Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 15, 1996 - Art Bell

02:35:19

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard C. Hoagland - Mars & Moon Artifacts - Press Conference Announcement

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the high desert and the great American southwest, I bid you good evening or good
	morning as the case may be across all these many time zones.
	From the beautiful Hawaiian and Tahitian islands conjuring up all kinds of pleasant pictures, all the way across this great nation to the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands.
	Similar pictures there.
	South into South America, north well to the pole, and actually now worldwide on the web.
	At a couple of sites.
	WPSL in Fort St.
	Lucie, Florida.
	Carrying us on the web, Real Audio.
	WOAI in San Antonio.
	The one station probably doesn't even need the net.
	Also feeding the net, so you can hear us there.
	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'd 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, Angstrom Science Award winner, and at one time a consultant's mess.
	I'm not sure they roll the red carpet out there for him anymore.
	Um, but, um, 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.
	You've already got a copy of the book?
	Bring it along.
	I'll sign it.
	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 gotta do is look for the twin greenish glass towers, ha ha ha, 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 air beds, 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?
	Glad you enjoyed my Oregon Kevorkian Center Jonestown diatribe, but it doesn't sound like it's going to shorten the long lines.
	Oh, well.
	I've got 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 this 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 you're 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 Dock on a Sing.
	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 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.
	Richard.
	Good morning, Art.
	Welcome to the program.
	Yes, we are not only there voice-wise, but we are there electronically, or virtually, as one might say.
	Virtually, yes.
	Why don't you tell everybody, or give everybody, a summary of what's up on the webpage, so, you know, people are going to be going in there now.
	Okay.
	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, that's next Thursday, for two hours.
	Wait a minute, 9 a.m.
	on, not August.
	I'm sorry, what did I say?
	I meant March 21st.
	March 21st.
	See what this late night stuff does to you?
	We've got to stop meeting like this.
	9 a.m., March 21st.
	March 21st, right, at the National Press Club.
	There is a release on your website, which is two pages.
	In the release there is reference to a rather remarkable and now soon-to-be classic New York Times article, which we will describe.
	Is the article actually up there?
	The article is also actually up there.
	Oh, that's great.
	In graphic form, this is an actual page from the New York Times from December 15, 1960, and I will read you the headline, which will then relate us back to what this is all about.
	All right.
	Mankind is warned to prepare for discovery of life in space.
	Brookings Institution report says Earth civilization might topple if faced by a race of superior beings.
	Dateline, Washington, December 14th, UPI.
	Discovery of life on other worlds could cause Earth's civilization to collapse, a federal report said today.
	And then there is about eight or nine column inches, including a very telling paragraph.
	Evidence of such existence, quote, might also be found in artifacts left on the moon or other planets, the report said.
	So this is up now in living black and white, including next to it there's an ad for men's Santa socks.
	One dollar.
	The merriest one dollar Christmas gift in town.
	This is hearkening back to the good old days, the 1960s.
	So let's get this straight.
	There was a story in 1960.
	Yep.
	New York Times.
	Yep.
	And it said that evidence of existence might be found on other planets or the moon.
	Or the moon.
	Artifacts on the moon.
	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.
	All right.
	How do we know this is a legitimate New York Times article?
	How can we be sure?
	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.
	All right.
	Richard, hold it.
	Just before the show tonight, I asked you if there's a headline to what's coming, what would that headline be?
	And you said experts to testify on 30 years of cover-up.
	Is that about?
	That's it.
	Is that a good assessment?
	That's it.
	All right, we'll get back to the New York Times article.
	Included in your release, it says, photos show astronauts walking amid apparent lunar ruins on leaked NASA and Soviet space photographs.
	Good God, what are you talking about?
	We have NASA photographs of astronauts amid the ruins on the moon.
	Furthermore, we have Soviet photographs of ruins taken from orbit, which corroborate what the NASA photographs show.
	And we will be presenting those.
	Holy mackerel!
	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, Hoagland, he said, this is the event of the millennium if you've got the goods.
	And we do.
	And you do.
	Might I ask, because everybody's going to, Richard, are any of these photographs yet up on the Internet?
	No.
	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 1994.
	It is of a mile-sized 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 wheeling 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 Uh, 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 blowups and not only is it a duplicate, it's, 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 castle 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
	But about a mile and a half per second Let me understand, how does it get assigned the number 4822?
	In other words, how can there be more than, or should there be more than one?
	There should not.
	There should not?
	There should not.
	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, it'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.
	Right.
	And what we've uncovered is that there's a lot more photographs they took that we have never seen.
	Anyway, Alex Cook provided me this negative.
	We made dupes.
	We 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 castle, on a single image, a single GIF graphic.
	About 1.2 megabytes, I think.
	Alright.
	With appropriate captions.
	I uploaded it to Keith Rowan this afternoon.
	It is sitting there attached with a little graphic to our press release vis-a-vis the Press Club briefing next Thursday.
	I'll get these dates straight eventually.
	People can download it, I guess.
	Oh man, it makes me want to be at my computer right now.
	Now what you do is, since it's an up-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 cubical construction element of the Sinus Medi Lunar Dome that we have been discussing.
	So you believe they shot that second photograph.
	Actually, it has nothing to do with this.
	Actually, through an opaque... It's not opaque.
	It is translucent through glass.
	Mostly translucent, you said.
	It is mostly translucent.
	Now what happens is, when you shoot an object through glass, It distorts because glass has a refractive index.
	That's correct, yes, of course.
	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 No.
	2, the Cook 4822, is what this photograph exhibits.
	And this is only the tip of the peripheral iceberg.
	We have enough ice here to sink the Titanic.
	How did you get these Russian photographs?
	Now this is interesting.
	The Russians in the beginning of the space age were very gung-ho.
	They were aggressive, they wanted to beat the pants off us.
	I recall.
	Khrushchev kept timing his international promenades, you know, to coincide with a space spectacular on demand.
	It was a war for The heart and soul of men and women of Earth, so the space program was the holy grail to East vs. West, Communism vs. Capitalism.
	I'm old enough to remember Sputnik Day, you know, the beep, beep, beep thing that sent chills up the back of all Americans.
	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.
	It 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 so they could send it to Mars.
	Suddenly, in July of 1965, the Soviets got a bee up their bonnet.
	You like that?
	I do.
	Okay.
	This is Family Radio, of course.
	And they sent this spacecraft, which was really designed to go to Mars, to broadcast data back from, you know, 10, 20, 30, 50 million miles away.
	They sent it past the moon.
	Now, they sent it past the moon in such a way that when it got to Mars, Mars was not there.
	Mars was halfway around the sun.
	It was like a mission without a purpose.
	You mean they missed?
	No, they didn't miss.
	They did it deliberately.
	Because you can only get to Mars if you launch every two years.
	This spacecraft built to go to Mars was the only one they had in the shop, alright?
	And they suddenly needed, desperately, a spacecraft to go to the Moon.
	To take pictures of something.
	And so they pulled this thing out, instead of waiting another year to send it to Mars.
	Yes.
	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.
	And these are the ones you've got?
	We've got two of them.
	Oh man.
	Alright Richard, hold on, hold on.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	As we continue to dig with Richard Hoagland.
	Don't move.
	I'm sorry.
	Call Art Bell toll free.
	West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	Certainly is, and I'm Art Bell.
	Good morning everybody.
	1-800-618-8255. East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033. 1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	Certainly is, and I'm Art Bell. Good morning, everybody.
	Evening to a few of you.
	Listen, the music you're hearing right now, Cusco, C-U-S-C-O, is a German group.
	They're on my show all the time as Bumper Music.
	All the time.
	Have been now for years.
	My, how time passes, doesn't it?
	Michael Holm was actually here from Bavaria.
	Came to visit me.
	I've got a lot of good photographs of that.
	You may have seen one of them in the newsletter.
	This group is...
	Almost magical.
	Back now to Richard Hoagland.
	Richard?
	Yes, sir.
	All right.
	It really does sound as though you've got the goods this time.
	And not that you didn't, but there was always some room for, you know, a little controversy or a little picking apart of this or that or gee whiz.
	What about these new photographs?
	Is this going to cinch it?
	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.
	What kind of people are going to be there?
	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.
	Oh, that's entirely proper, I think.
	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.
	Yes.
	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?
	I completely agree.
	I'm simply amazed that it made it into the New York Times.
	Now, let's circle back to the New York Times for a second.
	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.
	We're following their orders, we're doing their duty, we're good soldiers in common defense of the country and their culture and what they deem 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 and whatever, and we're not exactly falling apart, alright?
	The stock market is going through the roof, people are making money hand over fist, you know, 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 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.
	All right.
	I can understand how all of this in the beginning happened.
	There are certain things I, too, can't say on the air, Richard, and I've had some people come to visit me on a couple of subjects that don't relate to this, but official-type government stuff.
	And I can't talk about it.
	And they told me I can't talk about it, and I respect that.
	It's sort of a, this is a...
	National security kind of thing, and we've got to ask your cooperation, and I cooperate.
	Now again, it doesn't relate to this, so before everybody starts faxing me like crazy, but it is a national security thing, and frankly, you've got a couple guys sitting here in suits, you know, from an unnamed big agency, and you cooperate, Richard.
	I mean, if you're a good American, you cooperate.
	We're down line from this thing with you, with the NASA business, a long way, and it may be that people have had second thoughts, and people for their own reasons have decided it's time, but I'll tell you, that's a very brave thing to do!
	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 marshaled, 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 It is overwhelming, and 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.
	Alright.
	So this is the first time anywhere anybody has heard this.
	It's going to be presented to the press, to NBC, CBS, you know, Wall Street Journal, Washington, you know, Times, Washington Post, whatever, next Thursday, but your audience And you were going to hear it first.
	Fire away.
	We have been discussing for months and months and months the presence of glass-like lunar domes on the moon.
	That's right.
	Correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	What is the singular property of glass that makes us realize that we're looking at something made of glass?
	Well, at some angles, reflectivity, certainly.
	You mean refractivity.
	Refractivity, right.
	The way it bends light.
	Right, and the way the sun hits it.
	Sure.
	And then if you get just the right angle, you'll get a sparkle or a bounce off the first surface reflection.
	Absolutely.
	Anybody who drives in the sunlight knows that.
	But primarily, glass is known for its refractive properties, meaning its ability to bend light that goes through it.
	And it cannot go through it unless glass were what?
	Clear?
	Clear?
	Clear.
	Transparent.
	Yes.
	You got it.
	Okay.
	So these two properties, transparency and the ability to bend light going through it, are the hallmark of glass.
	Okay.
	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.
	Alright?
	If you make very high-tech stuff, out of glass. It's no longer the kind of glass you and I
	would drink out of or look through in our windows, alright? 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 kissin' 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. Geometric
	molecular structure.
	Richard, why would people build on the moon out of glass?
	What would be the reasons?
	It's the most abundant, cheapest stuff available.
	60% of the crustal materials of the Earth, the Moon, Mars, and all the silicate planets for which we have any knowledge is glass, silicon, and oxygen.
	That makes up 60% of the crust.
	Of the solid planets on which people can walk on.
	That's a good answer.
	With or without spacesuits.
	So if you're going to build, alright, 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 Blaikick, who have been working on lunar basing proposals for NASA for the last several years.
	Well, in some of Dr. Blaikick's papers, as part of his NASA contract on lunar basing studies, he is proposing that NASA itself consider making its first lunar settlements, its first bases, out of glass.
	Alright?
	The Japanese!
	I have been engaged for many years in major industrial concepts vis-a-vis the Moon.
	One of the big corporations, Shimizu, I believe, has actually got very detailed designs, architectural designs, and one of our lunar engineers, in fact, the first PhD in lunar construction ever awarded, has been given to this individual, who is 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 base out of glass.
	Furthermore, they're proposing to use a 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.
	Alright, Richard, I want you to sit back and listen to something that is my bond, so I must ask.
	Let me get this done.
	FactsArrive 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 four.
	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 a 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, LA Times, New York Times, San Antonio Express News, Fort Worcester 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, I listen to your shows.
	I'm usually up late.
	I know where to look for the satellite, and I have looked.
	I can't see it after 6 p.m.
	or before 5 a.m.
	I dare your guests 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.
	Hope it's not misplaced.
	Demand an answer, as promised.
	I'll be listening.
	So there you are, Richard.
	On the tethered satellite, he laid it out.
	What do you say about that?
	Oh, well, first of all, it's a very intelligent question.
	All right?
	All right.
	And there is an equally intelligent answer.
	How much time we got?
	Enough.
	OK.
	If you get to the point.
	Oh, I absolutely understand the point.
	And it is a crucial question.
	And part of it has to do with semantics.
	When I say glowing, all right, Don't think of this thing as sitting in a midnight sky, glowing like a neon sign.
	Alright?
	And in our previous programs, we didn't have time to explain the physics of what's going on here.
	Alright?
	Sure.
	We have a 5 foot sphere.
	Alright?
	About the size of what?
	3 or 4 basketballs.
	Right.
	Okay?
	We then have a 13 mile, 1 tenth inch copper wire, alright, covered with a white plastic Kevlar sheath, you know, insulation.
	Right.
	Dangling straight down toward the center of the Earth, moving at 17,000 plus miles an
	hour around the Earth every 90 minutes.
	Alright.
	This thing is developing rather remarkable electrical properties.
	We won't even get into what's causing that for the time being.
	Alright.
	What is happening is that it is charging.
	It is creating a charge along that long conductor wrapped in an insulator.
	Right.
	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.
	Right.
	So there is an atmosphere, a higher-density atmosphere, collecting in a cylindrical column around this very thin, shoelace-sized wire.
	Covered with plastic.
	13 miles long.
	Alright?
	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, alright, the interaction with the sun Causes it to fluoresce, causes energy transitions to occur in those ions, primarily oxygen, alright?
	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.
	Right.
	A thin diffused neon sign inside out, because there's no glass around this thing, alright?
	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 as it comes over the horizon, there is no way that the human eye can see a line a tenth of an inch wide 600 miles away.
	I don't care how bright the damn thing is.
	Or, if the human eye unaided could see something that thin, then we wouldn't have needed the Hubble Space Telescope.
	This person needs to, since he obviously has a technical background, sit down and do the calculation.
	The resolution of the human eye is about one arc minute.
	Calculate how far away a tenth inch wide object has to be before it is smaller than one arc minute on the celestial sphere.
	Well, without the kind of scientific basis, I sort of said that to him last night.
	I said, look, take a thread, hang it from the other side of the living room, and the odds are you're not even going to see that.
	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 on 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.
	All right?
	Now, I have got video, and I promise 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, all right?
	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.
	It's brighter than, you know, minus or zero magnitude stars.
	But again, in fairness to the Faxer, that was at the Terminator.
	At the Terminator.
	Now, you need sunlight to trigger this effect.
	I see.
	Now, when you see the photographs of the Earth night side taken from the shuttle, There is a band of air called the airglow, which is glowing, alright?
	That airglow is glowing by means of the same physical process I have just described.
	What's different is that the airglow 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, you know, 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.
	All right.
	I've got you.
	Thank you.
	Kind of like those kids things that you hold to the light and then carry as you go.
	Well, as you know, I don't do public appearances.
	At least I haven't.
	And I'm going to.
	Today.
	Hours from now.
	About 12, actually.
	I'll be in Portland, Oregon at the Oregon Convention Center.
	Big ol' 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 audio book.
	There will be hardcover editions available to those who, I think, get there early.
	Along with the photograph that appeared on the front page of the calendar section of the LA 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, tis 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 15, 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?
	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 re-establish 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. I don't like this at all.
	I don't like this at all.
	We'll be right back.
	All right, I think we're recombobulated here.
	Richard, are you there?
	I am here.
	All right.
	I guess you are in the middle of, or just transferred a photograph as you... Well, I'm in the middle of this.
	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 arc... Yes.
	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.
	Right.
	So she went out to look, and lo and behold, she was 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 FedExed.
	Do you know that it costs $150 to FedEx one day service from Hawaii?
	Boy.
	And I said, no way, Jose.
	Okay, so it took two days to get here.
	That's 20 bucks.
	Yes, that's better.
	If anybody wants to know they're being ripped off in Hawaii by Federal Express, look into it, all right?
	The price of living in paradise, I guess.
	I guess.
	Anyway, so it came in and I looked at it several times.
	I showed it to my associates.
	They are stunned.
	Now, there's several reasons to be stunned.
	One is it is crystal clear.
	It's in color, all right?
	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?
	Yes, correct.
	Okay, when they pass within about 50 miles.
	So those are already on your board.
	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, all right, 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 5 foot white ball.
	Alright?
	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.
	No way!
	Now what's really interesting about this is that we know it's got this 5-foot satellite itself, the 1,100-pound satellite.
	Attached to it.
	Attached to it.
	To the top part.
	Remember, the tether is like a long wire sticking straight down toward the center of the Earth below this 5-foot white satellite.
	Correct.
	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.
	Oh my!
	And there's nothing at the bottom end, guys.
	Remember, this thing was cut off like a knife.
	There's nothing but a tenth of an inch Kevlar tether going down to space.
	To nothing.
	Well... So what is causing this glowing thing is bright at the bottom as at the top.
	And as you see this thing move against the stars...
	Alright, let me do my next little thing right here.
	I have to save this on my Mac.
	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 peak point.
	And what's happening at the end that's not happening along the way to the tether?
	Precisely.
	Well, what is happening?
	Tell me.
	At the end of this wire.
	Well, I would say, in some way, that energy, in some corona-like effect, is discharging.
	It must be.
	You're very close.
	You're very close.
	It must be.
	What's going on at the end of the antenna that's not going along anywhere along the 13 miles?
	Well, at the end of any long wire, there's a very high voltage current point.
	Oh, you're really getting warm here, all right?
	Say the obvious.
	Well, I'm not sure I can.
	It's a bare wire.
	Yeah.
	The thing is insulated for 13 miles and the only place where there's a bare wire sticking out is at the damn end of it.
	Well, it probably burned the insulation off.
	Of course it did.
	But even if it didn't, if the wire is butted at the end, like let's say you take a piece of telephone wire and cut it with a knife or scissors.
	Yes.
	You get a round black sheath.
	You get a bright copper thing in the center.
	That's the wire.
	That's right, yes.
	The only place where it can see space, it can see the ion cloud and the whole 13 miles is the end of the tether.
	That's the other spark brilliantly glowing as bright as the 5 foot satellite at the top 13 miles above it.
	I rest my case.
	In a few minutes here you'll get to see this shot if I can Get it up there.
	If I can do the next thing I need to do, which is to get out of this file... Alright, I'm going to tell everybody the World Wide Web page again, how to get there, blah blah blah, and then you're going to tell them what's up there.
	It is www.artbell.com on the web.
	Go up there because a lot of what we're going to talk about this morning, are talking about, is there to be viewed.
	The press release, the New York... There are three of them.
	Releases, excuse me.
	Three executive days.
	The New York Times article of Thursday, December 15th, is it?
	1960.
	Mankind warned to prepare for discovery of life in space, that civilization would collapse.
	If we found it.
	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.
	Okay, this is looking good now.
	All right, good.
	And here's a fax for you, Richard.
	Hi, Art.
	If Richard has the evidence he claims he has, then I predict two things will happen.
	One will be a release that discredits him, and the second is he will be stopped from presenting the facts at all.
	And So, which one of those things do you consider more likely?
	I mean, you're on the air, you're blowing this all over the place now, so you're not stopped yet.
	What about somebody stepping forward to throw a sort of a... to do to you what they did to Pat Buchanan, in essence?
	Oh, I'm sure they will try, alright?
	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.
	You know, 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.
	Should I expect somebody with national security claims to be shutting down my webpage?
	Well, the problem is that this data is public domain through NASA, through the Space Act.
	I had a couple of reporters this afternoon ask me a very cogent question.
	They got to the essence of it, alright?
	They said, Hoagland, if you're right, Then there has to be a presidential finding allowing NASA to classify this.
	Correct?
	Absolutely correct.
	So what we have to demand is if anybody shows up, Bart, they show you the classification order.
	Well, they wouldn't come to me.
	They'd come to my webpage, people, or the internet.
	I don't know how they'd get it done, but... Alright, this.
	Dear Art, think of what the Brookings study is intimating.
	In other words, that we humans are such big egotists that the knowledge of civilizations other than our own is simply too big for us to handle.
	Wow.
	Frank K. ABC in L.A.
	Yeah, well, that's absolutely true.
	That's exactly what they thought of it.
	And that's what they still think.
	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 handled the photographs, who were told to destroy these photographs, and because their conscience was so pained... Yes.
	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?
	Yep.
	Well, that's going to really blow up a lot of things, Richard.
	I understand the National Press Club Uh, called you and changed rooms.
	There apparently was so much interest in what's about to happen.
	Yeah, originally we were booked into the Edward R. Murrow room, which for someone who is a, uh, you know, a CBS graduate, like I am, really warmed the cobbles of my heart.
	Uh, and what they've done is because of the demand, they have now asked if we would mind for the same, you know, uh, 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're 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 Tell other people to put this on and make it work.
	All right.
	Richard, hang tight.
	I'll let you finish with your upload.
	He's getting photographs up for you on the website as we speak.
	All of what we're talking about is up there to be viewed.
	My website address is www.artbell.com.
	Get up there and take a look.
	You're listening to Richard Hoagland, the CBC Radio Network.
	This is a recording of the CBC Radio Network's newscast.
	Call Art Bell toll free. West of the Rockies.
	Rockies at 1-800-618-8255. 1-800-618-8255. East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033. 1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	It is ancient buildings on the moon. Could it really be true?
	Keep listening.
	Richard Hoagland is about to tell the nation it is, and he's got the goods.
	Maybe this is a good lead-in.
	Dear Art, a number of years ago, I was asking myself, what the hell happened?
	27 years ago, we put a man on the moon, then nothing.
	For 15 years, we've been messing around with a shuttle, but we haven't used it to gain a real presence in space.
	To me, it was kind of like Putting space off limits.
	I guess now we know what happened.
	Is that fair, Richard?
	That's just exactly what we think has happened, all right?
	I mean, it really is true.
	I remember the moon, the moon, the moon, and then suddenly it's like the steel door came down.
	Yep.
	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 we were not being told the whole truth, that there was something wrong, something rotten in Denmark, something that we needed to look into, I would have dismissed them as, you know, crackpot, crazy.
	We have 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, you know, no one can live now.
	Would you put the truth about that up against even one, you know, 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.
	Well, alright.
	Tell me what has changed today about the rationale of this knowledge becoming public.
	Well, for one thing, the Cold War is over.
	This can no longer be, you know, viewed as some kind of East-West confrontation.
	Alright?
	Alright.
	That's the first thing.
	The second thing is that, you know, we know more.
	We're much more sophisticated now.
	We know that government does not tell us the truth.
	We know that... Alright, this thing is sending.
	Alright?
	And Keith will tell me momentarily whether it's successful.
	Alright, good.
	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, You know, secret programs on the black budget, on taxes, on everything.
	The government has not told us the truth.
	We had presidents who had to resign.
	In the history of the public, when did this ever happen except about 20 years ago it began happening.
	All right, Keith says he's got it.
	He's got it.
	Give me five minutes, he says.
	And in five minutes, it'll be up on the web.
	This is the latest photograph.
	This is a colored GIF file.
	Right.
	It is a frame grab from a video sent to me by FedEx, two-day delivery, from Hawaii.
	It has the Hawaiian logo of the TV station in the bottom left-hand corner.
	There is a beautiful purple circle.
	Around the tethered satellite in the middle of the screen, there is a 13-mile long glowing string against the night sky with two little brilliant stars at the top and the bottom.
	The top star of the tether is the satellite itself, this 5-foot, 1,100-pound sphere.
	The bottom star is a mystery, because there's nothing on the bottom of the tether, guys.
	It's just a naked piece of wire where it tore loose from the shuttle on Sunday night on every one of the twenty-fifth regent could it be that
	that bottom portion which was frayed as it broke away as having different
	refractive uh...
	uh... properties It's a tenth of an inch across.
	I go back to my case.
	Thank you.
	If we can see this thing from the ground, who the hell needed Hubble?
	Yeah.
	Why did we spend two billion dollars on a Hubble Space Telescope?
	All right, that really is a good answer.
	All right, so that photograph is up there, and let's remind everybody else what else is up there.
	This New York Times article, incredible article, saying mankind would be destroyed if we get this information is up there.
	And coming back to the New York Times article for a second, It seems to be missing from the New York Times archives.
	Is that correct?
	Yep.
	Yep.
	I want everybody to know that.
	So if they call the New York Times trying to get a copy of this, what's going to happen?
	Well, see, here's what's kind of interesting.
	Let me go on this other phone now that I've got this uploaded.
	I never want to do this again during a live radio show.
	Yes, all right.
	Only for you, Art.
	Thank you.
	Actually, we are going to do it again, during your press conference.
	Ah, true, we are.
	Yes, we're going to broadcast via the internet, live, from the Press Club on Thursday morning, the 21st, beginning at 9am.
	If you log on to Art's website, there will be a running commentary, you know, one of these Dateline things, Washington, 9.05am, such 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 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.
	Alright.
	She asked me a question this evening before she was smart enough to go to bed.
	She said, um, how will we be able to get questions from our audience back into the press conference?
	And that is a Keith Rowland question.
	Well, I'm not going to put... I'm not sure that's possible.
	Keith would know more about that.
	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, and we will answer them on the air, as it were.
	Wonderful.
	Now there's another little bell and whistle we've added.
	One of our participants, I am going to tell you tonight who one of the participants in this press conference is going to be.
	Alright.
	It's Graham Hancock.
	Oh, Graham.
	Graham Hancock is, as you know, an esteemed reporter for the London Times.
	Yes.
	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 antecedents.
	Yes, of course.
	There's nobody who we know in terms of mainstream archaeology or anthropology who could have done this stuff according to what's in the library.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Witness the Mysterious Origins of Man broadcast.
	It was broadcast two weeks ago.
	That's correct.
	On Sunday.
	Correct.
	Remind me to come back to that in a second.
	There was pretty heavy evidence in there, I thought.
	There is.
	There was.
	In fact, Bill Cody, the director and producer, is getting a lot of flack from Yale now.
	I'm sure he is.
	A lot of heavy, negative response to that program.
	I'm certain of it.
	Of course, it challenges the entire paradigm.
	And the paradigm don't want to be challenged.
	No, of course it doesn't.
	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 Washington and stand up there with us, and he was willing to do that.
	He had a conflict because he and Robert Bavall 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.
	Your press conference is... On the 21st.
	It's on the equinox, isn't it?
	It's on the equinox.
	That, in fact, is an accident, alright?
	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.
	Naturally.
	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 were 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.
	Let's stop there for a second.
	What really did happen to Apollo 13?
	Well, now this is circumstantial.
	I cannot prove this.
	I do not have a smoking gun yet.
	I have circumstantial evidence.
	I want to make that very clear.
	But if you have a model which is developing, that John Kennedy, you know, and we've got to get back to Graham Hancock.
	We tend to do this, you know, we leave things dangling.
	Let me close the loop on Hancock and I'll come back to that question.
	Hancock was supposed to be in Egypt on the morning of the 21st, so obviously we can't get him in two places at the same time.
	Kerry Clark, my esteemed photographic expert and right-hand person, Came up with a brilliant idea.
	She said, why don't we have Graham participate via satellite from the plateau?
	Which he is going to do.
	He is?
	Yes.
	He will be standing on the plateau with a cell phone.
	Talking to us in Washington.
	And then through the internet to all your audience.
	Well, that ought to get people's attention.
	Now, the reason that we're doing it this way, and Graham loves it, he says, boy, he says in his 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.
	That's true.
	It was impossible 30 years ago.
	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.
	I wonder if they're going to be able to stop us.
	No.
	No.
	We are on a roll.
	The truth is finally going to come out.
	And what I need from your audience, Art, is one crucial thing.
	This is a participatory experience.
	This is not, you know, 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.
	Alright?
	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 fun.
	That participation aside, what do you expect in terms of coverage?
	For example, might you get C-SPAN there?
	We are actively talking to C-SPAN.
	We are actively talking to CNN right now, and it looks like I'm going to be with some of my colleagues on Burden of Proof at 12.30 on Thursday.
	Oh, no kidding!
	Now, I specifically wanted to do this program, not only because I'm a fan of Greta's, I am too.
	I am too.
	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.
	You bet.
	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.
	Oh.
	They wanted me to be on one other show before they put me on their show?
	Yes.
	The press is like this.
	This is called packed journalism.
	I know.
	I know how it works.
	This is insanity.
	This is why we've been living under this dark ceiling for 30 years.
	Nobody has the courage to investigate themselves.
	They're all looking to see if somebody else is going to do it first.
	Well, what kind of coverage are you looking for at this point without the additional pressure?
	And I'm sure my audience will help you out.
	Let me finish up a burden of proof.
	Let's not leave loose ends.
	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.
	Yes.
	The American people.
	Correct.
	There was one section of this Space Act, which I've got, which lists one exception.
	One little loophole.
	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.
	Of course.
	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 mind 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 bind.
	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?
	Obviously.
	If they don't go to the letter of the law, then somebody is going to be hung because they didn't do it according to the Constitution.
	Do you see why there will probably be some effort to keep us from going through with this on Thursday?
	I do, yes.
	So I need your troops.
	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.
	Well, that would be a little obvious.
	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 sight lines, and we're going to have a lot of people sitting around drinking coffee and eating croissants, watching stunning lunar pictures.
	Well, see, that's why I asked you.
	I wonder if they're going to be able to stop us.
	And you said, well, no, but now you're almost saying, but I'm worried that they might.
	No, no, it's Murphy.
	Whatever can go wrong will go wrong.
	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 now.
	And the main thing we don't want to have happen is that, you know, if the old joke, if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody around to hear it, does it fall?
	Right.
	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, you know, 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.
	All right.
	Hold on, Richard.
	We're going to hold it right 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 colon forward slash forward slash.
	Then www.artbell.com.
	Or if you're new to the internet, just go up to the web, 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, 9am, is on the webpage now.
	If you've got a computer, you're gonna 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 9am 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 gonna do is gonna 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.
	Aren't 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 Bothell 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, I know... Are you there, Keith?
	Yes, good morning.
	Good morning.
	First of all, thank you for the wonderful job you're doing on this website.
	Well, you're very welcome, sir.
	Keith...
	Normally, as a matter of course, our web page, or my web page, takes on average about, what, 50,000 hits a day?
	Yeah, lately, because of the real audio and the video 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.
	So, what do you suppose is happening right now, because people are saying the website is suddenly slowed to a crawl?
	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 and 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.
	Would that be by first name or last name?
	Well, I don't know.
	Let's pick one.
	How about first name?
	All right.
	First name.
	Your first name begins with the first half of the alphabet.
	Try in the first half hour.
	Second half.
	Second half hour.
	Website address is... Should I... By the way, Keith, shows you what I know.
	Should I always say HTTP colon forward slash forward slash, or is it okay to just say www.artbell.com?
	Well, the second is just fine.
	Most of the browsers today will allow you to just type in the www, and it will automatically put the HTTP in front of it.
	So, a lot of cases you don't even have to do that, but anybody that's been around long enough knows that when you go to a webpage, you need to put that in front of it.
	So, either way, you're doing fine the way you're announcing it.
	Alright, and I assume the real audio sites are also getting a good workout.
	I would imagine that people are going there to hit either one of the two.
	If one of them is busy, they can certainly try the other one.
	It's been working out real well, as far as I know.
	All right.
	Keith, my friend, thank you for all the good work you have done, and Myron as well.
	Okay.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you both, and take care.
	They take care of the webpage, and they are now processing to many of you, all at once, are 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.
	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 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, what can they go get?
	Okay, one correction.
	It's March 21st.
	What did I say?
	You said 31st.
	Did I really?
	Well, because it was the 30 years and all that.
	Oh, I see.
	Come on, folks.
	It's a movable feast.
	And it is going to be a feast, all right?
	Let me get to the specifics for a second here, but someone sent in some fax questions.
	We're getting faxes here as well.
	Of course.
	They want to know if the news cameras 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, you know, encouraged to stand up and be counted.
	But there's some pretty amazing photographic and visual data.
	We will have, among other things, Art, 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.
	Wow.
	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 will stand up and say that?
	That he had these photographs?
	Absolutely.
	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, you know, 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.
	Yes, and while now you talk about forgetting things, let's come back for a second to Apollo 13.
	You said all the evidence is not in, but what is it you think really happened?
	Okay, let me lay out a thumbnail scenario for what I think has gone down and what this evidence now is building brick by brick toward.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	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?
	Yes.
	And a part for Apollo?
	Yes.
	Apollo 1.
	A civilian project won over military.
	Doesn't this strike you as kind of curious?
	Anyway, Apollo was 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.
	I remember.
	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 landed 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 can never even get to the moon.
	Something so horrible or so important.
	Or potentially changing of civilization and that harkens back to the New York Times headline.
	That means there had to be, oh yes it does, and again folks, and I've got to bring you back to this one too.
	In that context, I'm going to close the loop now, 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.
	The stars were not the limit.
	I know, apparently the problem was we saw something nobody had ever seen before.
	Yeah, we freaked out.
	And the policy people said, holy stuff.
	This is exactly what Brookings warned us against.
	Oh my God, the New York Times had 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.
	What do you think will happen to these people after they stand and tell what they're going to tell?
	Nothing.
	If anything happened, it would be like Vince Foster.
	The reason that Bill Clinton is in trouble is because there was a body found, you know, a few miles from the White House.
	Right.
	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.
	All right, look.
	I've got this article in front of me from the New York Times, Thursday, December 15th.
	It's on the Internet.
	They can get it.
	Richard, I've got to bring you back to this again.
	I want an answer to this.
	You said... Well, let me finish the story then.
	Yes, Apollo was designed to go and bring home the bacon.
	And if there were folks within the government Not only our government, perhaps, you know, the Soviet government, the West German government, the English government.
	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.
	Well, sure it would.
	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.
	My God.
	It is my speculation, I want to very clearly frame this, it is my speculation that there is a reasonable probability that Apollo 13 was sabotaged.
	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 fallen into its tents.
	We would 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 Schweikert and brought them safely home as memorialized in Ron Howard's
	brilliant movie, those honest people, Gene Kranz 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.
	That's quite an allegation.
	That's quite an allegation.
	All right.
	When we come back from this break, Richard, please, I want to know about this New York Times story.
	OK.
	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, Apparently, they're 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.
	Back now to Richard Hoagland.
	Richard?
	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.
	I'm sure that's correct.
	All right.
	The New York Times article, Mankind is Warned to Prepare for Discovery of Life in Space, Brookings Institution reports as 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?
	Well, let me give you the chronology of how we actually did uncover it.
	And of course, my first question was, does it really exist?
	And if it does, you know, how do we get it?
	And I've put my minions, you know, my helpers, the folks that are out there which have been Incredibly helpful to us, and they came up with it.
	So let me give you the story.
	It's kind of interesting.
	Sure.
	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 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 Cydonia and etc.
	etc.
	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.
	Sure.
	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 a member of the House of Representatives under very interesting circumstances.
	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.
	Right.
	To basically call attention to the press that, okay, we got a problem on the table here.
	We have potential ruins at Cydonia.
	We 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 Reservoir Program Scientist, on Sunday.
	The 22nd, two days before the press conference.
	Right.
	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.
	I recall.
	And it was never heard from again.
	We went through with the press conference.
	We had about a hundred 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.
	Right.
	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 to the Mars Observer, but nobody in the press is paying attention, is following up, is doing their homework, so we never get to know.
	Sure.
	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 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?
	That issue aside, I mean, here is the article.
	A, where did you get it?
	Okay, so, I put one of my press people, Rwana Martin, who is on the press release, by the way, all the faxes and inquiries should come to these people, and not to us directly, in terms of getting your local affiliates to cover this.
	Please, alright?
	That's what they're there for.
	I asked Rwana, I said, find me this copy of the New York Times.
	Now, why did I ask her?
	Because she had some very good connections with the New York Times.
	So she called them.
	She called people she knew.
	And she said, get out of the archives and get me the December 15th issue of 1960.
	She called me back a couple hours later.
	She says, Dick, they don't have it.
	I said, what?
	She said, no, no.
	They don't have it.
	She says, in fact, they're missing from December back to May of 60.
	I said, what?
	Why don't they have it?
	I mean, I'm an archivist.
	I work for the preeminent newspaper of the world.
	I'm sitting there with nothing to do all day but make sure I've got an archive.
	Five months of the New York Times, gone.
	From 1960.
	It's missing.
	And does not exist at the New York Times.
	So, at that point I realized, 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.
	And so that's how you got it?
	So he then faxed it to me.
	It was in pretty bad condition because it's a microfiche from 1960.
	Of course.
	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.
	But if I pick up the telephone, as some people will no doubt do, and call the New York Times... They will claim they don't have it.
	They will claim they don't have it.
	So, what you need to do is call other libraries.
	Okay?
	Now, I find it kind of curious that the New York Times has not, in, what is it, 1996, in 36 years, replenished this issue.
	Unbelievable, yes.
	Now, the story gets even weirder.
	We are in discussion through another friend of mine with the publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Salzberger himself, who I have been trying to get to pay attention to this as a major story.
	I've basically been saying to him, look, you missed out on Watergate.
	Here's one where you can win one for the Gipper.
	You can really be front and center on the runway on this one.
	We've been sending him a series of press releases on the Tether satellite last week, and then on the press conference this week.
	He calls up my friend this afternoon and he complains to this person.
	He says, why did you run that old story?
	What possible relevance is that old thing?
	Now think about this.
	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 on our keister because we can't come forth on any of the data or evidence or people... Remember, we're talking about NASA insiders who claim that this is what's been going on.
	Of course.
	And the publisher of the New York Times doesn't think there's a story here?
	And he's published a headline 30 years ago, actually it was his father who published it, claiming that civilization would be destroyed if this came out.
	Does one begin to suspect, maybe, that Mr. Stilesberger might believe the headline and is trying to do whatever he can to keep people from being interested in this thing?
	Would that be a leaping to a conclusion here?
	Well, it might be a little bit of a leap, because we don't know for sure, but it might be a logical speculation.
	So let me tell you what happened after that phone call.
	Sure.
	I got a call from a reporter friend of mine in Florida, who works for Florida Today, which is the parent newspaper of USA Today.
	Right.
	And I basically, you know, I sent him the facts.
	I want him to come to the press conference.
	He's followed our work for years.
	He's been very good at doing stories on this.
	And I told him this story about the conversation with my friend with the publisher of the New York Times.
	Right.
	His immediate reaction as a reporter was, holy hell, that stinks to high heaven.
	Yeah.
	So I then told him to call Mr. Salzberger's friend, and as a reporter, out in the hinterlands, basically tell him that it's not playing well in Peoria.
	All right, well, has there been any result?
	There has been no response.
	You won't know until the 21st?
	Well, we won't know until Monday morning.
	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.
	Good.
	All right, I've got a fax here.
	I think you ought to hear it.
	Here it is.
	Hi, Art and Richard.
	While working in the aerospace industry for a defense contractor, I was told something that was rather hard to believe.
	In retrospect, this story now rings with a strange sound of truth.
	I was in hopes that your guests tonight could provide input on the matter.
	A respected engineer in our work group told us of photographs, pictures, that were taken while a U.S.
	craft orbited the moon.
	These pictures were carefully screened prior to being released to the public.
	Via the numbered frames, it was obvious that many of the frames had been withheld from public view, and that was never openly questioned.
	In recent years, the pictures that were released to the public can be digitally enhanced to reveal structures on the surface of the Moon.
	These structures are clearly not natural formations and resemble a city left in ruins.
	Now, with powerful computers at the public's fingertips, these pictures have become sensitive information.
	Needless to say, the pictures that had been released are no longer available to the public.
	This is supposedly Due to a loss of archived films, now I find the engineer's story easier to accept, and the story of missing archived films more difficult.
	Any comments or information from your guest?
	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 1994, 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.
	Right.
	Since we went public, the price of this data has gone up 800%.
	Inflation.
	Yeah, really.
	And most people... 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.
	All right.
	Here's another one, Richard.
	Art, okay.
	But what about us without Internet access?
	What can we do to help make sure the media promotes Hoagland's Or gets to your news conference.
	Can I fax or phone certain places?
	And what would be the best place to do my damage and gain information?
	In other words, he's asking, as somebody without the internet access, what he can do.
	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.
	That's true.
	And you give them the www.artbell.com.
	www.artbell.com.
	And you give them that address and you'll give it to them again.
	And they can log on and download the press release and then go from there.
	All right, Hayard, ask Hoagland about the properties of glass made in zero gravity.
	Is it not true that glass made in zero gravity is stronger than steel?
	It's not the zero gravity, it's the vacuum.
	On Earth, water attacks glass in a way that weakens it radically.
	What Blaikin 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, that 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 know, you're at the beginning of a learning curve here.
	All right.
	Now, let me tell you one other 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, etc., the guy said, oh, he says we're doing a feature on building bridges out of glass here on Earth.
	So, engineering on Earth is catching up.
	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 a hole 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.
	Had you heard of that?
	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 there are what they call fiance 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?
	Of course.
	Yes, of course.
	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 finest.
	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.
	It may be our stuff.
	An era so old, we have literally forgotten.
	All right, Richard, hold on.
	One note for everybody.
	Tonight on KLAS in Las Vegas, it was announced that 16 Minutes is going to be doing a segment on Area 51.
	Leslie Stahl, coming up this Sunday at 7.
	And I thought the audience ought to get that.
	All right, everybody, we're going to break, and then we'll get to the phones.
	Don't forget, the only book signing I'm ever going to do later today in Oregon is just hours from now on my way to Portland.
	Zoom, zoom.
	Up to the Oregon Convention Center, we're going to have a book signing and sort of a meet, I guess.
	Any of you within range of Portland, see you at high noon at the Oregon Convention Center.
	Be there, as they say in the car commercials.
	Here we go again.
	This hour, I'm going to get the phone lines open, and we will let you ask Richard some questions.
	Art just talked with WNEP in Scranton, Pennsylvania, which is owned by the New York Times.
	They refuse to cover the story.
	They say, though, the National Hookup ABC might carry it.
	That's from somebody in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
	There you go, Richard.
	Interesting.
	Well, see, it's interesting.
	If New York Times is not there, and everybody else is, they'll kind of look, because they're the ones that published in 60, that if this stuff was out there and 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.
	Alright?
	Dumbness will kill you as quickly as conspiracy will kill you.
	Yes.
	This is how dumbness works.
	And now I have to tell a personal story, which I'm going to tell on Thursday, so I'm kind of previewing it, you know, for your audience, as I'm going to do it, you know.
	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?
	Barely.
	He 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.
	Yes.
	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 What 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 tell you who's going to lose, who tell 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.
	Sure.
	And they pick from a tiny handful of people.
	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, of course, 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. Murrow, working with Cronkite, working with, you know, all kinds of, you know, Eric, Eric Severide 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 at 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 cup.
	I've got some horror stories.
	They dragged me to Hurley's Bar, which is the watering hole in New York City.
	I know where I speak when I say, That at the age of 23, what appalled me, horrified me, simultaneous with being entranced with being in this heady, stratospheric environment of working with THE Mr. Cronkite and CBS News and, you know, being in on all we were doing, what appalled me was the attitude of those producers and reporters and others, except for Walter.
	Walter was the exception.
	I've 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 was irrelevant to the human condition.
	Well, I think a lot of the media still believes that.
	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.
	What I saw day in and day out, and I'm going to stand up and from my firsthand 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 confidence 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 OK.
	If this document exists, which warns that if we find this stuff out there, somebody is going to try to keep it from us.
	Is somebody keeping it from us?
	All right, well, here is a fact that follows on that.
	Art, yes, 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, I'm not certain that all that much has changed.
	Well, what would really happen is the bubble for the arrogant, egocentric elitist would burst.
	Oh, yes.
	You know, ordinary folks, the folks we're talking to tonight, they're going to be fine.
	They understand, and I have data here.
	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.
	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 in leading roles, had the first interracial kisses.
	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.
	And it was only when she... But Richard, we're not there yet.
	Well, but we can be.
	And we must aim high.
	And because most people I talk to on the ground, in the streets, are aiming that high and it's only the Arthur Salzburgers
	of the world that turn up their nose and sneer and giggle.
	You know, those are the people whose bubble will collapse and fortunately they don't yet run everything.
	But how do you know that on March 21st you're not going to be going to a place where mankind should not yet be going?
	Well, um, Faintheart never won fair make.
	Look, I want to take a couple calls.
	A lot of people want to talk to you.
	It's only fair.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hello.
	How you doing?
	I'm doing all good.
	Where are you?
	Where are you, sir?
	I'm from Mohawk Valley.
	All right.
	Mr. Hoagland, are any high-ranking members of the scientific community going to be invited to this press conference like Dr. Carl Sagan?
	Well, he could come.
	Of course he can come.
	He won't show up, but of course he's welcome.
	We're not handing out Gildedge invitations.
	What about the quality of the persons that you're going to have telling their story for the first time?
	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 were standing up and saying, this is what was going on.
	All right.
	Well, that is newsworthy, Richard.
	There's no question about it.
	And then we have outside geologists who are going to be there to discuss why the things in the photographs cannot be anything but artificial.
	We will have architects.
	We'll have photographic experts.
	We'll have computer experts.
	We've covered the waterfront.
	We even have a couple of investigative reporters.
	Graham Hancock, as you know, is one.
	Yes, indeed.
	So we are covering the full spectrum.
	If Carl wants to show up, he is more than welcome.
	I doubt that he will.
	I doubt that he will.
	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.
	Well, you may be overrating it by some, Richard.
	I mean, the people listening to this program, me, yes, I think we could handle it, but we don't represent the totality of the population.
	No, but culture is always advanced by the most Interesting, the most serious, the most entrepreneurial, the best.
	We don't play to our worst, we play to our best.
	We're stuck in the case.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hi, how are you doing?
	Okay, where are you?
	I am in L.A.
	I've got a question for you, Richard.
	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 did they see the information in a light where they could actually step up and be credible people?
	Good question.
	I know Armstrong has made statements that should curl your hair a little bit.
	Other than that, Richard?
	Well, this now gets into a delicate area.
	You have to understand, the astronauts, when they joined the program, they joined from the military services.
	Now, when you are a military officer, you sign an oath.
	You bet.
	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.
	Yes.
	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, they're off the hook.
	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 There are places to go and things to see beyond belief.
	That's right.
	Which is the end of his... And he started that White House statement by comparing himself to a parrot.
	What do parrots do, Art?
	They repeat what others have told them.
	Yes, that went well from the lips.
	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.
	Then 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.
	So we have Captain Hoagland.
	I'd like to ask Richard...
	I'd like to ask Richard...
	So what he's saying is somebody went up to the moon and found the Rosetta Stone.
	Yeah.
	I think that's what he's saying.
	Where are you, by the way?
	I'm east of the Rockies.
	I'm south of Cheyenne, about 50 miles.
	All right.
	There you go.
	The Rosetta Stone, Richard.
	That's an exquisite, beautiful way of saying it.
	I'm going to steal that line on Thursday morning.
	Well, I'm sure he'll be honored.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hello.
	Hello there.
	No, you're not.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Turn your radio off, please.
	I got it.
	I got it.
	Thanks a lot, Art.
	Where are you?
	Anchorage, Alaska.
	All right.
	Okay, Richard, I had the opportunity of listening to your show back in October on Art's program, and since then I've been glued to the radio whenever I hear Art say that he's going to have Richard C. Holgood on the air.
	By the way, I should say hello to all my newfound friends in Alaska who work with us on the tethered satellite.
	Matter of fact, I know Nick Begich, and I've talked with him personally a few times, and it's quite interesting.
	I sure did like the theory that you put forth with the satellite and HAARP.
	I firmly believe in what you said.
	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.
	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.
	Was there any Yes.
	Numerically, geometrically, mathematically, it all is converging.
	And in the Clementine report that we wrote and published last, you know, several months ago, we list the specifics.
	So if you want to get a copy of the Clementine document, you just fact that you're at the Mars mission, And we'll let you know how to get it.
	Why don't you give out your fax number in case there's any, and there sure may be, last-minute information that you can use.
	Oh, I need all the information we can get.
	The faxes that came in from the last several shows were incredibly helpful.
	The grassroots network is alive and well.
	Oh, yes.
	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.
	The number?
	201-271-1703.
	That's the Mars Mission Facts number.
	All right, and give it again.
	Mars mission fax number.
	All right, and give it again.
	201-271-1703.
	All right, on that note, hold on.
	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.
	You've been listening.
	I don't know how you can see it any differently.
	Um, 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.
	It's the only book signing I'm ever going to do.
	The Oregon Convention Center.
	Big twin towers.
	You can't miss them in Portland.
	And it's going to be a lot of fun.
	You know, around midday or so, you could sleep in after a show like this.
	Come on over, and let's get together.
	Oregon Convention Center, High Noon, Portland.
	Be there.
	Back now to Richard Hoagland and your questions.
	Richard, are you there?
	Yeah, let me say something.
	I just got a very important fax, and I want to bring this to everyone's attention.
	Go ahead.
	If you want to know what to do, the single most important thing you can do, other than call your local media, is call C-SPAN.
	I just got a fax here from a Dr. Bob White, who apparently is at Northern Arizona University.
	He says, Richard, will any of the cable channels be covering the news conference, i.e.
	C-SPAN?
	Sure.
	What time is scheduled to begin?
	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 daybook.
	It has to be put on the schedule.
	Sure.
	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 a 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.
	Alright, how do we do that?
	Is there a number?
	Alright, 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.
	All right.
	Well, that's a way people can really help.
	Yes.
	That would be the single... Forget... And get to see it themselves as well.
	And they will get to see it.
	Yeah.
	All right, good.
	Good suggestion.
	I hope everybody does it.
	Let's move to the lines, I promised.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland in New York.
	Hello.
	Good morning.
	Where are you, sir?
	Baleo, California.
	All right.
	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?
	Yes.
	Uh, the title of which, um, oh goodness, it escapes me.
	I've been wanting to ask this question for so long.
	Now you've lost.
	Uh, Project Blue Flying.
	Okay.
	Has Richard ever run across anything of that nature?
	Is that name familiar to you, Richard?
	No, it's not.
	But that doesn't mean anything.
	I mean, they can change these names like they change their shirts, so it doesn't mean anything.
	Sure.
	Alright.
	Keep it secret.
	Naturally.
	Prevent you from finding out.
	East of the Rockies, you're on with Richard Hoagland.
	Where are you, please?
	Houston, Texas.
	All right.
	Yes, I had a question about... I have two questions, actually.
	All right.
	One was that, has he found any connection with the UFO phenomenon?
	With any landings on the moon or near Mars?
	Thing, and my second question was, If you, uh, the pictures of the astronauts on the moon?
	Mm-hmm.
	Could you tell what astronauts they were?
	Yes.
	Are you giving out names and missions?
	All of that.
	Oh, really?
	Yes.
	Oh, can you comment about the UFO phenomenon, if there's any connection between what you found?
	Okay.
	All right, let me do this in two parts.
	There is no direct connection.
	In other words, I don't have pictures of astronauts getting into UFOs, alright?
	Forget that.
	Yes.
	What I think is going on here is if there are extraterrestrial vehicles from some place 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.
	Sure.
	This is a developing model that we're now, you know, 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 got a fax here from one of your listeners It says, please mention, 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?
	Yes.
	Could it be for lack of ethics, respect for natural law, science too concerned with profit, etc., etc., etc.?
	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, you know, 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?
	I'll get mine while the getting is good.
	Now that may sound a bit arrogant.
	Oh my gosh, does that sound arrogant.
	It also sounds like history, doesn't it?
	It sure does.
	Well, so, well, so... It's up to the democracy That's what all this technology in the hands of ordinary folks has got to do.
	That's why Art doing your show tonight, prior to this thing, is most important.
	I understand.
	By 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.
	All right.
	West of the Rockies, your turn with Richard Hoagland.
	Where are you, please?
	I'm in Longview, Washington.
	All right.
	Welcome.
	Hi.
	I have kind of a multi-part question here.
	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 Tetrahedron Pyramids.
	This is the work of Stan Tennant at the Meru Foundation.
	Okay, I had earlier, I think it was on Discovery Channel or something, had seen a deal on the Hebrew language having each letter having a numerical equivalent and the words having like an equation.
	I was wondering if anyone had found any correlation between your hyperdimensional physics and some of these equations.
	And the short answer is yes.
	Stunning correlation.
	Wow, now that would be something I'd be interested in.
	Secondly, Tennant and I are going to do a video together and we're going to lay this out with some pretty sexy graphics and production values and all that.
	There is so much information here to be processed and verified that we are looking long down the road from what we can talk about publicly.
	Right, I understand.
	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 shadowgram, which generates the letters.
	All right?
	And when you look at that shadowgram 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.
	That would make sense.
	I had seen a show about a guy who went into a cave for a while.
	and it changed his internal clock and 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.
	I thought that was kind of interesting.
	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.
	Which is closer to the Martian day.
	Which is the Martian day.
	That's fascinating.
	I'm curious.
	How does a human animal, a human organism evolved on planet Earth, happen to have a biological clock that's equivalent to the Martian's?
	I happen to notice that too.
	Secondly, just one of many questions Mr. Salzberger doesn't seem to be intrigued with.
	Are we being hard on Arthur Salzberger tonight?
	Yes, you are.
	No, we're not.
	Any paper that puts itself up, all the news that's fit to print, when 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.
	You do want him to come to this, don't you?
	I want him to cover the news.
	I want him to cover the news.
	Alright, this caller has something else, sir.
	Okay, the last two things are really quick here.
	One of the preeminent people in physics today, being Stephen Hawking, I would like to know if anyone has gotten him any information on your hyper-dimensional physics, because I think he could probably really do a great deal on 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 of the last thing the Russian Mars satellite I saw it and it was an object coming toward it.
	Now, I don't recall exactly what it was, but I recall the news person saying it was a slender object about a mile long.
	Now, that could be, given being in space, hard to tell things, and I'm wondering if you happen to remember that.
	All right, I do.
	Yes.
	What do you recall of the description of the object, Richard?
	Well, all right.
	The actual object is not what it was claimed to be.
	It just gets complicated.
	If you're trying to keep something secret, Arthur, in the world we live in now, it's very hard to keep secrets.
	Sure.
	I mean, look at what we're about to do.
	Yes.
	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 spin Doctorate 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?
	Sure.
	You make the whole idea seem so absurd and so silly, That nobody in their right mind, particularly at the New York Times, will ever take it seriously.
	And how do you do that?
	You put out a photograph that you claim is a mile-long spaceship that ate Chicago, or in this case, ate the Russian spacecraft.
	Too silly.
	And it's too silly for any serious reporter, you know, working for Mr. Salzburger, to take seriously.
	Therefore, he will never inquire.
	In fact, Dr. Thomas Van Flander, 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 II 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.
	All right.
	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.
	Right.
	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?
	Good question.
	Because something recent, unnatural, occurred in the Martian environment.
	In other words, if the Russians photographed a rock sailing around Phobos, you would think they would be bragging at a major astrophysical discovery.
	Of course.
	So why are they putting out kooky UFO stories about spacecraft at Chicago?
	Answer?
	To spin Dr. the Press away from asking any hard questions about what does this really mean.
	All right.
	Let me come back to his other question regarding your work in hyperdimensional physics and getting it to Hawkins.
	Okay.
	I'm glad somebody brought up hyperdimensional physics.
	I have several facts here from people who are begging us to define some terms.
	The first thing I want to respond to is a fact that came in a couple days ago asking why I don't equate hyperdimensional physics With Bearden's scalar electromagnetics.
	Right.
	And the answer is because I'm not all together all the time, and I should have done that from the very beginning.
	They are one and the same.
	Hyperdimensional physics is the same as the scalar electromagnetics that Tom Bearden is talking about.
	That'll help a lot of people.
	All right, it all goes back to Maxwell.
	By the way, there's something very curious going on.
	Arthur, Arthur, Carl Sagan has just published a new book.
	Sitting here on my coffee table.
	Yes.
	I have to move the cat over to read it.
	It's called The Demon Haunted World, just published by Random House.
	The subtitle is Science as a Candle in the Dark.
	What a title for a book, The Demon Haunted World.
	Think about that.
	Close your eyes and think about that from the preeminent science historian and Well, let me get to my punchline, Arthur, please.
	He has a whole chapter on Maxwell.
	When was the last time you heard anybody except me and maybe Tom Bearden mention Maxwell?
	And suddenly Carl Sagan is devoting an entire chapter in his new book.
	He also has a chapter called The man on the moon and the face on Mars.
	Where, guess what?
	He recommends that the new NASA missions going back to Cydonia make Cydonia a priority.
	And re-photograph it.
	And finally, tell us the truth.
	Do you think, Richard, that it could be sort of a... As you know, he's not well.
	Yes.
	And it may well be that even Carl Sagan, toward the end here, 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, you know, 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, alright?
	Read what he says.
	In fact, I should probably read it to you.
	Listen, we are utterly out of time.
	Again?
	Yes, we are.
	Oh, what a shame.
	So, March 21st, National Press Club.
	Everybody, please try and get coverage of this event as best you can.
	Call C-SPAN.
	Call C-SPAN.
	That's the most important phone call.
	Back C-SPAN, whatever you can do.
	And let's get this information out to the rest of the American public.
	Richard, as always, it has been a very distinct pleasure.
	It's been a wild night.
	And I thank you, my friend, and I wish you luck.
	And we will see you on the Internet.
	Take care.
	Thank you.
	Richard Hoagland from the Mars Mission.
	Coming up March 21st, you don't want to miss it.
	You want to help everybody else not to miss it.
	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 gonna 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.
	7478 beginning right now. It was a four hour program with Richard Hoagland. The number
	to call 1-888-4278.
	1-800-917-4278.
	Beginning right now.
	1-800-917-4278.

▲