadside rest a few miles away under identical circumstances.
	That I find really interesting, because statistically, you know, we want to get into statistics, you know?
	How many people commit suicide in the United States every day?
	I have no idea.
	How many in a year?
	How many decide to take a large handgun and blow their brains out on a roadside rest a few miles from each other?
	Was this alleged suicide also by handgun?
	Yes.
	It was?
	Yes.
	Do you have any reason to believe the two are tied together?
	Only that both were federal employees.
	They were two days apart, three days apart.
	They were a few miles apart.
	And the statistics of that kind of suicide is so rare.
	I mean, you can go through the police blotters and you'll find that people don't do that.
	And to have it happen within a couple of days, right next door to each other, and both of them work for the federal government, and one of them works for Hubble, given the time frame, I'm more than casually curious.
	All right, let's talk about what they didn't want Hubble to see.
	Well, let me tell you the other test.
	You know, whether we're going to find out whether this cockamamie theory is correct or incorrect.
	Okay.
	There's an ultimate acid test.
	You know where it is tonight?
	Hmm?
	250 miles upstairs, orbiting the world every 90 minutes.
	It's called the Hubble Telescope.
	Right.
	Remember, if I'm right, there's nothing wrong with the mirror, guys.
	The mirror's perfect.
	Well, either way, Richard... That mirror and that telescope... Either way, they fixed it, right?
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	They did not fix it.
	Okay, I understand, but they claim... No, you cannot physically fix the mirror.
	If the mirror is ground wrong... No, I understand that, Richard.
	...the mirror will have the flaw.
	I understand that, but they claim to have put in corrective lenses.
	Well, it's basically spyglass.
	Yeah.
	They put in a complicated gadget that has a bunch of little mirrors on the end of little, like, tuning forks.
	That stick out in the optical path and deflect light with little dime-sized corrective optics into the instruments now, so, quote, Hubble is fixed.
	Right.
	In fact, that telescope is destined to be brought back to Earth by the shuttle in a few years.
	That telescope can have its mirror, the big mirror, tested under the glare of publicity and lights and legal systems and whatever, if the American people demand it.
	My bet is there is absolutely nothing wrong with that mirror.
	It is perfect.
	As perfect as it was designed to be.
	The fix was a fake.
	The reason was to relay data from Mars observers secretly.
	It was brought down to Earth unwittingly by the very astronauts who went up there, risked their life and limb to fix it.
	And this, of course, takes nothing away from their heroism.
	Those people are heroes.
	If your whole scenario is correct, then it's never going to make it back.
	Ah, that's right!
	They will find a way to say, oh, it's too expensive.
	Or, when they get it back, they'll drop it, Art.
	They'll drop it.
	Don't you love it?
	I think, more likely, something will happen.
	It'll burn up in the atmosphere, heaven knows.
	Like a Skylab burn-up.
	Yeah, whatever.
	But, you see, you don't even have to bring it back to test it.
	You can basically make a little robot that you would launch with a very small rocket and rendezvous with Hubble on the front.
	Yes.
	And beam the lasers down the tube, like the little can and the candle.
	You can test it in orbit.
	Provided somebody really wants to.
	All right.
	All right.
	Now, let us leave this for a second.
	And let me ask you this.
	The Hubble is now sending back high resolution photographs.
	Stunning images.
	Better than they were designed.
	Exactly.
	So, in other words, we've got good imagery coming back.
	So, what would stop them now from going back and looking at the Cydonia region of Mars?
	Well, all right.
	Remember, from Earth orbit, from Hubble, The face itself is only one pixel.
	In other words, the Hubble was only used as a catcher's mitt to intercept the laser beam carrying the coded signal back across the solar system from the cameras on Mars in Mars orbit.
	So you're saying it doesn't matter, it can't see it that well anyway?
	Oh, no, no, no.
	It picked up the signal and then they transferred it physically in the computer in the photometer down to Earth.
	Now, here's something else.
	When the NRL review panel, chaired by Dr. Coffey at NRL, gave its report a few days after the astronauts came back to Earth.
	He very graciously said, you know, we ought to make one more try to activate that Russian balloon relay experiment, because we really didn't do it right.
	We should have, you know, waited till it got out from behind the sun.
	But of course, by then, my bet is that this thing had been deep-sixed in the atmosphere, and that request was basically another little gambit to let people listen, to give the illusion of openness, But of course, there was nothing there to hear, because the spacecraft had been deliberately de-orbited.
	In other words, you had a one-month window to secure these pictures and get them back in total secrecy.
	I've got the idea.
	So I want to understand now about Hubble.
	Hubble cannot take pictures of the Cydonia region that would be meaningful, am I correct?
	No, not at all.
	We have to go.
	And now, what about the Moon?
	I've heard statements and cross-statements, the Hubble cannot look at the Moon, they claim.
	When we began this investigation, if you want to move this, let me, before we get to the moon, let me finish up one more thing on Mars.
	Alright, sure.
	This coming year, 1996, in the summer of 96, we're all going to try again.
	Two unmanned missions will depart under NASA control.
	One called Mars Surveyor, and the other called Mars Pathfinder.
	Mars Surveyor is basically a repeat, a rerun, of half of the Mars Observer mission.
	It carries half of the instruments the Mars Observer carried, But it does carry the camera, the same camera, with the same limitations, the same policy, no live pictures, and it will be placed in orbit around Mars, and we're going to go through this whole song and dance again about not seeing Mars, alright?
	On live TV.
	Do you expect the same reaction?
	Um, if they lose it again, I'm hoping that people will get more than a tad suspicious.
	But my feeling is that events are going to come at a very fast pace, And the politics that will happen when this thing finally gets to orbit will be very different.
	Well, what I mean is, as you obviously try to pressure them to go back and look at Cydonia, do you expect the same, no thank you?
	Oh yeah, of course.
	I don't see any change unless we can get political intervention from the Hill, either Newt Gingrich or the President, and frankly, I'm not going to hold my breath.
	As my grandmother used to say, when that pancake stands on end, I'll believe it.
	You would have loved my grandmother.
	Anyway, the other mission, which is going to leave this coming summer, a year from now, is called Mars Pathfinder.
	Now that is more interesting, because that's going to land.
	That is going to actually land as a test of a much more complicated scenario in a couple of years of Mars exploration.
	A mini-rover, a 22-pound solar-powered robot with little wheels, designed to trundle down the ramp from its landing spacecraft, And move out across the sands of Mars and send back TV.
	Now, we of course would like it to land at Cydonia, right?
	Naturally.
	To land near the city, near the face, near the pyramids, and boy would, I mean, the American people deserve that.
	Would that give, and that would be the acid test, right?
	And since the NASA scientists and engineers involved agree that 90% of the mission is engineering, that is, testing whether the robot will even work, you can land it anywhere.
	You don't have to land it at the place they've chosen.
	You could land it at Cydonia, and it still would be a valid test of the engineering, of getting it down, of crumbling it out of the spacecraft, etc.
	All right, well, let me guess, Richard.
	They don't want to land at Cydonia.
	Nope.
	But they are going to put this thing down at 19.5 degrees on Mars.
	Oh, my.
	And if you know anything about our work... I do.
	...and the geometry and the mathematics and the physics, 19.5 degrees is the latitude Predicted by the physics, where planetary things are going on.
	So it's almost like the cosmic finger.
	Can you say that on the radio?
	Uh, you can say it.
	Okay.
	I think, when you say, can I say that, then maybe you can't.
	Okay.
	Now, the way you get that latitude is you take the basic geometric form we've decoded from the monuments of Mars, which is a four-sided, four-cornered pyramid called a tetrahedron, and you put it in a sphere.
	And you put one point of the tetrahedron on the North or South Pole, assuming you got, you know, a rotating sphere.
	Sure.
	So you have an axis.
	Sure.
	And the other three points will be at the latitude of 19.5 degrees in the Southern Hemisphere, or in the Northern Hemisphere, depending upon where you put the first point.
	They're going to land this sucker, Mars Pathfinder, at one of those points, precisely in accord with our physics, decoded from the monuments of Mars, but they're not admitting that that's what they're doing.
	Now, here's where things get really weird.
	You know what kind of spacecraft they're going to send the rover to Mars in?
	What?
	A tetrahedral-shaped spacecraft.
	Really?
	Really!
	And when it lands under retrorockets and parachutes on the surface, the pedals of the tetrahedron will fall down, and the little rover will trundle down the ramp formed by one of the tetrahedron sides.
	Isn't this cute?
	Don't you love this government?
	Would you like to get control again, guys?
	What I would like to ask you is, what all that means.
	Well, it means that somebody knows and they're basically sticking it to us, but good.
	I mean, the idea that this can be all coincidence.
	What are they investigating at that point?
	They claim that where they're going to land at that particular location is purely rocks flowing down an ancient stream bed.
	But they could have landed at any latitude and investigated those rocks.
	They didn't have to pick 19.5 degrees.
	Cute.
	Uh, I seem to recall the, uh, was it asteroids?
	Asteroids.
	That, uh, collided, uh, recently, uh, wasn't that at 19-5?
	No, you mean the asteroids that hit, uh, that hit Jupiter.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The Levy 9 comet.
	Yeah, comet.
	Which, by the way, is looking more like it was pieces of asteroids as opposed to comets.
	Right.
	Comets have lots of water, and nobody could detect any water in these impacts.
	No, they hit at 45 degrees.
	45, right.
	But they had a lot of other geometry associated with the impacts that is Peculiar.
	That's all I can really say, because you've got to see the diagrams.
	Okay.
	The bottom line is that there are two space programs.
	There's the program for the insiders, and then there's the one we get to see.
	There's the fun and games of going up and visiting the Russians.
	Yeah, I can really believe that.
	I mean, I'm sure it's true.
	You know, and the question is, when are we going to get mad enough to take back control of NASA?
	And establish the Space Act, which is an extraordinary important document, which was supposed to guarantee openness and accountability.
	But you're saying on the one hand, we can take control.
	On the other hand, you're telling us even the president may have gone over and seen a bunch of junk.
	In other words, they lied to him.
	So... That is a possibility, yes.
	Well, okay.
	If that's the case, then the chances of our getting a full explanation, I would say, are somewhere between zero and minus.
	Well, see, this is where the moon comes in.
	Because as long as they can play around with Mars, which on a good day is 35 million miles away.
	Right.
	And you can only get to it once every two years.
	And even the Hubble can't show us.
	And even Hubble can't see it from Earth orbit.
	Fine.
	You're basically at their mercy.
	Fine.
	Alright.
	But when we moved our investigation to the Moon.
	Yes.
	And found stunning things there.
	You and I, Art, and a few of our friends can ante up the money and we can go to the Moon day after tomorrow.
	Now we can't physically go with our bodies, but we can send our robots.
	We can basically create what I'm calling the Radio Shack Mission and go to the moon.
	That's what we're going to be doing.
	Okay, I got a fax about that, and somebody said that you had mentioned on Laura Lee's program that you had talked to some friends on Capitol Hill and decided that the private mission idea was not a good idea.
	Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
	That's a complete misquote.
	What I found was that there are something like a dozen companies all over the world that have the same idea.
	All right.
	They want to go to the moon with private enterprise, raising private capital, for a variety of private reasons, and to reinvent the wheel with a 13th mission.
	I'd like to know some of those reasons.
	I mean, what did anybody ever find on the moon that was valuable, or that was marketable, or that was commercially viable?
	Why would private companies want to go to the moon?
	Well, for instance, there is a company in Washington called Lunacorp, which had a press conference about a year ago.
	And as staffed, and has a board of directors loaded with ex-NASA folks who are very tired of NASA and the bureaucracy and the fact that the program is so big and so expensive and it's not doing anything, they put together a program called Lunacorp, and they want to basically build a robot rover.
	Landed on the moon, designed by Nagy Mellon, by a very good robotic scientist over there, at least I know him by reputation.
	It's going to be a Cliffinger.
	Okay.
	Alright, Richard C. Hoagland.
	Richard C. Hoagland indeed is here.
	And we're going to move on now, as you can quickly tell, to the moon.
	Coming up next on CBC.
	Art Bell is taking calls on the wildcard line.
	on the wild card line.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	This has been a very, very interesting show so far, because while we have retrenched a lot of ground we've covered previously, it's been with a lot of new information.
	And as someone once said, you ain't seen nothing yet, because here comes the moons.
	All right, as we mentioned prior to the break, Mars and all its controversy, it's really something.
	And we heard a lot of new stuff tonight about Mars.
	But the moon, why, the moon is a lot closer, and people with telescopes can look at the moon.
	There are various ways to look at the moon.
	We had earlier missions that looked at the moon, and we just had Clementine that looked at the moon.
	So, back, Richard, to the moon.
	Before we get to that, let me clear up a couple of things that have just come in by fax.
	All right.
	A Mars mission member in Portland, James Warren, has asked me to answer a couple of things on the air.
	Okay.
	He has been picking off NASA press releases from the Internet, and he just sent me two.
	One on Mars Surveyor, and the other on the Ulysses mission.
	Why don't you give out your fax number, and so your fax machine can burn up for a change.
	Oh, thanks.
	Okay.
	Well, the Mars mission fax is 201-271.
	1-7-0-3.
	That's 2-0-1-2-7-1-1-7-0-3.
	And that's active right now?
	24 hours a day.
	In other words, you're sitting by it?
	Well, down the hall.
	Sort of.
	I can hear it.
	Alright, good.
	And our 800 number for the videos, the NASA briefings, the UN stuff, the new Clementine paper that we're going to talk about, that is 1-800-424-0031.
	Okay.
	1-800-424-0031.
	Actually, you can't get the Clementine paper through the 800 number.
	You can get it through the fax machine by sending a request here, and then we send it on to the people who are actually dropshipping the documents, which is this 36-page paper that you got a copy of.
	I'm holding it in my hand.
	And it's got 13 colored plates, and it's an analysis of a leaked Clementine frame that's come to us courtesy of some patriotic Americans who wanted us to see what the Pentagon really found at the moon last year.
	And I should add, I want to add, just below it, or above it, the photographs, it says, their regularity, complexity, and distribution would be hard to explain except by light and intelligence, and the quote, the quote is from Carl Sagan.
	Is that right?
	Yeah, by using his criteria, established in terms of satellite imagery of intelligence on Earth, You know, when you look at these images, which have stunning geometric regularity and in color now, as we'll talk about in a few minutes.
	Yes.
	It is inescapable that, A, we've all been snookered, and there's a group of folks on the inside that know a great deal more about what's waiting for us in the solar system than the rest of us, and we must redress that grievance immediately.
	But before we get to the moon, let me pick up two things on Mars.
	James wanted to know, Why in the NASA press release on Mars Surveyor, that's the one that's leaving next year, and will begin mapping in January of 98, the spacecraft, it says, will circle Mars once every two hours in a sun-synchronous orbit.
	He wants to know what a sun-synchronous orbit is.
	It's very simple.
	It's an orbit where, when you come across the equator, the angle of the sun to the landscape is exactly the same, orbit after orbit after orbit.
	It's a good question, actually.
	And so the shadows are the same length, and you get standardized images.
	And he then asked me in his note, is this going to help or hinder possible photography of Sedonia?
	He says, in fact, will this position and the mid-afternoon lighting, casting shadows, pose any threats to obtaining clear, high-res pictures of Sedonia?
	And the answer is no.
	In fact, just the opposite.
	We should get wonderful images of Sedonia, provided we can clear up the politics.
	It's the politics that are our problem.
	Provided it doesn't get lost in space.
	And it gets lost in space and all of that.
	Now the other fact he sent me is even more intriguing because it goes to some of our discussion earlier in the morning, which had to do with hyper-dimensional physics.
	Yes.
	This is a press release out of JPL, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, which is NASA's Interplanetary Control Center.
	Dated June 19th, that's a couple days ago, it's on the internet.
	And it's slugged... Ulysses begins exploration of the Sun's northern pole.
	Right.
	For those of you with long memories, you may remember that a few years ago, the Europeans and NASA together sent a joint mission out into deep space to Jupiter.
	It went under the southern... I'm sorry, over the northern pole of Jupiter, and was flung out of plane, out of the pi-plate general configuration of the planets orbiting the Sun.
	And headed back in toward the sun to go first under the sun's southern pole, several million miles away, and then curve around and six months later, arc over the northern pole of the sun before heading back out to Jupiter.
	It will then come back in around the year 2000 and repeat this performance.
	And for the last few months, it's been over the southern pole, and for the next 110 days, it's going to be arcing over the northern portions of the sun several million miles up over the You know, the upper reaches of the solar system, if you can think of the solar system, is spread out below it like a flat dinner plate.
	Sure.
	Examining with all kinds of instruments the energetics and the activity of emissions coming from the sun.
	It does not carry cameras.
	It carries devices to measure things like the solar wind, which is this charged particle flow of particles that come off the sun in all directions.
	Sure.
	And you can see the solar wind during a total eclipse.
	It's the corona you see around the moon when the moon just covers The brilliant surface of the sun.
	Right.
	That halo of light.
	Anyway, in this press release there is a remarkable, and I really thank James for sending this to me, remarkable paragraph.
	It says, Ulysses has verified global differences in the speed of the wind, the solar wind now, these charged particles flowing out from the sun at different latitudes.
	Most notably, solar winds at high southern latitudes travel at roughly double the speed found in the equatorial zone.
	The reason this is important is because we only live in the equatorial zone.
	The Earth is basically in the equator of the Sun.
	Yes.
	93 million miles away.
	All spacecraft going to and from various planets that we've sent, including the Voyagers and the Pioneers, all basically are in the plane of the Earth's orbit.
	So, until Ulysses, we never got a chance to look down on the activity of the Sun from very high up, either above the southern pole or the northern pole.
	Now we can.
	The document from NASA continues.
	The solar wind flows at approximately 2 million miles per hour, 800 kilometers per second, at high southern latitudes, while dropping in velocity to about 1 million miles per hour, 400 kilometers per second, near the equator.
	Now here's the neat part.
	As the spacecraft, Ulysses, approached the equator, the solar wind continued to be very fast until, drum roll please, around 20 degrees south latitude.
	19.5, at which time the abrupt transition to the low-speed, low-latitude solar wind was seen.
	Large variations in the solar wind speed and other properties then continued, until the spacecraft reached 20 degrees north latitude, at which time only fast solar wind was again observed continuously.
	Bingo!
	The predictions of the physics!
	Bingo indeed!
	I mean, this is why I know we're onto it, and why I know they know we're onto it, And this is a game.
	We've got to get the American people involved in this dialogue politically to tell these people who's really in charge, which is the American people.
	And for that is why I sit all night on the radio and do shows like yours, because somewhere out there, there's people who care, and I'm determined to find them.
	All right.
	Explain to those who don't fully understand, what is special about 19.5 degrees on any planet?
	It turns out that since energy and information is not just stuck in three dimensions that we're familiar with, but in fact is flowing through the universe from higher dimensions, and is accessible by rotating bodies in three dimensions, what we're seeing are physical signatures, indicators, of this information transfer between dimensions.
	And the mathematics says that if that was taking place, it can only appear in accordance with this specific geometry, And that's why, as we look at the NASA data, knowing now from the Sun, all the way out to Neptune, and we find weird stuff between 20 North and 20 South on the Sun, and we find great dark spots and red spots on Jupiter and Neptune at 19.5 North or South, we find the major volcanic eruptions on the Earth, Hawaii, on Venus, on the Moon, on Mars, at 19.5 North or South, we know we're onto a fundamental dynamic of reality, of unified physics,
	That will ultimately let us explain all kinds of things that currently we can't explain.
	And as you go from a theoretical physics to a practical technology, you then are able in this physics to grasp the potential for controlling that which currently eludes us.
	Namely, gravity for one thing.
	Producing anti-gravity spacecraft.
	No more dinky primitive rockets.
	You want to get to the moon?
	Takes you two hours in an anti-gravity spaceship.
	You want to get to Mars?
	Takes you four or five days.
	And you think development of this technology, that would flow from the information realized, what's special about 19.5, among other things, would allow this?
	Now, here's where I'm going to drop the other shoe.
	Alright.
	Not only do I think this would happen, I think it has happened.
	It's part of the reason for the cover-up.
	Because if you remember the film at the end of my UN presentation, The shuttle footage from STS-48?
	Yes, of course.
	Where something remarkable is seen appearing over the Earth's horizon?
	No doubt about it.
	And then it dashes into space at 14,000 Gs?
	Yep.
	And something is firing at it?
	Yep.
	I think, I said on the tape and I'll say it here, that that's our anti-gravity spacecraft of the Hidden Space Program, developed by this core group that has known the real physics and figured the real stuff out before we got onto it, and they've simply kept this hidden because of, quote, national security.
	Which is a great catch-all because the economic implications of democratizing this technology would change the world.
	All right, well, here's where I stop you for a second, Richard.
	And again, you're not known as a UFO guy, but Richard, I live up here next to Area 51.
	And let me tell you, if we have this technology, if it's being tested and or used or developed, It's being done there, and maybe at a couple of other places, and a couple of other locations.
	One of my former colleagues at NBC, Fred Francis, a couple years ago on Primetime, during Brokaw's news on NBC, Tom Brokaw does the NBC Evening News right every night.
	That's right, I see it every night.
	Fred Francis had a piece on Primetime Network News, shot out there at Area 51 in your backyard, and he pointed his low-light level cameras over the Groom Mountains, and he recorded something doing something pretty Weird, and bizarre, and exotic.
	And he said, on television, he said, Tom, this stuff is defying the current laws of physics.
	That's right.
	And then, instead of following up on that very crucial and amazing statement, he then went on to talk about the cost!
	Like, money's important.
	I see.
	They're hiding a breakthrough of shattering, stunning Einsteinian proportions, and they put it in a black program, and they're hovering over the mountain and keeping everybody from knowing that it's accessible.
	And this man, this correspondent, is talking about how much it costs.
	Now, my bottom line is, I think an awful lot of the UFO stuff is just disinformation designed to keep Tom Brokaw and the New York Times and Walter Cronkite and my old colleagues at CBS and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal from ever asking, what is this government really doing with all this information?
	Right.
	And I am determined we're all going to get to the bottom of it and put this to use so that you guys out there on the highways don't kill your brains and beat your brains out on trucks and pay enormous amounts of dollars for diesel fuel, when in fact you could have something much more efficient, much safer, and much more economical.
	All right.
	We've got to do it.
	Let's get to the moon.
	The moon is close.
	The moon can be examined.
	The moon has been examined.
	You've got some new stuff.
	First, let's cover the old stuff.
	I say old stuff.
	I know.
	You're talking about giant crystalline or glass structures that you believe you found on the moon.
	Let me give a synopsis again of the history.
	The easiest way into this is to track the history.
	All right, good.
	As we were working with the Mars data and coming more and more to the conclusion among this very disparate and far-flung and very individualized team of scientists with various disciplines, Some of my friends and I, my colleagues and I, began to think that we really, if we're looking at real stuff on Mars, it's really not believable to imagine that it was only confined to Mars.
	Right, that's true.
	If we're looking at real stuff, it was high-tech, it was spaceflight, it was hyperdimensional physics, it was control of gravity, it was the cornucopia of how the universe works, and the idea that if these guys came from some other star, or even from some other place in the solar system, That they only stayed on Mars, just didn't seem to be in the cards.
	So we started looking at the possibilities that maybe there was stuff nearer.
	Right.
	The only other body that we really photographed the hell out of, you can't say that on television, right?
	Or on radio.
	You say it.
	Is the Moon.
	And the more I started thinking about this, the more I realized that there was something really weird about the Moon.
	It's like we'd been there, but if you start looking in the books, You start looking in the textbooks, you start looking in the magazines, you start looking in the anniversaries.
	We've seen the same dumb five pictures that we took of the moon.
	Now, the moon is a huge place.
	The moon has 15 million square miles, Art.
	Yes, sir.
	That's as much as North and South America combined.
	You and I go on a vacation.
	You know, we go to Buenos Aires or whatever.
	Or we go to Madrid, or we go to Moscow, or we go to the South Pole.
	You can't imagine That we'd only show our friends and family and whatever five lousy pictures.
	True.
	If we had taken them of a place with such an enormous amount of real estate.
	But all we're getting from NASA and have gotten for the last 30 years is basically the same five pictures.
	And I can show you open any textbook and you'll see the same stupid shots that were released a few days after the Apollo 11 landing.
	That's it.
	That's what you see.
	Either from orbit or from the ground.
	Well, it's true that the common person wouldn't pay a lot of attention.
	The moon's the moon.
	You see the moon, it looks barren.
	It's got holes and, you know, craters and so forth.
	And that's all you notice.
	But there's a lot of people out there who are scientists.
	Astronomy buffs, scientists, physicists, geologists.
	Yeah, that's right.
	These people would begin to notice the same five photographs.
	Well, but they haven't really noticed it because they think it's all the same.
	So I started thinking about this.
	And then, of course, because of the physics.
	We began discussing in our group, particularly me and Eero Tauren, who is my colleague at Defense Mapping in Washington, the physics impact of the moon.
	Without digressing too much, this hyperdimensional physics, you know, really is a very powerful tool.
	Once you start assessing the idea of a unified approach to the physics of the universe, and you look at all the various things it should affect, you begin to realize that it should have effects all the way from astrophysics, what makes the sun shine, To geophysics, what makes earthquakes, to biology and biophysics.
	And we, as biological creatures who are conscious, are the epitome of that last discipline.
	Yes.
	So we started thinking about what would the effect in the physics have been if the Earth had not always had a satellite like the Moon.
	And we realized, at one very important point, that there is a vast record on the Earth, in the rocks, called the geological record.
	The geologists and biologists and others have been exposed to and are familiar with, you know, from the day you enter, you know, college.
	Even in high school, it's now taught.
	It is a moment in time called the Cambrian-Pre-Cambrian Boundary.
	And before that time in the rocks, which is before about 600 million years ago, the most advanced life form are little one-celled things called blue-green algae, cyanobacteria.
	There was an old joke years ago going around, you know, is there life on Mars?
	Well, only if you go there on a Saturday night.
	That kind of thing.
	You could have said the same thing about the Earth.
	And the only life on Earth were these little blue-green guys that are, you know, microns across.
	You can't see them except with a microscope.
	And for billions and billions of years, to echo someone we both know, that would have been the most advanced life form you would have found here.
	And then one day, maybe a Thursday, something happened.
	And everything hit the fan.
	And life took off in an explosion.
	And in the last half-billion years, 600, 500 million years, you get the most incredible cornucopia of advanced life forms with all kinds of extraordinary species and subspecies and genera and families and genuses and, you know, everything happens in the last, you know, half-billion years of a four-and-a-half-billion-year-old planet.
	Something like somebody throwing a switch.
	Exactly.
	Now, in the physics, we did the calculation, and the moon, in terms of mass, distance, and all that, Looks to be the switch.
	It's like when you add the moon.
	Yes.
	You get all the physics that would allow this other stuff to suddenly take off.
	All right, hang there just one moment, Richard.
	We'll be right back to you.
	It's interesting he should be saying this.
	A lot of people lately have been saying, the moon was not always there and may have impacted Earth
	and literally bounced back, which we will in just a moment.
	Thanks for watching!
	West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	Call Art Bell toll free. West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-618-8255. East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033. 1-800-825-5033. This is the
	CBC Radio Network.
	Hi Art and Richard.
	A number of years ago, a group of scientists did an experiment to determine the natural circadian rhythm for humans.
	They took volunteers, had them live underground so they could not determine what time it was from the sun.
	They had no clocks, no access to radio or television.
	The natural circadian rhythm for humans turns out to be about 25 hours.
	There's only one planet in the solar system with a daily rotation of 25 hours.
	Which one would that be, Richard?
	Mars.
	Just thought I'd pass that on.
	Now, quickly, back to the Moon.
	You know, there are a number of scientists now that believe the Moon crashed into the Earth.
	Actually crashed into it, and like a billiard ball, bounced off it and back into orbit where it presently is.
	Well, yes and no.
	I mean, these are really kind of wild theories, because the problem is, from Apollo and the bringing home of almost a thousand pounds of moon rocks, it's very difficult to explain the chemistry of the moon in those rocks, unless you, you know, inveigle yourself into some exotic scenario, such as that.
	Right.
	Because of the high temperatures and all of the associated melting of the surface that those rocks seem to imply.
	In our theory, what the astronauts actually brought home, either deliberately or inadvertently, and the geologists got a chance to analyze, are basically the high temperature remains and remnants of some of these domed cities.
	If you take computers and buildings and, you know, subways and you smash them together and expose them to, you know, impacts for a billion years, it would look like rocks.
	Remember, dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.
	Yes.
	All of the things that we make our high-tech civilization out of originally came from the rocks.
	Rocks are made of high-tech stuff.
	It just doesn't look like high-tech stuff.
	It's ores and mineral compounds and elements and things like that, and with a great deal of energy and ingenuity, you separate and smelt and fractionate these ores into metals and plastics and other things, and then you build things out of them.
	Well, if you expose them to natural entropic decay processes, including random meteor impacts for God knows how many years, and then you go and pick up a few shards of material and bring them home, and you don't know that there used to be a city there, the stuff you will analyze that looks like rocks, in fact, is former high-tech stuff of a civilization that is only mimicking the rocks from which the oars originally came from.
	But it is, your position is a hell of a lot more there than, uh... Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	And remember, the astronauts deliberately were sent to land in the dull places, where there's nothing much you can see.
	Now, this is very complicated, and again, without the photographs, it's hard to... it's hard to do this for folks who are listening on the radio, which again is why you need to see the videos, you need to see the tapes, you need to see the photographs.
	Right.
	I would like to add a couple of images to your BBS from the moon, if you would like to do that.
	I would love that.
	I'd also like to know who authored your Cydonia report, since we didn't.
	Actually, it's attributed.
	I didn't upload it.
	Somebody else did, but it is attributed.
	It would be nice to know who did that.
	Do you have the bulletin board number?
	Well, I have the number, but I don't have the computer in front of me.
	All right.
	Well, you don't have to get it this second.
	I'm just saying as long as you have it, you can... Yeah, I would just like to know who... because that should be passed around as to who the author is and whether they have been doing research like us or whether they just have an opinion.
	Download it.
	Okay.
	It is a secret art.
	Can't you tell us?
	Well, no, I don't have it in front of me, so... Oh, you don't know?
	No.
	You're putting something on your board and you don't know who did it?
	No, I was trying to tell you I didn't put that up.
	Ah.
	But I mean you allow it on the board.
	Well, yeah, it's allowed on the board.
	Okay.
	In the break, maybe you can find out.
	You know, this may well be somebody who took several of the photographs and did, you know, I think in the picture, in the GIF picture, there are several photographs with arrows pointing to each thing and identifying it.
	Kind of a Cydonia region study.
	OK.
	So that's all I can recall at the moment.
	All right.
	Well, we're going to have our own internet address for the Mars mission shortly.
	I've been working with a number of people in the computer industry and with some provider services to design the system that will allow people to see the data in many different forms and to exchange information and discuss it and to compare raw data with processed data and computer enhancements and all that.
	I think it's our best hope.
	I mean, the dissemination... Oh, absolutely.
	Anyway, back to the moon.
	So back to the moon.
	We began looking at the moon simply because the physics said that something remarkable would happen if you took a mass like the moon and added it to the Earth.
	And since when we went with Apollo to the moon and the three explanations for the presence of the moon were never satisfactorily resolved, even after the Apollo program, that's where this fourth idea of a massive collision and a bounce back came from.
	It was like the last desperate theory Beware, Art, in science of desperate theories.
	The previous three theories were the Moon formed around the Earth as part of the interplanetary nebula from which the Earth formed, alright?
	The cohabitation theory.
	The other theory was that the Moon formed somewhere else in the solar system and somehow got captured by the Earth at some point.
	Alright.
	And the third theory was that the Earth formed as a planet and in the collapse and spin-up phase spun so fast that the Moon was basically ejected Bicentrical force from a spinning disk of material shed from the equator.
	That would have been something to see.
	Uh, oh yeah.
	In fact, there is a great movie called Journey to the Center of the Earth.
	No, The Crack in the World, which you might want to watch on cable some night.
	Alright.
	Which basically winds up with a piece of the Pacific being ejected as a new moon in this process.
	And the special effects are kind of interesting, and the story's not too hokey, and it's kind of a fun movie to watch.
	Okay.
	It's called A Crack in the World.
	And the idea basically is that in an experiment gone wrong, you know, the military guys basically create a crack that races around the world, and it's diverted into a circle, and it winds up ejecting a plug of material from the Pacific.
	So that could have been the way the moon formed.
	Well, that's what the theory was.
	But there are mathematical means of testing each of these theories, also by comparing their predictions against the data from the moon rocks.
	And the bottom line was that each of these three theories Everyone thinking that one of which would survive and become the winner after Apollo?
	Yes.
	None of them explain the data.
	We still don't know.
	So that's why you have this fourth theory, the kind of collision-now-and-bounce-back theory.
	Yes.
	To which I am entering a fifth theory.
	Okay.
	Because the only stuff we've been sampling and analyzing is basically, in our model, manufactured stuff, beaten to hell by meteor bombardment of eons past.
	And it would be highly refractory stuff.
	You know what I mean by refractory?
	Yes.
	High temperature.
	If I come back and land here in New York City in a million years, New York probably is not going to be here, right?
	Probably.
	Even after what's-his-name is no longer governor.
	It will not be here.
	Okay?
	But if an astronaut from Alpha Centauri were to take soil samples and bring home rocks, they could reconstruct if they were bright enough.
	That a refined civilization had once built out of concrete and steel and glass and other stuff a city.
	Sure.
	Because the signature of the city will be imprinted in the chemistry of the materials they would take home.
	Absolutely.
	Well, the problem is you've got to be smart enough to realize maybe the planet on which you landed had a high-tech civilization.
	If you go to a planet and you think that nobody ever lived there, and you bring home materials that were, you know, basically formed at blast temperature furnished temperatures, And add no volatile elements, no sodium, no potassium, only high temperature stuff, and very weird and exotic combinations.
	And that you go from sample to sample and the rare earths go up and down by a factor of a million for no apparent reason.
	Unless you even imagine that maybe somebody may have put something artificial down there, the only rational explanation for this weird chemistry is going to be some really exotic natural process that wound up covering most of the surface of the moon With a high-temperature ocean of very high-temperature rocks.
	And because the radioactivity of natural planet formation can't account for these temperatures on the surface, remember the radioactive stuff is supposed to sink to form the core?
	Right.
	So the core should be hot and the surface cool.
	Correct.
	How do you get a hot surface and a cool core?
	Answer?
	Collision.
	Major collision.
	So they've had to back into the collision theory to explain the chemistry.
	Oh.
	If in fact, and as you read through the Clementine paper, this will become very clear, If, in fact, we are really picking up the detritus and the bits and pieces and shards and smashed stuff of bygone ancient alien computers, alright, and buildings and other debris, then the high-temperature composition is wondrously and beautifully and elegantly and simply explained, as are a lot of other things.
	Now, I have had, because we've had NASA people now leaking to us from inside, A chance to examine, close-up, some of the sample photographs of moon rocks brought back and opened up in the Quarantine Lunar Receiving Lab.
	Right.
	Not generally available to the public.
	Right.
	I ought to send you a couple of those pictures.
	I'd love that.
	One of those pictures, I swear, looks like a lunar wine bottle.
	Really?
	Oh, it looks so much like a beautiful, symmetrical, manufactured thing made out of glass.
	Glass?
	Glass.
	There's tons of glass.
	They brought back so much glass.
	Now, the explanation is that when you have silicon and oxygen and meteor bombardment and primordial volcanic processes, you're going to get glass.
	The problem is there is so much more glass on the moon than in any natural impact or geology process on the earth.
	Now, part of that may be the absence of water on the moon.
	Glass is well preserved.
	Glass is much stronger.
	In a vacuum with no water than it is here.
	That's why you could think of building things out of glass.
	I was about to get to that, and that is exactly what you think they... Well, not only me, but there's also a major NASA study team based at Los Alamos, John Blaikick is his name, who proposed in NASA Basin Studies, paid for by NASA a few years ago, that when NASA eventually decides to go to the moon and build bases there, which they should be doing instead of the space station, by the way, That they be built out of lunar glass.
	Because it's cheap, it's abundant, it's available, and with solar energy you could make glass bricks pretty simple.
	All right?
	Just heat them up and the lunar soil would melt into glass bricks, and they would be resistant to all kinds of corrosion, and they would be strong in the lunar vacuum because they would not be exposed to water.
	I happen to think that someone anticipated Dr. Blakey's ideas by a few billion years, but that's part of our continuing hypothesis.
	Well, let's get to that part so we can get to the new part.
	You believe there are structures how big on the moon?
	Well, we found them.
	I mean, every time I bring a new scientist on board and they look at these images, their mouth kind of drops open and they say, holy... I mean, there's no geological explanation for what we found.
	And we've now got different missions, different lighting, different geometry.
	We have corroboration up the kazoo.
	The only folks who are not basically saying, okay, we give up, you got us, are NASA.
	Everybody who used to work for NASA as a scientist and looked at this, they're saying, oh my God, look at that.
	Geologists who don't work for NASA, who work for private engineering companies, are looking at this and saying, oh my God.
	All right, here's the question everybody wants to ask.
	If NASA is everything you say it is, then that's no surprise.
	That's right.
	All right, fine.
	Forget NASA.
	Forget NASA.
	What about Tom Brokaw?
	We're building to that.
	What I am planning is either a major national press conference, and we're looking now at things like dates and timing and funding to do this in Washington, or I may start with a series of quiet briefings of some of my major media colleagues, and basically show them, in the company of these key NASA people, who have risen to the top of the radar screen, mixing our metaphors badly here at DAWN on the East Coast, in the last month, When I was in Seattle, in Laura Lee's backyard, and did my two presentations at the Seattle Center about a month ago, we had some major breakthroughs.
	We had some key NASA people who worked for a major aerospace contractor in the Seattle area, which will remain nameless, who had formerly been at Johnson and Houston and all that as part of the Apollo program.
	They came and sat through my presentations and saw all our data from Apollo, Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, And the Clementine Mosaic Analysis, which is in that document sitting in front of you there on the, on the, on the desk.
	Correct.
	They then said, holy, and opened their own private archives, preserved all these years from Apollo, and furthermore offered to begin calling colleagues inside the agency, both past and present, and getting them to look at our data.
	And they have provided us with some rather remarkable corroboration.
	From their own experience and from a general database that indicates that we're on the right track.
	Let's say you had all the money to march to Washington and have a big press conference without naming names.
	How many people would stand behind you while you announced all this?
	Is this a numbers game?
	Remember, it only takes one white crow to prove all crows aren't black.
	Yeah, I know.
	If this is going to be decided based on how many people... No, I'm just saying, is there a substantial body of Well, remember, NASA is... Well, outside the agency, they're a lot.
	Inside the agency, there are a few, but they're growing.
	Remember, we're dealing with a political problem, much like talking about the Mafia.
	NASA is a family, Art.
	And a family that has basically got all their jobs and their reputation on the line.
	There are people in NASA that I know, if I could prove to them incontrovertibly tomorrow, that NASA has been lying to all the rest of us... Wouldn't matter.
	It wouldn't matter, and I'll tell you why.
	Because pride of NASA and the health of the agency and defense against the retribution of angry American people in the Congress will be more important to them than the truth.
	All right, so for the purpose of this discussion, Richard, I'm willing to forget NASA and accept what you say about them.
	But we do have key people who held key positions.
	Remember, we've just begun this process.
	It's only been a month since we got this major breakthrough.
	Right.
	And what I've asked them to do is to basically take our data and present it.
	To successive tiers of former and current NASA engineers, scientists, management people.
	Remember, we visited Goddard, right?
	Sure.
	And we showed them our data at that stage, which was pre-Clementine.
	And we must have convinced somebody of something, because we have had the damnedest, most wonderful cooperation from those folks at the National Space Science Data Center.
	Ever since.
	Ever since.
	And they have provided us now with literally thousands upon thousands of feet A remarkable, incredible quality film.
	And I've only had the chance, because of our limited budget and time and all that, to go through a fraction of what's there.
	And we found amazing new things.
	Well, all right.
	The Clementine photos weren't supposed to be out.
	No.
	How'd you get those?
	They were leaked.
	This process has been three years in the making.
	Let me close the last gap.
	When we started looking at the moon in terms of the physics, I said to Errol and some others, you know, if we're right, if the moon is a player here, if someone Who had this extraordinary technology literally brought the moon to Earth to foster the evolution of biology and ultimately us.
	They had to have left a signature.
	We should be able to find something on the moon that will tell us that we're right.
	Those people would be the people we would call creators.
	Well, I'm thinking of them kind of like the cosmic engineers.
	All right?
	All right.
	All right.
	There's a great book by Clifford Simak.
	By that title, it was published in the 1950s.
	It's a heck of a read.
	I recommend it strongly.
	The Cosmic Engineers.
	All right.
	All right.
	Anyway, so we started looking at an atlas through an industrialist friend of mine, and lo and behold, smack dab in the center of the moon, on a clear moon night when you can see the full moon, there is a 16-mile diameter crater.
	And in that crater, there is this incredible equilateral triangle, dark against the bright lunar highlands, and that equilateral triangle is the mathematical symbol Of hyper-dimensional physics.
	It's like the triangle marked the spot.
	And then we were off and running.
	And we began ordering from various NASA archives, various missions, various lighting, various geometries, zeroing in on the Apollo missions, and as they used to say, the rest is history.
	We now have all kinds of photographs coming out of our ears, showing wondrous, stunning things that should not exist on the Moon, that support the model, and you'll see evidence in the papers you read through it, that somebody left an awful lot of stuff On the moon a long time ago, and because of the airless conditions, and the fact that it's only been battered by meteors and asteroids, a lot of it is still surviving, and some places it's in better condition than others because it's been shielded from meteor bombardment by its orbit around the Earth.
	But it's geometry.
	Yeah, it's good enough.
	It's good enough.
	What's still there to prove what you're saying?
	You got it.
	All right.
	Hold on, Richard.
	will be right back to you richard hoagland on the cbc radio network
	and Art Bell is taking calls on the wildcard line.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Normally, this program is very caller-intensive.
	First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Normally this program is very caller intensive, but obviously this morning it has not been.
	And my intent has just been to get a very great deal of information out,
	and we certainly have accomplished that, and there is more, some critical information yet to come.
	A couple of quick announcements.
	One, if you want a copy of this program, I can understand that you would, you can get one now by calling 1-800-917-4278.
	Let me repeat that number.
	Let me repeat that number.
	800-917-4222.
	That line is open 24 hours a day and you're going to want to request the Richard Hoagland program.
	Richard, all right, let us try and begin moving quickly.
	To cover information we've covered in previous shows, you have found large crystalline glass structures.
	I don't know whether you want to call them apartment buildings or office buildings or Structures of some kind?
	Well, let me give a generic characterization.
	Yeah, please.
	Okay.
	Again, we go back to the good Dr. Sagan.
	You know, intelligent life on Earth, which he said in Cosmos years ago, first manifests itself through the geometric regularity of its construction.
	It's the same criteria we applied to Mars.
	We looked at the Moon and we found stunning geometric regularity.
	Furthermore, unlike on Mars where the stuff is fairly low down on the ground, I mean the The DNM Pyramid is half a mile in the sky.
	The face is 1,500 feet high.
	Some of the things we're seeing on the Moon, even in the first photographs, were a mile and a half high.
	Seven miles high.
	In one place on the back side of the Moon, after our visit to the National Space Science Data Center, we found a tower, a remnant tower, which I believe is between 30 and 60 miles high.
	Now, before you think that's impossible, Realize that the moon has one-sixth the gravity here.
	Right.
	We're not dealing with Earth materials.
	Whoever these guys were, they knew their stuff.
	And my dear friend Arthur Clarke has been proposing for years building a tower for space transportation 22,300 miles high from the Earth and anchoring it with an asteroid in Earth orbit at geosynchronous distance.
	A sort of known material, known to current science.
	A sort of a ladder or elevator.
	Exactly.
	He calls it a space elevator.
	Yes.
	And his old friend, Bucky Fuller, actually designed the geometric lattice and talked about the materials out of which you'd make it.
	Now, if those friends of mine can do that here, under Earth gravity, imagine what super-engineering, the cosmic engineers is the term I'm using, Could have done, given a super-science that uses hyper-dimensional physics, robotics, advanced material understanding, and a little knowledge that we don't currently have to design materials, you know, designer materials, that are so much stronger and lighter and tougher than what we can currently create.
	Not to mention one-sixth the gravity.
	That would be the one-sixth gravity.
	Without storms, without earthquakes, etc., etc.
	That's right.
	So while at first blush this stuff looks impossible, when you actually do the numbers art, we're not talking about anything unreasonable at all.
	The only thing that's unreasonable is that our space agency should have gone there, found this stuff, and then kept it hidden from us, because they freaked out.
	And that, of course, is a long discussion we don't have time to get into this morning, but there is now overwhelming evidence.
	I mean, every new picture, every new comparison, every new enhancement, we've got two or three images of the same remarkable thing.
	And it's becoming kind of almost boring.
	It's like, let's get on to the next step, which is, how do we force them to tell us the truth, or how do we mount our own mission to go back and find out ourselves?
	All right, so now that brings us to Clementine.
	They did the mission.
	It was a sort of a budget mission, but... Well, before we leap to Clementine, let me finish off with NASA, because we had, in the 60s, unmanned missions.
	We looked at a lot of that data, and overwhelmingly, from Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, and those missions, this stuff is there.
	Then we come to Apollo.
	Now, you asked me earlier, how do I know that somebody was hiding this?
	Because if we had sent Apollo in the blind, my friend, we would have killed all those astronauts.
	You can't orbit 60 miles up amid structures that are 60 miles tall and not get killed unless you know where they are.
	You crash, yes.
	You crash.
	Now, in the lunar module pictures that we have now from Apollo 10, they were down at 10 miles.
	We're seeing stuff around the lunar module in the photographs at 10 miles.
	I was able to show some laser data from Clementine applied to the Apollo imagery over Sinus Medi from Apollo 10 that shows this stuff sticking up in front of the lunar module orbit at the orbit of the lunar module.
	So when Tom Stafford and Gene Cernan on the open radio loop said back in May 1969, as I stood on the floor of the studio at CBS next to Walter Cronkite, And he said over the live air-to-ground, boy, we're really down among them?
	Yep.
	Now we know what he meant!
	All we have to do is look at the pictures, ladies and gentlemen.
	We know what he meant.
	The idea that the astronauts did not know what they were doing, I find inconceivable, given the fact that we've got picture after picture after picture where these key things sticking way up in the sky, suspended by cable.
	You can see the cables.
	You can see the slope of gravity, like suspension bridges with heavy masses sitting at the Bottom of the center of the catenary curve of the cabling?
	That's one of the pictures, by the way, I'm going to send you.
	All right.
	We call it the bridge.
	It looks like I've taken, you know, the Golden Gate Bridge and stuck it on the moon five miles up above Sinus Medi.
	All right.
	We have several versions of this object.
	The idea that the Apollo guys, some of them, did not know what they were going there for is inconceivable.
	The question is, did all of NASA know?
	And I don't think all of NASA knew.
	Because, remember, most of the people involved at NASA either built hardware, looked at gauges, or looked at photographs that had come through the Johnson Space Center.
	If someone was regulating the information flow, you basically could conduct two missions.
	One in public, the one we saw on TV, and one in private.
	Sure.
	Because the TV quality was execrable.
	Now, looking back, of course, I know why Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin carried that lousy black and white TV camera to the moon.
	NASA didn't want us to have state-of-the-art TV.
	You go back and look at the engineering specs, we could have had high quality, full color from the moon at first landing.
	Doesn't anybody wonder why we had lousy, black and white, ghostly TV?
	It's in case they pointed the camera at something we weren't supposed to see.
	No one even noticed.
	One of the structures.
	Yeah.
	Now, the places where they landed, you know, we don't think that they really went in near anything until Apollo 13.
	Now, why do I think Apollo 13?
	Yes.
	Well, for a whole bunch of reasons, and it's too technical to get into here, but the bottom line is, if, as I'm strongly now beginning to suspect, and if our new NASA friends inside who are leaking us this data are beginning to corroborate, the entire Apollo program was designed from the beginning to go to the Moon to verify what the unmanned missions had told NASA and bring home the bacon, meaning land and go inside, find the doorways, go in and bring key things home, Maybe including something from a library?
	Then, Apollo 13 must be viewed now in a radically different light.
	When everybody in this audience, coast to coast, goes to see the movie, I want you to think of one important possibility.
	That instead of that being a stunning accident, which NASA, in its finest hour, managed to retrieve the valuable lives of three genuine American heroes, Maybe, just maybe, that mission was sabotaged by someone so NASA could not complete its secret mission and walk in the front door.
	Well, alright.
	And I have a lot of reasons for thinking that.
	And we don't have time to go into the details, but in some future show we will as further corroboration is beginning to come out.
	Now if that's true, it means that the sudden ending of the Apollo program was basically because we did it.
	We got there, we got where we went there, and we had to end the program so the people would not find out.
	And then we never went back because, of course, you'd never want anybody to find out what was there if Brookings or something like it was in operation.
	You would take this stuff, you'd try to mold it into a secret program, mine the technology, mine the information, produce things, and lo and behold, 30 years later, we suddenly have STS-48 with spacecraft able to accelerate off toward the moon at 14,000 Gs without rockets.
	You think maybe there could be a connection, Art?
	I take it you don't buy their explanation, and I remember the explanation about STS-48 very well.
	As ice crystal?
	Ice crystal, yes.
	No, of course not.
	You have to be an idiot to believe that explanation.
	For a whole bunch of reasons that I've gone into on the tape, and people like Jack Kasher and Mark Carlotto, who are independent physicists who also analyze this data, have come to the same conclusion.
	That we're looking at intelligently propelled vehicles, thousands of miles from the cameras, you know, doing things that we, quote, supposedly can't do.
	Now, let me put a nail in the coffin of another theory that I've heard.
	Okay.
	Which is that we're looking at back-engineered alien spacecraft.
	Right.
	Ever since Roswell, ever since the famed Incident 47, this rumor has hung around this subject like, you know, fleas on a dog.
	Sure.
	That, you know, a genuine UFO, E.T.
	spacecraft, crashed in the desert, was one of several.
	The military has formed teams and they have been picking up bodies and picking up, you know, crashed flying saucers from a super civilization that can go millions of light-years And then suddenly they fall out of the New Mexico skies, right?
	Well, something fell out of the sky.
	Well, but did it or did it not?
	Let's just hold that in abeyance.
	So the theory goes that we then, the military, took this stuff, you know, from New Mexico, funneled it into Wright-Patt Air Force Base outside Dayton.
	Right.
	Hangar 18.
	Yep.
	Very good movie made, by the way, about that.
	With Darren McGavin.
	Oh, yes.
	Worth seeing, okay?
	Yes.
	And that we have been back-engineering the technology.
	And the stuff we see flying over your mountains out there at Groom Lake is basically retrofitted back-engineered alien spacecraft that the Air Force hot jet jockeys have figured out how to fly.
	Right.
	And the engineers like Bob Lazar have figured out how they work.
	Right.
	That's the model.
	That's the theory.
	I don't believe it.
	Let me tell you why.
	Your theory is?
	Let me tell you why I don't believe it.
	Let's assume we have a time machine.
	Let's assume we go back only 50 years.
	And a MiG-21.
	Or a F-16 falls out of the sky over the U.S.
	or Germany.
	Right.
	Could the engineers of that time possibly duplicate an F-16?
	No.
	No, because you wouldn't have the tools to make the tools to make the tools to make, you know, the afterburner, let alone the airlines or the computers.
	They would see these things inside that fly the controls.
	They're made of rock.
	I mean, it's silicon.
	It's the magic, you know.
	Yeah, now we know that silicon has all kinds of wondrous properties.
	It's called chips.
	Right.
	It's called high-tech computers, right?
	Semiconductors.
	Semiconductors.
	But to a vacuum tube culture, you know, black boxes made out of rocks would seem pretty dumb and they wouldn't be able to figure out how to even duplicate it and make it fly.
	Yeah, it'd look like magic.
	Alright, so a spacecraft from civilization millions of years in advance falls out of the sky, the U.S.
	military scarfs it up, puts it in a hanger, and figures out how to build duplicates and make them fly.
	Sorry, I don't buy it.
	But, and here's the but, suppose that did happen.
	And those things sat in the hangar and sat in the hangar and sat in the hangar until Apollo went to the moon and raided some libraries of information specifically designed to let us read them, because that was the design of the guys who left the stuff there.
	We bring the data home.
	In a secret program, we build the machines to build the machines to build the machines to build the stuff that makes the flying saucer fly.
	And at the end of that 30-year process, we have figured out all the intervening steps of technology so we, in fact, can build our own electrogravitic anti-gravity spacecraft.
	That may be more closer to the truth.
	Well, I'm willing to buy that as easily as I am the other.
	Now, there are other things that are suddenly appearing, and we need to do a whole program on the kind of interesting new breakthroughs that are now appearing that don't seem to have any history, and we can't kind of trace where they come from.
	Yes.
	Including a whole range of rather remarkable drugs that have been suddenly appearing in Europe that are only available to a very select few.
	And they don't appear to come with any kind of R&D or any kind of program, they just appear.
	I have been hearing this.
	And I've got some people that may be willing to talk to you.
	And we tried to get one of these into Christopher Reeve, all right, which documentably has helped two people I know who were quadriplegics, hurt in sports accidents, literally get up and walk when the doctor said they would never walk again.
	And there appears to be a very strange horror story going on around one of these drugs called Cygen, that if you take it, it will kill you.
	And my, in suspicious nature, after 11 years, 12 years doing this, I have developed a suspicious nature, Art, says, does someone not want Superman to get up and walk because he would tell the world how he got up and walked with this drug?
	And maybe this drug is too valuable and only a few people want to keep it secret?
	I've heard about Cy Jen.
	Now, you're saying, to cut through it, that These drugs, or the information... We have tried to get Seidman to read them, and I can tell you off the air a whole horror story of what the doctors at the University of Maryland Medical Center have been telling him, which is absolute crap.
	Now, I think the doctors believe the crap, but I think that there are interesting wheels within wheels here, and it all goes back to, what would you see on the visible landscape if Apollo was a program really designed to go to the moon, walk in the front door, bring home the goods, and those goods now are in the hands of a few people and are benefiting.
	Only a few, and not the many.
	Okay, you think this information to create these drugs came from the same, quote, library, end quote, that the information to build the vehicles that we believe are flying around came from?
	It is consistent.
	Same place.
	I don't have a smoking gun.
	I do not have a direct trail.
	I do have photographs taken by a Pentagon mission of stunning clarity now, showing geometric, extraordinary glass-like structures on the moon, covering 300,000 square miles, that tell me and a lot of my colleagues that the game is up And that the moon is made not of green cheese, but of very high-tech stuff.
	And that Apollo... I mean, look at Apollo.
	Look at the anomaly.
	We suddenly have an entire civilization galvanized by a young president to go to the moon and to stop it after only a half a dozen missions.
	An effort that required herculean resources and political chutzpah and all kinds of daring do with supermen going to and from.
	And then, suddenly, as a culture, we all stop doing this and nobody ever goes near the place again.
	All right.
	The Clementine photos.
	We've got to get to them.
	They were somehow leaked to you.
	I'm sure you don't want to say how.
	Well, they were leaked over the Internet by a colleague of mine who was a member of the Mars mission, who until a few days ago was on good speaking terms with me.
	And after I had released this paper and asked his permission to include his name and his company and all that, and made a presentation in Los Angeles, he sent me a fax and called me on the phone and is a man scared to death.
	I asked him point blank, have you been talked to?
	And he assured me that he had not.
	But I have now found through another source that the company that he works for apparently has a very interesting black budget program in tetrahedral hyperdimensional physics.
	I'll be damned.
	I'll be damned.
	And it's not the only weirdness.
	The document you see in front of you, the Clementine paper on the leaked mosaic.
	Yes.
	I had sent six copies by FedEx to a good friend of mine on Capitol Hill, who was a major aid to a congressman, one of the new batch, you know, rebels elected in the November election, when Gingrich and company took control.
	This man adamantly assured me that nothing would stop him, and that he was going for broke to help us get to the bottom of this, and he would push on doors and break down doors until we got to the truth.
	I put him on the trail of tracing the origin of the mosaic we've analyzed in this document.
	No sooner did six copies of this document arrive, and he called me on the phone and told me he had tracked down a version to a company in Arlington which worked for NRL, which of course put Clementine in orbit, and the following morning he was taken into the Congressman's office and fired.
	Oh my.
	Summarily.
	Oh my.
	And he called me shell-shocked, and he said, Dick, I don't know how to tell you this, but I don't have a job.
	Whoever these people are, they have clout.
	They do not want the secret out and they will do almost anything.
	The only way we can defend ourselves and regain control is to demand the truth through the political process and to assist investigations like ours who are attempting to find out what's going on.
	Alright, well, what is, in a word, the secret of the mosaics?
	What do they prove?
	They prove that we're looking at multi-level glass structures extending miles down into the, quote, surface of the moon.
	They prove that over this 300,000 square miles, which is an enormous amount of real estate, this glass-like series of domes pervades the landscape over and over again.
	So, in other words, Clementine did nothing but...
	Underscore everything you've said.
	I think Clementine's reason for existing as a secret government program that came out of nowhere, orbited the moon for two months, took two million images of which you are seeing crap on the internet.
	Hold, hold it right there.
	Hold it, hold it, hold it, we'll be right back.
	Carl Artbell, toll free.
	West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	It is, and my guest is Richard C. Hoagland.
	Back to him in just a moment, and yes, we will get a few calls in this half hour.
	I've got a spot break, I think I'm gonna call guns and carnations coming up, but First, if you want a copy of this, uh, packed full of information program, you can get it by calling one, uh, as a matter of fact, one other thing.
	Either a copy of this program, any Dreamland program, uh, or any guest program, uh, that we've had.
	You can always get it by calling the number I'm about to give you.
	Uh, in addition, I just uploaded all of the color, that's right, color photographs, Uh, that we're going to include in the next issue of our newsletter.
	And you can also order the newsletter for $29.95 at the following number.
	So to get a copy of this program, or to order the newsletter, call 1-800-917-4278.
	Richard.
	Yes, sir.
	Alright.
	eight hundred nine one seven four two seven eight so this poor guy uh... is now out of a job
	uh... out of a job he's just hoping that he will have a job
	No.
	I think this is kind of preventive medicine.
	And, you know, I can't blame him, but this reveals something that people need to think about out there.
	A lot of people, when they get into this, they think of it as either something cute, or what I call the intellectual cocktail party, or whatever.
	Sure, sure.
	In fact, if we are right, then this is the biggest scam in history.
	People have been lied to systematically to prevent them from having information that will radically alter the control of their own lives.
	And I think people have paid the price for this deception.
	And I think that more will pay the price unless enough of us stand up and say, enough.
	All right, Richard, I want to ask you a question.
	Do you ever have quiet moments where you wonder whether you're right?
	In other words, could you be... Not anymore.
	No.
	No?
	I can answer that unequivocally.
	When I take this data to a scientist who has never seen it, someone in NASA, like happened in Seattle.
	Sure.
	And at the end of three, four hours, they literally are almost crying because they understand what they're seeing and they understand what's happened.
	And they basically are reassessing their entire career in NASA.
	There is one guy we talked to who was turned down to be an astronaut.
	He had done everything right.
	He had worked for one of the aerospace companies.
	He'd been an astronaut surrogate, you know, an engineer who basically did everything to go to the moon, test the vehicles, all that.
	He applied to be an astronaut.
	He was turned down.
	We now know why.
	Because he had integrity.
	Because they knew he couldn't and would not keep the secret.
	And this man, all these years, has nursed this desperate, gaping wound.
	Thinking that somehow he didn't measure up.
	I do understand.
	That he was the problem.
	Now he found, after looking at this data, that not only was he not the problem, but he can have the exquisite, elegant satisfaction of helping prove what really is there and moving us to where we should have been 30 years ago.
	And to add to it, the astronauts who have come back, marital problems, drinking problems, psychiatric problems, people like Armstrong who make statements that are, at the very least, totally intriguing.
	As if he's trying to tell us there are incredible things out there.
	Well, it's even more interesting.
	I'm glad you brought up the Armstrong quote, and for those who have not seen it in your audience, let me remind you.
	Let me set the scene here.
	Last year was the 25th anniversary of Apollo 11.
	That's right.
	And on that occasion, Mr. Clinton invited in the Apollo astronauts, and everybody basically had a party in the East Room of the White House.
	That's right.
	And it was broadcast over C-SPAN and CNN, and I've got tapes.
	Armstrong delivered one of his few brief addresses in public since he walked on the moon.
	That's right.
	This has been a man, not only without a country, but a man without a past and future.
	He has literally disappeared and lives on a 300 acre farm in a little place in Ohio and rarely goes out in public and rarely talks to anybody and only comes out on some anniversary where he says about 10 words and then goes back into seclusion.
	Ah, but what words?
	Well, the last time, which was last year, which was literally a month after we'd unveiled our thing at Ohio State, he started his address by the most remarkable comparison.
	And it took me, it took me almost a year to figure this out, Art.
	So I want to share it with you and with your audience.
	You've got to see this tape.
	It's a stunning tape.
	He says, and I can now quote this from memory, have a look at the tape over and over and over again.
	He says, most people say the only bird that can talk is the parrot.
	And he doesn't fly very well.
	Well, I'll be brief, and everybody laughs.
	Translation.
	Neil Armstrong, the first American to land on the moon, is comparing himself to a parrot.
	And what do parrots do, Art?
	They repeat what they're told.
	At the end of this short speech, which is only maybe 20, 30 lines longer, he says that there are secrets You know, on the moon.
	For those that can remove one of truth's protective layers.
	That's exactly right.
	There are places to go beyond belief.
	That's right.
	And when you look at these Clementine images in that document, all 36, all 13 color plates that I put in there, think of those words.
	The most decorated American astronaut, the hero of Apollo, comparing himself and by metonymy all of his other guys to parrots.
	And saying there are places to go beyond belief.
	Well, as people get older, Richard, they come up with new ways to handle what they have to handle.
	Remember the Pueblo?
	Oh, of course.
	Remember this valiant Navy crew that was on this spy ship that somehow wound up inside the three mile, or whatever mile limit the Koreans had?
	Right, so they... Commander Butcher, I think his name was.
	That's correct.
	And, of course, all the guys at the Hanoi Hilton and all that.
	Prisoners of war.
	And what have they done, characteristically?
	They've tried to slip coded messages in to basically say, don't believe us, they're making us say this.
	That's right.
	Neil Armstrong, I swear to you, I firmly believe, based on this data, this evidence, this 12-year investigation, Neil Armstrong last year in the Oval Office, or in the East Room, was telling the American people, don't believe this, we're all parrots.
	They're making us say this.
	I really do agree with that, Richard.
	I really do.
	And they're looking for the cavalry to come over the hill.
	Yep.
	So are we gonna help them?
	I promise.
	These people are prisoners of the system.
	Richard, stop.
	You are going to now take a call.
	Okay.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hello.
	Oh, yes.
	Good morning, Art.
	This is Karen in Houston again.
	How are you?
	Fine, Karen.
	All right.
	I'm glad Mr. Hogan's still on the line.
	I don't have your program here now, but... I understand.
	Okay.
	I've got a comment to make, a short comment that I have a, I think, a really good question to ask Mr. Hogan.
	All right.
	Quickly.
	All right.
	Back in 1977 in November, I was on an airplane flight back to Houston from San Diego, and I sat next to a fine elderly gentleman who was retired Brigadier General out of the U.S.
	Air Force.
	Yes.
	His name was Goddard.
	And he told me about space photography.
	He was one of the pioneers in aerial and space photography.
	And he told me that if you're ever shown blurry photography, don't believe it.
	So I have a good standing, and I'm a believer.
	I'm like Mr. Hoagland.
	You know, I know better.
	All right.
	And your question?
	Okay.
	The planet that crashed, or the heavenly body that crashed Earth and gave us the seeds of life, according to Sitchin, that was Marduk.
	And in the Bible, we're told that a star is, in the end times, going to be hurdled back at us.
	And the name is Wormwood.
	Now, people are tying Marduk in with Wormwood.
	And also, in Native American traditions, the Native American bear dance, they use Wormwood switches to get rid of all negative and all bad things.
	It's a cleansing plant.
	So, if Wormwood the star, coming back at us, is to do a cleansing, would that not tie in biblical and everything?
	Well, it is interesting, and I know you went and visited the Hopi.
	Yeah, that's a long and complex answer that I would have to give, because when you begin to deal in mythologies, and, you know, Sitchin is decoding Sumerian stuff, she's making allusions to the Hopi, and the Wyrmwood reference in biblical traditions is, of course, Judeo-Christian, things get murky.
	I mean, I am dealing with things that stand still.
	We can kick the tires, we can see the structures, we can see the geometry.
	We've got umpteen photographs now to confirm what's there.
	In terms of meaning, I would prefer to leave that alone for the time being, because we don't have time to do it justice.
	Alright, well, I do want to go this way.
	Now you've got the Clementine stuff, you've got more proof, it seems to me you've got so much proof it's beginning to get to be ridiculous for anybody to sit down and look at it all and not believe.
	Well, let me take you to the next step.
	Yeah, how do you get it out?
	Well, let me tell you where we're going from here.
	The investigation continues.
	Getting it out is frankly less a problem than doing good research and figuring out the last pieces
	of the puzzle.
	What we have here, of course, is the major question, why are they lying?
	I'm coming to believe, Art, that Brookings is only a partial answer.
	And for the rest of the answer, I would like you to make me promise
	that you're going to read a book by a friend of mine, Graham Hancock,
	called Fingerprints of the God.
	Oh, you are going to get me a number?
	I have that number.
	All right, then I will hold you on the line after the program.
	I have a number, and you can reach him at that number, and I got another number for you.
	All right.
	I talked to him.
	I've asked him if he'll talk to you.
	He would love to.
	Good.
	Graham Hancock is a former reporter for the London Economist, which is about as mainstream as you can get.
	That's right.
	He is also a reporter for the London Sunday Times.
	Right.
	Which is about as stiff as you can get.
	It certainly is.
	Makes the New York Times look a bit tabloid by comparison.
	This man has done a phenomenal piece of independent research.
	He's spent about five years putting together a thesis documented in this book that basically this planet has been host to prior high-tech civilizations.
	Plural.
	It's called Fingerprints of the Gods.
	Published by Crown 1995.
	There is an elegant confluence, a convergence between what Graham has figured out with colleagues like Robert Paval, Who has published a book called The Orion Mystery, that I commend to everybody's attention, that was published also by Crown last year, and what Hancock has figured out in the book published this year.
	We're seeing a parallel convergent trail of evidence.
	We're beginning to figure out, from artifacts scattered around this world, that maybe somebody, if they found some stuff they haven't told us on this planet, had intimations of stuff out in the other parts of the solar system, Which was the reason for the beginning of the space program itself.
	And part of what our newfound friends in NASA have been providing is a documentary paper trail showing that whoever set up the space program, and specifically Apollo, knew from the beginning what they were going to find on the moon.
	And when I get to the right stage where I have these people who will stand with us, we are going to blow the doors off this thing.
	With a little help from our friends.
	All right.
	Well, I indeed will contact Graham and we'll set something up with him.
	In the meantime, we're short on time.
	I know you've got tapes and stuff.
	How do people get them?
	You call 1-800-424-0031 and just ask for Operator 12.
	All right?
	0 0 3 1 and just ask for operator 12 all right 1 800 4 2 4 0 0 3 1 ask for operator 12
	And when you get Operator 12, what do you want?
	You just ask for, you know, anything related to the investigation of Mars, the Moon, with my name associated, with Mars mission, the Ohio State presentation, the UN presentation, the NASA presentations.
	The Clementine paper is not part of that network, because of certain logistical problems.
	You can get that by either sending me a fax here at the Mars mission, which is 1201-271-1703, Or if you're a subscriber to the Art Bell newsletter, there is an article on the Clementine data with an address at the back of the article.
	That's right.
	I understand.
	That is correct.
	Okay.
	Or you can call Art and bug him and he'll tell you the number.
	Thanks.
	On the wildcard line... Hey, my fax machine has been going off ever since you had me dumb enough to put our fax number out there.
	Yeah.
	On the wildcard line, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	Hi, Richard.
	Hi there.
	I was fortunate enough to be in L.A.
	at the time when you originally broke this on KCRW.
	Uh-huh.
	And during that time, it was said that the Brookings Report actually, you know, phrased it as, in 20 years, we would find this on Mars.
	Yeah, that's a very interesting point.
	They did put a time limit, and they said that definitively in the next 20 years.
	And that kind of intrigued me then, and it intrigues me even more now.
	It's almost like maybe somebody had a timetable or a game plan or something.
	Yeah, that's just a thought.
	OK.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Oh, hello.
	This is Howard calling from Honolulu.
	Let's see, are there points on the human body that would resemble the 19.5 degree?
	Would they be chakra points?
	All right, well, number one, you're west of the Rockies by a long shot if you're in Honolulu.
	But what about 19.5 on a human body?
	Anything there?
	Not that I know of.
	That is a stretch.
	All right.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Good morning, Art.
	Good morning, Richard.
	Good morning.
	Can I ask something slightly more esoteric?
	Sure.
	Were you familiar with the DCX program, the Delta Clipper Experimental?
	Very tangentially.
	Refresh our memories.
	It's a single stage to orbit.
	Oh, yeah, the one that Pete Conrad's involved with.
	Yes, sir.
	I've been rather incredulous that it's not gone anywhere.
	I haven't heard anything in a year or two, and I was curious.
	Yeah, well, a friend of mine is going to be hobnobbing with Pete Conrad in the next few days down in Las Cruces, and one of the things I'm going to have him ask Conrad is what the hell is going on with the Delta Clipper.
	This is a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle which can go into orbit and come back down and land on its tail fins on a rocket.
	And can land on a runway, as opposed to landing in the ocean like Apollo.
	Gee, just like the old movies, huh?
	Exactly.
	And yet, just as they got the program going and it demonstrated a stunning technological achievement, they cut off the money.
	Nobody wants us to go to space, Art, because it would tip off the big secret.
	We're not supposed to know we had company.
	In fact, if the truths were known, I'm beginning to think that a lot of what we're looking at out there is our own stuff.
	If Hancock is right, if there were previous high-tech civilizations, that ended, you know, in the last hundred thousand years on this planet through mysterious means, which you won't understand until you read the whole book, then it's obvious that we might be looking at fragments of our own stuff, a hidden history of the human race, as Thompson and Cremo have termed it.
	So many believe that.
	Well, there is evidence beginning to accumulate.
	There is a growing body.
	That's right.
	And, you know, again, it's not going to get out in the open until we all demand that this nonsense stop.
	That real inquiry, real science, real research, be unfettered, and we be allowed our birthright, our heritage.
	Well, listen, my friend, there's never enough time.
	There are always three or four programs you could do, growing from the one you just did.
	So, no doubt we'll do it again, but we're out of time.
	Well, get Graham on, and after you and he chat, and your audience sees what piece that is going to be, we will talk again, because we will have new news by that time.
	Richard Hoagland, it's always a pleasure.
	The same here, Art.
	Thank you, my friend.
	And stay on the line.
	I will.
	All right, good.
	I've got to get that number from you, so let me be sure you stay on the line.
	There we go.
	All right, everybody.
	I'm terribly sorry.
	We are out of time.
	As he just mentioned, and I want to mention again, take a second to do it, there's just a vast array of material in our newsletter.
	And we are now publishing in color.
	I wanted to add that as well.
	So, if you would like to subscribe to the newsletter, which is something like $29.95 a year, or if you would like to get a copy of the program, the last five hours, at least some portion of which I'm sure you just heard, which is very valuable, you can call 24 hours a day, 1-800-917-4278.
	I recommend it highly.
	1-800-917-4278. I recommend it highly.
	Once again, 1-800-917-4278.
	And I will also repeat the number for Richard Hoagland's material, which is 1-800-424-0031, operator 12.
	That's 1-800-424-0031, operator 12.
	And don't forget, we've got a bulletin board service up.
	That's 1-800-424-0031, operator 12.
	And don't forget, we've got a bulletin board service up, photographs, literally hundreds of them up there now,
	all kinds of information that relates to this program, Dreamland,
	and just about everything we do.
	And that telephone number is area code 702-727-1709.
	It's not internet, it's a private bulletin board system with five nodes devoted entirely to the kind of stuff we do here.
	So whether it's to up or download, that's the place, folks.
	Area code 702-727-1709.
	As usual, it's been a great, great pleasure.
	Very much enjoyed doing this program.
	It was, uh, information heavy.
	And we didn't take a lot of calls, and for that I apologize.
	Only a little bit.
	Because calls are what we usually do.
	And we'll be back to it next week on this program.
	Don't forget Dreamland Sunday.
	Thank you all from the high desert.

▲