Richard C. Hoagland, former NASA consultant and Ingstrom Science Award winner, reveals a March 21 press conference at the National Press Club where he’ll present suppressed Apollo/Soviet photos—including a "mile-size Grecian temple-like" lunar object from 1969—alongside experts like Graham Hancock via satellite. Citing the 1958 Space Act and a missing New York Times (1960) warning about extraterrestrial artifacts destabilizing civilization, Hoagland argues NASA’s cover-up violates disclosure laws, suggesting Apollo 13 was sabotaged to hide findings. His "hyperdimensional physics" ties lunar ruins to ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic geometric patterns, while Mars’ Phobos anomalies hint at prior human collapse. Grassroots pressure on C-SPAN and media is urged to force transparency, challenging decades of suppressed evidence. [Automatically generated summary]
And I want to tell everybody that a lot of information that you're going to be hearing about this morning with Richard Hoagland is now available right this moment.
New information as of today.
Also on my website, thanks to the efforts of Keith Rowland, who sweated the day through with Richard Hoagland and his people, to get this information up to the website.
So those of you with computers, those of you who want real audio for the program internationally, or wherever, my web address is www.artbell.com.
And you do well to head up there right now, because a lot of what you're about to hear about will be up there documented for you, including a newspaper article that'll rock you back.
And more news about the web coming up.
All of that with Richard Hoagland, science advisor to Walter Cronkite, Ingstrom Science Award winner, and at one time a consultant's NASA.
I'm not sure they roll the red carpet out there for him anymore.
But he did consult for them, and he'll be consulting with you here in just a very few moments.
Number one, when I get done with the show tonight, I will hop on board an aircraft and make my way to Portland, Oregon.
Saturday is the only book signing I'm ever going to do.
Mass book signing.
It's going to be at the Oregon Convention Center at high noon.
High noon, I'll be there at high noon.
And for about six hours, I'll sign anything you want me to, really.
If you've already got a copy of the book, bring it along.
I'll sign it.
If you want to buy a copy of the book there, arrive early, would be my advice.
So there you have it.
The Oregon Convention Center, Portland, Oregon, 12 noon Saturday.
And I'll be getting on an airplane right after the program, virtually.
So I'm looking forward to seeing you all there.
Oregon Convention Center, two tall spirals.
Actually, somebody sent me something about directions.
Here it is.
Art, just in case someone gets lost in Portland, I thought you better give out the exact address of the Oregon Convention Center tonight.
Here it is, 777 Northeast Martin Luther King Boulevard, located on the east side of the Willamette River.
And at the east end of the, I hope I didn't slaughter that name, the steel bridge.
The I-5 freeway runs right past the back of the Convention Center building.
All you've got to do is look for the twin greenish glass towers with what looks like flagpoles on top, with red airplane warning lights on top of the poles.
The center is on the east side, northbound lanes of the freeway.
Last night when I called you to impart what Lloyd Center was, shopping center, I guess, I experienced brain lock and forgot to mention that if listeners wanted to try out one of Art Bell's airbeds, there's a sleep comfort retail center located right there.
Oh, really?
No kidding.
The Lloyd Center Shopping Mall is located about 10 blocks east of the convention center.
Anyone for a sleep-in?
I'm glad you enjoyed my Oregon Cavorkian Center, Jonestown Diatribe, but it doesn't sound like it's going to shorten the long lines.
Oh, well, I've gotten all my affairs in order, and I'm ready to imbibe your magnetically wonderful well water.
I just, I will never have enough for everybody who wants well water.
He said they should be, the ensemble, jazz ensemble ought to be playing the theme song of MASH.
So that's the Oregon Convention Center, and I'll be there at noon.
Probably a little bleary-eyed, so I hope your understanding of that.
I will have been up all night doing what I'm about to do here.
But it's the one big book signing, and it comes up later today.
In a moment, Richard Hoagland with big news.
I want to thank the people up at our new sponsor, Shopsmith.
They sent me a door harp.
It's called a door harp that they made with that machine.
And it's beautiful.
It's the dawg on a single.
When you close it, these little balls bounce on some strings like guitar strings, and it makes this wonderful melody.
And it was made with a Mark V, I guess.
So thank you guys.
It's beautiful, and we've already got it mounted.
That way, I'll tell you, there's a famous saying in China that they told us about when we were up in communist China, and that is when one goes to use the restroom, the facilities, in China, or Chinese, they don't say that.
They're not quite so crass.
They say, I'm going to sing a song.
And so, appropriately, so a song might be sung, we mounted our new door chime on the bathroom door.
The song room.
With that, I'll try a segue now to Richard Hoagland.
Not easy.
He's got some news for you.
He's got a press club, a press conference coming up.
Richard Hoagland, as I told you, is a science advisor to Woz, to Walter Cronkite, Angstrom Science Award winner, consultant to NASA, and outspoken person now with regard to hyperdimensional physics.
And we'll try and get that explained one more time because I get faxes like that all the time.
And there's a big announcement coming up, and we've got a lot of it on the webpage, and here is Richard Hoagland.
Starting with the press release that we issued yesterday relating to the press conference on the lunar briefing the Mars mission is conducting for the press in Washington at the National Press Club at 9 a.m. on August 21st.
And then it said, you know, this, of course, is paraphrasing this famous government report.
The Brookings Institution was commissioned by NASA in 1959.
They spent a year looking into what NASA might find in the out years, as they say.
They then came back with a report in 1960, which the New York Times got a copy of and published as a headline.
And then all reference to this report or to the possibility of artifacts in the solar system by a young NASA literally vanished from not only the consciousness of the New York Times, which I'll go into in a minute, but also from the rest of the federal government and the rest of the media and apparently the rest of the governments of the world and human consciousness.
Well, let me tell you, this came to me from one of our researchers.
The clue that this actually existed came to me from one of the former NASA aerospace employees who was going to be standing up with us at the press club on Thursday.
I had asked all our participants, which include scientists and engineers and photographic experts and geologists and construction people.
I mean, we have a large panoply of experts who are going to be standing there in front of the press for two hours going through this remarkable data.
This is, as the science editor for Popular Mechanics said to me today when he made his date to come and see all these, he said, Hogwan, he said, this is the event of the millennium if you've got the goods.
There is one photo which I sent to Keith Rowland this evening, which is a comparative stereo panel.
It's a left-right panel.
It is from frame 4822, which is this famous Apollo 10 frame that we've been discussing since my presentation at Ohio State in 94.
It is of a mile-size object looking something like a Grecian temple, made of glass, glittering in the sunlight, brilliantly reflecting sunlight from a variety Of facets to it, hanging about nine miles above Sinus Medi, which is the central bay in the center part of the moon, photographed in May of 1969 by one of two astronauts, either Tom Stafford or Gene Cerner.
We don't know who actually was wielding the camera yet.
They were photographing it out the window of the lunar module, which was testing the lunar landing parameters for the eventually successful Apollo 11, which followed in July of that year.
We originally got this photograph from one of my inside sources at the Goddard Space Flight Center and found that it had this incredibly remarkable, intensely geometric, intensely artificial looking thing pinioned above the moon's surface against a relatively dark background.
We spent a lot of time looking for corroboration.
After Ohio State, I basically gave people, you know, through the internet, through frames that had been grabbed, license to try to get additional corroborating data from NASA.
I told them how to order the frames from Houston, how to order them from NSSDC, which is the National Space Science Data Center.
A few weeks later, a young student named Alex Cook, who lives in the Northwest, called me very excited.
He said, Mr. Hogan, he said, I've ordered 4822 and I've got it, and it looks like it has the castle on it.
So I asked him to FedEx it to me.
He did.
We made large blow-ups, and not only is it a duplicate, it's another 4822, it's a different 4822.
It's not the same picture.
It's another frame given the same frame number by NASA, but it is a different version of the CASEL, and it turned out to be our first stereo pair.
So now we have two frames taken in slightly different times, a few seconds apart, slightly different geometric angles, because you're moving in orbit around the moon at one mile, about a mile and a half per second.
These are supposed to be frames on a roll of film on magazines of film and Hasselblad cameras that are documented when the film goes up with the astronauts, it comes back down.
There's supposed to be exactly as many frames taken by the astronauts when they come home from the moon as when they went to the moon.
And what we've uncovered is that there's a lot more photographs they've took that we have never seen.
Anyway, Alex Cook provided me this negative.
We made dupes.
We've enlarged it to the same scale.
We scanned it.
We enhanced it.
I have put both of these frames, these enlargements of this singularly striking thing called the CASEL on a single image, a single GIF graphic, about 1.2 megabytes, I think.
Now, what you do is, since it's enough resolution, you can really zoom in and see there is corresponding detail.
But what's important for people to note on frame number two, the one on the right, the cook frame, is that in the time between the photo on the left and the one on the right, something happened.
Something intervened between the spacecraft window and the lunar surface and wherever this thing is hanging, about nine miles above the moon.
So it looks on the second picture like you're looking through wavy shower glass.
You're looking through some kind of geometric obstruction.
In fact, this is the little cubicle construction elements of the Sinus Medi lunar dome that we have been discussing.
So what you're going to see is you're going to see light scattering off the surface of the glass from the sun, and then you'll see light transmitted through the glass from an object illuminated behind it by the sun.
The effect on the right-hand picture, castle number two, the Cook 4822, is what this photograph exhibits.
And this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Well, on July 20th, 1965, the spacecraft that I'm about to talk about, unmanned Soviet spacecraft Zond 3, and there's a whole rather remarkable discussion about Zond 3 we could get into if we want to later on in the morning, was sent to the moon rather suddenly and abruptly by the Soviets.
It was not supposed to go anywhere.
It, in fact, was supposed to sit and wait patiently for two years till they could send it to Mars.
Suddenly, in July of 1965, the Soviets got a bee up their vomit.
And they sent it to where Mars would be, but they really vectored it past the moon and they took rather remarkable pictures, 28 pictures as it went past the moon.
Well, I think so, because not only do we have the photographs, but for the first time, we have something that everybody has been saying they wanted all along, which is folks inside standing up with us who basically say this is what's been going on for 30 years.
These are people who were at NASA, who were part of the Apollo experience, who have first-hand knowledge of briefing of the astronauts, of return of data and samples and photographs.
One of the individuals who is a we are embargoing all the names until next week because I don't want any untoward pressure brought to bear on these people.
They are making very serious, how should I say, career decisions here, which could impact their families, their future employment, their standing in the community.
It takes a lot of courage to stand up and basically say that the people you have worked with have not been telling the American people the truth.
And we must be very careful in how we discuss this this morning, because it is not our intention to assail NASA or the federal government or any of the decision makers for decisions that have been made in the past.
If you go back and you look at the Brookings report, as reported by the New York Times, then it's understandable if the decision was presented, look, if this comes out the wrong way, civilization will be destroyed.
What man or woman in their right mind is going to put their common sense judgment up against experts who have spent a lifetime coming to such a weighty conclusion?
Well, we can easily get scattered, so let me close this thought.
We now have people who, in good conscience, saw what was going on at the time, now understand a great deal more that was going on that they didn't understand, were following their orders, were doing their duty, were good soldiers in common defense of the country and their culture and what they deemed to be the wisdom of experts above their pay grade.
And it is only recently, in the last several months, when they have seen our data and they have seen the evidence that things are not exactly as it was represented, as well as in the hindsight of 30 years, that in fact we now have television filled with discussions and thoughts of aliens and spacecraft and visitations of whatever.
And we're not exactly falling apart.
The stock market is going through the roof.
People are making money hand over fist, except for those who are employed by construction people where the jobs are going to other countries and stuff like that.
The point is that they understand now that the wisdom that they were told 30 years ago does not fit the 1990s.
So they've made a decision to stand up and tell the truth with us and to try to force the official establishment, NASA, the government, the White House, whoever's keeping the lid on.
Our objective here is to force them to simply honor their commitment to the American people to tell the truth under the Space Act as it was conceived in 1958.
Well, not to take away from the courage and integrity of the individuals who are going to be standing up there with us on Thursday, the fact is that I think they and many others are seeing the handwriting on the wall.
It is only a matter of time before this comes out.
The data which we have marshalled, the data we have put together, the comprehensive different missions, different lighting, different geometry, is overwhelming.
Any rational person who sets aside their preconception that this can't be real and simply looks at the evidence is overwhelming.
It is overwhelming.
I'm going to give you a very simple, trivial piece of evidence, which literally I only figured out this afternoon in preparation for your program this evening, Art.
So this is the first time anywhere anybody has heard this.
It's going to be presented to the press, to NBC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Washington Post, whatever, next Thursday.
But your audience and you are going to hear it first.
So these two properties, transparency and the ability to bend light going through it, are the hallmark of glass.
That has been what tipped us off, that what we're looking at is glass-like.
Notice I say glass-like, because we don't really have a sample of this stuff, although I must say that about half the weight of the Apollo samples returned by the astronauts was glass.
If you make very high-tech stuff out of glass, it's no longer the kind of glass that you and I would drink out of or look through on our windows.
And what we think this stuff on the moon is made of is not ordinary window glass, but a pretty sophisticated variety of glass.
But it's a kiss and cousin because it's going to be made of silicon and oxygen, just like ordinary glass.
It will have other properties and probably another crystalline structure.
So if you're going to build, all right, the idea is, you know, you want something that's cheap, that's available, and you use robotic technology.
And we're just getting into that now, this civilization at this point in time.
So it's an obvious solution to the construction problem.
Now, it's so obvious that NASA has rediscovered it.
Of course, I question now how they rediscovered it.
There is a study group at Los Alamos headed by Dr. James Blake, who have been working on lunar basing proposals for NASA for the last several years.
Well, in some of Dr. Blakek's papers, as part of his NASA contracts on lunar basing studies, he is proposing that NASA itself consider making its first lunar settlements, its first bases, out of glass.
The Japanese have been engaged for many years in major industrial concepts, vis-à-vis the moon.
One of the big corporations, Shimitsu, I believe, has actually got very detailed designs, architectural designs.
And one of our lunar engineers, in fact, the first Ph.D. in lunar construction ever awarded, has been given to this individual who was going to be at the press conference, who has done extensive study with the Japanese in Japan on their lunar basing studies.
And they are proposing to build their lunar basing out of glass.
Furthermore, they're proposing to use the hexagonal geometry, and guess what?
That's the geometry of the domes we found in the lunar photographs taken by Apollo and the others on the moon.
Very ancient structures.
So the curves are converging.
So in the long-winded answer to your question, I think that these people are standing up with us because they're brighter than the average person in NASA so far.
And they see the handwriting on the wall, and they're getting on the right side of the curve because we're going to win, guys.
We're going to win.
And when I say win, I mean we all win because what is going to happen is, and this is a pun deliberately intended, the glass ceiling of 30 years ago is going to be removed and we're going to finally have the space program we should have had 30 years ago.
Richard, I want you to sit back and listen to something that is my bond, so I must ask.
Let me get this done.
Fax arrives, says Art, save this for tomorrow.
You promised on the air to ask tomorrow's guest about this.
I actually got to speak to you on the air, and we made a deal.
You agreed to ask tomorrow's guest a question, and I agreed to listen.
I believe one's word is one's bond, so I will be true to my word.
Hope you'll do the same.
Also hope you'll do so fairly early in the program.
KTRH cuts you off at 4, not I think on Saturday.
At any rate, I know you get a lot of calls, so I'll remind you of the question.
I did exaggerate.
I said I read 17 papers.
I counted.
I only read 12 plus few weeklies.
If your guest wishes to dispute my claim that every published viewing time is dependent on the Terminator, you may cite the Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, Victoria, Texas Advocate, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, New York Times, San Antonio Express News, Fort Worth Star Telegram, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and Washington Post.
None of these papers have reported a viewing time between 8 a.m., this is now for the tethered satellite, 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.
If the satellite is glowing all by itself, let me see it two hours after sunset or two hours before sunrise.
Your guest is blowing smoke.
All right, listen to your show, so I'm usually up late.
I know where to look for the satellite, and I've looked.
I can't see it after 6 p.m. or before 5 a.m.
I dare your guest to tell us that the Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Journal are involved in some kind of media cover-up.
The fact is the satellite glows because of the sun.
The question, if the satellite is glowing all by itself, then why are all of the viewing times dependent on the terminator?
Why can't I see it at midnight or 10 p.m. or 2 a.m.?
You and your guests keep emphasizing how small the cable is.
If that is truly a factor, then why can I see the satellite at all?
Art, your response gave me a new faith in you.
I hope it's not misplaced.
Demand and answer as promised.
I'll be listening.
So there you are, Richard, on the tethered satellite.
This thing is developing rather remarkable electrical properties.
We won't even get into what's causing that for the time being.
All right.
What is happening is that it is charging.
It is creating a charge along that long conductor wrapped in an insulator.
That is, in turn, attracting ions from the ionosphere, from the F layer of the ionosphere in which this is moving at about 200 miles up.
So there is an atmosphere, a higher density atmosphere collecting in a cylindrical column around this very thin shoe-sized wire covered with plastic, 13 miles long.
That atmosphere, that ion atmosphere, has got a certain electrical charge.
In the night sky, in the dark, you can't see it because what's going on is basically invisible.
But when it reaches sunlight, either at dawn or at sunset, the interaction with the sun causes it to fluoresce, causes energy transitions to occur in those ions, primarily oxygen, all right, and it gives off light.
Now, because it's so big, it's probably a mile or so in diameter.
Think of a cylinder a mile across with this little tiny wire going down through the center of it, a thin diffuse neon sign inside out, because there's no glass around this thing, all right?
Now, how do we know this is true?
Because if you simply do the numbers, take a tenth of an inch wide object, even if it's painted white, put it 600 miles away, which is the slant range from an observer looking through the atmosphere at this thing that comes over the horizon.
Even if you paint the damn thing brilliant white, you're not going to see it.
Otherwise, you wouldn't need Hubble.
What I tried to do in one of my early shows is to do a kind of off-the-back of the envelope calculation to demonstrate that even Hubble would have trouble seeing this thing in orbit if it was on the ground looking up at it.
Now, I have got video, and I promised in the next couple of breaks, I'm going to send an image taken by a television crew in Hawaii at sunrise on March 4th.
There is a stunning piece of video.
I will grab a frame.
I will ship it to Keith.
We'll put it up on the board in the next few minutes.
Without a caption.
I don't have time to write a caption for it.
But I will show you this thing glowing brilliantly against the background stars.
Now, when you see the photographs of the Earth's night side taken from the shuttle, there is a band of air called the air glow, which is glowing.
That air glow is glowing by means of the same physical process I have just described.
What's different is that the air glow is so massive, there's so much air around the Earth, that it can store from 12 hours on the day side enough energy to radiate all night long and still be visible.
Whereas the atmosphere gathered around this tether, I'm assuming it's about a mile wide or a mile in thickness, like a cylinder, and 13 miles long, or maybe half a mile.
I haven't actually done the numbers.
There's so little mass in it that it can't store enough energy, so it quickly, when it moves into darkness, you don't see it anymore.
But it's being energized.
It's being primed.
It's almost like a laser in one sense, in that you have to pump up the energy level to the right level in order for it to be triggered by sunlight.
Today, hours from now, about 12, actually, I'll be in Portland, Oregon at the Oregon Convention Center.
Legal book signing.
And I hope you decide to come on down, as it were, and say hello to everybody who's going to be there, and it's going to be kind of neat.
There'll be a little jazz ensemble there.
Actually, the same jazz ensemble did a little work for my audiobook.
There will be hardcover editions available to those who, I think, get there early.
Along with the photographs that appear on the front page of the calendar section of the L.A. Times, which I will sign for you along with books or whatever.
I'm looking forward to it, and it's the only book signing I'm ever going to do, so it is now or never, folks.
Portland, Oregon, high noon, Oregon Convention Center today, Saturday.
Don't miss it.
At 9 a.m., March 21st, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Richard Hoagland and a group of experts unnamed tonight for their own benefit will testify about 30 years of cover-up.
I guess the headlines are the headlines, so I'll read them to you from this press release, a Mars mission press release.
And you can get a copy of this and the New York Times article that I guess kicked a lot of it off on the internet right now, as well as a new photograph Richard Hoagland is just releasing for those of you with computers.
For heaven's sakes, get up to my webpage right now.
It is www.artbell.com and we'll run down what's available for you there again in a moment.
Headlines, former NASA scientists and engineers to announce in Washington analysis of 30-year-old suppressed evidence revealing ancient artificial structures on the moon.
Photos show astronauts walking amid apparent lunar ruins on leaked NASA and Soviet space photographs.
Researchers to challenge White House to open NASA files suggest deliberate 30-year-old superpower cover-up based on that's not just us, by the way, superpower, based on official government report which warned civilization could collapse if this news got out.
And I've got that article in front of me right now, and you can have it in front of you.
New York Times, Thursday, December 15th, 1960, mankind is warned to prepare for discovery of life in space.
Brookings Institution Report says Earth's civilization might topple if faced by a race of superior beings.
And then finally, evidence throws new light on nagging question, what really happened to Apollo 13?
Richard?
Is that about sum it up?
Richard, where are you?
Well, I think we're still connected.
I can hear a light background sound.
Is anybody there?
Not again.
Can you all hear that light background sound?
Sounds to me like we are still connected.
But maybe we're not.
Unbelievable.
I absolutely guarantee you all I did nothing, pushed no wrong button, and it would appear as though we've had a disconnect with Richard Hoagland.
Unbelievable.
Absolutely unbelievable.
So I'm going to try.
I'm telling you.
I'm telling you, I think that they're messing with us, folks.
I don't know that we can reestablish communications one more time.
Richard?
No, that's a deadline, folks.
We have been disconnected.
I am normally not a suspicious person, but every time we've had this kind of material on, this is what's happened.
This is not, you know, you can't do this kind of in real-time radio, but we're trying here.
Let me tell you while I'm working through this electronics, I'm sitting at the computer trying to do this in almost real time.
During the second night when we were doing our show art, I got a call from one of our associates in Hawaii who claimed that the local TV stations were saying that this thing was going to be visible low over the Pacific Ocean at dawn.
So she went out to look.
And lo and behold, she and on the big island apparently sent a camera crew out to the beach.
And when it came over, they actually were able to get fairly decent video, which she then got on the horn and got them to copy on VHS, Super VHS for us, which she then said.
Do you know that it costs $150 to SEDEX one-day service from Hawaii?
Anyway, so it came in, and I looked at it several times.
I showed it to some of my associates.
They are stunned.
Now, there's several reasons to be stunned.
One is it is crystal clear.
It's in color.
It's drifting against the background stars.
It's rather remarkable.
And it's not exactly the way we saw it on the shuttle video from the spacecraft.
Those are the two images, by the way, that we have in our third press release up on your webpage now live.
There are two shuttle shots that I was able to grab from NASA Select taken from the shuttle that show this thing far away and much Closer as seen from the Columbia the morning of the close flyby, which was what Thursday morning when we did our show, right?
What you want to do when I complete this process is you want to compare this photo, which is a TV image frame grabbed from a terrestrial television camera sitting on a beach, 15 to 1 zoom lens, looking up slant range roughly 600 miles through the Earth's atmosphere at this tethered satellite, which is a 13-mile-long piece of string on the end of a five-foot white ball.
All right?
And in the next few minutes, I'll have this prepared and I will uplink it to Keith Rowland and we'll post it on the board.
All right, and again, for the man who faxed me, when you take into account the size of the tether, sun or no sun, there is no way on God's green earth that the human eye is going to be able to perceive it.
You can see in this ground shot, in this TV grabbed frame, the satellite glowing at the top, like a brilliant little star at the top of the string.
What is remarkably mysterious and confirms my model that this thing is electrically alive, that it is glowing because of energy pulsing through the wire, is there's also a brilliant star pulsing at the bottom end of the string.
All right, well, I would say, Richard, that like an antenna, if there is voltage and current flowing in it, that like any antenna, there would be voltage peak points, and certainly the end of a long wire would be a voltage.
Yes, and Richard's contention is that based on this and the study that generated this story, that we've had to cover it up all of this time, and now it's time for that to come to an end.
But remember, this is a cascade effect, where there's one or two honest people, there's a lot more, who know what's been going on.
And the stakes here are non-trivial.
If we are correct, then there's a whole series of technological advances, discoveries, fundamental scientific breakthroughs, insights, technological applications, economic implications across the board that are in the hands of a few and kept from the many.
Because when those samples came home from Apollo, if we are correct, the astronauts brought home physical samples of stunning technology, if nothing else, materials which were not made on this Earth by human civilization.
And somebody somewhere in the black budgets have analyzed this stuff and are producing things for war, things for the Defense Department based on this technology.
That, if it was in the private sector, if it was made publicly available, if it was accessible to the general economic, you know, day-to-day life of the world economy, would have a radical, Positive, short, and long-term economic influence on everyone on this planet, and they should, frankly, be a bit upset that it's in the hands of a few and they don't have access to it.
And that's why we can't let them get away with it any longer.
And that's why these folks that are willing to stand up there with us, who remember, are inside NASA people who worked hand in glove with the crews, the astronauts, the flight directors who were responsible for data, for dissemination of data to scientists around the world, who handle the photographs, who were told to destroy these photographs.
And because their conscience was so pained, it's taken them 30 years to get around to destroying them.
And so everybody understands these people, these inside people, are going to appear with you at 9 o'clock in the morning, March 21st, at the National Press Club, and they're going to stand up and they're going to tell the truth.
Yeah, originally we were booked into the Edward R. Murrow room, which for someone who is a CBS graduate like I am, really warmed the coffers of my heart.
And what they've done is because of the demand, they have now asked if we would mind for the same arrangement to be put in the main ballroom where there will be unobstructed visual access to the screens and the computers and the other things that we are assembling.
We have a very complicated, sophisticated presentation to put on.
We have physical props.
We have actual electronic media available, both video and computer.
This is a non-trivial event.
This is taking a great deal of time and effort by a lot of very creative and talented people to put this on and make it work.
Remember, I was science advisor to what some people have termed the most trusted man in America.
I was covering the Apollo missions with Walter Cronkite when we were going to and from the moon.
And if anybody had told me then, in the late 60s, that in fact, you know, we were not being told the whole truth, that there was something wrong, something rotten in Denmark, something that, you know, we needed to look into, I would have dismissed them as, you know, correct by crazy.
We had the arrogance to think that we knew everything, that we saw everything.
And in fact, it seems now that this was part of a skillful deception by people who really believed that New York Times headline.
When you really think that if you tell people the truth, you're going to destroy everything you value, everything you know, every loved one that you care about is put in peril by telling somebody there's a bunch of ancient ruins on a place that No one can live now.
Would you put the truth about that up against even one pet, one house pet, one cat, one dog?
Of course not.
So these people, I believe, were making very cogent, rational decisions based on the fact that they were abrogating their responsibility and they were letting other people make these decisions for them.
We know that government has lied to us consistently and with great abandon on a whole range of issues, not just on space, but on the economy, on politics, on secret programs, on the black budget, on taxes, on everything.
The government has not told us the truth.
We've had presidents who've had to resign.
In the history of the public, when did this ever happen, except about 20 years ago it began happening?
Yes, we are going to broadcast via the Internet live from the press club on Thursday morning, the 21st, beginning at 9 a.m.
If you log on to Art's website, there will be a running commentary, you know, one of these dateline things, Washington 9.05 a.m. and such is presenting.
Susan Carabin, who is our esteemed editor of Martian Horizons, is going to take her little laptop and is going to sit there in the grand ballroom surrounded by the creme de la creme of the National World Press Corps and typing furiously.
We'll try to keep up with the data stream and what's being presented and the questions that are going to be thrown at us at the end.
And you will capture everything on your board so there will be a complete chronologue of how this flowed during those two hours.
She asked me a question this evening before she was smart enough to go to bed.
She said, how will we be able to get questions from Art's audience back into the press conference?
Yeah, but what I would like to do, because the politics are very good, I would like to tell the press corps that we have real folks out in the country, the citizens who paid for these pictures, whose space program it really is, that would like to ask questions of the scientists and engineers we have assembled.
So if we can technically arrange that people can get in with questions, Susan will field them, read them off like they do on Talk Back Live on CNN.
Graham Hancock is, as you know, an esteemed reporter for the London Times, for the London Economist.
In the last several years, Graham has become very interested in the problem of missing history.
The fact that around this planet, on planet Earth, there's a whole bunch of ancient artifacts that appear to have extremely sophisticated engineering properties with no proper antecedent.
Anyway, so Graham is going to be participating in the press conference.
Now, ideally, in our first take on it, I wanted to have him fly with Santa to New York, to Washington, and stand up there with us, and he was willing to do that.
He had a conflict because he and Robert Baval on the 21st have already planned to be at Giza, at the Great Pyramid on the plateau, to do some critical astronomical measurements on the equinox to test part of their model, their theory.
I will tell you very nakedly why I put it on the 21st.
Because you do press conferences in Washington to get the attention of the World Press on the Thursday before a weekend.
In this case, I wanted it to be the Thursday before the Monday following the weekend.
And the reason is that Monday night, coast to coast and around the world, about a billion people are going to watch Ron Howard and company accept an Academy Award for Best Picture for Apollo 13.
And I wanted all the people who are writing across that weekend in the press corps to be factoring in our data and our people and a new perspective on what really may have happened to Apollo 13.
Now, the reason that we're doing it this way, and Graham loved it, he says, boy, he says in this esteemed British accent, he says, Dick, this is going to be a very good show.
The reason we're doing it this way is because I want to make a point to both the press and everyone else who may have forgotten that the world we now inhabit in the 1990s is not the world of the paranoid people of the 1950s and 60s.
It is now possible to have a reporter standing a quarter of the way around the world on a plateau, on a sand dune, holding a gadget that looks like a Star Trek communicator and talking live to a worldwide audience.
The fact that we have this data is testimony to the stunning progress and democratization of technology that those who tried to keep this hidden from us never imagined in their wildest dreams would be available to the great unwashed, just ordinary folks like you and me, to be able to go through frame by frame by frame and retrieve and reconstruct the data they thought they had so cleverly hidden from all public view forevermore.
And what I need from your audience is one crucial thing.
This is a participatory experience.
This is not a play-by-play.
I need everyone in the audience tonight to do one thing.
I need you to call or fax or write or email your local media outlets, television, wire services, newspapers, and demand that they have some kind of representation at this press conference.
What you need to do is to log on to Art's webpage, download the press release, send it to them, give them the email address if they want that, but make sure that you get to see your data 30 years overdue.
And the only way you can do that is to put public pressure all over the nation on local media outlets which are not controlled, which cannot be bought, which still are curious.
And if they know this is going down, they're going to want to participate in the fund.
But because there is a major legal question here, and it was brought up by the science editor of Popular Mechanics today, who told me on the phone this morning that he's going to be there with Bells on because this is the event of the millennium if we've got the goods.
His question to me was, is there a presidential finding that kept this secret?
And my question to the panel of legal experts on burden of proof, if they agree, if the producers agree to have us on, and as of this afternoon, they basically said that it's almost a done deal.
You'll be very tickled to death if they were pleased that I was going to be on your show tonight.
They wanted me to be on one other show before they put me on their show.
The reason I asked my folks to go after them specifically is because there's a major legal question here.
When the President of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower, Crafted with Sam Rayburn the Space Act, creating an open civilian space agency where in the law, all the data and the technology and the mechanisms whereby it was acquired was to be made available to the folks who own it.
There was one section of this Space Act, which I've got, which lists one exception.
That is...
And that is if the administrator of NASA deems data or technology to be relevant to national security, those words again.
At which point he has to go to the President of the United States in the law, and there has to be a finding by the President.
There has to be a document, a piece of paper to make it all legal.
Now, here's the catch-22.
If NASA is pressed by legal scholars and lawyers or whatever that I hope to be talking to on that Thursday afternoon to show them this piece of paper whereby they were able to withhold photographs of structures on the moon, then obviously we got them.
If they're doing this, they could never have gotten a piece of paper because if the paper ever came out, it would be tantamount to admitting there were structures on the moon.
So it's like when you leave, you know, you tell the babysitter, now, by the way, don't let the kids put beans up their nose.
The very idea that you plant in their minds is enough to cause the thing you don't want to have happen.
So when the New York Times published the Brookings warning that this kind of data could destroy civilization, at that point, the administrator of NASA and the president, whoever the president was going to be, who came across this stuff, was in a terrible double bond.
If they went through the letter of the law, they would destroy civilization if it ever came out, because why else would you classify stuff on the moon?
I need, I sound like Pat Buchanan, I need folks out there to pay close attention, to watch us, to make sure we don't disappear from the radar screens and they don't suddenly misplace our room key at the National Press Club.
Yeah, well, sometimes things happen that are obvious.
I will tell you that we had started out, as I said before, booked in the Murrow room.
And as of this afternoon, they called up, actually yesterday, and they asked if we would switch rooms to the ballroom because of the demand and the number of calls they were getting, which will allow for unobscured sightlines.
And we're going to have a lot of people sitting around drinking coffee and eating croissants, watching stunning lunar pictures.
You know, I just, you know, forewarned is forearmed.
This is too important.
And there's too many other people's reputations and careers and integrity on the line for us to drop a stitch down.
And the main thing we don't want to have happen is that, you know, it's the old joke, if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around to hear it, does it fall?
It would be really terrible if we throw this whole very elaborate party and nobody shows up because they think it's a joke.
So what we need to do is to make sure that the grassroots, the American people, the citizens who paid for this data, who've had it kept from them for over a generation, through their local media, who are wired in by satellite and by internet and all that, to basically make sure that they have a representation at the press club because it's open to all press, and we want to have as many as possible there.
I want to tell everybody once again, the information we are now discussing is now available.
The photographs, the press releases, the New York Times story, it's all up on my internet page.
That would be www.artbell.com.
That's with the obligatory HTTP: then www.artbell.com.
Or if you're new to the Internet, just go to a web browser and enter the name Art Bell, A-R-T-B-E-L-L, no spaces, and it will point you off into the right direction.
Of course, we also have, as you know, live audio, so you can listen to this program up there and a whole lot more.
But everything we're talking about this morning, that which is going to be given, at least some of it, to the National Press Club, March 21st, Equinox, 9 a.m., is on the webpage now.
If you've got a computer, you're going to get a first look.
Once again, here I am.
Richard Hoagland is my guest, and I've got something special coming up in a moment.
Richard Hoagland is getting set March 21st at 9 a.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. to blow the cork off 30 years of cover-up.
Serious cover-up.
And he's got the goods.
We'll tell you more about it in a moment.
I'm Art Bell.
Good to be here.
Last-minute people are all over the place.
The only book signing I'm ever going to do is going to be today in about a little less than 11 hours from right now in Portland, Oregon.
Come join us, Oregon Convention Center at 12 noon.
There will be books available, one-time event t-shirts, I think.
There'll be a little jazz ensemble there.
No charge.
It's free.
Come on in and see me, and I'll sign a book for you and a photograph.
And by the way, they've got that very special photograph.
It'll be a one-time deal because all the others are gone.
And I'll be signing all those in gold pen for as long as my gold pens last, anyway.
That's it, folks.
Today, Saturday, the Oregon Convention Center at high noon.
Hope to see you there from wherever you're coming from.
Now, this is typical, Art.
So many people are going to your webpage.
It's taking almost two minutes to get in and to get anything even longer.
Or this, Art, thought you might be interested to know your website is swamped.
I finally got in, but couldn't get any downloads.
There's simply too much traffic right now.
Not surprising.
Try later.
Bruce and Bothel, Washington, good show.
So the man who manages my webpage is Keith Rowland, down, I believe, in Arizona.
And I thought I'd bring him on for just one second.
Keith, normally, as a matter of course, our web page, or my web page, takes on average about, what, 50,000 hits a day?
unidentified
Yeah, lately, because of the real audio and the video and software, it's been very popular, and we've been hitting about 50,000 hits a day, and we're getting about 12,000 to 15,000 different users per week that visit the site.
Because people are saying the website is suddenly slowed to a crawl.
unidentified
Well, Art, this is what happens when you tell 20 million people to go to your website right away.
I see.
The system generally gets a pretty good equal amount of hits all during the day.
We get a little bit busier just before the program and during the first and second hour, but obviously it's gotten very busy tonight because we're concentrating heavily on the information that's up there.
And the system that normally runs fine during the regular type usage during the day and throughout the evening is just getting overloaded.
And this happens quite a bit when addresses are given out over the radio or TV stations that all of a sudden get very busy.
And so I guess what I'd like to recommend is that, and I know you have real good success at this in the past, let's try to get a little cooperation among the users and maybe ask that the first half of the alphabet try during the first half of the hour and the second half of the alphabet try the second half of the hour and see if that'll help things out a little bit.
They take care of the webpage and they are now processing to many of you all at once or trying to the information Richard Hoagland has.
For those of you joining us at this hour, there's going to be a big, big press conference in Washington, D.C., March 31st.
And if there's a headline from it, it would be experts to testify on 30 years of cover-up.
Now, about what?
And what does Richard have?
He's got photographs.
Former NASA scientists and engineers to announce in Washington analysis of 30-year-old suppressed evidence by revealing ancient artificial structures on the moon.
Photographs showing astronauts walking amid apparent lunar ruins on leaked NASA and Soviet space photographs.
Researchers to challenge White House to open NASA files suggest deliberate 30-year-old superpower cover-up based on official government reports which warned that civilizations would collapse.
The Brookings Institution report that generated an article in the New York Times.
And yes, you can get that article right now on my webpage.
Also, evidence throws new light on nagging question what really happened to Apollo 13.
And just one last time, my website address is Art Bell, excuse me, www.artbell.com.
That information is up there now, along with photographs of the tethered satellite as seen from Hawaii, along with, well, I'll let Richard tell us what is on the website.
They want to know if the news conference will be videotaped.
Yes, we are actually having a full camera crew with three cameras to shoot this for the Mars mission.
We are going to be producing volume, what is it, four within a couple of months based around this news conference, and it will be available through our website, which we'll have up by then through our 800 number.
As you know, we have a series of videos that are the background of this whole story, 1-800-424-0031.
And it will be available through Art Bell's site.
It will be a video of the press conference.
It'll probably be two hours, one tape, and it will be something for the history books because not only are you going to have the world's press there, but the scientists and engineers we've now encouraged to stand up and be counted, but there's some pretty amazing photographic and visual data.
We will have, among other things, six-foot-long murals of color panoramas taken showing the lunar module sitting on the lunar surface, surrounded by these glass-like ruins and domes.
Now, the reason that we have this photo is because it was squirreled away 30 years ago by one of the key people who's going to stand up and testify when he was told to destroy this and all the other photographs in his possession.
He took them to a private university because his conscience so pained him that he was given an order by his superiors to destroy what the American taxpayers paid for.
So he took them and put them in a private file, and he gave them to this investigation after he saw a presentation in a major city.
He works for a major aerospace company, and he saw our Clementine data, and he invited us to his home, and we saw what he had been accumulating for 30 years.
And that's when he told us, well, in addition to all this, guys, I've got some photographs I gave to my alma mater, and we gave him an airplane ticket to go and get them, and he brought them back, and they turned out to be surface photographs taken of Apollo 14, the Alan Shepard flight.
And that, of course, throws light on what happened to 13, because, remember, 14 was retargeted to go to the same landing site as Apollo 13.
Has it ever struck anybody as kind of weird that out of the blue, suddenly, a young president will commit this nation to go where no man has gone before, to drop everything, to commit to what was called a DX priority, meaning the highest priority in the land, over and above even military requirements.
The Apollo program had the highest procurement and readiness and brain accessibility of any project conducted by this government at any time in the 1960s.
It was number one.
For instance, if there was a conflict at some aerospace company between some contractor building, you know, let's say a tank, all right, and a part for Apollo, Apollo won.
A civilian project won over military.
Doesn't this strike you as kind of curious?
Anyway, Apollo is suddenly announced we're going to go within 10 years, safely land Americans on the moon and bring them, you know, safely home to Earth.
That was what John Kennedy enunciated in May of 1961 before a joint session of Congress.
We went, we dashed, we turned the best and the brightest and the sterling, stunning talent of the American industrial might loose on this enterprise.
We crafted within the deadline the ships, the rockets, the spacecraft, the backpacks, the suits, everything.
We fly six missions.
We land at six sites scattered around the lunar surface, 15 million square miles.
And then we stop it suddenly, abruptly.
We come home.
We destroy all the blueprints of how to do this.
We turn all these people loose.
Even as the program is progressing, we're turning loose 30,000 employees from Grumman that built the lunar module.
Even as Neil Armstrong was setting foot on the moon, we were turning these people loose, you know, giving them pink slips, saying goodbye.
And the Soviets on the other side of the world were simultaneously getting rid of their boosters and cutting them up with acetylene torches and making sure they could never even get to the moon.
In that context, if this is the most important thing on the boards, and you can't tell anybody, imagine how you have to lie to your own people.
Imagine the layering of deception.
Remember, NASA was built on trust.
The thing I love about Apollo 13 is that it so reprises the esprit de corps and the feeling of NASA in the good old days, in the years when we all thought it was honest, when we were going where no one had gone before, when we were looking at vision, limitless boundaries and the high frontier, the new frontier of Kennedy.
Oh, my God, the New York Times has told us we're going to destroy civilization.
And so they sat on it, and they took great pains to construct a mechanism so they could release a version of the data publicly that passes casual inspection.
But they did not release the really interesting information.
And it's only by the grace of God and technology that we are now able to, with a few honest men and women from the inside, retrace the steps and figure out what really happened and to demonstrate what we really retrieved from the Apollo program.
And we're going to present that Thursday morning, March 21 at 9 a.m.
If anything happened, it would be like Vince Foster.
The reason that Bill Clinton is in trouble is because there was a body found a few miles from the White House.
If anything were to happen, if anybody were to try to shut this down, if anybody really starts making noises that these people are not who they claim to be and are not telling the truth, then a lot of people in Washington and the press corps who are kind of ho-hum, bored, bored, bored, oh, cynical, cynical, cynical, they'll suddenly see it in a venue they can understand.
And a lot more attention we focused on this than I'm sure some people would like tonight.
So we basically have them between the rock and the proverbial hard place.
This Apollo was designed to go and bring home the bacon.
And if there were folks within the government, not only our government, but perhaps the Soviet government, the West German government, the English, I can't imagine this is a secret that we only know, then obviously on every question there are two sides.
There's folks that probably felt that even going to the moon and bringing this stuff home for a few would be risking everything.
And under those circumstances, it is not beyond rational expectation that maybe someone would try to sabotage Apollo so that it could never bring home anything and the secret would never be out and civilization would never be threatened.
It is my speculation, I want to clearly frame this, it is my speculation that there is a reasonable probability that Apollo 13 was sabotaged, that it was deliberately designed to kill those astronauts, to publicly humiliate NASA, to basically make the American people freak out at heroic men dying so horribly, strangling for lack of oxygen halfway between Earth and Moon.
If that had succeeded, if Apollo 13 had failed, if Jim Lovell and his comrades had died that way on national television, with Walter covering it, you know, me and Jules Bergman and all the others who were following the space program and reporting blow by blow at that point, then the whole space program would have collapsed.
We would have stopped going anywhere.
There would have been no further missions to the moon.
There would have been no missions to Mars, no missions to the outer planets.
NASA would have followed its tents.
We would have all come home, and the secret would have been perfectly safe forever.
So it's the NASA that they built so well that we owe the fact that we know.
Because all the honest folks who worked day and night against all odds and saved Jim Lovell and Fred Hayes and Jack Schweigert and brought them safely home as memorialized in Ron Howard's brilliant movie, those honest people, Gene Krantz on down, they deserve our incredible accolades because without them, we would not know what brilliant, priceless treasure Apollo really found on the moon and brought back to Earth.
When we come back from this break, Richard, please, I want to know about this New York Times story.
All right.
Because it's something in hand.
It's something I've got in my hand.
And I want to know why it is that somehow these files, or files actually covering a number of years from the New York Times back then, apparently are not available or missing.
This appears to be the real thing.
Is it?
We'll ask Richard Hoagland when we come back.
Absolutely an incredible story.
You're listening to the CBC Radio Network.
I'm Art Bell from the high desert in Portland, Oregon, later today.
unidentified
I'm Art Bell from the high desert in Portland, Oregon, later.
You know, I'm kind of glad we're going through this because it's a simulation of what we're going to experience when we put the Mars mission website up.
The New York Times article, Mankind is Warned to Prepare for Discovery of Life in Space, Brookings Institution Report says Earth's civilization might topple if faced by a race of superior beings.
The article that you think set off the circle of secrecy, and I can imagine it would too, that we've got up on the website.
Why can't we get this article from the New York Times?
When you're going to do one of these press things, we've done two things at the National Press Club before.
In 1988, we held our first briefing with our Mars data with a team of scientists at the press club the day the Soviets launched their Phobos missions to Mars.
And we had briefed the Soviets by way of a former astronaut Brian O'Leary in Moscow a year before as to what they might find when they got there, and would they keep their eyes open for Sidonia and et cetera, et cetera.
We held a press conference on the day they launched, and a month later their first spacecraft disappeared, kind of like Mars Observer was going to do someday.
Eight or nine months later, when they get to Mars with the second Phobos mission, it lasts a month plus in orbit and then it disappears, which is beginning to set a trend curve.
So of course, my immediate question is, have they really disappeared?
When we had our meeting with Robert Rowe, the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I asked Chairman Rowe in his office in 1990, I said, Congressman, I said, you are in a position to find out if the Soviet spacecraft really have disappeared or whether they just told us they've disappeared because they found something that's too hot to handle.
Shortly after I had that conversation, Robert Rowe resigned as chairman of the committee and then resigned as member of the House of Representatives under very interesting circumstances.
Yeah, the people who get into this tend to have an uncertain future for some reason.
So when we held our second press conference, which was in 1993 in August, our intent had been to hold it the day that NASA was placing Mars Observer into orbit around Mars to basically call attention to the press that, okay, we got a problem on the table here.
We have potential ruins at Sidonia.
We've got a spacecraft with a camera which can take pictures down on the surface of Mars now 50 times better than Viking.
We can test the theory, hold their feet to the fire, and let's get an honest test here.
And I did Good Morning America with Devin French, the Mars Observer Program Scientist, on Sunday, the 22nd, two days before the press conference.
Half an hour after I concluded the interview with Devin French and the host of Good Morning America, NASA announced they had lost Mars Observer.
We had about 100 of the best and the brightest show up.
And inevitably, they said, well, what do you think happened to it?
And I suggested at that point that because of the Brookings report, which we had just found, and I actually had a copy of the report in the press kit, that there was a rogue group within NASA, which had been there for some time, which had taken it upon itself to hide this kind of information because of fear that civilization would collapse, which is what Brookings warned.
The press reacted with a resounding yawn and went away.
And nobody ever dug and asked NASA, did you really lose the spacecraft?
And in the final edition to the Monuments of Mars, I lay out blow by blow in a chronology in the update, in the fourth edition, what NASA's amazing inconsistencies in NASA's story about what happened in a Mars Observer.
But nobody in the press is paying attention, is following up, is doing their homework, so we never get to know.
What I find amazing is that when I got wind of that, in addition to the report, the New York Times had actually published a story on the Brookings document.
It was obvious to me that for this press conference, and we only found this out a couple weeks ago, I had to get a copy of the New York Times article.
We live in a world, Art, where we won't believe the government, but we will believe the New York Times.
It's like having the actual report in their hands didn't mean anything.
But if I can show reporters on Thursday morning, the 21st, that the New York Times said civilization would collapse, we've got them.
And I already know this is true because that's the reports I'm getting back is how the heck, I mean, your response itself is very indicative of how in awe and reverence we hold the New York Times.
How did the New York Times ever get to be God?
You know, who made them God to decide our reality?
From 1960, it's missing and does not exist at the New York Times.
So at that point, I realized that, well, they send these papers out all over the world every day.
There had to be another copy in some library somewhere.
Obviously.
So we have friends in Washington, on Capitol Hill, who are, how should I say, aides and administrative assistants to congressmen and senators who are quietly working with this project.
I called one of them, who has been very dedicated and was right there.
And I said, would you help me track this down?
He says, oh, I'll call over to the Senate Library.
A friend over there owes me a favor anyway.
Within an hour, he had gone to the archives downstairs on Capitol Hill in the Senate Library and found in the microfiche the actual reproduction of this New York Times article.
So I had to put it on the computer and basically take out some noise.
But what you see is basically what came from Washington up on your board from the Senate Library Archive Microfiche files of the New York Times for December 15, 1960.
The New York Times in 1960 saw fit to run a headline and major story that a federal document, a government report, warned that if NASA found evidence of life in space, it should not tell us because it might destroy civilization.
And the current publisher of the New York Times wants to know why we might think that's relevant.
Furthermore, we're not finished yet.
Furthermore, he said, I really don't think I'm going to send anybody to the press conference.
Now, what I said to him back through my friend was, well, Arthur, are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
If you don't send someone, even to see us fall flat at our keister because we can't come forth on any of the data or evidence or people, remember, we're talking about insiders, NASA insiders who claim that this is what's been going on.
And the publisher in the New York Times doesn't think there's a story here.
And he's published a headline 30 years ago, actually, his father who published it, claiming that civilization would be destroyed if this came out.
Does one begin to suspect, maybe, that Mr. Salzberger might believe the headline and is trying to do whatever he can to keep people from being interested in this thing?
By Monday, remember, we're going to drop the second shoe on this.
Monday, we're going to release the next press release, which will list who the participants are, their backgrounds, which is pretty damn impressive, and a couple of other surprises.
Well, basically, this corroborates what we've been saying, but with only one possible exception.
We have found no evidence that the data which is out there is somehow suddenly turning up missing.
What they're doing is they're trying to censor it by means of price.
When we started this investigation and went public in 94, you know, you could call up the National Space Science Data Center and for a few dollars get any negative that NASA had put out.
Since we went public, the price of this data has gone up 800%.
And most people, yeah, Steve Forbes, where are you when we need you?
And most people are not willing on a gander to risk 800% markup on something that they really don't think is going to be there if they look at it after all.
So in essence, we're using money again to censor the truth.
Okay, what you do is you call up your local media, newspaper, radio, television, and you tell them this event that's going to happen at 9 o'clock at the National Press Club in Washington on the 21st.
They then will want to see a press release on it.
You then direct them to Art Bell's webpage because all these media have computers and they're all on the web.
On Earth, water attacks glass in a way that weakens it radically.
What Blake and others at Los Alamos discovered in their simulations for lunar basing studies for NASA was that if you create glass in a vacuum and then you coat it so that when you put an oxygen atmosphere and water vapor inside to contain people that can't get to the glass, the simple fact of producing it in a vacuum without water makes it about as strong as steel.
Now, if you do other things to it, other than just ordinary glass, it can be even stronger than steel.
So you're at the beginning of a learning curve here.
Now, let me tell you one interesting thing.
We got a call from Popular Mechanics this morning.
They're coming.
And when I started laying out the model, which is that this stuff is made of glass and all that, and it's stronger than steel on the moon, et cetera, the guy said, oh, he says we're doing a feature on building bridges out of glass here on Earth.
All right, before we leave the subject of glass, one more.
Listening to Richard, I'm reminded that ancient Egyptian glass beads were found in a pyramid whose diameter of the beads is so small that we could not reproduce it today, or that a large glass telescope lens was found intact at an Israeli archaeological dig.
Yeah, there's a lens actually found in Baghdad, and it's in some museum, either in Germany, in Berlin, or maybe it's back in Baghdad now.
But there was a glass lens found that actually was a refracting lens, which is several thousand years old.
And yes, I know about the beads, and they're what they call phenonse beads.
And the hole is microns wide down through the center of them.
And there's no way with primitive twirling technology, you know, little guys, you know how Indians are supposed to start fires by twirling a stick between their hands?
Well, if you think of drilling through a hard substance, like an obsidian bead or something, with that kind of technique, it just won't work with the fineness.
So it's these little clues that we're looking at scraps and bits and pieces of a former high-tech civilization here on Earth, which, of course, is why I'm bringing in Graham Hancock live by satellite from the Giza Plateau, because he is going to address the idea that the stuff on the moon may be part of a continuum.
Well, you see, if the New York Times is not there, and everybody else is, they'll kind of look because they're the ones that published in 1960 that if this stuff was out there found, then it would destroy civilization.
They're going to definitely look like they're part of the problem.
Now, let me tell you where they fell down.
What I think is going on here, and has been going on for 30 years, is we're not dealing with conspiracy.
We're dealing with something even worse.
Dumbness.
All right?
Dumbness will kill you as quickly as conspiracy will kill you.
This is how dumbness works.
And now I have to tell a personal story, which I'm going to tell on Thursdays.
I'm kind of previewing it for your audience as I'm going to do it.
I was tapped on the shoulder to become, at the age of 23, Walter Cronkite's science advisor.
Can you imagine what it felt like to be plucked out of obscurity at a museum in New England and basically asked to sit at the right hand of Uncle Walter to guide him through the extravaganza adventure of going to and from the moon?
I mean, it was an extraordinarily heady experience for me.
I learned so much about how the world works and how media shapes and controls every facet of our lives, defines our reality.
The people who nameless people, producers, choose to put on television, who tell you what happened after an election, who tell you what the president said, who tell you what the candidates really meant to say, who tell you who's going to win, who tells you who's going to lose, who tells you who's up, who's down, they are defining your reality day in and day out.
And you never get to see these people who pick the people who appear on television.
They don't pick from a vast spectrum of all the possibilities of life.
They pick from a tiny handful of people that they feel comfortable with that through their own prejudices, you know, their own life experience, they just feel that those folks have an inside track to reality.
Which means that the bottom line is we get to see the reality on television that the people behind the scenes think is reality.
We don't get to see the real reality at all.
We live in a virtual reality cyberspace inside between the ears of producers.
And at 23, a rather impressionable age, I was thrown into the lion's den in the middle of these people at the most august news agency, broadcast news agency in the world, heir to Edgar R. Merle, working with Cronkite, working with, you know, all kinds of, you know, Eric Severot and I sat in a bar one night and had an incredible discussion on philosophy about why are we doing all this?
Why are we going to space and all that?
Bob Stout and I got absolutely stoned out of our minds in Apricot Brandy in Los Angeles.
I showed up on the set the next day, green.
They couldn't color balance me because I was so in my cups.
I've got some horror stories.
They dragged me to Hurley's bar, which is the watering hole in New York City.
I know whereof I speak when I say that at the age of 23, what appalled me, horrified me, simultaneous with being entranced at being in this heady, stratospheric environment of working with the Mr. Cronkite and CBS News and, you know, being in on all that we were doing, what appalled me was the attitude of those producers and reporters and others, except for Walter.
Walter was the exception.
I got to say that absolutely emphatically.
Because all the people around Walter thought the space program was the biggest waste of time that had ever been invented.
It did not make a tinker's blank in the field of what humanity was going to be doing and should be concerning itself with.
So what I saw day in and day out, I'm going to stand up and from my first-hand experience tell these young new reporters who were not even born when Neil Armstrong set foot upon the moon in some measure, some of these kids, I'm going to tell them that what happened is that because the press considered space and the Kennedy vision irrelevant to the human condition,
a waste of time, a boondoggle, a welfare agency for aerospace workers, whatever you want to call it, they did not give it the time of day.
They didn't even begin to ask the kind of questions they should have asked or would have asked of DOD or housing or HUD or health and human services or welfare or any of those things that are now the major issues.
And so the folks on the inside who were trying to put one over on them, they had a piece of cake because nobody ever asked them any hard questions.
They got away with murder, practically, almost, if I'm right about 13, because the esteemed press from the New York Times on down never really took space seriously.
It's out there, we live here, who the hell cares?
Now, on that basis, Arthur Salzberger's attitude this afternoon that this is funny and not serious is in continence with the fact that when they published that headline, they never followed up.
They were not consistent, you know, Mr. Prosecutor.
They did not ask the next question, which is, okay, if this document exists which warns that if we find this stuff out there, somebody's going to try to keep it from us.
It only makes sense that our civilization would collapse due to encountering a superior intelligence because man will come to the rude conclusion that he is inferior and stupid.
In other words, the human bubble will burst.
Now, that is a simplified version of the conclusion printed in the New York Times article.
And I'm not certain, Richard, I know you are, or you seem to feel that way.
Remember, I try not to say things on your show or any show without having data.
What is my data?
My data is Star Trek.
All right?
Star Trek is a vision of the kind of future that most of the human race want, desperately yearn for, imagine is theirs by birthright, to boldly go where no one has gone before, to meet new life and new civilizations, and to embrace them, respecting infinite diversity in infinite combination.
Gene Roddenberry struck a blow for freedom, the Constitution, and the American way when he put blacks on television for the first time in leading roles, Asians for the first time on television and leading roles.
He just got an award posthumously at some prestigious Hollywood affair because his program, his vision of the space program that was someday going to be was so far ahead of the reality that we have that we're now just beginning,
you know, the Hollywood crowd, the intellectuals are just beginning to realize that Gene Roddenberry was setting a model which has attracted the interest of millions of people around the world.
There was a woman in Little Rock the other day on the Whitewater trial who wore a Star Trek uniform every day as a member of the jury to work because she wanted to make a statement that this is a lifestyle worth emulating.
Well, the key thing here is we have NASA insiders who had key, very responsible positions within the agency, working with the astronauts, working with the lunar data, working with Apollo, who are standing up and saying, this is what was going on.
Because Carl made a decision years ago, and now again, I'm speculating, but I've known him pretty well over the years, and I think I can say this with some modicum of veracity.
I believe Carl believes the negative side of the human condition, that he is an elitist, that he really thinks that we'll all go crazy if we find out that we're not the brightest guys on the block.
I think Carl underestimates the human condition by about 10,000 orders of magnitude.
Any of the astronauts that were privy to any of this information with the murals and any of the other evidence, are any of them willing to come forward?
Or, you know, did they see the information in a light where they could actually step up and be credible people?
That oath commits you, under pain of law, to the Constitution of the United States to follow lawful orders from lawful superiors.
Now, if those lawful superiors look at you and say, look, Mr. Astronaut, we believe, based on academic study and a lot of thinking by a lot of people above your pay grade, that if we were to put this stuff out there, we would destroy the world in which we live.
The people you care about, the values you hold dear, all of that would go down the white porcelain receptacle.
They have now been given a lawful order through a chain of command.
So you might do the only thing you could do, and that is make statements like the ones that Neil Armstrong has made in the White House elsewhere saying there are things out there that there are places to go and things to see beyond belief.
Now, if you're a good soldier and you are obeying the letter of the law, but you disagree with the spirit because you have grown in your wisdom, you say things like he did.
You try to communicate between the lines and you're hoping the cavalry will come over the hill and rescue you because you're as much a victim as the 50 hostages in Iran.
Okay, anyway, let me thank Jan Eller, who sent me a fax this evening.
And yes, I want her to keep sending us stuff because we need to know what's going on with HAARP.
unidentified
Yeah.
The question, regarding what you have mentioned before with the Mars missions and things that have been observed on Mars, it's conceivable, I would say, that maybe our past civilizations have gone further And beyond, and have come back.
And was there any correlation or things that were similar in what you found in Mars photographs and what has been reported to have been found on the moon?
The factors that came in from the last several shows was incredibly helpful.
And the Grassroots Network is alive and well.
You see, there's a lot of bright people in this country who are not willing to give their futures over to one of two people, Bob Dole or Bill Clinton.
They want to think for themselves, act for themselves, research for themselves, make their own decisions, and they don't want anybody, including Mr. Salzberger at the New York Times, deciding what news is fit to print.
We're going to do another half hour, and I'm going to lay heavily on the phone lines.
So if you'd like to speak with Richard Hoagland, this would be, I guess, your last opportunity prior to the March 21st news conference that I believe is going to rock a bunch of people.
If you've been listening, I don't know how you can see it any differently.
So there you are.
Richard Hoagland, back in a moment.
I will be getting on an airplane going to Portland, Oregon, in now just a matter of a few hours.
And I hope to see you there.
The only folk signing I'm ever going to do, the Oregon Convention Center.
I'd like to tape it for my students who are on spring break.
C-SPAN is on the fence.
They need to hear from their constituents that this is important.
They can come and tape it and delay broadcast.
They don't have to broadcast it live.
It has to go in the day book, has to be put on the schedule.
I would prefer they cover it live because it's pretty interesting.
It's NASA.
It's your tax dollars at work.
And the challenge that we're going to be presenting is to this administration, to William Jefferson Clinton, a president who wants to be in the cut of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
We're going to challenge Bill to simply open the files.
The Clinton administration had nothing to do with this cover-up.
He can give executive clemency to all astronauts.
He can relieve them of their security oaths.
He can bring in stunning breath of fresh air with one stroke of the pen, provided he gets a political message from the constituency that he's running for election again in front of that they want to demand the truth.
And the way to get that started is to get C-SPAN to cover this as a political event that it is live on cable.
Simply call, all right, call Washington, D.C. I don't have the number handy.
Just ask the operators.
You know, it's 202-555-1212.
Ask information for C-SPAN.
And once you get the C-SPAN number and their fax number, simply call them or fax them and say cover the Mars Mission Lunar Press Briefing at the Press Club, August 21, 9 a.m.
They've already got our releases.
We have papered them with releases, so they know about it.
I'm calling to ask Richard years ago when I was in the Navy, one of my roommates told me that NASA had a black, what would you call it, a black project?
What I think is going on here is if there are extraterrestrial vehicles from someplace currently visiting planet Earth, if you find evidence in your own backyard in the solar system of an extraordinary panoply of ruins built by someone, then it is plausible to imagine that maybe, just maybe, those ruins were built by a previous human civilization.
This is a developing model that we're now working on.
That's why Graham Hancock is going to be very important, because Graham has got some pretty credible evidence that there's a lot of stuff on this planet from prior high-tech civilizations that has not been properly acknowledged.
In fact, I've got a fax here from one of your listeners.
It says, please mention to tie things together with Graham Hancock, the reason this has all been hidden is that knowledge of prior civilizations also brings to the point, why did these fall?
Could it be for lack of ethics, respect for natural law, science to concern with profit, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
In other words, the establishment wouldn't want you to know that we're not the best and the brightest because if they're doing dumb things now and the previous guys were doing dumb things that led them to collapse and to us to lose their memory, maybe the current crowd wouldn't want you to know that.
They want to keep doing their dumb things without for short-term gain and long-term, you know, it's like if it's not on my watch, if it's after I'm gone, who cares?
Why getting people to sign on your webpage and see this data, to spread it around, by all means, copy what's on Art Bell's board from us and give it to every billboard, every electronic news service, every place you can send it, send it.
Beginning with watching one of your first videos, Richard, you had mentioned there's a possible correlation between the Hebrew language and, I think, effects or shadow effects thrown by the Tetrahedan pyramids.
This is the work of Stan Tennon at the Meru Foundation.
unidentified
Okay.
I had earlier, I think it was on, I don't know, the Discovery Channel or something, had seen a deal on the Hebrew language each letter having a numerical equivalent and the words having like an equation.
I was wondering if anyone has found any correlation between your hyperdimensional physics and some of these equations.
But your question is very appropriately timed because it's now time to bring these together.
The Hebrew language, the letter forms, as well as the sacred forms of the Greek alphabet and the Arabic alphabet, to name three, all appear to be derived from the same mathematical equation, which generates a shadow gram, which generates the letters.
All right?
And when you look at that shadow gram from different directions, different geometric angles, it looks different.
That's what gives you the different letter shapes.
It looks as if these ancient sacred texts that talk about the origin of everything are written in a language crafted out of the very mathematics that describes everything.
And somebody did that by design.
unidentified
That wouldn't make sense.
I had seen a show about a guy who went into a cave for a while and it changed his internal clock.
I happened to be thinking about it and looked at the timing his clock changed to, and it was actually correlated very closely to a Martian day.
Yeah, the human circadian rhythm, which is the natural biological clock, when you isolate people from day-night cycles, their clock tends to drift so that it's closer to 25 hours.
Any paper that puts itself up all the news that's fit to print, when in really it's all the news that Arthur Salzberger thinks is fit to print, is not a news organization worthy of the high standards to which the New York Times used to adhere.
One of the preeminent people in physics today, being Stephen Hawkings, I would like to know if anyone has gotten him any information on your hyperdimensional physics, because I think he could probably really do a great deal in this, knowing his interests.
And finally, I recall on The news, and I had another friend that remembered this.
The day that the Russian Mars satellite came up missing, they had a picture.
The last thing the Russian Mars satellite saw, and it was an object coming toward it.
Now, I don't recall exactly what it was.
I recall the news person saying that it was a cylindrical object about a mile long.
Now, that could be, given being in space, hard to tell things.
So the way you keep a secret is you make everybody think the secret is silly, that it isn't a secret, that it's a lie, that it's a hoax, that it's misperception, that it's doing it for greed, doing it for money, doing it for fame, doing it to be on television, doing it for any reason but to tell the truth.
In other words, you spindoctor it out of existence.
You submerge the signal, the truth, within the lie.
Because you can't hide the truth.
You have to submerge it and disguise it.
So if there is ancient artifactual ruins on Mars and on the moon, how would you hide this truth, given that the photographs are eventually going to come out?
And it's too silly for any serious reporter working for Mr. Salzberger to take seriously.
Therefore, he will never inquire.
In fact, Dr. Thomas Van Flandern, who you had on your show, former chief celestial mechanics expert at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, did a brilliant analysis of this last Russian telemetered image from Phobos 2 before it disappeared.
And from the photometrics, that is the brightness of the streak on the Russian image, he calculated that, in fact, it was a time-exposed image of a rock, a chunk of Phobos probably orbiting Mars along with Phobos, which is probably part of a flotilla of rocks that banged into the spacecraft and basically knocked them off the air, if we can believe their story.
The point is that it had the same darkness as Phobos.
And it's hard to imagine a spaceship a mile long that is as dark as the darkest object in the solar system, which is darker than carbon black, which is as dark as Phobos, the natural moon of Mars, turns out to be.
Now, here's what's really interesting, though.
There should Be no cloud of rocks floating around Phobos for the Russian spacecraft to bang into.
What caused the rocks in the first place?
Why haven't they all disappeared?
If Phobos is billions of years old, why are there still rocks floating around it like gnats floating around a lamp?
I'm glad somebody brought up hyperdimensional physics.
I have several faxes here from people who are begging us to define some terms.
The first thing I want to respond to is a fax that came in a couple days ago asking why I don't equate hyperdimensional physics with Bearden's scalar electromagnetics.
Well, it all depends on how you view the New York Times article.
If you believe Brookings, if you believe that knowing we're not alone, that we're part of some incredible grand tapestry, that this civilization is only one of many, many, many, and not very big and very bright and very advanced after all, then you will keep the secret to your deathbed.
If you think that knowing the truth will kill off the civilization, change things so radically, destroy civilization, as the New York Times said in that headline, then you won't ever say anything.
However, if you are beginning to have doubts that that, in fact, is a correct perspective, then you've got a political problem.
How do you come clean, get people to see the truth without looking like a total idiot?
Well, Carl Sagan's latest book looks like someone who has figured out that maybe that model is not accurate, that we won't all go and jump off a cliff if we find out we're not alone.
And what he's trying to do in the most political, weasel-worded way, and I'm being very, very direct here.
You can do it by faxing or calling C-SPAN and asking them to cover it.
Listen, everybody, we're going to spend one hour doing whatever you want to do this next and final hour before I get on an airplane and head to Portland, Oregon for the only book signing I'm ever going to do.
So that'll come next.
In the meantime, a lot of the information that you heard this morning can be gleaned from my webpage, which is www.artbell.com.
If you would like a copy of this last incredible four hours, you can get it by calling 1-800-917-4278.
Beginning right now, it was a four-hour program with Richard Hoagland.