Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 31, 1995 - Art Bell

02:42:00

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - 1947 Roswell Crash - Rep. Steven Schiff - Waco

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	The night featuring Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	From the high desert and the great American Southwest.
	Radiating from Tahiti and the Hawaiian Islands, going west.
	To the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands in the east.
	South, well into South America, and North, we fully believe, to the North Pole.
	We'll have to wait and get a report on that one, but I'm sure it makes it.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Keeping the name.
	Getting bigger.
	Just deciding it includes other coasts.
	Welcome everybody, good to have you.
	It's a brand new week.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is live, unscreened, talk radio.
	Now, We are welcoming, let me see, KVNA AM, Flagstaff, Arizona, to the network.
	Hello everybody in Flagstaff!
	Big one, 10 kilowatts on 600 from Flagstaff.
	That was kind of a, kind of a little bit of a hole where it was hard to hear down there.
	Not anymore.
	WARA AM in Attleboro, Massachusetts.
	Now, this also is a big one.
	5KW blazing into Providence, Rhode Island on 1320.
	Attleboro, Massachusetts.
	Providence, Rhode Island.
	Welcome.
	And WAZL in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
	How about that?
	Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
	1490 on the dial.
	Also welcome to the network as we continue to grow at an outrageous rate.
	200, here we come.
	There's going to be a big party here in, we think, a few days, actually.
	Let us begin with Roswell, once again, this evening.
	Because I have Congressman Schiff on the phone.
	Stephen Schiff from New Mexico.
	Now, for those of you that know about Roswell, you already know about Congressman Schiff.
	I think the best way to tell the story is, to those who don't, is to just simply get him on the air.
	Genesis of how all this began.
	Congressman Schiff, welcome to Coast to Coast AM.
	Good morning, R. Thank you for having me on your program.
	Well, I think you're a good person to get up at 2 o'clock in the morning back there.
	Well, let me say first, I know we owe you one.
	I want to say to you and to your listeners, I apologize.
	I was supposed to be on last evening, and a miscommunication solely on our side.
	Well, that's all right.
	I didn't realize it was confirmed.
	Glad to be on tonight.
	Glad to have you, and I know it's a particular stress because I know you're on the WACO hearings committee, and I think they on occasion go all night.
	Congress goes all night, and so it's rough.
	All right, Congressman, let's go back a little bit before we get to what's happened, and one of the reasons I want to have you on.
	How in the world did you get involved In the beginning, in all of this, in other words, why call for an investigation into what happened in Roswell?
	What piqued your interest?
	Well, first, I just want to get in on one thing and hope we can get to it at some point, but this is just for listeners in New Mexico.
	There was an article in the Albuquerque Journal, Saturday morning, Written by a gentleman named Richard Parker, who's the Albuquerque Journal's Washington correspondent, about the general accounting report that I received Friday and released Friday, that states my conclusion that this was a balloon, and I have never stated any conclusion.
	So, to say the least, this article is way off.
	So, at the appropriate time, I'd like to go back and explain what I did there.
	Oh, we absolutely will.
	But starting at the beginning, as you asked, I must say I've never asked For an investigation of the Roswell incident in those terms.
	What I asked for was what government records might still exist about the Roswell incident so that I can make those public.
	Which I've now done.
	Why were you curious?
	Was it a constituent?
	This goes back now to the end of 1993.
	of 1993 and I started receiving letters from inside of New Mexico and from outside about
	the Roswell incident.
	I'm originally from Chicago, but I've lived in New Mexico and Albuquerque for over 26 years, so I've heard of the Roswell Incident.
	And again, as you said, for listeners who might not be familiar with it, the Roswell Incident was 1947.
	1947 and there are two things that are not in dispute about it.
	First is something crashed in 1947 near Roswell.
	And Roswell is located in Southeast New Mexico.
	The second thing that is not contested is that the Army Air Corps from, obviously now the U.S.
	Air Force, from Roswell Army Airfield put out a press release that day that called what crashed a flying disk.
	Those are their words.
	And flying disc, we would say today, flying saucer.
	That's exactly what they meant.
	An extraterrestrial visitation.
	And needless to say, that created quite a commotion back in 1947, as it would at any time.
	Sure.
	And about, oh, eight hours after the Army Air Corps said it was a flying disc, they came out with a statement that said, oops, we made a mistake.
	It wasn't a flying disc, it was a weather balloon.
	Which, of course, raises the question, can't somebody tell a weather balloon from a flying saucer?
	But those faxes I have given them to you are uncontested.
	After that, the disagreement begins.
	There are many people who believe that that was really a flying saucer, and in some cases, some people believe, complete with alien bodies from the crash.
	There are other people who do not necessarily accept the flying saucer theory, or extraterrestrial visit theory, but they don't believe the weather balloon Theory either, which turned out to be, at the very least, that turned out to be appropriate thinking, because the military rejected the weather balloon theory recently.
	That didn't mean they adopted an extraterrestrial visit.
	Well, yeah, but they re-adopted the weather balloon.
	They said, well, it wasn't a weather balloon, it was a special balloon.
	Right, with some differences, and that leads to where the Albuquerque Journal story is all wrong, I think.
	But I got these requests.
	What the requests were, were everyone who wrote said, The military is not telling us the truth about Roswell.
	It is not a weather balloon.
	And as I said, the military has at least conceded that point much later.
	Now, it is quite clear, Art, that a number of the people who wrote believe this was an extraterrestrial visitation.
	Yes.
	I don't think necessarily all of them did.
	But they all had in common that they felt that it wasn't what they were told.
	it wasn't weather balloon. So, I put a letter to the Secretary of Defense, and the late
	Les Aspett, telling him about what people were saying, were writing to me, and asking
	for, could you send me back an official explanation of Roswell, and then I'll pass it on back
	to these people for contacting me.
	Okay.
	And, as a side note, having lived in New Mexico for many years, I knew what the Roswell incident was.
	I didn't know how prominent it had become.
	I didn't know, for example, that a TV network was preparing a movie about it, or that books had been written about it.
	Actually, I viewed this as, although somewhat different, I suppose, in subject matter, otherwise a routine request.
	We in Congress, of both parties.
	So it was really a constituent service.
	Exactly.
	Nothing unusual.
	The subject matter was a bit unusual.
	But people write to us in Congress, in both parties, regularly, and say, I would like information about a certain subject.
	And we go to that agency, and the agency sends us information.
	We send it back to the constituent.
	And that literally happens day in and day out in Congress.
	Sure.
	And I thought that this would be just as routine.
	And so when I sent my request to Secretary Astin, I thought that this would be, you know, nothing out of the ordinary.
	In fact, I thought the explanation would be, we've looked into it over the years, and here's what it is, and please send that to your constituent.
	Now, that's what I thought was going to happen.
	That is not what actually happened.
	I thought this was a routine request, and we do this day in and day out.
	But the response I got from the military was anything but routine.
	Can you describe it?
	Certainly.
	I got a response back from the Air Force, and I have no problem with that, that the Secretary of Defense sent something to the Air Force.
	That's also routine.
	The Air Force sent back about a one-sentence letter that said, We sent your request about Roswell to the National Archives.
	Period.
	To say the least, I was taken back by this, and I was taken back because First of all, I didn't write to the National Archives.
	I wrote to the Department of Defense.
	You expected an answer from them.
	I expected an answer from the Department of Defense.
	Second of all, there's normally a certain protocol of offer to help when there's a congressional inquiry.
	And this one basically said, you know, why is this on my desk?
	We sent it over to the National Archives.
	And one columnist described me as offended by that.
	I wasn't offended.
	I was surprised.
	So I wrote again to the Secretary of Defense, and I said, is this the answer you really intend to stand from the inquiry I made?
	And I got back another letter from a special assistant to Secretary Aspin that you might say was written in more diplomatic language, but potentially said the same thing.
	Go check with the National Archives.
	So, okay, I can get a hint.
	So I contacted the National Archives.
	The National Archives responded that they don't have any information about Roswell.
	And they ended it, there was a rather...
	I can find it in context, humorous statement in the letter that said, to me from the National Archives, you know, Congressman, we've received a lot of requests lately at the National Archives about the Roswell incident.
	And I'm thinking, well, if the Defense Department is sending everybody to you, I'm not entirely surprised.
	And in fact, I found out, I didn't know at the time, but a number of members of Congress had written to the Defense Department and they also referred to the National Archives.
	But I knew I knew at the very least that I'd been given a runaround.
	I mean, I knew that the military had no, that the National Archives had no information.
	So here I've written twice to the Defense Department just saying, what happened?
	Not in any hostile frame of mind.
	And I get sent to an agency that has no information.
	And at this point, I was not happy.
	Can I put it to you that way?
	Not happy.
	Not happy at all.
	And the question is, what do you do about it?
	Well, a lot of us, by the way, that write to some of you, and this is certainly not a slam at you at all, Congressman, get very similar responses, I might add.
	Well, I hope we all, of both parties, try to serve our constituents.
	It's part of the obligation of the office, I think.
	This was all in about, oh, late 1993.
	One would imagine that a congressman, though, would get a sort of a decent response of some kind.
	Normally, we do.
	At the end of 1993, I was meeting with some General Accounting Office officials.
	The General Accounting Office, or GAO, is the investigative arm of the U.S.
	Congress.
	And my experience with them has been very good in the past.
	I haven't gone to them much, but when I've gone to them, my response has been very professional.
	Excuse me, from the GAO.
	It's a follow-the-money deal.
	GAO... I guess if something happened at Roswell, there would have to be records of... Well, that's what I told them.
	I was meeting with GAO officials on other subjects, and while they were in the office, I told them about this problem with Roswell.
	And I said, you know, there ought to be records of what happened, no matter what they said.
	I mean, here at the very least, There should have been an OSHOOT memorandum.
	I may have described it slightly differently to the GAO, but at the very least, if everything happened the way the Army Air Corps said, somebody at the Roswell Army Airfield has to explain to their superiors why the best bomb group in the United States Army Air Corps, the only bomb group carrying nuclear weapons at that time, doesn't know a weather balloon from a flying saucer.
	At this point, there's a lot of explaining to do.
	At the very least.
	I said there ought to be records of all of this.
	And so I asked the General Accounting Office, still in late 1993, would you be willing to do essentially a search for records?
	And that's what this was all about.
	It was about the General Accounting Office, at my request, trying to find what records exist, if any.
	They were receptive to the idea.
	Oh, I imagine there was a little bit of hesitation just because the subject matter was, again, unusual from a government point of view.
	Sure.
	But we talked about that.
	In fact, I've got to tell you, Art, when I first got the request and decided to get into it, I took a deep breath.
	Uh, because I know that, uh, new then, that you get involved anywhere near flying saucers and little green men.
	That's right.
	You know, you're, you're, you're subject to ridicule.
	That's right.
	And a little bit of the Kurd, but frankly, there's a lot, there's a different issue here.
	And the different issue is, people have a right in a free country to information about what their government is doing at all times, save only, when there's an immediate security need for, for classification.
	I think most of us would agree with that.
	And it doesn't matter what the subject is.
	In other words, nobody in government has the right to arbitrarily say, that's such an unimportant or off-the-wall subject, I'm not going to provide the information.
	I mean, not in this country, I wouldn't think.
	It should not be.
	Exactly, and the GAO agreed with that.
	And so the GAO went off to see what they could find, although I have to tell you, because this was still late 1993, the reason for the delay, we're now a year and a half later, is that this is a 50-year-old incident.
	And that by itself means you've got to look in some nooks and crannies.
	And I told them, I cannot ask you to drop what you're doing to look for records on Roswell.
	You might have more current requests pending for information from other members of Congress.
	So what I ask you to do is look for it if you have time.
	And so to a great extent, that explains the time frame here.
	I didn't press them.
	They just drop everything.
	Sure.
	And go looking for this.
	I said, you know, if you have other requests, if someone needs something about the DOD right now, go get it for them.
	As soon as you can get it done, yes.
	Exactly.
	And that brings us to the, I suppose, to the other end now, to yesterday.
	As a matter of fact, or Friday, excuse me, Friday, the GAO gave me their report.
	And under their regulations, I had 30 days to keep it secret, essentially, While I, you know, could do whatever I wanted to do with it, and before it became public, automatically.
	I didn't take the 30 days.
	After the time it did go by, as soon as I got it, I got it out in a couple of hours.
	I wanted to read it first, and then do a press statement just summarizing it.
	Essentially, when I got it, everybody got it.
	Alright, well, the big news seems to be that The records, or at least what I derive to be the big news, the records of the particular time in question, a couple of years of them, that were supposed to be permanently held records, and you stop me where I'm wrong, were unaccountably, with unknown authority, destroyed.
	Is that right or wrong?
	You got it right.
	Although, here's where I'd like to interject the correction to the Albuquerque Journal article.
	The journal article says that I concluded, that I personally concluded, that this was a balloon.
	And the balloon they're talking about comes this way.
	In September of 1994, this is several months after I've asked the GAO to do this investigation, the Air Force issued a new report.
	And the new report said that they admitted that this was not a weather balloon.
	Which is interesting, because that's what they've been saying for almost 50 years, that it was a weather balloon.
	Correct.
	And a weather balloon, by the way, never fit the circumstances.
	This doesn't mean that it had to be an extraterrestrial, but there is really, in my mind, a great deal of testimony that at the crash site, there was a high degree of military security, that the remnants of what were taken were flown on a single plane, Off to be examined at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, ultimately.
	Now, you don't do that with a weather balloon.
	You don't treat a weather balloon that way.
	No.
	And so, it was obvious to me that it wasn't a weather balloon.
	I don't even know if you reuse them.
	You don't do... Right.
	I wouldn't know, but I don't think you have... There were a number of people who said security was stopping people on the roads going towards the crash site.
	And that doesn't happen for a weather balloon.
	And so, that part of it didn't surprise me.
	What the Air Force said the crashed vehicle was, was still a balloon, but a much different balloon than a weather balloon, as they describe it.
	They described it as a then classified military project to determine if the Soviets were exploding nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.
	And as they described it, this balloon is greatly larger than a weather balloon because it's intended for high altitude flight, higher than weather balloons go.
	And it carried equipment different than a radar tracking device, simply, which is what a weather balloon would carry, again, as I understand it.
	And in September of 1994, the Air Force said, you know, this is what it was, it was not a weather balloon.
	And just to, again, briefly state this, because I know many of your listeners are not from New Mexico, the article in the Albuquerque Journal stated that I concluded that it was this second balloon.
	And the headline is, Schiff, the crash with the balloon, flat wrong.
	What I did say was, and the only conclusion I've ever stated, is that I didn't believe the weather balloon story.
	That is not the same.
	As saying, therefore I do believe a new explanation.
	Did the journal contact your office or talk to you prior to the article?
	No, they got it from the press release and the... Gee.
	Well, really, this is a quote.
	Same press release?
	I'm going to take an extra second if you don't mind.
	Just read this to me.
	No, go ahead.
	This is reading from the Albuquerque Journal article.
	It said, shift concluded after receiving the report, colon, but not in quotes.
	It was a crash of a classified Cold War device.
	And here's the quote.
	At least this effort caused the Air Force to acknowledge that the crashed vehicle was no weather balloon, Schiff said.
	Well, the quote is accurate, but the quote didn't say what the journal said it said.
	I mean, the quote says, I agree it's not a weather balloon.
	The quote doesn't say I concluded therefore it is the new balloon.
	Newspaper people are so creative.
	Well, but in addition to that, let me tell you, the headline was Schiff colon Roswell UFO balloon, which is inaccurate, but let me read the The headlines kind of tell you what the rest of the story says.
	All right, can you hold on to that for a moment, Congressman?
	We've got one of these network breakdowns.
	All right.
	Okay, we're going to break here and come back and get the rest of the story.
	Congressman shit, New Mexico, Congressman shit.
	What an answer it is they've given.
	Well, it wasn't a balloon.
	Well, it was a balloon.
	Well, Didn't happen?
	Did happen.
	We'll be back.
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	Welcome to the Coast to Coast AM Concert.
	The Coast to Coast AM Concert is a production of the U.S.
	Department of State.
	The concert will be performed by the Coast to Coast Amphitheater.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM, from July 31st, 1995.
	New Mexico's Congressman Stephen Schiff is our guest.
	We're talking about Roswell right now.
	But hang tight, he also just happens to be on the WACO committee.
	We're gonna touch on that too.
	lots to talk about back now to washington
	and congressman ship Bye.
	Congressman.
	Yes, sir.
	I'd like to take just one more moment about the Albuquerque Journal, and then go on, but that's also because, not just because I'm a New Mexican, obviously, but that story got all over the country, so it's being reported in stations that aren't in New Mexico, and perhaps your listeners elsewhere.
	That's right.
	In a nutshell, the story said that I concluded that the crashed vehicle was this new Air Force explanation of a ...of a detection device for Soviet nuclear testing.
	Absolutely not true.
	What I did say was I never believed the original weather balloon story, which does not convert into accepting the new story at face value.
	That was the creation of the author.
	Thank you for letting me get all that out there.
	I have to correct that.
	Now here is what is in the report.
	...from this era that still existed.
	One was an FBI teletype And one was, it seemed to be like an internal newsletter on the base, sort of a chatty newsletter.
	Both of those referred to a balloon with a radar tracking device.
	That means, I'm told, weather balloon.
	In other words, both those references were to weather balloons.
	We know, from what the Air Force told us last year, it wasn't a weather balloon.
	So that would have been earlier cooked stuff for the original cover story?
	It could well have been.
	This does not mean that the people who wrote those articles so many years ago were lying to their constituency, if you will.
	It may mean that they were simply repeating what they were told when the Air Force, I'll say Air Force, but I mean Army Air Corps then, when the Air Force retracted its original flying disc story and said it was a weather balloon.
	In my judgment, the most potentially significant records possible were not found.
	And the military can give no explanation as to who destroyed them or under what authority.
	It's my understanding the records I'm about to talk about were supposed to be permanent records, which mean not destroyed by anyone.
	And what I'm talking about are the outgoing messages from Roswell Army Airfield messages are an internal military communication system like a telegraph and I told the GAO that if we're going to find something the most likely place to find something was there because no matter what happened there was enough national and even international interest in this
	That the military at Roswell would have been having to explain to all their higher-ups what's going on here.
	Absolutely.
	And I said, go look, even if it was, oh my goodness, you know what we did?
	We just called the weather balloon a flying saucer.
	Whatever the explanation was, look there.
	And someone asked me, how do you know they wouldn't just use the telephone?
	And that's a fair question.
	The answer to me is, They probably used both because there was a great deal of publicity after the Air Force, Army Air Corps said this was a flying disc.
	So, one advantage of a message is you can hit a number of your higher headquarters at one time.
	So it could not be fairly concluded then that there simply was no paper trail at all, that there was nothing destroyed because there was nothing to destroy.
	Well, the outgoing messages would have been all the messages that were sent from Roswell Army Airfield that year.
	And so it seemed possible.
	On whatever subject.
	And I just thought that'd be a good place to look.
	Sure.
	Particularly, I have a military background and another life.
	And the GAO reported that those records had been destroyed.
	And they said that they were destroyed without proper authority.
	Now, without proper authority means...
	The military can't tell you who destroyed them or why.
	The military's response on that is essentially that other records were destroyed too.
	In other words, the military can't offer any explanation as to why these messages don't exist, but they said, well, the 1950 year outgoing messages from Roswell Army Airfield were also destroyed.
	And they were also destroyed without proper entries being made as to who destroyed them and under what authority.
	I, too, have a military background, and so I'll ask you this.
	How unusual a circumstance is it that records covering that period of a time for any base would be, without authority or known authority, destroyed?
	How unusual is it for this to have been done?
	Well, I can't really say.
	This goes back before my military career.
	The GAO estimated, after talking with the Air Force Archivist, that the records were in fact destroyed over 40 years ago.
	The records were probably destroyed, you know, before they said about 1956, but we don't know exactly when.
	So I don't know how common it was to be destroying records that perhaps shouldn't have been destroyed more than 40 years ago.
	A major problem, of course, is since the GAO has estimated that they were destroyed decades ago, They have really suggested no way of going further into this.
	I mean, it's not as if I can just call somebody into a congressional hearing and say, why did you destroy these day before yesterday?
	It appears that they were destroyed decades ago, and we don't have an answer.
	The Air Force implies that the destruction of records during this era was common.
	The only example they cite was Roswell for the year 1950.
	But they, they, and in fact, the batch these were in, the records were destroyed from late 46 to early 49.
	Um, and then the Air Force in 1950 was destroyed.
	And that's their explanation.
	And I simply am unable to take it any further.
	So you're stuck at this point?
	Uh, I really am.
	I really think we've taken it as far as we can take it.
	I would say there is one other, with respect to records, accomplishment here, and that is certain agents Do you have anything on the Roswell incident?
	And time after time I saw the report, they came back and said no.
	It's my understanding by those who've studied this incident far more than I have, that for example the Central Intelligence Agency, which says in this report that they have no records on Roswell, was never point-blank asked and responded in the past.
	And so that would be an accomplishment as, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation I think probably the most important accomplishment was going back here to the fact that the Air Force acknowledged this wasn't a weather balloon.
	and essentially they say no, except that they did recognize the teletype I referred to a moment ago.
	I think probably the most important accomplishment was going back here
	to the fact that the Air Force acknowledged this wasn't a weather balloon.
	And it didn't take a rocket scientist, as they say, to come to that conclusion.
	But that was the first time that the military has said it wasn't what we've been saying for almost 50 years.
	All right, well, there is a survey out, just breaking news this morning, that about three out of four people do not trust the government.
	You are part of the government.
	So, on behalf of the government, how do you respond to that?
	I mean, Roswell is a perfect situation that fits right into the mold, and we could go through the years and come forward to Waco today.
	And three out of four Americans don't trust the government.
	Should we believe this story, in your opinion, about the destroyed records?
	Well, I have to hold on one more second.
	Sure.
	Excuse me.
	No problem.
	I have no way of Resolving it.
	I mean, all I can do is put out there what the military told me.
	That they were destroyed, and if not according to policy, at least not malevolently, is what they suggest.
	But you know, I'm part of the government, too.
	And that's one reason I got into this.
	As we talked about earlier, I decided that people have a right to information from their government.
	No one has the right to arbitrarily sit there and decide if the subject matter is important enough.
	Within the government, will we bother ourselves to provide the information?
	And I think, to a great extent, that was what the military did when they just passed me off to the National Archives when I originally went into this.
	And my idea is, I'm trying to get out everything I can.
	And we appreciate that, certainly, but you name the subject, Whitewater, the Nixon years, even now with Waco, and a million others, Things, gee whiz, blank videotapes, blank audiotapes.
	Rosemary Woods wasn't old enough to have had anything to do with Roswell, but I mean, it's just three out of four Americans just don't trust and believe the government, and should they?
	Well, certainly in this particular instance, but let's stay with this one.
	Fine.
	Even if there was no cover up here, The Air Force acted like there was a cover-up.
	And that's just as bad, because it puts that idea in people's minds.
	In other words, when I first wrote to the military, they should have responded with whatever they were going to respond with.
	And when they don't do that, when they send, in this case, me, but also a number of other members of Congress, I have since learned, to an agency, the National Archives, which has no information on this subject, what are people supposed to think?
	And so, there's no way I can definitively resolve the matter should you trust your government.
	The government hasn't acted like it ought to be trusted.
	Well, that's right.
	So how would you sum up your personal response?
	Would the word continued suspicion, would those words be appropriate?
	I would use the word unresolved.
	I have brought forward all the records that the GAO could find.
	I've brought forward an explanation of what I asked them to look for that they can't find.
	And, as I said, people can form their own conclusion.
	And some people will say, this is an understandable mistake and that's all there was to it when the record was destroyed.
	Others will say, it's part of a continuing government conspiracy not to tell the public about Roswell.
	I can't resolve that.
	All I can do is Make the GAO report available, as I promised to do, and people can come to their own conclusions.
	There are a lot of people in America who believe that there is a government behind our government, behind the elected representatives, even behind the president.
	I know that's a big handful of a question, but do you ever wonder about things like that yourself, Congressman?
	Well, there's not anyone behind me.
	And I get one of 435 votes in the House floor.
	And I have not seen the evidence of what you're talking about.
	I've heard people talk about it.
	But not as far as I can see.
	When you guys are together in the now, no doubt, no longer smoke-filled rooms and just chatting among yourselves, is this ever a subject of conversation?
	Well, I think there are suspicions about other branches of government.
	I don't remember anyone ever sitting down and saying, we're not members of Congress, but someone is controlling the Congress.
	I remember a number of people wondering what's going on at the White House, and maybe they sit around wondering what we're doing.
	I'm sure they do a lot lately, as a matter of fact.
	All right, onward.
	I guess it stops where it stops until somebody figures out how to go further with this.
	Well, and there's a possibility that could happen.
	The GAO told me.
	That about 20 members of Congress had registered requests with them for copies of the report when it was available.
	Therefore, a number of members are already showing interest in it, and they might have a suggestion.
	And that brings me to the how-to-order part, if I can take a second here.
	You certainly may.
	The GAO says that people may request this report, and I'm reading now from the back cover of the report.
	It says the first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free, and then they say additional copies are $2 each.
	And they say the order should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check for the superintendent document.
	They mean, of course, if you're ordering more than one.
	But if you want one, it's free.
	If you want one, I'm going to give it to you right here, so let me just give people a second to get a pencil and paper if they want to.
	Now, here is where to write, and I'm just reading this out of the report, to order by mail, write to the United States General Accounting Office, P.O.
	box all one five
	gators bird maryland and here's the zip code
	they've got nine digits here to all eight eight four
	six all one five
	and this is the the uh...
	the image of the full name of the report in the document number which
	probably most important thing here The document is entitled, Results of a Search for Records Concerning the 1947 Crash Near Roswell, New Mexico.
	And it has an identification number as follows, GAO slash NSIAD dash 95 dash 187.
	And they say that's how you order one.
	We've had some delivered to our office in Washington.
	We're sending them to Albuquerque.
	First come, first served basis.
	We'll hand them out to whoever comes by.
	But that's how to get more of them.
	Excellent.
	All right.
	There is in London right now, in England, a man named Ray Santilli, who I had the pleasure of interviewing here not long ago.
	He claims to have come up with this film of the Roswell crash.
	Now while the film is not out and won't be for a while yet for the general public there are still photographs that are circulating that as a matter of fact he gave me permission to publish in our newsletter and they are fascinating and uh... I don't know what to say of them except that when I saw them I was shocked because instead of the typical little gray guys or green guys or whatever anybody generally in the UFO community expects to see this thing appears to be Almost human.
	Eerily almost human.
	And I know that, or I believe that you've seen some of these photographs.
	How do you react?
	I saw the video.
	Oh, you saw the video?
	An associate of Mr. Santilli, and it's my understanding that this film, which is purported to be an autopsy of an alien, will be available, well available, maybe available now on videocassette.
	That's not a joke.
	I think they might be You're telling it right now.
	That's right.
	But it's intended for use in a British documentary about Roswell.
	Channel 4, I think.
	That I understand will be shown in the United Kingdom next month.
	That's right.
	Meaning August.
	And I've been told that Fox Broadcasting has purchased the U.S.
	rights to this film, so I think it will be out here shortly.
	Well, how'd you react?
	I mean, you've seen something we haven't seen yet.
	How would you describe your reaction to it?
	Well, I can't resist just one other quick aside here, and I want to tell you that this was really not Bash the Albuquerque Journal week with me.
	I've worked with these people for many years, but I just have to tell you again from my New Mexico constituents who listen, that the Albuquerque Journal heard I saw this film, and a couple weeks after the fact, they called and asked me about it.
	And then did a front-page story about my looking at this film, and then proceeded to poke good-natured little fun at me for looking at films about aliens.
	And what rankled me just a little bit, though they were good-natured, is they made it sound like this was a 100% obsession with me, without ever telling their readers that they're the ones that went after me for the story.
	I didn't do a press release on it.
	They heard about it.
	They were dying for a story.
	So if there was an obsession with Little Green Men, it was all on their side, but of course they won't tell anybody.
	Irresistible on their part.
	Right, but they don't tell anyone.
	It's on their part.
	They don't tell anyone that they're the one to generate the story.
	I saw the movie and went on with my work.
	The idea of a story came when they called me.
	Anyway, this is what the film shows.
	And once again, it's like the GAO report.
	People, I think, will have access to it shortly and can make up their own minds.
	And I'm not trying to persuade anybody one way or the other.
	But in essence, the film purported to be an autopsy of an alien, and what you saw were, I believe it was two people who appeared to be doctors, and maybe even a third one behind a glass door, and they were completely covered head to toe in protective garb.
	And of course, if there really was an alien, and you remember what smallpox did to the Native American population, that's exactly what they should do, so that an alien smallpox doesn't get loose here.
	But anyway, again, they proceeded to be doing an autopsy on this alien and removing certain organs and examining them.
	And I only have one conclusion at this time.
	If this was a hoax, it took some degree of planning.
	In other words, this was not a matter of two people having too much to drink at a party and saying, let's pull out the video cam and all pretend that we're aliens and do this.
	Somebody, if it was a hoax, somebody had to Sit down and plan out how they were going to put this together, and how they were going to get all the props, and so forth.
	And it could be a hoax.
	The British, who own Mr. Santilli and his associates, understand that it could be a hoax.
	They have told me that they are endeavoring to verify its authenticity, and I told them that I would inquire around our government, which I've started to do, about whether there's a A government agency that might assist them, although they're going to some private sources that they think have sufficient technology.
	Actually, Congressman, if it is not a hoax, then it seems to me it's U.S.
	government property.
	Well, that's what originally it's supposed to have been.
	According to the British, this film originated with someone who said he was a military photographer and took the photos, the movie rather, live at the time.
	But the individual will not permit his identity to be revealed.
	I understand he's in his 80s now.
	Well, would be.
	Presumably.
	Have to be.
	And he's given an explanation that he, particularly at his present age, is not interested in having a great deal of of of the expected publicity no i don't want i don't blame
	him not at all although you have to say
	when someone declined give their identity it all means can check out the
	story is right so once again it there it is and people make up their own mind so you
	founded intriguing
	i did get a play to the extent that it was not it was not an obvious uh...
	uh... edward movie you know it was a paper plate going by and that's a fine
	thought that i'm from time All right.
	Congressman, we're at the top of the hour.
	I'm going to, uh, call in my chick.
	You said I could.
	I'm gonna hold you over a little.
	We haven't even touched on Waco.
	All right, I'm yours.
	All right, stay right there.
	Congressman Stephen Schiff, New Mexico's.
	We'll be back.
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	This is a test. This is a test. This is a test.
	This is a test. This is a test.
	This is a test. This is a test.
	This is a test.
	buy a new video every monday subscribe to my channel
	Premiere Radio Networks presents— Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight's program originally aired July 31st, 1995.
	My guest, and I do have one, welcome everybody, is Congressman Stephen Schiff from Washington.
	That's right, where it's now probably a little bit after 3 o'clock in the morning.
	And so we're really imposing and we're holding him over.
	We've spent an hour talking about Roswell, how he came to investigate it, and what has come from that investigation.
	This particular congressman also happens to be on the WACO committee, and so I'm going to ask him about that and much more in a moment.
	then we're going to open the phone lines. So get ready.
	Back now to Congressman Schiff.
	Welcome back, sir.
	Good morning continues.
	Yes, indeed, continues.
	Yesterday, I guess it was yesterday, the co-chair of that committee, Bill Zelliff, went after the White House, accused the President of ordering the CS gas attack.
	Would you comment on that remark?
	Can I just say first, very quickly, once again, the main purpose of the Waco hearings is to bring in all the testimony we possibly can, so that the American public can make up its own mind.
	And we may have individual conclusions, I'm sure we will as members of Congress, but really, the testimony there, and I hope people have had the maximum opportunity to watch it live or rebroadcast, it's there really for the public to make up its own mind.
	Bill Zelliff's conclusion, I've listened to Bill and I've heard about this White House response, and I don't know if they're all talking about the same thing.
	I think what, maybe they are, but the most that Bill has said, Bill Zelliff from New Hampshire, co-chairman of these hearings, is that he believes that this was such an important matter at the time, such a touchy matter, for legitimate reasons.
	Janet Reno was brand new as Attorney General of the United States, that the President would want to be involved in some way in the final decision.
	Hard to imagine he wouldn't be.
	Assuming this is true, I'm not sure exactly why that's a negative, why that's an accusation.
	The White House has talked about, assuming not the White House, but the witnesses have been testifying about, the President has been asked to be kept continually informed As if to say the President listened or, you know, the information got to the President and he just stoically sat there and said nothing at all about it.
	So the witnesses confirmed that the White House made an individual request to people keep the President directly informed.
	And there are witnesses who did that without going through the Attorney General, Webb Hubble, who's, of course, a former personal associate of the President.
	And later became briefly, I think the number three person at the Justice Department, said he would call the White House, not necessarily talk to the President directly, but call the White House and tell them what was going on.
	So I'm not altogether sure how different what Congressman Zealous is saying is from what the White House is saying.
	The Attorney General will testify in person.
	Later today, correct?
	At 10 o'clock in the morning, that's right, before the Waco hearing.
	The Attorney General, Janet Reno, is the last witness.
	Yes, let me just interrupt and say that over the weekend, on one of the weekend's Sunday shows, Meet the Press, Representative Zellifle was asked, what is the most important question she's going to be asked at the hearings?
	He responded, why did she approve the plan to gas almost 90 Americans?
	What information was she given?
	Who did she share the decision with?
	These are going to be critical questions.
	Do you agree with that?
	I think all of these are legitimate questions.
	And I think they've become the focus of where we are at the hearings at this point.
	And I assume, of course I've heard the Attorney General in the past on this.
	Let me tell you where I think the crux is as far as the Attorney General goes.
	The Attorney General will say that she believed that there was no chance That David Koresh and the people in the compound would come out voluntarily, and that she was informed that the FBI plan for a gradual insertion of this gas was the least menacing way to try to persuade people to come out of the compound.
	That's what the Attorney General will say, I'm sure, because that's what she said in the past.
	I think the questionnaire will be, What were you told on those subjects by the people who briefed you from the FBI?
	What were you told about the fact that no surrender was possible?
	What were you told about the possible use of this gas and the effects of this gas on children and infants and so forth?
	And I think that's where the key questions will come there.
	Well, clearly, there was a decision made at some point, because the FBI was coming out almost on a daily basis, as you recall, and saying, we have patients, we can wait until the hell freezes over if we have to.
	Well, they said that during the hearing.
	A Mr. Jamar, who was in charge of the combined FBI operation, I say combined because they had negotiators and action people, if you will, On the scene, said at one point, I would have waited a year if I had something to hang that on.
	So that's been their testimony all along, that they went forward when they believed that there was no alternative, and they felt that they needed to take action for a number of reasons.
	And they felt that this was the least, the most benign way under the circumstances of approaching it.
	They're going to say they believe that CS Gas Did not cause any permanent disabilities of any kind, and a gradual insertion would, in their opinion, kind of nudge people out.
	That was their plan.
	Their plan lasted four minutes, according to testimony.
	Then we got gradual insertion of tanks as well, I recall.
	Well, they weren't even gradual.
	They were hitting the building from all different sides at once, and insertion of gas all over.
	And that's another question.
	The FBI had this contingent plan That if one tank, inserting gas in one place, in this building, was fired upon, was shot at, that then they would bring in everything at once.
	And I never quite figured out why this second plan was written the way it was.
	They talked about, well, we need to protect the people in the first vehicle.
	Why not just withdraw the first vehicle?
	I don't know why you had to bring in everything literally at that time.
	Why couldn't you have withdrawn it if you met armed opposition?
	Which was certainly possible.
	Congressman, would you find yourself more troubled finding out the President knew and had part of the decision-making, or if he was not in the loop, which would be more troubling?
	I would find it most troubling if the President, and I say this as a statement, not an accusation, I would be most troubled if the President didn't tell us the truth about what he did, whatever that was.
	Cover up, in other words.
	Exactly.
	The fact of the matter is, it seems to me that there would be nothing inappropriate about the President keeping close tabs on this situation.
	Of course not.
	If what Congressman Zelliff said is true, that the President wanted to be more than kept informed, he wanted to have a hand in what was done before it was done, given the risks involved, and to be very frank about it with you, given the publicity that was involved, that doesn't shock me.
	So, I don't know why, you know, if that happened, I don't know why there'd be all this resistance from the White House.
	In fact, I find it a little difficult to believe, and I don't have any evidence behind this, I know.
	We'll see tomorrow, but it's hard to believe the President would just say, thank you for the information, and then turn around and do something else.
	Right.
	You are a colleague of Bill Zelliff's, Congressman Zelliff.
	Yes, I'm a member of, actually, I happen to be the only member of the hearings who's on both subcommittees.
	I'm on Congressman Zelliff's subcommittee from what is now the Call the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and I'm on Congressman McCollum's subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.
	Would you imagine him to be the kind of man who would make such an accusation with nothing to back it up?
	Well, once again, I'm not sure that the word accusation has been thrown in.
	I don't understand what the White House feels it's being accused of.
	Well, virtually, I believe the wording was of actually ordering the gas attack to occur And then, as you pointed out, the more troubling aspect of it, seemingly denying it.
	Secretary of State was on a couple of weeks ago, refused to answer whether the President had any involvement or not, so... Well, but the President... Excuse me, once again, I misspoke.
	The witnesses have stated that the President wanted to be kept individually informed, which means that all of the President's briefings did not come from Attorney General Janet Reno.
	Webb Hubble testified that he called the White House Now, I didn't talk to the President directly, but talked to White House staff to keep them advised of what was happening here.
	And the point is, we may all be talking about the same thing.
	And I don't find anything in the President asking to be kept informed, let's just start there, that by itself causes me any concern.
	And if the President was more involved, I don't know why that would be a negative in and of itself.
	It's almost like Roswell.
	It might be negative the other way.
	It's almost like Roswell.
	It's the reaction that is, you know, making us all very curious, if not suspicious, from the White House.
	And they're just really apparently this morning angry.
	Also, Altman, you might want to comment on this, apparently wrote a memo to Secretary Benson on 15 April, four days before all this, saying in four days there's going to be a catastrophe.
	And nothing was done.
	Well, it's been accused that nothing new has come out in the Waco hearings.
	I disagree with that entirely.
	I think a number of things have come out.
	I think some in the government's favor.
	I think some, not in the government's favor.
	My view is the chips should fall where they may in that regard.
	Are you satisfied, for example, that the fire was apparently started by the Davidians?
	It seems like there was quite a bit of weight of evidence to that effect.
	The weight of evidence is, I'd like to come back to Secretary Benson and the memo in a second, but the weight of evidence is that the fire started inside and perhaps in two or three different places almost simultaneously.
	Right.
	The evidence is not That the FBI started the fire.
	The fact that it started inside and the fact that it started in three different places would give the most logical idea that somebody on the inside deliberately set the fire.
	But that's not quite the only explanation.
	There was a government expert on this who said, well, this fire had to... This is an arson expert who said, this had to start with a match.
	Well, no, it didn't.
	It had to start with a flame.
	And you do have the fact that these people were heating and lighting with lanterns because their electricity had been cut off.
	Sure.
	And is it possible that either all these vehicles coming at the building at one time, or the ensuing panic?
	I'm trying to picture what it must have been like inside the building, even if some members inside fired shots at the first vehicle.
	I think that's a possibility.
	It doesn't mean everybody inside was armed and ready to start shooting, and certainly the children weren't.
	And so, is it out of the range of possibility that all of the commotion, and that sounds like a weak word to me at the moment, but vehicles ramming the building, people running for cover, that lanterns couldn't have been spilled.
	I can't rule that out completely, but the evidence does rule out the idea that the FBI started the fire.
	So you can say, if you will, in total context, that's a finding in the government's favor against that accusation.
	But let me go back to the issue you asked me about.
	About the alternate memory.
	Right.
	It has to be remembered here that you're dealing with two agencies and two separate departments.
	The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which did the original raid on February 28th, is under the Treasury Department.
	And after that raid failed and we had, in essence, a siege, The FBI, under the Department of Justice, took over the responsibility.
	But the Treasury Department, through ATF, had begun it all.
	And Roger Altman, who was then the number two person at the Treasury Department, on April 15th wrote a memo to his boss, Secretary Benson, saying that the FBI planned for a gas insertion and explained to him, and he was worried about it.
	He said, I think the word he used was, a tragedy could ensue.
	And Secretary Benson, whom I greatly admire in many respects, but his testimony, I was astounded by it.
	His testimony was, when he got that memo, he did absolutely nothing.
	I mean, just did nothing.
	Essentially threw it away.
	And the reason he gave was, it wasn't our problem anymore.
	I mean, this had been turned over to the Department of Justice, and it was no longer a Treasury responsibility.
	That's sort of like the proverbial waiter saying, that's not my table.
	I mean... It's not even the polite equivalent of we're passing this on to the Archive Department.
	I don't think the memo got there necessarily.
	Here is the point.
	Secretary Benson is entirely correct when he says that the Treasury Department was out of responsibility and the Justice Department had taken it over.
	But this is all one government.
	And at the very least, What Secretary Benson should have done was pick up the telephone to the Attorney General and say, my number two person has some concerns here.
	Perhaps he should come over and talk with you, or talk with somebody on your staff.
	If the Attorney General had decided to proceed anyway, which he had the authority to do, then Secretary Benson certainly could do nothing about that.
	But to get a warning like that, and to just sit on it, I think that's inexplicable.
	Janet Reno, shortly after the Waco incident, tragedy, offered to resign.
	In retrospect, knowing what we now know, and maybe it's a little ahead of time since she'll be on the stand tomorrow, in fact, in front of you, should the President have, with regrets or whatever, accepted that resignation?
	People are going to have to answer that for themselves.
	It depends on what conclusions people come to.
	If the conclusions are that this was a mess and that caused by the government and Janet Reno is responsible, then I guess you could say the president should have accepted a resignation if, to turn it completely around, the government had an impossibly difficult situation, at least at the time the siege began, And all decisions were risky, and Janet Reno acted in good faith and made the best possible choice, then there'd be no reason for such a resignation.
	Now, we'll all hear from the Attorney General tomorrow.
	I want to say again that I think the crux of the Attorney General's decision was, what information were you given that it was based upon?
	In other words, what I think is starting to come out of the hearing is that the FBI discounted The possibility that David Koresh would come out by himself.
	They regarded that as a deception.
	Against, I understand, all advice of people who knew about cults.
	Well, they got mixed advice on it.
	I would say this.
	The question is, when they briefed the Attorney General, did they eliminate the possible counter scenarios of David Koresh coming out because they didn't believe it?
	Or did they explain everything?
	In other words, when they went to Janet Reno, did they just say, well, there's no hope for anything, any kind of peaceful surrender, therefore we've got to just do something here, without ever telling the Attorney General all of the possibilities?
	It seems to me that they had an obligation to explain all of the possibilities, even if they didn't believe that David Koresh would come out.
	I think they had an obligation to tell.
	The Attorney General was going on, and I hope, among other things, we'll find out tomorrow if that was done.
	One of the things that I heard the other day that I actually found chilling was the Attorney General was asked by somebody, and she responded about Waco, that given similar circumstances today, she would have and would make the same exact decision.
	That scares me.
	That actually scares the hell out of me, because it tells me there could be, and with the number of militias that we've got building all over the place, and people who say, well, I don't believe in the 16th Amendment, it was never passed, I won't pay taxes, or whatever, there's going to be some little spark somewhere again.
	And I fear that with Janet Reno still in office, there could be another Waco.
	I can only assume that the Attorney General meant based upon the information I was given at the time.
	I'm assuming that's the context, rather than based upon now that I know what would happen, because it happened.
	But again, tomorrow, or tomorrow, there I go, later this morning, it seems that way.
	Later this morning, we will hear the testimony.
	If I can talk about Waco a little bit more here, I want to say that, once again, the main purpose of the hearings is that people can get their own information and make their own decisions.
	I've come to some conclusions.
	But that doesn't mean that I think everybody should come to the same conclusion I have, because they're free to listen to the same testimony.
	Well, do you care to tell us what you have?
	Well, I was going to share a couple.
	I think that... I'm going to pick one of each, meaning one that favors what the government has explained and one that shows a serious problem.
	All right.
	I think the government had, originally, enough information That somebody in the compound, David Koresh or whomever, were illegally converting semi-automatic weapons to automatic weapons, which is illegal.
	That there was a proper government interest in what may have been going on there with respect to firearms.
	In other words, I don't think that the government went out of its way to look for a group with an unpopular religious view or a Other, other reasons to... I'm with you.
	In other words, they were not targeting them.
	Congressmen were at the bottom of the hour.
	But they did mess up much more than they've admitted.
	In time, I'd be glad to talk to you about that.
	We'll cover that in a moment and take some calls, as promised, and do another half hour.
	Congressman Schiff, New Mexico's Congressman Schiff, is my guest.
	More in a moment.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	This is a presentation of the Coast to Coast AMX-3.
	The Coast to Coast AMX-3 is a commercial aircraft.
	It is a commercial aircraft designed to serve as a base for the Coast Guard.
	It is a commercial aircraft designed to serve as a base for the Coast Guard.
	The Coast to Coast AMX-3 is a commercial aircraft designed to serve as a base for the Coast Guard.
	The Coast to Coast AMX-3 is a commercial aircraft designed to serve as a base for the Coast Guard.
	Alright, let's go to the phones.
	I promise they'll lynch me if I don't do it.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Question for Mr. Zelliff, then.
	It's Congressman Schiff we have here.
	Tell him please not to hit me.
	The original fire investigator for the BATF who said the fire was set from the inside was in fact someone who had done work for the BF before And, in fact, had shared offices at the BATF somewhere in Texas.
	Is this the same guy that testified before your committee?
	Well, the person I think you're referring to, now with the Houston Fire Department, apparently at some past time had some kind of association with the BATF.
	Um, however, there were also other individuals who've looked at this, investigated the fire, and combined... ...the hearing, which suggested that the fire started inside the compound at about three different locations simultaneously.
	All right.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Congressman Schiff.
	Hi.
	Thanks a lot.
	This is Mike in Madison.
	Madison, Wisconsin.
	Yes, sir.
	Congressman, I first want to applaud you for your tenacity in approaching any of these issues, especially the Roswell one.
	The thing that I really wonder about is, does your inquiry have to stop where it is at this point?
	I mean, assuming that something did crash and they are withholding information, I can't see that they would just throw the parts away after a while.
	So they must be somewhere in some warehouse being guarded by someone, and so I would assume somebody still knows about it.
	All right.
	Well, first, thank you for that compliment.
	As indicated earlier, when I first was asked about the Roswell incident and decided to get involved, I took a deep breath, because obviously it was a subject matter that, at least potentially, opened up anyone for ridicule.
	My view is people have a right to information on any subject and not subject to someone else's arbitrary view of whether it's important or not.
	To answer your specific question, the GAO was unable to find any other records.
	And they've said they've exhausted all the possibilities they have.
	And so when you say, is there something and is it being guarded somewhere, I can't prove a negative.
	I can't say something isn't the case.
	I can only say that the GAO, I think, did a very thorough search for records, and have indicated that perhaps the most important thing they found were destroyed, and no one can tell you why or by whom.
	But that's where we're at.
	So I can't, if there's something still in existence, there is no paper trail that GAO can find to lead you there.
	Seems to me there's some things we're never going to know about.
	I said the other day on the air, if somebody today came up with a film showing a rifleman on the grassy knoll taking his shot at Kennedy, it would be just one more piece of evidence for people to doubt.
	It's like the Roswell film.
	Nearly anything can be done, faked.
	It can turn up to be a fraud.
	And after a while, like with the Kennedy conspiracy, there becomes so much that if the absolute truth were presented by somebody such as yourself, who stood up on the congressional floor, it would be just one more theory.
	Well, the Roswell incident now is getting near 50 years old.
	Right.
	And it's hard to believe that this will be resolved to everyone's Satisfaction.
	The GAO report shows what they could come up with, which you've described accurately.
	It's one more piece of information that still leaves people, I think, pretty much believing what they believed before.
	Exactly.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Congressman Steve Schiff from New Mexico.
	Hi.
	Hello, this is Jack from Charleston.
	South Carolina?
	South Carolina.
	Okay.
	Nice to talk to you, Congressman Schiff.
	Thank you.
	I'm hearing my echo over your phone and my radio is off.
	Well, that's alright.
	Just go ahead.
	I was wondering, Congressman Chipp, if you saw the FBI agent today's testimony saying that he was one of the ones driving the CEV, or Bradley, I think.
	And he said he did see someone lighting a fire inside.
	And also, I was thinking that if they hadn't done the raid when they did, and a couple days later, I may be misrecollecting.
	came outside holding children and firing people would then look at roger allman
	uh... memo and say why did you let him stop you from doing something
	and nothing i would like to know that that's quite a bit and right there are
	let's hold it there are the testimony of the fbi agent who said he saw somebody
	lighting a fire and maybe repair maybe
	and maybe misrecollecting i don't i don't remember me that absolute about it but the testimony does appear to be that
	the fire started inside
	and and the most reason
	uh... then conclusion is that uh... it was it was the it was deliberately set inside
	i i i I think that's the preponderance of the evidence.
	I just have not quite ruled out the possibility that, since electricity was cut off and there were lanterns all over, And this massive assault started on the compound just a few minutes after one vehicle went forward, another possibility.
	But I agree that's where the majority of evidence certainly lies.
	With respect to Roger Altman's memo, you raise a very good point about what were the alternatives and what were the risks.
	I think that, frankly, the Attorney General had risks under any possible decision that were made.
	My point about the memo was, when you get that, do you throw it away?
	Or do you put your number two person in your department, which started this whole situation, now they're not just bystanders, into touch with the Justice Department?
	I'm saying that the Treasury, Secretary of the Treasury, should have passed on the memo to the Attorney General.
	If the Attorney General wanted to then discount it in her responsibility to make a decision here, then that, I think she had the authority to do it, but to just stop it.
	She should have at least had the opportunity to review it.
	Exactly.
	And it may well be that with all the information available at that time, the Attorney General would have gone forward anyway.
	I'm just saying that there is no justification for stopping information from getting over to the Justice Department, which is what the Treasury Department did.
	All right.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Congressman Schiff.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	I missed your show last night.
	We had a mix-up at KTRH.
	This is Kevin Houston.
	Houston.
	Yes, sir.
	I'm glad you're on tonight.
	I just had a general comment.
	I'm worried about the ability to trust the government on any large-scale matter such as this or Roswell.
	I agree.
	I think that's a very important topic.
	I guess beginning back, gee, with the Kennedy assassination and the Nixon problems, one after another of our government institutions have sort of fallen in the eyes of the American people to the degree now where three out of four people don't trust the American government.
	Hopefully, hearings like these hearings on AWACO would restore some of that.
	Congressman, do you think it will?
	Let me add that I hope so, because Congress is part of the government, too.
	It is.
	And I think one of the purposes of the AWACO hearing is the idea that Congress, as part of the government, is going to let everything it possibly can hang out there.
	And so, again, people then can come to their own conclusions.
	As you've already heard, people will come to different conclusions.
	That's one thing I can say about the television and media is that, you know, we have these live hearings.
	As far as everything else, the news and everything else, I think it's pretty much worthless to trust the media, the television in particular.
	I think they do everything they can to distort things or just spin things the way they want.
	Well, let me tell you, I think, I hope, The people have had the opportunity to watch these hearings as much as possible in live form or word-for-word form.
	And that's because I think that there was a deliberate intention to manipulate the media in this particular case.
	And Art, I've got an example or two, if I've got time here.
	One is the constant bringing up of the National Rifle Association.
	The National Rifle Association, apparently, one individual who was investigating this matter in some relation with the National Rifle Association, misrepresented herself to potential witnesses as being associated with the Congress.
	Mm-hmm.
	If that occurred, I can't defend it.
	It's not defensible.
	You're right.
	There were a number of officials in the White House, Congressman, who expressed worry prior to the hearings that these hearings would be used as an agenda to hurt gun control.
	And I thought those very interesting statements... Well, but the point is, this testimony is available for everyone to see.
	It is.
	Nobody has indicated, assuming that this misrepresentation occurred.
	It sounds like it to me.
	No one has explained how that has anything to do with the actual hearing in terms of witnesses testifying with their own testimony.
	No one has been able to relate.
	Although, speaking of accusations, the accusations have been made because of that incident, the hearings are tainted.
	Nobody has ever explained logically how, assuming that incident occurred, How that has it all affected the witnesses who have testified, and the purpose of that is to get the news media to focus on the National Rifle Association rather than on the Waco hearings, which might show additional failures of the government, on the government side of this.
	I can give you a more, in my mind, heart-rending example, but on the very first day, Uh, the, uh, certain members of Congress, uh, brought in a young lady who's still a child, really.
	Yes.
	To testify that she had been, uh, sexually assaulted, uh, raped by David Koresh.
	At 10.
	And, uh, at 10, that's right.
	And, uh, uh, I found her testimony believable, but the point is, why was it there?
	David Koresh was not being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for child rape.
	Outrageous as that offense is, the BATF was investigating him and was putting together this search warrant and this raid for firearms violation.
	And I believe that testimony was introduced, and particularly with no effort made to conceal the child's identity, which is normally the case in a child abuse trial.
	I think to dominate the media, and it worked like a charm.
	I'm sorry the media was so predictable, but the headlines... Actually, I thought it started several days before that, the day before the hearings began, or actually the Friday night before they began.
	NBC did a big show on Waco that I thought, on balance, was quite pro-government.
	And so there was a big media drive, and a very... I must actually, in a way, compliment the Democrats for getting that young lady up there from a public relations point of view.
	They did exactly what they wanted to do.
	The headline in a certain Washington paper that's supposed to be a respectable paper, the front page headline, talked about David Koresh's lust.
	Exactly.
	This is not one of the tabloids now.
	Another national newspaper, On the following Monday, he summarized three days of testimony, but really only summarized the sexual assault on this child.
	And all of that was calculated, in my judgment, to keep other information from getting into the news media.
	Like, for example, the child abuse caseworker from the state of Texas, who was familiar with the Davidians, who had been out there, testified That this raid was a fatal mistake.
	In her words, I reviewed them enough that I think I can quote them.
	When I saw on television ladders going up at the compound, I knew children were going to die.
	Now that's testimony that's far more related to this actual incident and what was being investigated by the BATF.
	Or even the local sheriff in Waco who said, you know, they really should have come to me.
	It didn't all have to happen this way.
	We know the people out there.
	Right.
	But if you don't want that information to get in the news media, How do you prevent it?
	And the answer is, you bring out the fact that David Koresh had a perverted sexual interest, and the news media will swarm to it like bees to honey.
	And that's exactly what happened, and they knew that that was going to happen.
	I should add this, because one of the accusations has been, if you say what I say, you're somehow defending child rape.
	Nonsense.
	It's just, what was this raid all about?
	And it was about a firearms violation Allegation.
	It wasn't about a child molestation case.
	Either way, Congressman, most people I think would say whether it was firearms or whether it was child molestation, nothing for 90 people or more to die for.
	Well, the issue is how did they handle the case when they got the case?
	And given the fact that it's being stated that a lot had to be done For the benefit of the children, you have to ask, from the beginning of RAID to the final attempt to end the siege with tear gas, was this really done with the idea of protecting children?
	I mean, although there's all these claims... It's what Janet Reno said.
	We're doing it for the children.
	Well, you know, the bottom line for the children was it couldn't have been much worse for them the way it came out.
	Well, our government and our people in America are splitting.
	Will the Waco hearings, will all the rest of this bring us any closer?
	Will we be any closer when it's over?
	Do you guess it's calling for a supposition?
	I don't think the hearings will necessarily change anyone's view.
	I can tell you that all of us doing these hearings are getting a great deal of mail and phone calls.
	And I think people's basically preconception About whatever it might be about Waco will stay the same.
	I think, though, that the Congress has shown that if there is a subject of immense interest in the public and of legitimate concern, That we're going to make sure that everything possible comes out.
	Congressman, we've got to hold it there.
	We're out of time, and you've got a good bet.
	You've got a big day coming up.
	Thanks for having me on your program.
	Thank you for being here, and ask the Attorney General hard questions for us.
	I'll do my best.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Congressman Schiff from New Mexico.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	This is a special edition of the Coast to Coast AM show.
	We just spent, and you missed if you're joining us at this hour, two hours with New Mexico Congressman Stephen Schiff.
	We spent one of those hours on the Roswell GAO report.
	And the whole Roswell incident was fascinating, absolutely fascinating, as the congressman said he was with regard to the Roswell film.
	I couldn't possibly recount all he's got to say, but the upshot of it is there are records missing, permanent records, that would have told us what went on at Roswell, mysteriously missing records covering a two-year period of outgoing messages from Roswell so um... we spent an hour on that then we turned our attention in the second hour you see congressman Schiff is also on the Waco committee and the congressman of course is in Washington where it is now a little after four o'clock he's gonna have a rough day and uh... we talked about Waco for an hour and those of you that heard that interview are welcome to comment
	Those of you who did not, you might recall that beginning at 4 a.m.
	Pacific Time, in other words, a little less than three hours from now, we will repeat those two hours of interview with Congressman Schiff.
	So if your radio station carries the repeat hour or two, you will get it.
	If not, I'm sorry you missed it.
	We'll try to repeat it soon.
	Now, welcoming K-V-N-A-A-M in Flagstaff, Arizona.
	Welcome to the network.
	Good to have you on board.
	They're a big one.
	10,000 watts, 600 on the dial in Flagstaff.
	W-A-Z-L-A-M in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
	Welcome.
	Good to have you along.
	They are 1,000 watts on 1490 in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
	And one other, and a big one at that, W-A-R-A-A-M in Attleboro, Massachusetts, transmitting over very nicely, thank you, to Providence, Rhode Island.
	So, now you're about to learn what our program really is.
	Interviews are rare.
	We do have them when they are relevant.
	Congressman Schiff was certainly relevant.
	I'm going to hold my East of the Rockies line open for this hour, at least this hour, for people in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, or listening to WARA in Attleboro, Massachusetts.
	the east of the rockies number is one eight hundred
	eight two five five zero three three
	so massachusetts rhode island uh... anybody listening in that area or our other new
	affiliate in hazleton we will hold the east of the rockies line open for your
	listeners Now, one other announcement.
	This is a big one.
	This is an important one.
	Listen to me very carefully, please.
	We, by special permission of Ray Santilli, The man who possesses the alleged Roswell film, we are in possession of five very special photographs.
	They are to be published in the newsletter.
	I told you the deadline for ordering to get the issue with the Roswell photographs was coming.
	I got the following memo from the network today.
	Quote, we are so swamped with newsletter orders that we need to cut off the September issue very soon in order to get it out on time.
	I know you've been warning the people about this.
	The final cutoff for Visa or MasterCard orders will be 6 a.m.
	West Coast time Wednesday morning when your tape replays go off the air.
	That's it!
	When you go off the air around the country the deadline is passed for getting The September issue.
	So.
	Which goes out, of course, in early August.
	So, that's it, folks.
	That's the deadline.
	If you want to order our newsletter, and we've got all five of these photographs, and by the way, I was told earlier today, they're going to devote four of them, the four best photographs, a half page each in the newsletter.
	This is going to be a collectible?
	You know, in the end, whether this turns out as the congressman suggested, if he said, well, it's a hoax, it's the best one I've ever seen, and I absolutely agree with that, it's going to be a giant story either way.
	If it's a hoax, it's the biggest and best ever done.
	If it's not, these are pictures of an alien being.
	If you would like our newsletter... Oh, by the way, next month I'm going to stick in a picture of Max the Crystal Skull.
	You're not going to want to miss that.
	I think I'll put a picture of my studio in there.
	I've been mulling that over.
	I think I will do it the next month.
	So, our newsletter is getting bigger, better, at a very rapid pace.
	To order our newsletter, It is now too late to order it by mail.
	So, you must call, and I recommend you do it beginning now.
	Alright, a little bit of the news.
	Hurricane Erin.
	Seems strange.
	That would be A, B, C, D, E, the fifth hurricane of the year already.
	Um, arguably just a Category 1 hurricane, very wet, 10 inches of rain, 75 mile an hour winds, all of that may increase.
	It is headed straight for the Florida Keys.
	Tens of thousands of people are evacuating.
	It will hit as late, um, perhaps as midnight tomorrow.
	Um, actually the sooner the better, frankly, since the more time it spends over warm water, Uh, the more energy it's going to be able to collect.
	I've got a feeling this is going to be an awful hurricane season.
	And this is only the beginning, I'm sorry to say.
	I believe that our weather is in the process of a change.
	Wonder how many of the rest of you believe that.
	Now, Waco.
	We just spent an hour on this.
	Hot stuff.
	Um, the co-chair of the hearings Congressman Bill Zelliff accused President Clinton of ordering the CS gas attack and then covering up his role.
	This is a damn serious accusation.
	The White House is very angry.
	They have reacted very angrily to it.
	Janet Reno will be testifying before the Waco hearings later on this morning before a no-doubt bleary-eyed Congressman Schiff and others.
	I know he's going to be bleary-eyed.
	And it should be quite a day.
	Representative Zelliff was asked over the weekend on Meath Press what is the most important question she, Janet Reno, is going to be asked.
	His response was, why did she approve the plan to gas almost 90 Americans?
	What information was she given?
	Who did she share the decision with?
	There are going to be some very critical questions asked in the morning.
	Very critical.
	There will come a moment where she's going to have to look them in the eye and tell them whether or not she told the President, whether she was communicating at all with the President, Or made the decision unilaterally?
	Hard to believe.
	As the congressman said, she was there two weeks.
	She was brand new.
	Would she take such a decision all on her own?
	Is she going to fall on her sword in the morning?
	What do you expect her to say?
	And then, as I asked the congressman, what troubles you more?
	To find out the president knew In fact, was very much part of the decision-making at Waco.
	Or that he didn't know a thing about it.
	What's the old expression?
	Out of the loop.
	Think he was out of the loop?
	And if he was, that is troubling.
	If he has knowledge of what went on, if he in fact ordered the attack, And he is covering it up.
	Then the congressman said, and I agree, that's probably the more serious of the two.
	So, there you have it.
	Waco at a critical junction.
	It's going to be a very important day.
	We'll be right back.
	Big, big merger.
	Disney bought Cap City's ABC for $19 billion.
	Holy mackerel.
	It makes the two of them, Mickey Mouse and ABC Cap City's coming together will make them the number one entertainment company in the world.
	ABC stock went up $22 a share.
	People made fortunes overnight.
	All of this done on a golf course.
	The deal, I guess, was cut on a golf course.
	Amazing.
	ABC programming, they say, will not change dramatically.
	They own a lot of TV and radio stations.
	In fact, ones I broadcast on.
	But a lot of the ABC television affiliates will have, through their network now, more access to programming.
	Disney programming.
	So, it is the latest and the biggest of a lot of takeover bids.
	A lot of rumors out there.
	Westinghouse wants CBS.
	You know Ted Turner wants CBS.
	Westinghouse is said to be ready to offer about $5 billion in a bid trying to get CBS.
	We'll see.
	The revolution is well underway.
	There is in the background the telecommunications bill winding its way through Congress, a threatened veto I might add now by the president.
	You think he'll really veto this?
	Billions of dollars are at stake.
	It's all about virtually a connection to all American homes.
	AT&T said they've got their whole company on the line.
	The bill would deregulate entire industries.
	Cable, for example.
	It would allow all phone companies to compete in nearly every category with each other.
	It would allow networks, like ABC, to buy more stations, television and radio.
	Now there are two views to take about what's going on, about the merger, about the Bill winding through Congress, one view would be that there'll be more choice, more competition, and that's good for you, that's good for me.
	That means we get more choice, competitive pressure increases, prices fall.
	That would be my view.
	Another would be that Oh no!
	America's communications is consolidating into the hands of a few very powerful people who will now, more than ever, control the flow of information to all of us.
	I personally take the first view.
	It's the same reason I oppose any return to some so-called fairness doctrine.
	The very diversity of broadcasting in America, television and radio, precludes the need for any kind of further regulation and cries out for less.
	The less regulation we have, the more diversity we will have, and with that diversity, it makes any thoughts of a so-called fairness doctrine ridiculous.
	That's my view.
	You may want to argue that.
	If you do, you're welcome to.
	Last week, House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he thinks Vincent Foster did not commit suicide.
	Quite a thing to say.
	Which means, of course, he thinks Vince Foster was murdered.
	So you have to imagine, he imagines a cover-up.
	Let me tell you what William Sapphire of the New York Times said over the weekend on Meet the Press.
	Thought it was good.
	He said, Vince Foster's suicide was related to Whitewater.
	The files on that were taken the night Vince Foster, in quotes, committed suicide.
	If he did, something is being hidden Or not.
	But nobody ever says this.
	This is the question.
	Quoting William Safire, quote, Did Governor Clinton take a bribe?
	Then, did he, as President, obstruct the investigation into it?
	End quote.
	That's a damn good question.
	Do you believe our President took a bribe?
	And did, uh, he then further Obstruct the investigation into that, but Sapphire went on to say exactly what I told you last week.
	This won't, he said, or will not lead to impeachment.
	The Republicans want Bill Clinton there to run against.
	Both of these, if true, would be horrible indictments of everything that we are and think we believe we are.
	And as Congressman Schiff said, let people laugh.
	You know, there are a lot of people out there who ridicule his efforts to, you know, try to find out what really went on at Roswell.
	And anytime you mention UFOs or any of the rest of it, it makes it easy for the Of the talking heads out there to laugh and say, oh, isn't that ridiculous and all the rest of it.
	But as he pointed out, we do have this thing called the First Amendment.
	And he believes and I believe the American people have the right to know whether it concerns Roswell or Waco or Whitewater and the Vince Foster death.
	We've got a right to know.
	But look at what this story is saying.
	It's saying that there is something here, William Safire, saying, yes, this is very serious.
	And the question is whether the President of the United States took a bribe, then obstructed the investigation into that.
	If he did, that's an impeachable offense.
	Clearly impeachable.
	But then, Safire's going on to say, but there's not going to be any impeachment.
	Because the Republicans want him there to run against.
	My God, that's really a terrible indictment, when you consider it, of both possibilities, isn't it?
	One, that we've got a president that committed a cover-up, the allegation, that would be equivalent to or even greater than, in importance, what Richard Nixon did, but we're not going to do anything about it.
	Because we're worried that he'd be impeached, worried he'd have to resign and go back to Arkansas or wherever it is that he would go, and it wouldn't be used because the Republicans want to win the election.
	Now that's pretty damning, no matter which way you look at it.
	Alright, we're going to break here at the bottom of the hour.
	I've got new affiliates in Attleboro, Massachusetts and Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
	And so everybody else hold off on the east of the Rockies line and let them get through.
	Calling Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, 1-800 8-2-5-5-0-3-3 is the number 1-800-8-2-5-5-0-3-3.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	I'm going to be a good man. I'm going to be a good man. I'm going to be a good man. I'm
	an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	This is a presentation of the Coast to Coast AM project.
	In the next segment, we will look at the Coast to Coast project.
	Thank you.
	Premier Radio Networks presents Heartbell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired July 31st, 1995.
	Here's the deal.
	For the next 25 minutes, it is an honor we bestow on new affiliates.
	You never know, last-minute technical troubles or not, whether you get on the air or not, as they say.
	But we are welcoming WARA in Attleboro, Massachusetts, transmitting on into Providence, Rhode Island, and WAZL in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
	So if you're listening to either one of those two affiliates, we're holding a special line open for you.
	And only you for about 25 minutes here.
	It's 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	And then we'll open it up wide at the top of the hour for anybody east of the Rockies.
	Normally that's what that line is for.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	and then we'll open it up wide at the top of the hour for anybody east of the
	Rockies normally that's what that line is for. First time caller line you're on
	the air. Hi. Hello there.
	Art.
	Yes.
	This is Ray Collins from Federal Way, Washington.
	Hello, Ray.
	How you doing?
	Okay.
	Yeah, I love your show.
	Listen to it every night.
	Something I've been thinking about this Waco thing.
	Yes, sir.
	Up here a few years ago, there was one of the federal government's most wanted hold up at a house over on, I believe, Vashon Island.
	Strangely enough, he was burned out.
	A few years later, there was Gordon Cole back east somewhere.
	Seems to me he was burned out.
	It was my understanding also that the Randy Weaver thing, there was talk about trying to burn out Randy Weaver.
	Now the Waco thing, it just kind of makes you wonder.
	Well I guess it's making a lot of people wonder.
	There's a big survey today showing three out of four Americans do not trust the government.
	And I'm afraid that's increasing all around us.
	I don't know what we do about it.
	Congressman Schiff was wise enough to say that after the Waco hearings, he doesn't think that it's going to change a lot of minds on either side.
	...and cynicism in America that is dangerous.
	I believe, thank you for the call, that it is absolutely dangerous.
	Where it's going, I don't know.
	You're listening to live talk radio, because whatever radio station you're listening to, Uh, is, uh, nice enough to put it on for you, this time of the morning.
	Instead of somebody's, uh, regurgitated repeats.
	Uh, east of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello there!
	No, you're not.
	Uh, wildcard line, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Uh, that's not east, right?
	Uh, this is the wildcard line.
	Yes, it is.
	Yes, uh, this is the shadow, uh, I want to ask you three questions, or three things I want to mention.
	First of all, my dad lives up in Crescent City, and I was wondering any station you could recommend that might be up there that he might be able to pick up that's up at the top of the border of California and Oregon.
	Crescent City, you know, it seems to me like... The closest I would think would be Portland, but I could be wrong.
	Maybe you have one in Chico Station?
	Oh yes, of course we have Chico.
	K-P-A-Y-N-C-H-I-C-O on 1060.
	Uh-huh.
	The other question is, you know, you have a lot of people that don't have fax machines and stuff like this.
	Yes.
	And they want to get a hold of fax.
	Those people can go to what you call photocopy stores.
	And send a fax.
	Right, right.
	Some of them are open 24 hours.
	Oh, that's right.
	And that should be mentioned, although I've tried to fax you from there.
	I don't have fax, and I got a busy signal.
	I tried that a couple times, and so I understand maybe this is as difficult as calling on the phone.
	I don't know if that's true or not.
	Well, actually, faxing is cheaper than almost anything else you can do, because you can disgorge a fax across the country at this time of the morning in about 15 seconds.
	So, the price of a one-minute call across the country early in the morning is uh... very i mean it's pennies so i don't want one top one when i was trying to get back i got worker i try to pick twenty and i have to try for about five minutes i was surprised that it would be a team they could get through mhm all right sir thank you uh... very much and again reminding you holding open uh... for about another twenty minutes uh... our east of the rockies line for people who are listening to w a c l in hazleton
	Pennsylvania and WARA in Attleboro, Massachusetts.
	1-800-825-5033.
	As usual, it is clogged up with people who aren't hearing me and so they can't get through.
	I sure would like to let them get through.
	I try to do this for new affiliates from time to time as sort of a way to celebrate their arrival.
	Now, the Packwood hearing.
	The Senate Ethics Committee decided today it's not going to hold public hearings, so we're not going to hear about it.
	Hmm, wonder what prompted that.
	Barbara Boxer is trying to throw it all open.
	I don't think she's going to do it.
	A lot of it would embarrass a lot of people, and so they're going to do it behind closed doors.
	But they promised to release all the information.
	You gotta wonder if it'll come through a relative of the guy who dealt with the information down at Roswell.
	O.J.
	Simpson.
	Marsha Clark now saying she can prove the bloody gloves worn by the killer belong to none other than O.J.
	Simpson.
	That they've got pictures from football games of years past showing O.J.
	wearing, what else, those very gloves.
	I've got a lot on Susan Smith this morning as well, and we'll get to that.
	Longhorn Line, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Arbel?
	Yes.
	Yes, I'm calling to say that your format is getting too plain.
	In my region, I don't get your Aphrodite, you know, your other show.
	And you don't talk more about adverse things, like aliens and stuff like that.
	You're getting too political, like Rush Limbaugh.
	Well, it's a different thing every night, sir.
	And, uh... Well, I know.
	I listen every night.
	Well, then you heard me... Didn't you hear me do an hour with Congressman Schiff on Roswell this morning?
	No, no, I didn't.
	What about after dark?
	Gee, I'm sorry you missed that.
	Was that a good one?
	Uh, well, uh, gee, Congressman Schiff is the one who, uh, got the investigation going, sir.
	But... About Roswell.
	Don't you know about that?
	Yes, of course I do.
	Yes, I do.
	Because I listen to you all the time.
	Well, then you missed it.
	Are you getting too streamlined, too political, like Rush Limbaugh?
	No, I'm not.
	I will discuss anything on any given night, sir.
	Wait a minute!
	Do you hear Rush doing that?
	No, I do not, but I hear you talking only about political people, about political situations.
	Then you're not listening.
	I listen every night.
	If you listen every night, sir, then I just pointed out to you, not more than two hours ago, I spent a whole hour on Roswell.
	Where were you?
	I was not there.
	Well, whose fault is that?
	That is mine, yes, I agree.
	Have a good night, sir.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Yeah, hello.
	Where are you, sir?
	I am in North Dakota.
	I'm holding this line open right now for people in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania.
	Oh, I'm sorry then.
	That's all right.
	I'm eatin' the Rockies.
	Oh, you are.
	You are.
	All right, sir.
	Thank you.
	Give us a call back in about 17 minutes.
	I'm giving them 17 minutes to get through.
	They may not make it because of what you just heard.
	People I know don't... They just don't hear everything.
	But I'm trying.
	I'm trying.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Whoops.
	Pushed the button.
	Now you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Oh, hi, Art.
	This is Susan out of Palm Springs.
	Haven't talked to you for a while.
	Hi, Susan.
	How you doing?
	Okay.
	Well, good.
	I have to disagree with the previous caller.
	If he is listening, you do get into many diverse things, but it just happens to be that there are a lot of political Things that are of much relevancy right now.
	Yeah, we talk about current events.
	Oh yeah, and I just wanted to mention the quake that hit South America, Chile yesterday.
	Alright, let me read you a couple things.
	Don't worry about time.
	I want to read you a couple things.
	I want to get your reaction to them, ma'am.
	And I'll begin with this one.
	Dear Art, my heart sank today when I rented a car out to a family traveling to Palm Springs.
	I've been following the predictive cycle laid out by Gordon Michael Scallion, and he was right on the money with this latest 7.8 in Peru.
	Do you have any knowledge of the timetable for the next one?
	We're all aware that Charlie Liberal stands on shaky ground, Art.
	I hope Gordon Michael Scallion is wrong.
	And this, Art, concerning Gordon Michael Scallion's quake scenario.
	According to his last newsletter, he said he believed the sequence has begun.
	He went on to say, if there is a 7 plus earthquake in the South Pacific, then it has begun.
	A few days later, New Zealand was hit by 7.1.
	A few hours ago, this was some time ago now, Chile was rocked by a 7.8 quake, Followed by numerous very strong afterquakes.
	Hours after that, Tokyo hit by a 5+.
	Looks like it's underway, Art.
	Chile was the third phase of the scenario.
	And you know what's next.
	I'm only 10 minutes from the ocean and 15 minutes south of San Francisco.
	Say a prayer for us.
	Uh, is that about right, ma'am?
	Did that just come in, Art?
	Yes, ma'am.
	Oh, I want to talk about the Celestine Prophecy, talking about things and coincidental things.
	That's a little more than a gut feeling.
	What's your cat doing?
	Is he adjusting any better?
	Is it still launching off your knee?
	Um, what do you mean, my big cat?
	Yeah.
	Um, that one's healing right now.
	I mean, he really got me.
	Our little cat is great.
	Now it's to the point where about half the time they'll fight, but the other half of the time He'll sit there and let her lick his face.
	So we're kind of at that stage now.
	I'm being very careful.
	I mean, can you imagine what it's like?
	I got the 16 pounder on my lap and the little one who loves the death, just loves people, doesn't care two cents and will come crawling over and crawl up on my neck while the big one's on my lap.
	That's really not, that's like a rocket ship ready to go off.
	Well, I think it's really something how you found Shadow.
	How it just came right up, you know, right on your shoulder.
	Yes.
	Well, we're cat people, too, so... Well, anyway, I guess this call just kind of proves the guy wrong.
	We just don't talk about political issues, either.
	No, we don't.
	All right, thank you.
	We'll talk about anything you want to talk about.
	That's the whole idea of Live Talk Radio, or at least my version of Live Talk Radio.
	Now, I'm in the middle of writing a book right now, and I appreciate Rush.
	And, um, you know how much of a political animal I am, so we talk about a lot of that, whatever happens to be going on.
	But there is more to life than that.
	And so there is more to this show than that.
	And I like the open format.
	I am convinced that those talk hosts, unnamed for the moment, who criticize open-line talk radio, would be well-served of themselves by trying it.
	Giving it a shot.
	Wouldn't hurt them a bit.
	They could probably do it.
	Those with enough talent could handle varied subjects.
	And I think should.
	And I think it is the direction that we will force, eventually, talk radio to go into.
	It's much more entertaining.
	I don't like being stuck on any single subject.
	I'm just a guy who likes to do things his way.
	Hello.
	Yes, hello, Art.
	Yes, sir.
	This is Frank from Longview.
	Longview, Washington?
	No, Texas.
	Texas.
	Frank, we're holding this open for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania.
	Head my radio off.
	All right, thanks for the call.
	But they can't get in because everybody else is trying to get in.
	So, let me try one last time here.
	I may have to give up on this idea of letting affiliates try to get through when they're new because there are too many people out there.
	Nevertheless, once more he says, if you're listening to W.A.R.A.
	in Attleboro, Massachusetts on 1320.
	Or WAZL in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
	And only if you're listening to those.
	Call us now at 1-800-825-5033.
	It is a free call.
	We're trying to celebrate your affiliates joining us, but that line is jamming up with other people who just aren't listening.
	The number is 1-800-825-5033.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	eight two five five zero three three west of the rockies your on the air high
	hi uh...
	i was going to uh...
	care might be a lot of death and On the death sentence?
	Yeah, on like uncapital punishment itself.
	Alright.
	I kind of feel like that's something that should be really used very carefully.
	It seems like people just use it as a form of revenge almost.
	I really feel like that should be something that should be used in something to somebody I don't know, how can I put it?
	Well, alright, let's get specific.
	Susan Smith, in South Carolina.
	I feel she shouldn't get the death sentence.
	That she should or shouldn't?
	Shouldn't, because of the fact that she did something, as malicious as it may be, was not really a danger to society as a whole.
	And I think someone that proved himself to be a danger to society as a whole, say Charles Manson, would deserve the death sentence, because you're protecting society.
	Well, I don't know if I follow that or not.
	i also did not think uh...
	under the circumstances and there were mitigating circumstances for the
	sentence i mean she did the crime but generally in murder
	pre-planned pre-thought premeditated cold-blooded
	i am a believer in the death sentence however
	uh... not in that case And that takes a lot of explanation.
	I appreciate your call, sir.
	East of the Rockies, you are on the air.
	Hello there.
	Hello.
	Actually, I'm calling on request.
	I have a near and dear friend of mine who lives in Phoenix, Arizona, who called me up
	all frantically and insisting that I call you.
	Because I live in Rhode Island.
	And I live in westerly Rhode Island, and I understand you have a radio show on 1300 now,
	and I'm up in the evenings, of course, as I am right now.
	Actually, it's 1,320 from Attleboro, Massachusetts, and I would imagine you like Rush Limbaugh.
	I enjoy Rush.
	you know i guess i know i want i would think so yeah i can i'd uh... like that
	a little after we were down here at the or political or uh...
	well you like what what about i enjoy rush i don't do my program as rush does
	uh... another words i don't limit uh... discussion to politics by a long shot
	and there are some nights when we had we never talk about it
	Oh, how long is your program?
	Five hours.
	Five hours?
	Five hours.
	Do they carry the whole show, or do they just... Well, I believe that there you'll get four hours of the show, from two to six in the morning your time.
	Oh, well, I'll certainly try to listen.
	Goodness gracious, I don't know what to say.
	You're nationwide, I take it, of course?
	Oh yes.
	About 194, actually 5 or 6 affiliates now.
	Congratulations to you, sir.
	about a hundred and ninety four actually five
	or six affiliates now some like that all congratulations to your for
	thank you uh... i got it all out clear the line to the right i don't
	have much to My friend called me.
	Hello, Ian.
	And I'll see you later, Ian.
	All right.
	Hello, Ian, and I'll see you later.
	We're going to take just a little bit of a sample of what's out there right now.
	West of the Rockies, good morning.
	You're on the air.
	Dr. Democrat.
	Well, Doc, you're going to have to give us a few words of great wisdom on this side of the hour, and then wait.
	Okay, we'll start off with Janet Reno's hearings today.
	Oh, that ought to be quite something.
	She's going to make the Republicans look like monkeys.
	Oh, you think she's going to rip us up, huh?
	Especially Mr. Zelig.
	For heaven, he has absolutely no proof that Clinton made the decision.
	And she's just going to make him look like a fool that he is.
	And Charles Schumer is too.
	Alright, on that note, Doc, hold on while we all consider that Incredible statement you just made.
	That somehow you know that Zelop has got nothing to back it up.
	Hmm.
	Fools.
	I'll go look like a fool.
	I'll be right back.
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere Inside.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	This is a story of a man who was a sailor on a ship in the Pacific Ocean.
	He was a sailor on a ship in the Pacific Ocean.
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired July 31st, 1995.
	Live, on screen, talk radio, all night long, from the high desert to the nation, and well beyond, I might add.
	Dear Art Bell, the whole point, as well as the, this is in quotes now, success, end quote, of Waco, was to establish the position of, hey you Christians, don't mess with us, Be afraid as well, and don't own guns.
	Dave in San Diego.
	Think that was the message?
	Certainly many have received it that way.
	And this.
	Art, of course we're all wondering of what religious belief you adhere to.
	Sometimes it seems obvious until you deny as well as distance yourself from any commitment from the topics heard on your show.
	Michael Reagan says he's a Christian.
	What shall we say of Art?
	A religious moderate?
	A believer in Art Bell-ism?
	Yes, Kate, in Loves Park, Illinois.
	It's true.
	I have a religion.
	I call it the religion of the mirror.
	And I go in and I chant at my own reflection in the mirror.
	Kate, I have no structured religion to answer your question.
	I don't mind answering it straight out.
	I believe in a maker.
	I believe in our God.
	I believe in Jesus.
	I guess that makes me a Christian, eh?
	But I am a privately religious person, Kate.
	I was baptized a Lutheran.
	I went to Sunday school when I was a kid.
	I have doubts and concerns.
	And worries and hopes and dreams and curiosities about our maker and about religion, but I have no specific religion, Kate.
	I spent a lot of my life searching.
	Investigating many religions, some of them odd, some of them mainstream.
	And I never settled on any, Kate, so I don't know what that makes me.
	You imagine the mirror, if you wish.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Mr. Bell.
	Hi.
	It's a pleasure to talk to you.
	And to you, sir.
	First of all, I'd like to say that I really appreciate your show.
	Thank you.
	You help take the ill out of lonely nights.
	Where are you?
	I'm in Bozeman.
	Bozeman, Montana.
	Okay.
	Yes, sir.
	The reason why I called, I wanted to tell you my Bigfoot story.
	You have a Bigfoot story?
	Yes, I do.
	Did you hear the scream that might have been Bigfoot that we had on Dreamland?
	No, I didn't.
	I missed that.
	Oh, too bad.
	Anyway, go ahead.
	Nice.
	It was 1978, about 20 miles west of Denver.
	I'm really nervous.
	I made a buddy of mine.
	I was 13 years old.
	Basically what we've done is we've kind of snuck out of the house at night.
	I did that in my day.
	Can I mention last names?
	No.
	This was Lookout Mountain Road, Relia Park.
	We come around the corner and there's a recreation area on the right side.
	They have company picnics in there.
	They've got a baseball diamond, picnic tables, etc.
	There's this thing standing on the pitcher's mound.
	Really?
	Beating a dead dog with a stick.
	Beating a dead dog with a stick?
	Yes, sir.
	Uh, about nine feet tall.
	Wasn't human.
	Uh, could tell that right away.
	Uh, right across the street is the Jefferson County Nature Center, and there's a big stone gate.
	Yeah.
	And, uh, we, it's about a hundred yards away, and there's about a 60 mile an hour Chinook wind blowing.
	We get behind the gate, and we're watching this, and it's got this dog by the tail, and it's beating this dog on the head.
	I had the dog in the left hand, stick in the right, holding it out.
	My friend's name was Jody.
	I turned to him and I whispered.
	I forget what I whispered.
	I think I said, can you believe this?
	This thing turned its head towards us.
	We're talking 100 yards.
	Heavy wind.
	We were downwind from it.
	It took off running.
	200 yards in, I'd say, four seconds.
	Hmm.
	And, um, galvanized ranch gate.
	Maybe we ought to call them fast foot.
	Yeah, but, um, you know, the UFO thing, you know, I think there's a relationship, uh, between the two, um, and a related story in 1984, which about six years later, A friend of mine on the mountain, David and Wendy, they found a human hand in their dog pen.
	Bad.
	The cops came up, cops traced it, and they found this tourist from New York City buried in this snow drift without a hand.
	They never ascertained if it was buried by a human or an animal.
	I don't know if it's related, but it happened in the same general area.
	Well, I liked your Bigfoot story most.
	That was pretty good.
	You swear on all that's holy.
	I swear on it, and I have told this story, and I've been ridiculed for it.
	I've told it in greater detail.
	It's a little more urgent because I'm on talk radio.
	Jody, if you're out there, you know who you are.
	Um, and everybody out there knows who they are if they ridicule me for it, um, but I swear to God... Well, I shall not, sir.
	Thank you very much for the call.
	It's easy to ridicule.
	It's easy to, uh, criticize.
	Anybody ask... Congressman Schiff said, and there are a lot of small, narrow minds out there, who, um, can do nothing but criticize.
	And, uh, because of the, you know, a certain subject is not of interest to them.
	Uh, they act quickly to jump and make fools of those who would come and tell a story as this young man just did.
	I appreciate it.
	I would not try to make a fool of you, sir, and I don't do that on this program.
	These are open lines, and I'll listen to everybody fairly.
	At least I'll try to.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Geez, I don't know how to follow that one up.
	That was a hell of a story, wasn't it?
	Yes, Coco Leonard.
	About three weeks ago, Well, Charlie Shermer was on the TV and he was talking about the CS gas they used in the Waco compound.
	Yeah.
	And he mentioned a chemical called methylene chloride.
	So I called my brother, the chemist, and the statement that Shermer was making that he said, well, you know, people are accusing us of using flammable liquids in there.
	And he says, as a matter of fact, methylene chloride would be a flame retardant.
	Well, only if it's pooled on the ground.
	If it's in aerosol form, in other words, a mist in the air, it's highly flammable.
	Yeah, and here's the fine point of the thing.
	When I talked to my brother, the chemist, he said, well, look, he says anything that displaces air could be termed a flame retardant.
	You could have pure nitrogen in there, and of course you would asphyxiate on that.
	And he says in certain conditions, and he says it depends on what they're using it for, as a solvent or possibly as a carrier for the gas.
	But this is how they try to twist things around, you know, as far as when they try to... Well, I think today is going to be the day when we either get down to the truth of what happened at Waco or we find out we're never going to.
	Well, I have a quick thing, too, on that Vince Foster of him committing suicide or not.
	The thing that people just don't seem to want to comment on is the fact of his frequent flyer miles to Switzerland, those jet trips he was making over since the late 80s.
	And what was he doing there for an hour, then coming back to the United States?
	Nobody's addressed that.
	So I find that kind of weird.
	Well, one can only imagine, and one can imagine a very great deal indeed.
	Thank you.
	I don't know.
	There's something there.
	There's definitely something there.
	And again, I object to the entire process.
	You know what?
	The fact that there's obviously more in the Vince Foster case, that the allegations are it may involve a very serious charge against the president, and the conclusions by many are that even if it's found, it won't be used because of political reasons.
	I just, I hate the whole thing.
	I hate the whole thing.
	And I'm going to say it again.
	If Americans don't begin to get, perceive, that they're getting the truth from our government pretty soon, there are going to be dire, dangerous consequences to be paid.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Radio Free America.
	Hello.
	Yeah, I don't like it much either, but that's the way it's working, unfortunately.
	You know, they didn't even ask the questions, Art.
	You've got to ask the question, why wasn't Sarah Baines called to testify, the jury for women, the trial of Shannon?
	Well, don't give up the ship yet.
	This is going to be an important day.
	Why wasn't James Bovard, who you might want to have on your program someday, the journalist from the Wall Street Journal, called to testify?
	Why wasn't anyone...
	From the state investigators investigating the child abuse and molestation charges.
	Did you hear Congressman Schiff earlier?
	Yes, I did.
	And also, they still haven't asked any of these agents about the missing infrared video, the missing audio recordings, and the missing ATF video.
	A Parkland Hospital was notified at 6 o'clock in the morning how many burn units they had in their hospital, yet there weren't any fire trucks there.
	Okay.
	Well, we've all heard this so many times, sir.
	We kind of know what hasn't been testified to so far.
	But don't you think, Art, that if they're not going to even ask the questions, And they're really not trying to get to the truth.
	Well, I'd be more inclined to be in agreement with you when it's over and it hasn't happened.
	I mean, it's not over yet at all, sir.
	I mean, come on.
	Well, you know... One of the biggest days is going to be today.
	Why don't you talk about that, Woody?
	Janet Reno's going to sit there and they're going to ask her the very hard questions.
	I think that, you know, it all ties into something bigger, in my opinion, but we'll see.
	Like what?
	Well, it turns out that the converter kits that Koresh was buying comes from Webb Hub Hubbell's father-in-law, Seth Ward's company, Park-O-Meter.
	So?
	Well, you know, if you followed the Whitewater story and the MENA connection... Oh, I see.
	So now you're going to... Oh, my.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	So then somehow we're going to connect Waco to Whitewater.
	I don't know about that.
	I'm willing to follow a logical train, but I don't see the train going down that particular track.
	I think the collision that occurred on the track we're already talking about is sufficient to be examined.
	Whether or not it'll be in fair detail, and the American people will perceive when it is over, they have the truth.
	I guess I admit I'm in doubt.
	God, this is all so dangerous.
	I worry so for this country.
	And you should too.
	It's still a great country.
	Do we really want to screw it up?
	Do we really want to break faith with the American people to the degree that things become dangerous?
	Do we want to do that?
	I don't think so.
	Wildcard line, you're on the air.
	Hi, Art, I'm calling from Fairbanks.
	Fairbanks, Alaska, yes.
	One thing that really bothers me, and I haven't heard anybody really comment on it, maybe I've just missed it, but I get very angry and tired of hearing the cop-out by dark Democrat people, such as that, saying, well, Janet Reno didn't know what the gas was all about.
	Why?
	I mean, this is a lady that is the top decision maker.
	And she, they are going to allow, whether it be Congress or anyone else, to use a cop-out.
	I didn't know what it was.
	And then they keep referring to the fact that her biggest concern was molestation of the children.
	That would have been a concern of mine had I been the proper law enforcement agency that should have been looking into that.
	But that is not a federal offense that feds cross the line.
	That would have been the Texas Rangers or the police officers within that area, which had checked on it and had found no sign of it.
	I know.
	But even whether you're talking about allegations of child abuse or you're talking about possible weapons violations, none of it, none of it justifies all the people killed.
	Not a thing.
	That's the point.
	And I do not agree with David Koresh.
	I don't know him well enough to disagree.
	All I know is the way our government handled it was, in my opinion, very improper.
	They're using cop-outs, very cheap cop-outs, that the Republicans seem to be allowing them to get away with, which I don't understand.
	Being a Republican myself, a moderate to conservative person, I'm very disappointed in the whole process.
	I don't really, truly understand what's going on here.
	If there was no intention of ever getting to the truth, they should not have put the American people through this, allowing them to believe that the truth was going to come out.
	Now, I listened to you prior to the hearing starting, and you were a man that sounded very excited that now America's going to know the truth.
	I shared that same feeling, Art.
	I thought, it's time.
	But as we've watched the hearings, It's one of the largest farces I've seen pulled on the American people, and even though I am a moderate, conservative Republican, I am so disappointed in the actions of most of the Republicans involved, that I don't see what hope they have for next year, as far as another sweep such as we had in November.
	You know, I'm starting to care a lot less about them.
	The Republican hopes, the Democrat hopes, than I am for America.
	Is that a non-partisan expression for you?
	Or what?
	I have hopes too, and I share a lot of conservative ideology.
	But I'm frankly scared to death of where we're headed right now.
	I really mean that.
	Scares the hell out of me.
	If we're not going to get the truth on Roswell, Waco, Whitewater, if everything has come to the point in America now, cover up, erase tapes, missing records, in other words, You know, we have freedom.
	Supposedly, freedom of information.
	As Congressman Schiff said, the American people have a right.
	But I think it is fair to ask whether we're going to know anymore.
	And I keep coming back to the same point.
	The gulf between government and the people is getting nothing but wider.
	And if these hearings end, With no clear answers, without the truth having been laid out, then the degree of danger goes up about three notches.
	Don't you all see it?
	Don't you see what it's going to lead to?
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Oh, I didn't think I'd make it.
	It's Todd in Berkeley.
	Hi, Todd.
	I want to apologize for giving you guys a bum steer about Dwayne Garrett the other night.
	I had heard that on the report, papers indicating a suicidal frame of mind.
	Yeah.
	My journalism was as sloppy as the Washington Press Corps, and it came out as such.
	That's all right, Todd.
	Yeah, strangely, I got to thinking, 27 little pieces of unsigned paper, also indicating a depressed state of mind, are given to us as Vince Foster's suicide note, unquestioned.
	Yes.
	Anyway, I hate to do it again, but something I heard at the top of the news, it's a memo from Mac McCarty?
	Yes.
	Did you hear about that?
	No.
	Oh, okay.
	Words to the effect that the White House was to be kept informed throughout the course of the Waco event, the day of March 1?
	Well, that's what the congressman that I just had on said.
	Yeah, well evidently there's a paper trail, though, if they will pursue it.
	Well, if they do, And if the President lied to us about this, then you've got cover-up, and then you've got a problem.
	This is something I've been wanting to say.
	That's really damning.
	I mean, thanks Republicans, you're doing us a great big favor.
	Thanks for nothing.
	If this guy needs to be gotten out, then damn it, get him out.
	I think it's damning to both sides.
	and president clinton so they can run against them what to think about
	their their self-image i think it's damning to both sides in other words if
	they come up with something that would be impeachable they wouldn't use it
	That's damning.
	If there's something that's impeachable, then he ought not be in there.
	That's damning.
	Either way, the whole system is totally... They're listening to too many polls because they think it's a dead heat.
	If my own man-on-the-street opinion's worth anything, the man hasn't got a chance.
	Well, I wish I believed that.
	And Doc Democrat, he's what I call a true believer.
	I mean, nothing I think would ever come about.
	You know, I would use a different phrase.
	I would say Doc Democrat is a political operative.
	Oh, really?
	A spinmeister.
	Oh, okay.
	He really ought to be in the administration.
	Well, Clint could barf in the Japanese Prime Minister's lap and he'd have something good to say about it.
	Thank you for the call, sir.
	That's right.
	Well, he was just expressing his feelings about trade policy.
	And I thought he did a great job, Art.
	I mean, what greater way is there to express your distaste for what your host is trying to sell you than throwing up in his lap?
	It was a masterful political stroke.
	I'm sure Doc would say that.
	These are interesting times to be living through, aren't they?
	We've got a Category 1, hopefully it will not move, 2 hurricane, with a great deal of moisture moving straight toward southern Florida.
	Tens of thousands are evacuating.
	It's gonna be a rough season.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	Welcome to the Coast to Coast AM Concert.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from July 31st, 1995.
	Good morning.
	Uh, somebody was kind enough to fax me a copy of the London Observer.
	The Roswell, uh, film, autopsy film is making big news now all over the world.
	It's entitled Scientists Puzzled by Space Alien Autopsy.
	London.
	It is either the science story of the century, or the greatest hoax since Pull Down Man.
	Either way, television footage of the dissection of two aliens to be screened worldwide late next month is expected to stir considerable controversy.
	The film was allegedly made in the wake of the Roswell incident.
	An event famed among ufologists who believe extraterrestrials were indeed found after a flying saucer crashed at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.
	And that's just a bit of it.
	It's beginning to make big headlines.
	Art, read this on the air.
	I have just downloaded the Roswell autopsy photos.
	For those who are serious about UFO research, this is a must-have.
	They had better get your newsletter if they're not active computer users so they can see these photos immediately.
	I agree.
	Art Bell.
	What do the four dead BATF agents have in common?
	The last caller was also right.
	They tried to kill a lot of birds with a stone at Waco.
	How can they tell the truth?
	If they did, there'd be a revolution tomorrow.
	How about Oklahoma City?
	I agree.
	We're in deep.
	Expletive deleted.
	Dave in Redwood City.
	Thanks, Dave.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello, Mr. Bell.
	I can barely hear you, sir.
	It's called New Orleans?
	Yes, sir.
	Yes, he was surprised that Janet Reno Refusing to accept any blame for this, acting like she didn't do anything wrong, and she would... That didn't surprise me one little bit.
	I'm not saying this because of Janet Reno, but because anybody who has had any experience in fighting the federal government, I mean, high-level bureaucrats, is going to tell you that bureaucrats have gotten to the point where they think they're little gods, and they never admit doing anything wrong.
	I mean, that's just their mindset.
	You know, what they do is right because they do it, because they can't do wrong.
	They're incapable of doing anything wrong.
	I'm sorry, that's just the way things have gotten.
	Well, it's to a point now, I care much less about them than I do the relationship between the American people and what they perceive as their government.
	It's getting dangerous.
	Well, I think it would be a lot more dangerous to people uh... that around thinking that they had a government they
	could properly don't i mean a lot better if they know the truth of things
	if they ever have a realistic appraisal of the government is in effect there are no words
	it's cool if we know they're liars cuz we'll just accept them for that no that's
	not true sir it's not true i i i understand your argument but it's it's
	specious uh...
	ready ready to think of the people are truthful and really liar uh... no
	That is not better.
	That is not better.
	But the knowledge that they are liars will not be accepted quietly, and it's going to lead to something awful.
	Don't you understand?
	Well, there's a point.
	The alternative, then, is to just quietly let yourself be turned into a totalitarian state.
	Do you think that's preferable?
	No.
	Well, I don't.
	That's the alternative.
	Some of there aren't any easy alternatives.
	You know, I mean, the point is, are people going to sit around with themselves?
	I appreciate the call, sir.
	I don't know.
	I can tell you that I would not allow that, nor would a lot of Americans of my generation.
	Now, of the next generation?
	I don't know.
	The one that follows that?
	do you have? I appreciate the call sir. I don't know. I can tell you that I would not
	allow that nor would a lot of Americans of my generation.
	Now, of the next generation, I don't know. The one that follows that, I don't know. I
	really don't know.
	I really don't know.
	Maybe they will follow along like so many modern sheep.
	I don't know.
	I just know that somehow we have got to narrow this credibility gap that is between the people and their government.
	And if we don't, and if it continues to widen, and if Waco just pushes it further, And after a while, we just take them to be liars, know that we're lied to by everybody that would say they would lead us, that something awful is going to happen.
	Really awful.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning, Art.
	This is Brett and KC listening to Radio With Attitude, KCMO.
	KCMO, yes sir.
	If you don't mind, I'd like to take you to task on your Well, that's not quite correct, no.
	the person who met okay uh...
	the the reason i think that is because uh...
	you could give me your life you thought might be more humane because of her
	circumstances correct well that's not
	quite correct now uh...
	i said actually that her time in prison maybe more of
	an actual hell then death would be and she might welcome death
	is just my personal view that she was crazy is alone when she did it
	right and and there are a lot of people who've got some of that responsibility
	in union south carolina well i agree i agree with you as far as maybe a shared
	responsibility for her upbringing
	But as far as what the jury needed to decide, they were trying to decide actual punishment for the crime.
	Correct.
	And I think a lot of us get vengeance in our minds when we start thinking of how to punish people.
	You know, you hear the people that say we should put her in a car and drown her too.
	Yeah, I know.
	Or we should make her live with this the rest of her life with pictures of her kids plastered on the wall.
	I know, I know, I know.
	I think that she committed a double murder, killed two people, And that just out of strict punishment, not out of vengeance, or, you know, we could discuss reform, or protecting society, or using her for an example, or prevention of this ever happening again, and we can discuss all these different things, but the actual punishment to fit the crime would be the death penalty.
	All right, sir.
	Strictly speaking, you are correct.
	There are 600 mothers in America every year.
	This is really sad.
	600 mothers who kill their own children every single year.
	Do you think giving Susan the death penalty would have deterred even one of them?
	I favor the death penalty as a deterrent.
	i favor it uh...
	as the bible suggests and i should be given for a night Bye.
	But only under the worst circumstances.
	And to me, I'm going to say it again, there was a difference between some guy who runs into a 7-Eleven, points a gun at a cashier, says, give me all your money.
	The guy opens up, gives him all the money.
	The guy starts to leave and then thinks no and puts a bullet through the guy's head.
	A lot of that going on these days.
	That's a mindless, premeditated murder in the commission of a felony.
	That deserves the death penalty.
	However... However awful the circumstances early in her life They don't mitigate the crime for one second.
	But when I finally got down to assessing whether or not the death penalty was appropriate for this 23-year-old girl, mother, ex-mother, I did look at her life.
	And I think that at the time she committed the crime she was nuts.
	And I think a lot of people contributed to that condition.
	And do I think we should execute people who are really mentally deranged?
	No.
	I guess I don't.
	And I think there was sufficient testimony to mitigate the sentence portion of the trial.
	Not the crime itself, but the sentence portion of the trial.
	She's going to lead a horrible life.
	Try and imagine 30, 40, 50 years, her entire life, no doubt, in prison, thinking about what she has done.
	That is hell on earth.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Yes.
	I'm trying to get a hold of Heartbell.
	You've got him.
	Alright.
	Hello?
	Heartbell?
	Yes.
	Alright, Greg from Sacramento, KST 650?
	Yes, sir.
	First of all, Susan Smith, she's got 30 years, obviously, and she's under a 30-day suicide watch right now.
	According to Sacramento Bee today, she'll be able to get a cafeteria job or something, and I just can't imagine what The African-American women are going to do to her, number one in any prison, male or female, crime against children.
	She won't last long.
	Sir, she will be held in isolation.
	She's not going to be out in the cafeteria.
	They will understand that somebody would go after her.
	Well, she made an apology through the Felicia Guard.
	The inmates are African-American inmates, but in any men's prison, I'm sure you have.
	You know, it's obvious.
	You do a crime against children.
	Not just African-Americans, sir.
	Right.
	Chicanos will cut your throat for that.
	Whites will cut your throat for that.
	They all know what goes on in prison to people who have committed crimes against children.
	They don't last very long.
	And I wasn't... In her case, you know, she mentioned that the adductor originally had been an African-American.
	All right, thank you.
	You seem to want to get that in a little too many times for my taste.
	Thank you very much.
	There's a lot of people in prison who slit your throat.
	You commit a crime against children.
	You molest child.
	You go to prison.
	Your chances of getting out are not real good.
	They will hold Susan Smith without question in isolation.
	And as I said, it'll be hell on earth for however many years Unless she does commit suicide, and she may.
	She's got hell.
	What could be more hellish than to be behind bars for your adult life, thinking about what you did?
	Truly hellish.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Yeah, thanks for taking my call, Art.
	As far as Roswell goes, two quick topics.
	What would be wrong with having the GAO look into the communications of other major UFO sightings that the UFO clubs and watch groups all have very well documented?
	Well, all they've got to do is go to people like Congressman Schiff or others who would make such a request of the GAO.
	And find out, like, which was the first UFO sighting after the Roswell incident, and start seeing exactly when records start showing, because it would be hard to delete just UFO activity off of all of those logs.
	There ought to be a paper trail someplace.
	Well, that all those records are gone, that is the story.
	Thank you.
	The Albuquerque Journal, as the Congressman will tell you here in a few moments, if you get to hear the repeat, Um, got things way out of context.
	And, uh, the big story should have read, um, GAO discovers two years of records that would have, would have told us the truth, uh, about Roswell to be missing, to, uh, have been destroyed without proper authorization by who?
	By nobody knows who.
	Two years of records of communications.
	That would have told us the truth.
	Gone.
	Now, what is a mother to think?
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi there, this is Pete in Portland.
	How's it going, Mr. Bell?
	Hi, Pete.
	Well, this is Portland, Oregon, the state where even Republican politicians act like Democrats.
	Oh, I got a friend who wants to talk to you.
	Hello, Art.
	This is Mickey.
	We're going to buy Chancellor Broadcasting.
	Then what are you going to do?
	Well, um, you know, that'd be something.
	Wouldn't it be to be bought by Disney?
	Oh, man.
	I don't know.
	What is this world coming to?
	They bought ABC.
	Are they going to keep Peter Jennings and, uh, and what's his name on Nightline?
	Ted Koppel?
	Or what are they going to do?
	Are they going to send, uh, It's going to be like baseball trading, you know?
	Here's a mental picture for you, all right?
	Close your eyes and see if you can imagine Ted Koppel wearing a pair of Mickey Mouse ears.
	Well, I've got some bad news for you.
	Really?
	And that's that the result at Waco didn't really have to happen.
	We had 52 days where we could have gotten together 20,000 people who believe in the right to free speech, the right to practice religion, the right to keep and bear arms, pack them onto buses, get them down there, run them through the lines all at the same time, and have them stand there waiting for the tanks, just like Tiananmen Square.
	It was our Tiananmen Square, and we blew it.
	What a shock.
	All right, thank you.
	To tell me that, I never thought of that, sir.
	You mean that Waco actually didn't have to happen?
	What a revolutionary thought.
	Yeah, try and picture Ted Koppel with Mickey Mouse ears.
	In fact, a good cartoonist.
	I'll leave it at that.
	Hey, Benson, there's one for you.
	Draw us Ted Koppel with Mickey Mouse ears.
	See, I just gave you a great idea, just in case you've got cartooners cramp.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Good morning, Art.
	Hi, I would like to know what happened to the tape Waco the Big Lie and where's Linda Thompson now?
	The government confiscated all the copies of that and nobody seems to know where Linda Thompson is.
	The government confiscated?
	They came to get mine.
	They don't have yours yet?
	No.
	Really?
	Well, the two guys, they're in suits, you know?
	Dark suits, and they're the Waco Tape Collection Committee.
	Seriously, Linda Thompson sort of took herself out of the public spotlight by becoming as radical as she did, and those tapes still exist, and I've got mine.
	So that's... And they sure look real to me, and why couldn't they enter this as evident?
	Um, because, uh, in some cases, for example, the famous scene where the tank is seen coming out, uh, on the Thompson tape with a flame.
	Right.
	If, there's more to that video.
	And if you keep watching, uh, there is a piece of drywall burning and hanging on the tank, but Linda Thompson never shows that in her tape.
	Oh.
	Hmm.
	All right.
	Thank you very much for the call.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Yeah, hi.
	Hello, where are you?
	This is Mike.
	I'm calling from St.
	Louis.
	Yes, Mike.
	Yeah, I haven't listened to you for a couple of years.
	First time I've ever called.
	I just can't believe nobody's ever heard of CS Jazz.
	It's not tear gas.
	It's like...
	Comparing CS and tear gas is like comparing a BB gun to a .45.
	I was in the Army about early 1970 and they did it to us in Fort Knox, Kentucky in training and you can't see, you can't breathe.
	We had people bouncing off jeeps, bouncing off trees.
	That could answer how something could have gotten knocked over, because all you want to do is get into the open air.
	Sure.
	They call it tear gas as a farce.
	Well, as Doc said, that's why they punched those convenient little holes in the side of the building.
	Those people couldn't have seen those holes with that much gas that they had.
	We were in the open air.
	Well, it also could have been pointed out, sir, that the tanks knocked down the stairwells that would have allowed the people to go downstairs to go out the conveniently open holes by the tanks.
	Well, all I'd like to say to Doc Dumbell and Charlie Chump, I'd like to see them experience this, see what they think and what they have to say about it after that.
	They have a different tune.
	A good ten minutes of solid inhaling.
	Yes, oh, you couldn't last a good ten seconds of solid inhaling.
	I know.
	Thank you very much for the call.
	Have a good morning.
	Way short on time, everybody.
	If you're lucky and you get a repeat of the next hour or two, You will hear New Mexico Congressman Stephen Schiff.
	First, spend one hour on the subject of Roswell.
	He's the expert.
	Then, in the second hour, you will hear a frank, open discussion of Waco.
	He's on the Waco Committee, that within hours, about three hours here, will get underway with testimony by Janet Reno.
	It should be quite a day, and the next two hours are worth hearing.
	Either way, I thank you.

▲