Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 25, 1996 - Art Bell

03:14:24

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard C Hoagland - UFOs

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I don't need to tell you all how active things have been lately.
	What with all sorts of statements made by astronauts, Edgar Mitchell first on NBC's
	Tomorrow night, I might add, on this program, Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell began it, and I guess Gordon Cooper will continue Saying, guess what, folks?
	It's all a big cover-up with the Paranormal Borderline program, which is going to be aired May 7th, to the Roswell Museum acquiring alleged Roswell wreckage, to my acquisition of alleged Roswell wreckage, which you can see on my webpage, of course, at www.artbell.com.
	www.artbell.com and I will tell you this this morning that wreckage is now in the hands of an independent analyst and there will be spectrographic and many other tests performed on it and I don't know when we'll have the results my guess would be sometime next week maybe So, it's been one revelation after another, and I thought it would be a good time, since I know he has comments on all of these things going on, to catch you up on what this Ingstrom Science Award winner, press conference holder, prior science advisor to Walter Cronkite and NASA, Richard Hoagland from New York, once again,
	Has brought himself out of the sleep state at about two o'clock in the morning back east, or now after, and is here with us.
	Hello, Richard.
	Good evening, Art.
	How you doing?
	I'm awake.
	Yes, well, that's a beginning.
	It certainly is an interesting time.
	The Chinese, you know, have this curse, and I think we are all being cursed.
	Oh?
	Well, may you live in interesting times.
	Well, I don't know if that's a curse.
	Well, you know, some days it is.
	That's how the Chinese termed it.
	And I think it's because at a time when that, I don't know whether it was Confucius or someone later, but for most of human history, at least the human history that we have been given, the normal state of affairs was nothing changed.
	And if things change, they usually changed for the worse.
	So the concept that if you lived in interesting changing times, it was a curse, Was because most changes were of an ill variety.
	Negative nature.
	In this case, I really don't know whether these changes bode ill or good for us.
	Considering that the status quo has not been good for us, I think changes at least got a 50-50 shot of, you know, boding better for us.
	So I'm encouraged by the developments, particularly the fact that you're going to get a chance to talk to Dr. Mitchell directly tomorrow night, which I have been unable to achieve.
	And obviously, I have a couple of questions I would like to pass along for you to ask him.
	I thought you might.
	On my behalf.
	And I will.
	I thought you might have thought, yes.
	So, if you had Dr. Mitchell here now, what would you ask?
	Well, the key question, of course, is we have evidence equivalent to the document discovered in Hillary's library, which despite protestations of the contrary, everyone asks, how could it get there?
	Without her knowing about it.
	Well, we have photographs of Dr. Mitchell standing on the moon.
	They're on your website.
	They're going to be on ours within hours.
	Showing the good doctor standing underneath some remarkable structures on the lunar surface during the 1971 Apollo 14 mission.
	What I would ask him is simply, why are you claiming the government is concealing evidence of a crash 50 years ago, half a century ago, in an isolated part of the New Mexican desert, And you would have us believe that they're being totally forthcoming, as you are, on what was found during the Apollo missions, when there is photographic evidence to the contrary.
	Well, let me give you a what-if, and tell me if this could not be.
	If the American public is being prepared to assimilate information that has been held secret for a very long time, Might it not be easier to begin by suggesting to them they assimilate something that occurred, you know, many years ago, like in 1947 first, which is sort of a non-threatening assimilation?
	To be told that, for example, that there are structures on the moon, Mr. Hoagland is right, would be a little much all at once.
	Well, you see, I think that's exactly, if you'll pardon the expression, ass-backward.
	My take on this, and that of my colleagues, people who were with us in Washington, the press conference, anthropologists, geologists, sociologists, you know, psychiatrists, I mean, we've consulted over the years with a large number of people, starting with the Mars problem, starting with Cydonia, and looking at, you know, what this would do to the human condition, what this would do to the human psyche.
	This was even before Brookings, you know, this report.
	The one that I believe is accurate and you don't believe is accurate.
	Well, I mean, the accuracy is in question that this document was written.
	In other words, I believe in the... Let us educate the audience.
	I've got so many new listeners.
	Brookings basically said that if we were to suddenly encounter a superior intelligence from elsewhere, there would be a societal breakdown.
	Now, that simplifies it, but that's kind of What the Brookings Report said, and I happen to believe it's true, Richard.
	You know what I've been getting called lately by several callers?
	The devil's mouthpiece.
	That's what they're calling me.
	The devil's mouthpiece for even dealing with this kind of material.
	And that anything that would purport to be from elsewhere would be of the devil and the devil's work.
	Now, even though it was Jesus himself who said, in my father's house are many mansions, I mean, Many can play this game of calling people names.
	That's neither here nor there.
	Here's my point.
	Free from the beginning, even before we found Brookings, thought that if we really were looking at ruins out there, it would be very non-threatening to everybody for the following reasons.
	One is, they're dead and gone.
	The stuff we're looking at is millions, if not hundreds of millions of years old.
	It is ancient, and it is abandoned.
	There's nobody home.
	So, that's the first point.
	The next point is, we found it.
	We, meaning the human species.
	It was a proactive act on our part, as part of, you know, the kind of extrapolating of the western frontier to space, as part of the great, you know, Kennedy New Frontier.
	We sent these spacecraft, unmanned and, if Apollo is correct, now manned, out there.
	And boys and girls, we found this ourselves.
	So it's very proactive.
	We're in the driver's seat.
	We can control.
	Remember the old Outer Limits?
	Sure.
	We control all that you see and hear.
	We control the information.
	Well, we, meaning whoever went with the spacecraft and found it on behalf of the American people, could control the flow of information.
	And we always thought, those of us who'd given this a lot of care and thinking over the years, that the most non-threatening way to unveil that the human species is not alone would be to start With a bunch of dead, ancient ruins, where there isn't a living soul, nothing can harm us, the only thing that can come back is information.
	Just one little kink in that scheme.
	Well, let me finish my thought.
	Well, no, let me kink it first.
	And then you can answer that if you want.
	I mean, a lot of the religious faithful, Richard, will tell you without question and with utter faith, that All of this is no more than 6,000 years old.
	So?
	Man's not, well... Let's assume they're only 6,000 years old.
	They're still not born yesterday.
	Yes, but I know, but that will certainly challenge their paradigm.
	We're still looking at ruins.
	Yeah, but, you know, a ruin is a ruin is a ruin.
	You and I can argue until the cows come home how old they are.
	The fact is that there's nobody home.
	By definition, the stuff we're looking at is battered, ancient, smashed, in ruins.
	It's not a thriving metropolis right now.
	Right.
	So here's my problem with Mitchell and with Cooper and with the fact that you've been given, you know, snippets of something allegedly from the Roswell crash, and apparently, according to your own promo on the show tonight, the Roswell Museum itself has gotten a separate, you know... Which is also undergoing testing, by the way.
	Okay.
	Yes, and I should tell you, Richard, that the people who got the piece in Roswell, and those people who are testing it, whose names I will not reveal, Uh, think also that something is going on right now.
	That there is an intentional feeding of misinformation, or disinformation, and that that piece in Roswell, and the piece I have may well be part of it, and that of course could easily be!
	Well, alright.
	Let's assume for a moment it's not misinformation.
	You know, let's assume for a moment that Dr. Mitchell is absolutely 100% Sincere when he claims that the US government has been hiding this.
	Yes.
	Let's claim that Gordon Cooper, who I know by the way, is going to say some pretty stalwart things because I was able to act as a kind of a catalyst to put him in touch with the borderline or borderland folks.
	I see.
	Because of a luncheon he had with one of our associates weeks before the press conference where he in fact revealed that A, Roswell existed, and B, they, meaning the government, had a real problem because they don't know how to come out of the closet without being fried by the American people.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, from that conference at lunch with my friend several weeks ago to May 7th, or to when they taped the show, which I guess was a couple weeks ago, something has transpired.
	Some event has taken place, and suddenly we have astronauts willing, gleeful, to unburden their souls about everything but What is waiting on the moon for us to confirm, or is waiting on Mars?
	Now, this is my question.
	They have chosen, whoever is masterminding this plan, this unveiling, this controlled, slow leak of information, and there's other data points we can fill in as the evening progresses, they have chosen not the safe route, which is ancient ruins, whether they're 6,000 or 6 million or 6 billion years old, you know, take a number and wait your turn, They have chosen the hot-bushing, incendiary, very precipitous, very fearful to some people, live aliens that fell to Earth only 50 years ago.
	And you know, of course, that there's reports that there's folks still around.
	I've heard that.
	See, once you open the door to aliens and spaceships who have come here, you can never close that door.
	Because if they could come once, They could come again, and again, and again.
	So what I'm seeing, if this is a government program to get us used to the idea that we're not alone, they have chosen, for reasons that are extraordinarily inexplicable, the most incendiary route as opposed to the most diffusing route.
	And this I find fascinating, and I have a couple of thoughts as to what might really be going on.
	Let's back up a little bit.
	You raised a very interesting point with me the other day on the phone.
	You said that there was a program, I believe, with Michael Jackson down on my affiliate KBC in Los Angeles.
	That's right.
	In which a certain individual was being interviewed.
	Well, Carl Sagan, who in a former life was a friend of mine.
	We did a lot of interesting things together.
	I invited him on some of my cruises.
	You know, the Staten Dam, the QE2, he helped us go through the South Atlantic during the last Apollo mission to the moon.
	He and many other interesting people, Katherine Ann Porter, Hugh Downs, Norman Mailer, Robert and Ginny Heinlein, quite a sterling cast were assembled.
	And Carl, and at that time his wife Linda Sagan, came as my guest, and we had an extraordinary adventure.
	Both in spirit and in mind and in body, cruising for two weeks through the South Atlantic during the Apollo 17, December 1972 final journey to and from the moon.
	And I've known Carl a long time, and when I really got fastened on the Mars problem on Cydonia, it pained me no small end that Carl chose to be on the other side of the fence, that he deliberately chose for reasons that are still quite inexplicable.
	To tell everybody that there was nothing there, that he could see nothing.
	He even went so far as to take a look intensively one afternoon on Capitol Hill in the mid-1980s at a set of enlargements that we had produced as part of the first SRI investigation of the Sedonia material from Viking, in the presence of Tom Rautenberg, who was then director of our study at the University of California, Berkeley, and Dr. David Webb, who had just been appointed To President Reagan's Space Commission.
	And at the end of this extremely intensive investigation, which also was accompanied by Dr. Louis Friedman, who is then and is currently the Executive Director of Dr. Sagan's Planetary Society, who refused, absolutely refused, to even look at the Sidonia pictures.
	It was a little bit like the Cardinals, who refused to look through the telescope.
	I can't see that.
	They kept trying to call him over to look at the pictures.
	I tried to get Friedman to look at the pictures, and Friedman refused.
	At the end of this rather remarkable session on Capitol Hill, which had been occasioned by Senator Sparta Matsunaga from Hawaii calling a congressional hearing on the concept of a joint U.S.-Soviet manned expedition to Mars.
	Remember, this was before the Cold War was ended, and Sagan was championing, to everybody's stunned amazement, a joint U.S.-Soviet manned mission As a way of bringing East and West together and creating a geopolitical, you know, cooperative venture that would surmount the Cold War and perhaps serve to defuse the threat of a World War III nuclear war.
	During the height of this hearing, he was looking at these Sidoni images.
	And the most amazing thing, which I reported in Monuments in my book on this, Which has been attested to recently again by Dr. Webb, is that Sagan called Webb to one side as the political representative of the administration, of the Reagan administration, and he said that under no circumstances at that time would he ever admit that that meeting had ever taken place, that he had ever intensively looked at the Sedonia photography or found any of it interesting.
	So that was a situation that obtained circa 1984-85, when Billy Cox, who was the reporter for Florida Today, who Ed Mitchell, a few weeks ago, asked to be interviewed by, as I'm sure you will come up on the show tomorrow night, when Billy Cox got on the story in the late 80s, 88 or 89, and called Sagan on this issue, because I've mentioned it in Monuments, Sagan absolutely categorically denied that the meeting had ever taken place, or he'd ever taken Webb aside and claimed he would deny the meeting had ever taken place.
	Webb, when Cox reached him for comment, said, Dr. Sagan is mistaken.
	The meeting did take place.
	He did say the things he said, and I will stand by my statement that Hoagland is correct.
	He claimed that he would deny that that meeting ever took place, that he ever had actually examined those photographs, and in fact he did.
	So now we have last Thursday afternoon, or Thursday morning, I guess, a week ago, we have Carl Sagan plugging his latest book, which is called The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark.
	Yes.
	That's a perspective on how Carl views planet Earth, you know, right now.
	Saying to a listener who called in at the end of the program, asking about me and the Sedonia work and all that, Saying after the usual diatribe about eggplants and Richard Nixon and lookalikes and faces being seen anywhere, he suddenly says to Michael Jackson's stunned amazement, but, I could be wrong.
	There could be something there, and then he called for intensive re-photography via the new missions that NASA now has going back, leaving later this year, For intensive re-photography, a la what we thought from Mars Observer, when the missions arrive in the next year or two.
	Specifically of Cydonia?
	Of Cydonia.
	And Jackson, who was stunned, because he was giving this kind of supercilious, we got a face in the parking lot, and that's our station manager, he said, Dr. Sagan, you're not serious.
	And Sagan said, in that kind of wry way he has, I could be wrong.
	Now, what I am asking everyone tonight to think about is what has changed in the last 13 years.
	Carl Sagan has been maintaining that this is nonsense, this is idiocy, this is lunacy, this is, you know, seeing faces in potato chips, you know, Richard Nixon on eggplant.
	All the demeaning spurs against both science and character and the usual.
	Suddenly, within days of our press conference in Washington, Carl Sagan is now saying publicly that he could be wrong on this issue and Dick Hoagland might be right.
	All right, Dick Hoagland, hold it right there for just a moment.
	We'll be right back to you.
	So that's what happened on KABC some days ago.
	I would ask what has changed in the last half year or so.
	The dominoes are beginning to clearly fall.
	I wonder what direction they're headed in.
	We'll be back.
	Please leave the cassette exactly... A piece of email that I've been saving for Richard.
	I think you'll find this interesting, Richard.
	Art, living here in Houston gives me the opportunity to occasionally mingle with workers and astronauts that are affiliated with NASA.
	Recently I was at a gathering with close friends and in attendance was a gentleman who at one time was a space shuttle commander.
	And had participated in many other missions previous to that.
	I will not give his name out of respect for his privacy.
	After eating dinner, we all settled into the living room, began talking casually.
	I was itching to ask him about the Hoagland findings and other hot topics on that subject.
	When I found a segue, I went for it.
	His response was most interesting.
	Paraphrasing the conversation went like this.
	He said that in his opinion, The next logical steps after landing on the moon were to send a manned mission to Mars and to start the process of building a base on the moon.
	I then asked him if he thought the reason neither of these things ever happened was due to the structures Hoagland claims were found on the moon during the Apollo missions.
	The astronaut's response was affirmative.
	He added that it is highly unlikely that NASA or the government will ever come forward and share this evidence with the public.
	When I asked him about UFOs and the crash at Roswell, he said that it seems more likely than not that indeed there was a crash there.
	Though he said all these statements were just his opinion.
	It was evident to me and everybody else that he knew more than he was saying.
	The way he stated his opinions Interesting.
	seem more like he was stating facts his eyes would get wide when he responded to
	questions he knew the answers to but couldn't give instead he'd just
	give his opinion
	the conversation just reinforce my belief there's something to all the allegations of hoagland and
	others hopefully this gentleman and others in his position will decide to
	share what they know
	so the truth can be finally found robin in houston there you go richard
	interesting Yes, interesting.
	Well, I think the wall is crumbling, and the question, as you praised it before the break, is in which direction.
	Yes.
	We can paint two scenarios.
	One is that, like cattle, we are being guided into a shoot, not of our making, and herded in a direction not to our liking, to truth not of our apprehension.
	The other possibility, which I prefer tonight to maintain is at least possible, if not likely, is that there is an inevitability here and the folks on the inside who obviously know everything we don't know they know how much there is left for us to find and what they're seeing is a trend curve which is rapidly building in this direction in our favor and so what you see is the phenomena of what we used to call the rats on the sinking ship it's every man for himself and the smartest are getting out in front and claiming well it was those other guys it wasn't me
	They've been hiding stuff, but not me.
	Okay?
	And again, you won't have a sterling opportunity, Mr. Bell, tomorrow night, to put one of these people under a microscope.
	Remember, this is a public servant.
	This man went to where no large number of people have ever been before, at taxpayer expense.
	If he is to maintain that the photographs, the data, the evidence we have, the testimony of people like Ken Johnston, is all made up
	and that the government that he claims is lying about everything else
	these are the a e t even ufo is in all that
	is being truthful when it claims that it put him there and he never knew what was around it
	then he's a better man than i can get the end but i frankly don't think that
	he can maintain that very much longer well
	uh... how would he approach changing it
	I mean, just a flat statement.
	Here it is.
	What's the worst that will happen?
	The question you need to ask him, point blank, is, Ed, what are you afraid of?
	Are they going to cut you off to Leavenworth?
	I mean, give me a break.
	This is not going to happen.
	This is not a realistic scenario.
	The American people, to any astronaut who was put in jail or attacked by the judiciary or the Justice Department or Janet Reno for breaking security odes, ...would be surrounded 15 million deep in the morning by angry citizens who would come to their defense as American heroes who are as much prisoners of a system as the hostages in Iran were.
	This is not a realistic projection.
	These people will suffer no fate because there is a higher calling here.
	It's called the Constitution of the United States.
	It is legitimate for individuals, the Nuremberg Trials affirm this, to basically contravene unlawful orders when the common good dictates in their own conscience that they disobey those illegal orders.
	In fact, if these astronauts, military individuals, have been being the good soldiers, and maintaining the party line because they were told to, It's time they did a little thinking on their own and looked around this landscape and realized that this country is in dire straits because for 30 years we've been living without this priceless knowledge that we paid $40 billion in 1990s dollars now to send these men to the moon to find, to return, to bring home.
	I find it fascinating that as we're having this conversation, a few miles away from me here, maybe a mile or two, there is an auction going on at Sotheby's.
	Jackie Kennedy's personal possessions are being parceled out.
	Enough money to go back to the moon.
	That's almost what I was going to say, alright?
	And when I think what her husband tried to do, and how he was cut down in the prime before it could be accomplished, and how his vision now, very apparently to me, was hijacked by a tiny handful of very venial and selfish people.
	Who have used this information for their own ends.
	If Ed Mitchell wants to get on the side of the angels, that side is the American people and a higher calling to the Constitution under which this Republic was founded.
	And he needs to be forthcoming and say, yeah, not only have they been hiding Roswell on you, but by the way, we saw some very interesting things when they sent us where no one had gone before.
	And I want to tell you tonight what we really found.
	If Ed Mitchell would do that, he would be such a hero.
	in the eyes of the American people.
	But instead, he seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it too,
	claiming they've been hiding, you know, real aliens coming to us,
	but they haven't, you know, been hiding the apparent ruins in which he and Alan Shepard landed almost 30 years ago.
	Well...
	You're going to have an interesting interview.
	What do you expect, he will say?
	Just a little prediction.
	What do you expect?
	Well, I don't want to supersede the conversation.
	I think that this is going to be you appealing to Ed Mitchell's higher nature.
	Ed Mitchell has a higher nature.
	Many years ago, when I was setting up one of my ship things, Ed Mitchell was involved in helping me craft it, the voyage beyond Apollo.
	I learned a great deal in working with Dr. Mitchell.
	He has become very good friends in recent years of someone that I work very closely with, Carol Rosin, who was Werner Von Braun's protege when she was at Fairchild Industries.
	When Werner left the space program, he went to private industry before he died of cancer back in the mid-70s.
	And he developed this teacher, Carol Rosin, who, when he passed on, turned and collaborated on some very interesting projects with Dr. Mitchell.
	I know that Ed believes that the human species needs to advance.
	It needs to evolve.
	It needs to reach and transcend its limits.
	And all I would say to him, if I were in your shoes, is, Ed, you've got one hell of an opportunity here.
	Go for it.
	The American people are ready.
	They're past ready for the truth.
	All the truth.
	Not spin doctor truth, not leave me out of it, I'm not to blame kind of truth.
	But all the truth.
	We're adults.
	We can take it, and we deserve it.
	All right, let's talk again about the photograph that you've got of Ed Mitchell.
	Well, it's more than one.
	I mean, we only put one up on the website, but we've got dozens of photographs of him and Shepard under the structures at Fra Mauro.
	I've now been looking at the landing footage.
	You know, each of the lunar modules carried a variety of cameras, still cameras and 60mm cameras.
	The 60mm cameras during some parts of the mission were mounted on brackets in the windows, in those big triangular windows of the Lunar Module as they came in for the landing.
	Literally, in preparation for tonight's show, a couple of nights ago, I took some of the frames of the landing footage from the Lunar Module Antares as it came down for the landing at Frau Mauro.
	And I rectified them and I enhanced them.
	And you can see in this footage, which we'll put up on our website, and we'll get to what I mean by that in a minute, you can see the remains of ruins at the landing site as the spacecraft came in before the landing.
	It looks like you were landing in the middle of Hiroshima after the bomb had hit.
	You can see rectilinearity.
	You can see square craters.
	Have you ever known craters to be square, Art?
	No.
	No, they're not.
	Do craters have walls, ramparts, do they have lineations, do they have crenellations on them that go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth at right angles, like stair steps?
	Well, craters have sides, right?
	Well, they're round explosion holes.
	Yes, of course.
	They're caused by the impact of hypervelocity objects moving at several miles per second
	that strike the surface and then explode.
	Or if something came in at something of an angle, you could get something that would
	be sort of a smooshed out area as opposed to a perfect hole, which would mean a direct
	impact, right?
	Actually, the experiments that NASA conducted years ago at Ames and at Johnston indicate
	that most impacts, even at shallow angles, will create a circular hole.
	It's because the velocities are so high.
	We're not talking about bullets into, you know, furniture or concrete.
	We're talking about objects that are moving at miles per second.
	If something is moving at miles per second, when it strikes a solid object, the impact is faster than the speed of sound in the object.
	Therefore, the dynamics of the resulting conversion of kinetic energy or potential energy into a thermal energy is very, very, very high.
	It creates a round explosion crater.
	It's like a bomb goes off, even at a very shallow angle.
	What we're seeing in these approach shots, and we will put them up on the web so people can see them, we are seeing the Lunar Module Antares landing In what, if I showed this to an anthropologist or an archaeologist, would look like an aerial photograph taken in the Mideast of some of the Sumerian or Babylonian or Assyrian tells and berms and ancient cities drifted over by desert sand.
	Alright, let me tell you what a lot of people say, Richard, because this is important.
	They look at your photographs, and, or NASA's photographs, enhanced by you, and they say, but look, this is all Pixel stuff.
	We're down so far into the pixel range and magnified so much that you could, it's almost like a giant space Rorschach test and you could see anything in this.
	But they're wrong.
	Well, how are they wrong?
	Because the size of the pixels is far below the size of the structures.
	I mean, this is not even up for debate.
	This is simple numbers.
	You know, if these people are claiming we're looking at things at a pixel level, then I have to look at these pictures very carefully.
	No, well, it's up for explanation, though, because a lot of people are, frankly, not used to looking at this.
	They don't know what they're seeing.
	Without explanation to them, it's what they come up with.
	Now, that's a different tale, because you're right.
	A lot of people don't know what they're seeing.
	The reason a lot of people don't know what they're seeing is because a lot of people don't know what they're seeing about everything.
	We have bequeathed our birthright, our Our destiny to experts.
	In most areas of human activity, we do not make our own decisions.
	We wait for someone to tell us what reality is.
	One of the interesting process problems of this investigation has been we're laying information out before people who do not have even a modicum of expertise to know how to look at pictures and make decisions.
	They have to go through a learning experience.
	And what I've seen, which is on the beneficial side, It's a lot of people because they care.
	They want to know the answer.
	They're doing their homework to learn what pixels are, to learn what gamma curves are, to learn what contrast enhancements are, what high-pass filters are.
	You know, the reason that we have the gallery opening here in New York and the photographs are still up is that I wanted to show to photographers, professional photographers.
	Remember our conversation tonight about how half of New York is made up of photographers?
	Sure.
	What these photos, some of them look like, Untouched by any computer at all.
	Directly from a negative out of Houston to a large piece of photographic paper to a wall, you know, in a gallery in New York City.
	Yes.
	And at the end of that evening, surrounded by a lot of photographers, not one of these professionals should demonstrate to me that they knew how this stuff got on these pictures.
	It's not blemishes, it's not reticulation, it's not bacteria.
	It's not sun glint, it's not dust, it's not scratches, it's nothing that they'd ever seen before.
	All right, the last time you were on, you did impress me.
	You said, look, we've now got two frames looking at the same object from different points as the craft orbited the moon.
	And that was impressive, showing the same object at the same height above the moon from a different angle, right?
	Now that is impressive, because that argues against photographic anomaly.
	Not in two photographs.
	Not from a different angle.
	Not with the same size object.
	No way.
	Is that about right?
	Yeah, and we have more than one example of this kind of redundancy of data now.
	But the objects we're talking about, 20 miles or more above the surface of the moon.
	It's just, it's impossible, it seems, that the astronauts, is there any way that the astronauts could not have seen these objects?
	No.
	There's no way?
	The simple answer is no.
	There's no trick of light, nor the fact that they were basically a nearly clear, made of glass, nothing?
	In the beginning, when we were looking at the orbital stuff, I was holding out as one possibility that in fact, You know, as in many human endeavors, which we have a huge enterprise, a huge undertaking, a huge operation like D-Day, all kinds of mistakes can be made.
	Right.
	It was at least theoretically possible because of the alien nature of what we're seeing, because of the unexpected, the stunningly unexpected psychological impact of what we're seeing.
	The fact that I spent years before I went public.
	Remember, I did not go public with the moon data until Years after we started looking.
	It was the phase on Mars in Cydonia region for you for a long time.
	And I didn't talk about that in public for five years until we published Monuments.
	Until I'd wrung every possible explanation other than the one that we're driven to out of the data that it could be anything but ET artifacts, extraterrestrial design structures.
	But with the Moon, because of the learning curve with Mars, we were able to collapse five years into about two, two and a half years.
	But it was two, two and a half years before I said anything to anybody other than people coming, looking quietly at this data here, both in analog form, the photographs, and in computer form, among members of the Mars mission team.
	And it was only at Ohio State that I felt confident enough to lay out in that four-hour presentation for that group of people there in the auditorium what we were beginning to strongly believe that there were, in fact, data on these NASA images.
	That could not be explained by any conventional geological explanation.
	Now, I have since talked to a lot of geologists.
	I had one sitting in the audience in Memphis the other night.
	I went down, was invited down to present to the auditorium at Memphis State University in Memphis, Tennessee, and I spent six hours on a stage going through, you know, a couple of hundred pictures.
	And I had a very technically minded crowd in that auditorium.
	I had a lot of Computer people.
	I had some photographers.
	I had some geologists.
	I even had some skeptics.
	I had one skeptic in particular who my host had tried to get to look at this data for months and months and months and months and they were always given a cold shoulder.
	Well, that night they came, I guess, basically to laugh.
	You know, as some people have been wont to do.
	At the end of the evening, this one skeptic came up to my host and said he was incredibly happy he'd been invited because what he had seen All right, hold it right there, Richard.
	Relax for a few minutes, we'll get back to you.
	politically with NASA and scientifically with a geological interpretation of a moon that
	cannot allow for things such as we're seeing in this data.
	All right, hold it right there, Richard.
	Relax for a few minutes.
	We'll get back to you.
	Since you mentioned Memphis, of course I have an affiliate right there in Memphis, WMC,
	the mighty WMC.
	And I would like to invite anybody who attended that particular talk to give us a call right
	now at 1-800-825-5033, if everybody else would be so kind as to hold off.
	1-800-825-5033 if you happen to be one of the people that were in the audience there
	in Memphis.
	That would be a useful bit of input to get from you as we continue this morning with
	Richard C. Hoagland, Science Advisor to Walter Cronkite, Angstrom Science Award winner.
	you There'll be more coming up next.
	Stay right there.
	the on the wild card
	seven oh two seven two seven one two nine five
	that's seven oh two seven two seven
	one two nine five First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Once again, here I am.
	My guest, as promised, is Richard Hoagland, Engstrom Science Award winner, Science Advisor to Walter Cronkite, Advisor to NASA, And because of recent events, so many of them, we decided to have him back, and he is here this morning.
	Tomorrow night, Apollo 14 astronaut, the man who walked on the moon, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, is going to be here.
	So it should be an interesting double shot.
	Now, going back to Richard Hoagland, but first, this little bit of email.
	Richard will like this.
	Hi Art, after hearing Richard Hoagland explain that because of hyperdimensional physics, 19.5 degrees latitude on a planet, any planet, has special qualities, an article in the current issue of Aviation Week in Space Technology caught my eye.
	The article concerns Project Pathfinder, which is going to land on Mars and send out a rover to explore the surface.
	Guess where they're sending it?
	That's right!
	It'll land at 19.5 degrees north latitude on Mars.
	Quote, the landing site is an oval area located in an outflow channel near the mouth of the... Is it Aries Valley?
	19.5 degrees north, 32.8 degrees west.
	The site was selected for its position near the equator, which provides a higher level of solar energy, and for its relatively low elevation.
	The elevation requirement necessary to provide sufficient time for the 24-foot diameter parachute to slow the entry vehicle to terminal velocity and to give the radar altimeter time to acquire the surface and begin making readings.
	Would you please ask Richard Hoagland about this?
	Richard?
	Yeah, it's all true.
	What's even more remarkable is the spacecraft, which is a 22-pound mini rover Powered by solar cells.
	It has a flat panel on top that will recharge batteries that will then drive electric motors so the rover can go, well, some distance from the landing craft.
	The landing craft, after entry and being set down by parachute, is a tetrahedral shaped capsule.
	It has three panels that will fall out at 120 degrees.
	The rover is attached by clamps to one of these panels.
	And then it will literally drive off the panel onto the Martian desert.
	You know, the whole thing is about the size of a coffee table.
	The rover, the 22-pound rover.
	And the spacecraft itself is slightly bigger.
	But they're sending a tetrahedral-shaped spacecraft to 19.5 degrees on Mars, which if you put a tetrahedron in a sphere, that's where the touch points are.
	19.5 degrees.
	And these folks claim that we're crazy.
	They claim that they know nothing about what we're talking about.
	Yet Carl Sagan has broken ranks now and claims that, well, after all these years, maybe he's wrong and maybe I'm right.
	What is going on, Art?
	Nor the other way around.
	Maybe I'm wrong and maybe he's right.
	Yes.
	Yes, I don't know.
	I know that Carl Sagan, Dr. Sagan, has a probable terminal illness now.
	And we're all mortal beings, Richard, and it may be toward the end of your life that you begin to rethink things and review everything you've done.
	And I don't know what I'm saying here, but things, I'm sure, change for you as you realize your own mortality.
	Could that be it?
	Well, I mean, that is highly speculative.
	He claimed on Michael Jackson that, in fact, he is in pretty good health.
	He doesn't look well, but he is, you know, he's not He's not saying anything.
	He's saying, in fact, he is in good health.
	Carl is a very bright person.
	I can say that because I've known him a long time.
	I have been pained that he has not looked at this data and been honest and forthcoming.
	When McDaniel did his report, his voluminous report, the McDaniel report, he spends an entire chapter as an independent referee simply looking at Carl's behavior.
	Vis-a-vis Cydonia.
	He and Sagan are peers, you know, they are in the academic club.
	Remember, I am not in the academic club.
	It may be, and again this is speculation, that some of the severe criticism of Carl from Dr. McDaniel in the McDaniel Report, which was hand-delivered to NASA headquarters hours before Mars Observer disappeared a couple years ago, some of that criticism has found its way home.
	And that what Carl is attempting to do is to maintain a really objective perspective for historians, such that no matter how this comes out, Carl will be on the side of the angels.
	Carl will come out looking like he wants to look, which is, he wants to look scientific and objective.
	And so, in future years, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, Carl can always be viewed historically as someone who tried to maintain objectivity and who, although he held one point of view, said objectively in the latter decade of the 20th century that, in fact, he might be wrong.
	Let's try the same thing out on you.
	Same test, Richard.
	We've seen the photographs.
	We've heard you, many of us, many times.
	Could you be wrong?
	About which part?
	About the part that says there are these large protrusions on the moon.
	These large structures.
	Could you be wrong?
	Sure.
	That's why I want a mission back.
	That's why I want to see the originals in NASA's files.
	That's why I want Ed Mitchell to help me get to the original photographs.
	And Kerry Clark and the other experts on our team.
	You know, I have spent a lot of time, 13 years, trying to find the answer.
	I have not sat and pontificated and said up until yesterday, I can't be wrong.
	Dr. Sagan has maintained he is emphatically infallible until one week ago.
	He never said he could be wrong.
	My question is, what has changed?
	Richard, my question is, how could you be wrong?
	Well, I mean, there's a whole variety of ways.
	We're looking at a different planet.
	You know, we're looking at the possibility of a totally incomprehensible natural process that can throw things up 20 miles.
	We're looking at very ancient photographs.
	Maybe there has been, you know, emotion creep in those years.
	I mean, there are lots of little picky ways that we might be wrong, but the same as Carl said, it's a very low probability that he thinks he's wrong.
	I happen to think there's a very low probability that we are wrong.
	But the acid test is not our opinion.
	It's going back and checking what's really there now.
	And it is reasonable to ask why we have not done that.
	Oh, there was a little satellite that orbited the moon, what was it, about a year ago?
	Two years ago, called Clementine.
	It took two million pictures.
	I've had people fax me and email me and whatever, telling me that these pictures are available on the web.
	And then they tell me that they're of horrible quality.
	In fact, one person went so far as to claim that they were of deliberate horrible quality.
	Well, where the hell are they?
	I mean, by now, two years ago, we should have pristine photographs.
	That's right.
	We should.
	So where are they?
	That's a good question.
	And you should direct that question to the DOD, not to me, because I don't know.
	I have seen a handful of leaked images which we have procured from sources.
	And they show stunning things on the moon.
	Who paid for Clementine?
	The American people.
	Who owns the pictures?
	The American people.
	Although then, why can't we see them?
	Because they weren't done under the Space Act, under NASA.
	They were done under the military.
	And they really are beyond anybody's right to see, unless there is some kind of executive order from the President declassifying them.
	Wait a minute.
	Why are they classified?
	Exactly.
	Good question.
	Ask Bill Clinton.
	Don't ask me.
	Why do we send a military mission to the moon?
	Why do the SDI people, the Strategic Defense Initiative people, the Star Wars people, now called Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, BMDO, why did they suddenly, two years ago or three years ago now, at about the same time that we were beginning to look at the moon seriously, why did they suddenly craft onto the Clementine mission, which was an unmanned deep space Throw a projectile at an asteroid kind of mission.
	Why did they craft on the beginning of that mission a lunar probe?
	Why did they decide suddenly to stick this thing into orbit about the moon, take two million pictures, and then leave from the moon and go off to the asteroid?
	In other words, the lunar part was an add-on.
	It was an ad hoc, sudden change, an enhancement.
	Well, on the one hand, you could say it's been all those years since we've been back to the moon.
	They would say, well, that's because there's nothing interesting to see on the moon.
	So they sent a spacecraft to go and take two million images.
	That we can't see.
	That we can't see.
	Right.
	And the President of the United States, the night that Clementine departed for the moon, happened to be giving, that night, January 25th, 1994, And addressed to the nation, the State of the Union, from the well of the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.
	I recall.
	And in his entire speech, he quietly neglected to tell anybody, oh, by the way, boys and girls, we've gone back to the moon tonight.
	Just kind of missed his attention.
	It's absolutely true.
	Here is a young man, I believe, in Memphis, Tennessee.
	Is that where you are, sir?
	Right, correct.
	And you saw Richard Hoagland's presentation not in Memphis, or was it in Memphis?
	It was in Memphis, not at Memphis.
	It was impressive.
	it was at state technical institute. State technical institute. How long ago was that?
	This was two weeks ago. Is that right Richard? Were you there? That's right. Alright, well
	this young man had an opportunity to see what a lot of people in the audience haven't seen
	and that is your full presentation. So I thought I would ask him, what did you think of it
	sir? It was impressive. I've seen the pictures that are up on the webpage. Right. You can't
	get a grasp of it from that.
	Well, okay.
	That's the reason I brought you on, because I get a lot of people who send me email, and they go up there and they look at those photographs, and they say, pixels, fuzzy, can't tell, don't know.
	I take it that you came away from the in-person presentation with a different view.
	Completely.
	Completely different.
	How solid did it all seem to you?
	Well, I'm slightly prejudiced, but yes of course I agree.
	the earth rising over the moon to rise and it's obviously being obscured by something
	on the horizon and it's just undeniable.
	You agree with that Richard?
	Well I'm slightly prejudiced but yes of course I agree.
	This film is from Apollo 10.
	This is from the Lunar Module.
	It was taken by the 60mm Data Acquisition Maurer camera, handheld, in front of these large triangular windows.
	And the gentleman is absolutely right.
	As the Earth rises over what should be a sharp, knife-edged, airless horizon, about 200 miles out in front of the camera, in front of the LM, it is the most distorted, elongated blob You can imagine.
	As though you're looking through... Miles of some refractive substance which is distorting it vertically, but not horizontally.
	We have a comparison photograph which we're going to put up on our webpage in the next few days, or day or two, showing Skylab photographs taken of the Moon at the horizon of the Earth during the nineteen seventies as it was rising over the pacific
	ocean when all of this uh... but by the way young fellow in uh... memphis
	thank you i appreciate that uh... i wanted and anybody else in memphis
	who would like to support comment uh... one way or the other
	twenty eight hundred eight two five five zero three three uh... richard you do have a new website apparently
	You went to Keith Rowland, who does my website.
	Keith Rowland and Myron McLeod, who have done yeoman service in accommodating our guest privileges on your webpage, did such a sterling job in organizing material in a long distance and through extreme, you know, short time frames.
	Yes, Keith is good at that.
	They are superb.
	I cannot say enough nice things about Keith Rowland and Myron.
	They also, by the way, tonight acknowledged on our website that it's my birthday tonight.
	Happy birthday!
	Thank you.
	Anyway, we have been discussing for some weeks the possibility of them taking on the not insignificant responsibility Of doing for us what they are doing in an excellent shape and fashion for you.
	Pretty active for a 68-year-old guy.
	Who is a 68-year-old guy?
	How old are you, Richard?
	Thanks a lot.
	How old are you, actually?
	I don't think I'm going to tell you after that.
	Fine.
	Anyway, I'm old enough to have been Walter Cronkite's science advisor.
	Think about that.
	Anyway, so we were talking back and forth, and we have reached an agreement where Myron and Keith will operate and maintain the Enterprise Mission website.
	And it is officially launched tonight.
	Tonight?
	On my birthday.
	It is up.
	I got a call before it went on the air from Keith Rowland, who said to Susan, tell Dick it's up.
	It's running.
	I've not had a chance to look at it.
	But what we're going to do to start with is to move everything over from the guest site that you had provided.
	Yes.
	And in the next few days, we're going to add a lot more interesting things, a lot more images.
	And part of what I want to do is provide a lot of ancillary explanation.
	We've got geologists that are going to be adding comments.
	We're going to have analyses by geologists of what you're seeing.
	We're going to have photographic, interpretive, almost mini-courses of how to look at pictures.
	We're going to expand this thing to where the gentleman that called in from Memphis, who said that after six hours he got it, he saw it, how people on the web can see the same thing.
	I am determined this web is going to be useful for educating people on how to look at this data, because the data is there.
	If people aren't seeing it, it's because they don't even know how to begin to look.
	They're expecting McDonald's.
	It's not McDonald's, folks.
	Right.
	We get about a half a million many weekends hits on my website.
	People who know how to get to my website can still go there.
	There will be a link and a transfer.
	I understand a page which points the way to the Enterprise mission.
	The address is www.EnterpriseMission, all one word, EnterpriseMission, lowercase, dot com.
	Okay.
	And so you can get to it directly that way, or you can go through my website?
	Directly, or you can go through the Bell website, which I would recommend.
	And we will have a link set up from our site back to yours.
	Alright, good.
	In terms of both, particularly the political developments, because I'm extraordinarily intrigued, as you obviously are aware, With astronauts now claiming that the government has been lying about part of this.
	Yes.
	But not all of this.
	That, as my grandmother used to say, when that pancake stands on end, alright, I'm intrigued to see how they think they can get away with this, because once you open the door, it's like Carl.
	The fact that he claims that the probability is low that I could be right is irrelevant.
	For most people, all they hear is, and it's been going around on the web for the last week, Sagan says he might be wrong, Hogan might be right, that's all they wrote.
	Carlos is sophisticated enough politically to know that if you want to stamp out burning ducks, you cannot allow one duck to survive.
	So by opening this door, something has been set in motion.
	My question again is, where are we going, and why, and who is at the helm?
	What new photographs will you have on the website, and when will you have them there?
	Well, we'll start putting them on tomorrow.
	They asked me tonight if I wanted to do it, and frankly, tonight was my birthday, and I took the evening off.
	I had to get ready to do this show!
	Yes, of course.
	So I took a little bit of a nap, and I figure that people will take 24 hours to make the transition.
	By tomorrow, we will start uploading some very interesting new things that we've been working on, including some stills from this Apollo 10 film showing Earthrise over the horizon.
	Are these good, clear... Oh, they're stunning.
	Oh, they are.
	They're absolutely stunning, and we have the film.
	We have the actual film, as opposed to just video, and we're making film transfers in the computer.
	Sure.
	So you can really see that this is distorted, and what's remarkable, and what I was able to show, is that Bob Fiertek, who is one of our architects, who is with us in Washington, was able to do a mathematical model In other words, what he did was assume there is a dome over the edge of the moon where the Earth is coming up.
	Assume the dome is made of X number of layers of glass of a certain refractive index.
	Then what would a round Earth look like distorted through this dome if the dome was shattered and smashed and degraded by meteor erosion and bombardment from the top down?
	And with some very basic Assumptions.
	Very simple assumptions in the mathematics.
	He was able to create a slide that I was able to show in Memphis that we will put on the web, showing a synthetic Earth side-by-side with the real Earth, and showing how he mathematically can model the distortion.
	All right.
	Hold it right there, Richard.
	We'll be right back to you.
	My guest, of course, Richard C. Hoagland.
	And he'll be right back in So Alive.
	This is CBC.
	This is the end of side one.
	please leave the cassette exactly where it is, flip it over, and begin again.
	call Art Bell.
	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.
	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.
	Raging through the night time with live talk radio, and you can thank the radio station you're listening to
	right now.
	Instead of recycling, regurgitating, relentlessly old repeats of stuff that happened
	happened in some other time.
	you So, good morning.
	Back to Richard in a moment.
	Richard, here is yet another young man in Memphis, Tennessee, asking ye shall receive.
	What is your first name, please?
	Charles.
	And you're in Memphis?
	Yes, sir.
	And you attended the lecture Richard gave?
	The most fascinating lecture I've ever been to.
	And your impression, or what you would say to people who look at these photographs and say, pixely nonsense.
	Absolutely not.
	It was the clearest pictures I've ever seen, and the reflections in the face mass of the astronauts was so clear.
	I don't see how anybody could mistake it for dust or anything else but something unknown.
	So when Edgar Mitchell is here tomorrow night, you would suggest I ask him straight out?
	Ask him what was in the reflection of his face mask.
	I mean, he was standing right next to it.
	That was not Ed Mitchell.
	That was Alan Bean.
	Oh, it was Alan Bean.
	I'm sorry.
	Ed Mitchell is the wide-angle photo showing him putting up the TV camera underneath this remarkable geometric bluish structure.
	which arches overhead.
	Also, I was watching a video the other night of Infinity and Beyond narrated by Patrick Stewart,
	which also shows the distorted Earth coming up over the moon.
	There's a small section in there that you might want to look at.
	All right, let me ask you generally, since Richard's right here,
	you don't have to be nice to him because it's his birthday.
	Were the other people at the talk, do you think they were equally impressed with the clarity
	once they understood what they were looking at?
	Because I really do get a lot of email from people who say, gee whiz, I can't see anything, what about me?
	Absolutely.
	The Clementine pictures, you saw the parallel and vertical lines running across and forth.
	Mr. Hoagland talked from 7 to 12.30, and he still had a full audience, and they stayed another half an hour asking him questions, and the only way that he could get out of there was just say, hey, I gotta go.
	All right, my friend.
	I believe in giving people what they pay for, yes.
	Well, judging from the people I'm hearing from, one has to be educated at what they're seeing, or they're going to They're really going to come up a very serious skeptic.
	This is not anybody's fault.
	Our educational system is abysmal in that we are not taught how to view the world.
	We are taught to accept other people's opinion of that world.
	This is not a matter of opinion.
	This is a matter of starting from basics.
	This is what babies do when they're crawling around the floor.
	and they come to a stairwell, why do you think more babies aren't killed falling down stairs?
	It's because they have an intuitive understanding of geometry and vertical lines and gravity and
	they know enough to stop most of them, all right? And those that don't learn how to stop, they wind
	up falling down stairs and they're not with us anymore. And so the gene pool is purified. That's
	right. Now what happens in school is that instead of continuing this abstraction process where we
	learn to generalize about the world, but we learn to realize that parallel vertical structures
	don't normally occur on alien landscapes without trees, all right? Right.
	That biology on Earth creates parallel vertical structures that are, you know, either growing in forests or are phone poles which are far response removed, alright?
	In other words, when people ask me, why isn't it clear?
	Why isn't it sharp?
	Why doesn't it look like McDonald's?
	It's because they don't understand how to look at the way light falls on something.
	They don't understand basic geometry.
	They don't understand about gravity.
	They don't understand about a vacuum.
	That there should be nothing sticking up above that horizon.
	Absolutely nothing.
	And that when people claim, as the Washington Post claimed, that we're showing people scratches, that is to absolutely insult the intelligence of the eight other scientists who were on that panel, as if anybody in their right mind would stand in front of the world and willingly be laughed at for something that any five-year-old kid before other factors set in can use simple reasoning to realize that you don't see things standing above an airless horizon on a planet where there's nothing, Unless somebody built something and it's a physical structure that's very, very ancient and very old.
	All right, I'll try this one out.
	Are it the face and the pyramids in the Cydonia region of Mars have obvious terrestrial analogs?
	In other words, the Sphinx and the pyramids at the Giza Plateau, which are strongly suggestive of a possible ancient connection between Earth and Mars.
	Could you please ask Richard if he has uncovered anything on the Moon indicative of a similar possible connection with Earth?
	Well, is our friend from Memphis still with us?
	No, he's not.
	Oh, he went away.
	Okay.
	Well, about four hours into the presentation, I got around to the mathematics of the moon.
	And we're going to put that up on the website as well.
	We have found structures now which are arrayed in the same geometry, the same equilateral triangle, the same hyperdimensional grid that we have found at Cydonia and we found in the ancient sites here on Earth.
	So the answer is yes?
	The answer is yes.
	We further have found that this is tied to the very measurements of the moon itself.
	Have you ever wondered, Art, why you can take the moon and put it over the sun, and they're just the same size, and you have this stunning, extraordinary coincidence that produces a total eclipse?
	That is interesting.
	It just, when you have a total, it exactly and precisely covers it.
	Mm-hmm.
	Well, we will demonstrate in the next week's show on the web.
	That in fact it's looking now as if that may not be a coincidence at all.
	Really?
	Yes.
	That's how big this is.
	That's how stunning this is.
	That's why NASA blinked 30 years ago and did not know how to tell us.
	When Neil Armstrong, who by the way is not going to be on the UPN show... You need to correct that on your webpage.
	Well, I didn't put it on our webpage, but we will make all the corrections.
	Damien Brinkley on your show claimed it was Neil Armstrong.
	That's right.
	He had that wrong.
	Yeah, and it's not.
	It's Gordon Cooper.
	Gordon Cooper, yes.
	Armstrong has said other things that can be interpreted as, you know, giving assent to both Mitchell and to Cooper.
	One of the things he said in the East Room of the White House during the Apollo, you know, 25th anniversary ceremonies two summers ago, First, he compared himself to a parrot, which I have found is an elegant way of basically saying, don't believe anything I say.
	I'm telling you what somebody else wants me to say.
	Then, at the end of his presentation, he said that there are places to go beyond belief.
	Well, there are, and we've been there, and they're called the Moon and Mars.
	Yeah, I said that in the White House.
	And the reason they're beyond belief is because they totally threw into a cocktail everything we ever thought we knew.
	And they make people who are into power feel about three microns high.
	I mean, can you imagine orbiting a world where when you look down, an awful lot of what you see is manufactured stuff, and it is so ancient that the very solar system itself has changed since somebody put it there?
	That must have been such an ego problem for these supermen and the people who sent them there.
	That for their own sanity, they could not very easily tell us.
	Which, of course, now when you look at the history of some of the astronauts, particularly people like Aldrin, Buzz Aldrin, who got into a knock-down, drag-out fight with one of my friends the other night over our press conference.
	And when my friend, in the middle of this pre-Apollo 13 Academy Awards party, Spent about an hour defending the science and the integrity of this investigation.
	Aldrin got increasingly obstreperous and then basically told my friend to turn to people like Gordon Cooper and Ed Mitchell to set him right.
	At which point he was able, my friend, to bring out Gordon Cooper's testimony at that luncheon I referenced a while ago, which is now going to be seen by everybody on UPN And what, it's one week from tonight?
	No, it's two weeks.
	No, it's a weekend one day on May 7th.
	Right.
	The point is that there are cracks in the facade.
	The point is that these astronauts, Aldrin in particular, when they came back, went through hell.
	And in his own book, he describes how when Jay Barbary, in a post-Apollo landing kind of two-year retrospective, asked him what it felt like to walk on the moon.
	Aldrin reports in his own book that for some inexplicable reason he got violently ill and was forced to go out into the alley and throw up.
	Now this is very peculiar for people who have gone through an extraordinary, stunningly high experience.
	It is.
	A positive experience.
	No, it is.
	And it brings to mind the possibility that these men are under very elaborate constraints to report what they physically have seen.
	And what they're attempting to do, in terms of pointing fingers at the Roswell incident, is to open the back door.
	Because that, in fact, is the more politically and psychologically vulnerable area.
	When you're dealing with real spacecraft and real aliens ostensibly crashing on real estate owned by the United States just a couple or three decades ago, that may be more of a trigger, politically, to get honesty in the system.
	Then basically claiming that there are photographs of alien ruins on the moon, where there's nobody home.
	All right.
	Bearing in mind, Richard, we've got a lot of new listeners.
	I know this is like throwing red meat to a pit bull, but could you please give us the short version of what hyperdimensional physics... You know, I know.
	There has to be a short version to this.
	There has to be.
	Yeah, there has to be.
	Hyperdimensional physics.
	That stumps a lot of people when they first hear it.
	They don't know what you're talking about.
	Well, first of all, physics.
	What is physics?
	Physics is our perception of how the universe works.
	Yes.
	The laws and rules and all that.
	Sure.
	What is hyper-dimensional physics?
	Yes.
	It's a physics that transcends our familiar three dimensions.
	It's a physics that explains the visible universe, the visible workings of reality, by recourse mathematically to a set of invisible realities that are only reachable through mathematics.
	Invisible realities?
	Yeah.
	Well, let me give you an example of an invisible reality, which can be made visible by technology.
	Right now, through you and me, and through everybody listening, there are invisible waves moving through space.
	You can't see them.
	You can't taste them.
	You can't touch them.
	You can't feel them.
	You are modulating them at this very moment.
	But by speaking, I and you are modulating them.
	We call it radio.
	Yes.
	There's an even more complex version of this invisible, unseen reality.
	Which, if you build the right kind of box, and put the right kind of stuff in it, and put the right kind of glass screen with phosphor on it, it turns into television!
	There's another version of this reality, which if I, you know, do the right things, it turns into a computer!
	In other words, we're looking at a technology that can make the invisible visible.
	Yes.
	That can pick a signal, information, out of the dark, out of the out of space, out of time, out of nothing, as it were.
	That's clear.
	And turn it into something that is tangible, and you can actually see shapes and images,
	and in the right format, you can see three dimensions.
	However, with our traditional physics, this energy may be measured.
	We understand how it is generated.
	But that's by our physics.
	We understand how it is propagated.
	We understand how it is received.
	You talk of a physics that measures something that we cannot see.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	That we don't.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	Let me correct you, all right?
	When you said our physics can explain television, you're absolutely right.
	But the physics of 200 years ago could not explain television.
	That's true.
	All right?
	To that physics, it was an impossibility.
	Magic.
	It was magic.
	Magic is any, as Arthur Clarke says, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, to which the Hogan corollary would be any sufficiently advanced science.
	All right?
	Because science is scientia, knowing.
	All right?
	Science is merely knowing.
	It's organized knowledge, organized knowing.
	Technology is the engineering that comes from that organized knowing where you put it together as a gadget and then you sell it to somebody to do something useful.
	So hyperdimensional physics is to current physics the way current physics is to our physics of 200 years ago.
	It is a physics that mathematically can describe now Certain visible characteristics of the world, of the universe, in ways that reach out to causes that are not immediately apparent in three dimensions.
	Like invisible radiation, ultraviolet or infrared, is not immediately apparent to the unaided human eye.
	Yeah, stop there for a second, and I'll give you a little bit of information.
	When I was talking to Dr. Mitchell the other day, One of the things he said that he wanted to discuss was zero point energy.
	Right.
	Zero point energy.
	Okay.
	Now that is energy that is allegedly derived from some material that we can't prove is really there in space or in a vacuum.
	Exactly.
	It's energy out of nothing.
	Energy out of nothing.
	Yeah.
	Dr. Mitchell said that.
	It's another term for hyperdimensional physics.
	That's what I thought.
	All right?
	That's what I thought.
	All it is is the mediating transfer medium.
	The ZPF, the zero point function, the zero point energy, is the boundary, the interface, the layer.
	between the invisible hyperdimensions that I'm talking about
	and the visible reality of physics in the universe that we all can see.
	Why do all these energy events occur at 19.5 all over the solar system?
	Yes, why do they?
	Because of the mathematics of hyperdimensions mediated, transferred through the medium of the zero-point
	energy vacuum.
	I mean if you want to get technical...
	Thank you.
	So, really, Mitchell and I are saying the same thing.
	Now, what Mitchell will not tell you, unless you push him, is this is not new stuff.
	James Clerk Maxwell.
	Remember James Maxwell?
	I talk about him a lot?
	Of course.
	He, a hundred years ago, was talking about hyper-dimensional physics.
	What he said, it's Maxwell talking now, not Jake Hoagland.
	Maxwell said, the physics of the universe that we see, Electromagnetic radiation, light, radio waves, things that make stars shine, that make atoms decay, and all that, is really coming from an invisible set of forces in dimensions we can't see, coming through a medium called the Ether.
	What Mitchell is calling the Zero Point Medium, or Zero Point Energy, is really Ether by another name.
	Does it have any relationship to Tesla's work?
	Yes, it's intimately connected to Tesla's work.
	Tesla was not only technologically working with hyperdimensional physics, but he also was creating a terminology that is mathematically linked to hyperdimensional physics.
	We've talked on your show a lot about a certain numbering system, and from time to time you'll hear me say, oh, that's a tetrahedral number, or that's a tetrahedral expression.
	Well, would it surprise the audience out there in radio land, invisible radio land, tonight, to hear that every time you turn on a light, you are working with an active display of hyper-dimensional physics bequeathed to you by Nikola Tesla?
	Because in your electric light bulbs, or in the circus powering your radio, or your television, or your computer, if they're on the grid, on the electrical power grid that knits this nation together tonight, They are functioning according to a 60-cycle wave.
	That's right.
	That 60-cycle wave, or that 60 Hz frequency, was bequeathed to us by Nikola Tesla as a vital clue that, in fact, his alternating current and the physics and the technology he produced was, in fact, ultimately hyperdimensional.
	Why?
	because the key number 60 is the code key to hyperdimensional physics.
	All right, that's where we'll pick up when the news ends and we begin once again.
	Key number 60, as in 60 cycles, as in...
	Here comes a break and we'll be right back. This is CBC.
	Key number 60.
	2016, 2016,
	2017 2016,
	2017 2017
	2016 2017
	2017 2017
	Good morning, everybody.
	Richard C. Hoagland is here.
	Engstrom Science Award winner, Science Advisor to Robert Cronkite.
	We're talking about tetrahedral physics and the number 60.
	Back now to Richard Hoagland.
	Richard, the number 60 important, as in 60 cycles, which is the frequency we have in our AC current.
	That's correct.
	All right, fine.
	Some countries use 50 cycles, don't they? Because they want to hurt Nikola Tesla. I mean, they will work at any
	frequency.
	What Tesla did was to leave us a clue.
	See, a lot of these people, people who are ahead of their time, people who have figured things out, when they meet a certain amount of opposition, and of course Tesla was treated to extraordinary opposition, particularly in the latter part of his life, when he tried unsuccessfully to get Morgan to fund a global free power system.
	Where do you think that energy was going to come from?
	When you look at some of Tesla's old books, which we did many, many weeks ago, and the reason we're looking at them is because of the tethered satellite experiment, you'll find that the plans for his free energy global generator looked awfully similar in terms of the actual hardware produced.
	To this tethered satellite, which had a large, you know, charge-collecting sphere at one end, and a long rod or wire to tether at the other for the discharge.
	Right.
	In other words, just schematically, what Tesla was working on, you know, 60, 70, 80 years ago, and what NASA put up in orbit, you know, a few weeks ago, looked eerily similar.
	The difference, of course, was scale.
	Because they were in space, NASA could produce a Tesla system that was 13 miles long.
	The one at Colorado Springs was only a few hundred feet high.
	The tower that he tried to produce over here on Long Island was, you know, going to be a couple of hundred feet high.
	But located on Earth at exactly the same latitude as the major pyramid of the Cydonia complex on Mars.
	40.868 degrees north latitude.
	So you begin to perceive that there were people, giants, in physics and engineering in the last century and earlier in this century that had either figured things out, had put the pieces together, had decoded ancient documents from a long time ago, and tried to bequeath us this extraordinary, stunning advance in unified field theory and hyper-dimensional physics.
	in the way the universe works and something happened
	when tesla died the story is told that the fbi moved in before the body was
	even cold and literally confiscated all his papers
	why what could they possibly have thought was in those
	documents that would have affected
	national security in nineteen forty two i think that's when he died forty two course
	maybe they didn't know or maybe they just suspected and it was trying to take
	uh...
	why and other than that
	the white questions come out My point is that when you talk to Mitchell, what you will find in his discussion of the zero point energy of the vacuum, are concepts relating to ether, to the idea of space as a medium, as a mitigating medium, as a transfer medium,
	From energy from somewhere to here that are very similar to the ideas of people in the last century, a la Maxwell, before the Einstein relativity revolution destroyed the idea of an ether in space between the planets, between the stars, between the galaxies, between everything.
	And in fact, what it's now appearing is if we're going to be returning to an ether-based physics, no matter what you want to call it, All right, let me take you off track for a moment.
	Metrically based and ultimately is based on a concept that there's more to reality
	Than the familiar three physical dimensions of length width and height
	Alright, let me take you off track for a moment. This is from aviation week in space technology
	April 8th page 57 quote Japan's Mitsubishi corporation has become the first
	corporate sponsor of lunar corporations planned commercial mission to the moon
	Luna apparently hopes to land a pair of tele-operated robotic vehicles on the moon's surface in 1999.
	Do you know about that?
	Yep.
	I've been trying to get the Lunacorp people interested in our stuff for a couple, three years, and what I find interesting is, is there any dollar value mentioned for Mitsubishi's grant to them?
	Well, let's see.
	They're trying to raise a total of $81 million toward a $200 million mission.
	No, I don't know the specific amount of money being donated by... Okay, well, they are holding that very close to the vest.
	What's interesting, of course, is that the Japanese have funded their own unmanned missions to the moon.
	A couple, three years ago, even before Clementine, the first return to the moon after the U.S.
	manned mission, the Apollo missions, in 1972 in December of Apollo 17, was an unmanned mission that was sent in 1990, I believe, by, among others, one of the Japanese car companies.
	Yeah, there are a lot of questions about that.
	The rovers, it says here, will begin at the Apollo 11 site travel 1,000 kilometers to visit the wreckage of the Ranger 8 probe and the Surveyor 5 spacecraft.
	Okay, here's what's interesting.
	Lunokorp, which is composed of ex-NASA and DOD people, officials, alright?
	Yes.
	In a kind of loose confederation, have been trying for the last couple, three years to get funding for this idea.
	Why?
	Well, they claim it's for tourism.
	They claim this will break the barrier of private enterprise in space.
	They claim that this will allow students to drive these rovers via tele-operated, you know, computer controls from theme parks, and that there's money to be made in them, our planes, and that this would launch a new wave of a renaissance of the so-called second age of space, which is my term.
	All of that sounds a little thin to me.
	Let me finish the point.
	The point is, Art, they've been trying for years unsuccessfully to raise a dime.
	They have not had a dime.
	When did Mitsubishi suddenly decide to give them a grant of unknown proportions for their idea?
	Do you know when this took place?
	No, William.
	Three days after our press conference.
	I risk my case.
	Well, look, if what is on the moon that you know just as there is a little bit beyond all that
	i could be right i know
	uh... but it was all following instead of the that let's assume that
	what you're saying is correct that all i'm giving you is the time you know for the sake
	of what i'm about to say assume that all the structures are there as you suggest
	surely the government cannot allow a private mission go back to the moon and
	find all of this we live in a police state
	well what do you mean they can't allow Just what I said.
	Listen to what you're saying.
	Just what I said.
	In other words, at that point, if they let the private mission go ahead, then they will be revealed as liars.
	Is it possible that that's what Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper and Carl Sagan are getting out in front of?
	Yeah, it's possible.
	They see the inevitable and they're getting out of the way?
	It's possible.
	In other words, at some point... Look, in the past history of this planet, we've got about 6,000 years recorded history, right?
	Yes.
	Most of that time, people have lived under despotic, tyrannical, incredibly abusive governmental strictures, right?
	Yes.
	The idea of individual liberty... New.
	It's a new idea.
	It's brand new.
	It is a 200-year-old, almost born-as-a-baby idea.
	In a 6,000 year turgid history of people killing each other and oppressing each other and torturing each other and holding each other in slavery and in bondage to a tiny oligarchical few, right?
	Yes, yes.
	And we've made progress!
	The trend curve is for more freedom, not less.
	The chains of tyranny have been broken again and again and again, and you and I are sitting here on the radio discussing absolutely heretical ideas, both politically Absolutely correct.
	Religiously and in many other ways to a lot of people who would prefer that we shut up and never be heard from again
	right absolutely are and we stood in Washington and And in the full withering fire of the Washington Post
	All right, we basically said okay guys. This is what's out there and
	within days Carl Sagan is saying on ABC that Hoagland might be right
	about Mars and And Mitchell is saying the government's been hiding UFOs
	for 50 years I know.
	Do you begin to think maybe we're part of a coming trend?
	So when people say they'll never let you get near the moon, Hoagland, I say to them, watch our dust, or more appropriately, our rocket exhaust, because we're going.
	That doesn't give them a lot of time.
	I mean, 1999 is when they're talking about this.
	Well, that's what Lunacorp is talking about.
	Yeah, that's right.
	We're on a faster track.
	What do you expect?
	I mean, as you point out, I've received this supposed wreckage.
	They've got it down in Roswell as well, some different wreckage or the same, I have no idea.
	We've got astronauts coming out, as you pointed out, statements being made by all kinds of people.
	There's a lot going on.
	It's hot right now.
	Where is it going?
	Tell me.
	There's an even more intriguing data point that you're probably not aware of.
	Well, I'm asking where it's going.
	Okay, well let me give you one more data point, then we can talk about where.
	In the midst of you getting, you know, samples and Mitchell coming out of the closet and Sagan saying what he said and all this, there was an economic conference held at Princeton the other night by some friends of ours who we are working with quietly on terms of this physics.
	We have established a crucial relationship that will allow me in the next few weeks and months to begin to announce some major Verifiable breakthroughs on the physics front, on the hyperdimensional physics front.
	And that was consummated at a meeting on Friday last, prior to the Saturday meeting at Princeton, and the dinner convocation and keynote speech by former Prime Minister of England, Lady Margaret Thatcher.
	Oh?
	And my assistant, Kerry Clark, and my editor of the Martian Horizons, which, by the way, we've got to change now because we've Rename the Mars mission the Enterprise mission.
	Yes.
	It's somewhat archaic to have a journal called Martian Horizons.
	So we're thinking of changing the name.
	Maybe Planetary Horizons or something like that.
	Anyway, Susan and Carrie were in attendance.
	I was supposed to go to this dinner and sit at the front row table and listen to Maggie Thatcher talk about the 21st century and unfortunately I was ill so they represented the Enterprise mission in my absence.
	They carried a tape recorder with them.
	Yes.
	Maggie Thatcher, in her opening remarks, looked right at Terry and said, the most significant development of the 21st century will be the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence.
	No kidding.
	Maggie Thatcher.
	And I've got it on tape.
	Do you?
	And I'm going to send you the Sagan tape and the Maggie Thatcher tape back-to-back on the same tape And you can put it up on your website in your audio, you know, recording area.
	You don't have it so you can play it there, do you?
	Well, I could drag the phone over to the speaker.
	Could you really?
	Well, actually, there's people... We were in a townhouse and I'd have to turn it up so you could... Oh, I see.
	You know, so I can't really... Maybe in the commercial I'll think of a way to do this.
	All right.
	There might be... I'd love to hear that.
	I mean, that's... Again, the quote is, The most significant development of the 21st century is going to be the discovery of extraterrestrial life.
	She even goes further, she says, of present researchers.
	And then she says, but we'll have to wait for that.
	Not like it may never happen, but we'll just have to wait for that.
	Like, she's somehow determining the curve?
	Yes, or knows the curve.
	My point is, all of these apparently uncorrelated, unrelated events, I believe, are deeply correlated.
	All right.
	Well, that brings me back to my question.
	What does it mean?
	Now, where does the curve go from here?
	How much time do we have to talk about this?
	Enough.
	Where does the curve go from here?
	Okay.
	Well, if I get going on a roll, I don't want to be stopped by a commercial or a break or something.
	Commercials always stop you, Richard.
	Oh, dear me.
	I guess I'm asking, how much time before the next break?
	Five minutes.
	Okay, we can start in five minutes.
	You can do it.
	What bothers me is that there apparently has been a decision made and designated hitters put out on the landscape to soften us up for the, quote, revelation that we are not alone.
	It's not like even playing Monopoly, where you do not pass go and don't collect $200.
	We're not going through the Martian doorway, or the Lunar doorway, of ancient and safe ruins.
	We're going directly from everybody tonight on Earth.
	Most people think they're alone.
	They're it.
	They're the cat's meow.
	That's right.
	And at some point in the next few weeks, or months, or year maybe, I would give this maybe a year, at the rate of this trend curve, the officialdom is basically going to say, okay boys and girls, we're not alone, and they are here, and that's the problem you've got to face.
	And we're not going through any safe decompression window of playing around with ruins and ancient structures.
	We're going directly, you know, for go and for $200.
	And we're being led there by a diverse group of people.
	People like Sagan, who now say, well, maybe I'm not right here.
	Or Mitchell, who is, you know, founded Noetics and has been a kind of an out-there astronaut anyway.
	People like Cooper, who was always a rebel, who's been saying these things at the U.N.
	and behind the scenes for years, but has never gone public with what apparently he's gone on UPN and is going to talk about, you know, next week.
	Yes.
	And people like Maggie Thatcher, all right, who is the last person I would have expected to lead off her speech by saying the most surprising and interesting to her discovery is going to be extraterrestrial intelligence.
	I mean, that's really one for the books.
	All in the same tight time frame.
	Oh, and by the way, the same time frame where you were getting metal samples ostensibly from the crash site at Roswell.
	So then how would you respond when I say, but Richard, then, who's to say that Richard Hoagland and Art Bell with his samples, Art's parts I call them now, are not essentially just useful idiots for promoting the curve accelerating?
	Well, the difference between you getting samples and us looking at pictures is that somebody gave you something and no one's giving us anything.
	We have to fight for every image, every frame, every data bit, every... I know, but the sum in total, though, of your information or mine, or however it generates, is to promote the acceleration of this curve.
	Well, not true.
	Not true.
	Because we're on two different paths.
	I am firmly convinced that the worst thing on earth, or offers, would be if the government were to come out tomorrow and admit that there are aliens running around in our neighborhood.
	And the reason is not because I'm afraid of aliens.
	You know, I don't really have much, you know, for or against aliens, alright?
	Never met an alien, yet.
	My problem is distraction.
	The human race is so easily distracted.
	I hole up for Exhibit A, the O.J.
	Simpson trial.
	Can you imagine how people, like the mongoose mesmerized by the dancing, weaving cobra, how people will be mesmerized and distracted to the nth degree by even the plausibility of real, bona fide aliens running around in spaceships?
	Sure.
	To the point where they may not pay crucial attention to the physics of what's powering those spaceships, or what's powering the planet, or the solar system, And the other physically based events that we have discussed on the show in previous weeks and months and years.
	Alright, well hold it right there.
	We'll come back to you after the break.
	When we do come back, what I want to ask you about is the science of tetrahedral physics.
	In other words, if tetrahedral physics is a science, one that can be proven, that is the nature of science, right?
	Things you can repeat And prove, and the numbers and the mathematics are irrefutable, then why are more scientists not looking at these numbers and simply confirming them?
	So, mull that one over, and we will be back to you in a moment.
	Richard, you're listening to the American CBC Radio Network.
	Don't forget, internationally, get the USA Direct Access Number, or the AT&T Operator, and then call us at 800-893-0903.
	This is the end of Side 1.
	This is the end of side one.
	Please leave the cassette exactly where it is, flip it over, and begin again.
	Are you there, Richard?
	I'm here.
	We're going to be asking you about tetrahedral physics and the reaction of other scientists, but I don't want you to answer that yet, because look who I've got.
	I've got... Well, we'll let him give whatever name he wants.
	Hello, sir.
	Are you there?
	I'm right here.
	All right.
	You are the very person, are you not, who called the Michael Jackson Show when... When was that?
	You tell me.
	That was roughly last weekend or Monday or so.
	I'm a little groggy when I had made that call.
	I had just woken up.
	I work at night shift at the LAX airport, so my memory is a little shot on it.
	But I can confirm it, though, because Mr. Hogan received a fax from me, and my screen name is AJ UFOlogist.
	It was a week ago to this morning, all right?
	It was last Thursday morning.
	Correct.
	Now, a reason why I had done this was I just happened to be looking at your book, Mr. Hogan.
	And I remembered from reading Cosmos, Mr. Sagan's first book, that he was openly, as you said, objective about life on Mars.
	Now all of a sudden, in your book, he's not.
	And then, now when I ask him on the radio, that he is, once again, objectively being open about it.
	Why?
	Yeah, what's changed?
	Well, okay, so how did he answer?
	What has changed?
	That's an interesting question.
	You know, if NASA wanted to cover this up, let's just say for example, maybe they did some kind of pressuring with his publicity or something on that line.
	Some pressured him in a way to kind of get him to take a back door to this at some point.
	I, too, believe in conspiracies.
	Also, I don't want to go into details of that with you.
	But I just wanted to, again, wish you a happy birthday, Mr. Hoagland.
	Thank you.
	Glad to see you.
	I cannot believe that I am directly responsible.
	We're making a turning point in this whole thing for you.
	Well, if you read Carl's book, which I recommend to everybody, The Demon Haunted World, which I think is a remarkable title, given a lot of the things we've discussed on your show, Hart.
	There is a section, it's Chapter 3, in his book, where even prior to your question, Carl officially says, at the end of this chapter, called The Man on the Moon and the Face on Mars, After taking Cydonia apart, you know, giving every possible reason why it can't be real, it's idiocy, lunacy, projection, you know, eggplants, you name it, he then pauses in mid-flight and he says in a stunning line, in print, I could be wrong.
	And then he goes into all of the criteria, all of the testable criteria, That he would expect if we could get new high-resolution imagery of Cydonia, either from Mars Global Surveyor, leaving later this year, or from the Mars Pathfinder mission.
	He even goes so far as to say, as I have said from the beginning, that unlike the UFO phenomenon, this is objective, testable science.
	He uses that phraseology.
	It's a stunning turnaround.
	Aaron, if I might, what was Mr. Sagan's tone like as he was answering your question?
	Was he taken aback by it?
	Not at all.
	He approached it very calmly, very scientifically, very nonchalantly, as if it was a common, everyday thing for him almost.
	And it stopped Michael Jackson fairly cold, I guess.
	Yeah, the thing, though, that Earlier, what you stated about the others, I didn't catch that, I guess, because when I was listening on, apparently, I guess they brought another guest right away.
	I don't know.
	That's a question mark.
	I'm going to call KBC and get the transcripts on that.
	I want to find out, be sure.
	I'm not doubting Mr. Hogan.
	More than likely, he did say that.
	I do recall something, but again, I kind of had woken up in a quick hurry and I said,
	well, we'll go to the point and push my trusty speed dial number.
	All right.
	Well, we're glad you got through and we're glad you got to ask the question.
	And I wanted to give you credit for it since you had faxed me.
	So, thank you, Aaron, and stay on the alert down there.
	Stay awake.
	Another thing is, is there a chance I can get a transcript tonight?
	Well, transcripts we don't have.
	You might be able to get a copy of the tape.
	That tape is always available, so I'll see what I can do, Aaron.
	Thank you, sir.
	Thank you.
	And so there you've got it.
	Now, let me circle back.
	I thought you'd just enjoy hearing from the fellow that posed that question, Richard.
	Now, let's talk a little about tetrahedral physics.
	If it's a science, if the numbers work, then they've got to work for more than just Richard Hoagland.
	Or is there some point in tetrahedral physics where you've got to take more than a look at numbers, a leap of faith?
	No, no, no, no.
	No, no, no, no.
	Well, then, any scientist ought to be able to look at it and clearly understand it and prove it.
	Well, look, you just had a gentleman ask Carl Sagan a question that Carl could have answered objectively 13 years ago.
	It's only taken Carl 13 years to get his ego out of the way and say, well, I could be wrong and we should look.
	Fair.
	Well, it's only been since 19... I'm trying to think when we first discussed hyperdimensional physics in public.
	At the UN, 1992.
	Now, given that Carl is one of the brighter guys, all right, and he should be ahead of the curve, then if you extrapolate 13 years for a Sagan type, a Sagan physicist, from 1992, we should only have to await until scientists in the mainstream begin to talk about hyperdimensional physics till, uh, what?
	1999?
	Mm-hmm.
	All right.
	I am being a little facetious.
	Yes, I understand.
	There are physicists who are in discussion with us, and we're going to be putting their papers on the website.
	This is what now comes from having our own Enterprise Mission website.
	We are going to begin to provide not just data on the Moon and Mars, but also on all of these collateral areas of interest.
	We're going to put on papers, references, commentary, Discussions with real scientists on the real cutting edge.
	And we're going to bring up very important questions, conundrums, mysteries alike.
	Why is the gravitational constant currently different than it was when you and I learned physics in high school?
	And why are current cutting edge labs in New Zealand, in Germany, and here in the United States, Los Alamos, all getting different values When they're trying to measure this most fundamental of constants, by which, by the way, NASA uses every time it calculates how to send a space probe or spacecraft anywhere off the planet.
	It has to use this constant of proportionality as part of its iterations of motions of the solar system.
	Right.
	Well, it's changed.
	All right?
	now it may be that that inadvertently conducted a rather remarkable experiment
	in hyperdimensional physics that was well publicized back in the nineteen
	seventies and nobody realized at the time
	and it has to do with the flight of apollo thirteen have you seen the movie
	several several times okay what is the
	key mystery about apollo thirteen uh... beyond what happened to the spacecraft you know what
	with quite a bit of damage.
	Huh?
	The physical damage?
	Yeah, beyond that.
	What's the most interesting mystery of that whole real-life saga, which I lived through with Walter Cronkite when the mission actually took place, right?
	The amazement of how they made it back at all.
	Well, not quite, but that's up there, right?
	What was the one theme that was recurrent through the film, really underscored, that to this day has never been satisfactorily explained?
	I'm not going to be good on this one.
	Why?
	The spacecraft was consistently not where they thought it was.
	Remember the strange shallowing of the trajectory?
	Well, I recall... They went through all this rigmarole... As they were coming back... To get them on a course, right?
	They said, oh my God, we're in the wrong place, we're going to burn up.
	Well, what was happening was that the trajectory, the fall home... Yes.
	...was shallowing.
	Yes.
	The trajectory was moving up... I recall that.
	...away from the center of the Earth.
	Yes, sir.
	And if the angle is too shallow when the spacecraft intersects the atmosphere... Burn up or miss.
	...it would be like skipping a stone off a pond.
	Sure.
	They would bounce off the air at 25,000 miles per hour, bounce out into space and not have enough fuel to get back before they ran out of air and they died.
	Right.
	And they tried several trajectory corrections where they would fire the engines and there's some very dramatic, you know, scene setting that Ron Howard has them go through.
	You know, the jittering earth in the window and all of this, you know, where they fire
	those engines and they're eyeballing it and they're using the sun and all kinds of makeshift
	mechanisms to do what normally a guidance system would have done.
	I recall.
	And they get it back on course and then the guys down on the ground are watching the plots,
	you know, the trajectory plots from the radio tracking and they say, well, how are we going
	to tell them?
	It's shallowing again.
	It's going higher.
	It's leveling out.
	It shouldn't be doing that.
	This is the recurrent mystery all the way home.
	Where did that energy come from?
	You are go to the head of the class.
	Mr. Bell, more appropriately, why was gravity for Apollo 13 different than for any mission
	prior or after the Apollo 13 flight?
	And the answer is?
	The answer is, and this is the first time I've discussed this anywhere, Apollo 13.
	All right, let me give you what the conventional answer is and why the conventional answer cannot be right.
	Remember that the problem with 13 was that there was an explosion.
	Yes.
	In a, in a, in a, in a, basically a gas sphere, titanium sphere of oxygen.
	When you open a sphere of liquid in a vacuum, the liquid will boil off, right?
	Sure.
	The boiling off through an orifice, through a hole.
	Is a jet.
	Is a jet.
	It's like a rocket.
	So, for every reaction, there's an equal and opposite reaction.
	You'd expect that the spacecraft would be pushed Opposite the jetting motion.
	So is there argument that it was this venting that was causing the challenge?
	That's what the conventional NASA explanation was, that there was venting.
	But here's the problem.
	The spacecraft was never stabilized in one direction.
	It was rotating, called the barbecue mode.
	You know, set up so that it would spin gently in sunlight, so that it would warm and cool all sides of the spacecraft uniformly.
	And there was lots of discussion about setting up the barbecue mode, and I remember vividly
	sitting in the studio in New York during the harrowing final hours as Jim Lovell,
	literally so cold his teeth were chattering, was describing to the ground how he could see the
	earth moving past the window, and then a few minutes later the moon moving past the window,
	and he would say whether it was higher or lower, indicating that the rotating motion was coning,
	was precessing.
	So that they were rotating.
	Right.
	Now if I have a jet on a rotating spacecraft, which is turning around like a water sprinkler, Then what will happen is that the jetting action, assuming there's any fuel left in those tanks, any oxygen, after days in a vacuum... Yeah, I would say that would be quite a supposition that there would be anything left at all.
	Now, there was water being boiled off from the heat exchanger radiators in the lunar module, which we heard about.
	Right.
	The electronics were cooled by basically boiling water into space.
	But that, too, if you're rotating the spacecraft system in a circular motion, that jetting motion will average, all right?
	Or should average, yes.
	Well, it has to.
	Assuming the eventing were occurring, which I would think it would have to if it were even still occurring at an even rate.
	Yeah, well, even if it's... The whole thing, we're talking about days, and even after they corrected it close to the Earth, they found it was still shallowing.
	Well, here is the quintessence of the predictive model of hyperdimensional physics.
	Because what no one has ever thought about, because they had no reason to think about this until they go back and look at Maxwell 100 years ago, or look at De Palma, the experiment I talked about at the UN, the spinning balls, what was one of the first things, after they rounded the moon, That the flight directors had them turn off in both spacecraft to save electricity and water.
	They powered down everything, including, including what are called the inertial platforms.
	Right.
	The spinning gyroscopes.
	Right.
	The Apollo 13 spacecraft was the first and last spacecraft we have ever sent into space where there was nothing spinning.
	That's true.
	At all.
	And I will make you a prediction.
	So in other words, you're saying that, if I've got this correct, that normally spacecraft have spinning gyroscopes to maintain attitude and so forth and so on.
	That's right.
	And although they're very small mass, they spin like a bat out of hell.
	Indeed.
	So their total angular momentum is significant.
	So without this artificial thing on board, the tetrahedral physics Is the energy that caused the shallowing effect as they came back?
	If you go back and look at the U.N.
	tape where I show the De Palma experiment between a spinning ball and a non-spinning ball in a gravitational field, Apollo 13 was a projectile flying back to Earth without anything spinning in it.
	And it acted as if the equations for gravity were different than for any other spacecraft.
	Fascinating.
	active spinning inertial platforms, gyroscopes in them.
	That's the solution to the mystery of Apollo 13.
	And that's by the way, how I know Apollo 13 had a problem because nobody in their right mind could create
	such an elegant hoax or fake with such a subtle detail that could only be explained now
	by application of this physics.
	Fascinating.
	That's what we're here for.
	Absolutely fascinating.
	All right, off we go into another area, back into an area we've been in.
	And again, it's important for me, Richard, I'm going to read this, because of the number of communications I get after we do a show, and people go inevitably to my website, or now your website, through my website, and see the photographs.
	Good morning, Art and Richard.
	I've seen the photos on your webpage, Art.
	I think I can give an explanation why so many people can't see what's right in front of their noses.
	Our government, our school system, has spoon-fed us for so long that a lot of us do not have any common sense to make rational decisions from what we see with our own eyes.
	Even at the college level, we're taught by Opinions from books and professors instead of these professors giving us the facts and letting us make our own conclusions by common sense and rational thinking.
	It never ceases to amaze me how the younger generations cannot make a rational decision on their own.
	So that really says just what you said earlier, doesn't it?
	With regard to people looking at these photographs and just going, ah, pixel madness.
	You know what I find interesting is that people who have gone through a real educational system, meaning people who are in their 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, if they can get to the internet, alright, they're the ones who see this first, not the 20-somethings or the 30-somethings.
	It's because the older folks know how to think, to reason, to see, and that's the key.
	Without reasoning people, Well, without those people, you're able to hide things in plain sight.
	And that's why the educational system of the United States of America is a disgrace.
	It's in someone's interest to keep it a disgrace.
	Because you can't have thinking people if you educate them, or unthinking people.
	And we now have a whole bunch of people who basically take their reality from CNN or C-SPAN Or any of those media that don't allow people to think, that basically tell them what reality is.
	You know, we have a president come on, he says certain things, then we have people who tell us what he really said.
	He didn't say what we thought he said.
	No, he said this.
	He said this, he said that.
	Alright, listen.
	We're coming to the top of the hour.
	We've got to get to the phones, but I want to read this to you.
	Art 60 is an interesting number.
	For other reasons, remember the 12th planet.
	We have 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour.
	That would be 3,600 seconds per hour.
	60 cycles of 60 cycles.
	Hmm.
	3,600.
	Yep.
	Man is onto it, or woman.
	So that makes lots of sense to you.
	Well, it not only makes lots of sense, it is THE sense, alright?
	The timekeeping system, the angular system, it turns out the fundamental metrology systems, metrology, measuring things, that we have grown up with, that go all the way back to Sumer, you know, Kramer out of the University of Pennsylvania, it all began with Sumer?
	Yes.
	It's all tetrahedral.
	We are surrounded by these clues.
	And this, of course, gets into how do we currently have a cultural system predicated, based on, immersed in this physics, without recognizing that that's what it all refers back to.
	And the answer may be found in Graham Hancock's work, which is, we are not the first.
	Yes, I'm going to be interviewing Graham, as you well know.
	Terrific.
	All right.
	Hold on, Richard.
	We'll be back to you when we come back.
	We'll be opening the lines.
	Opening the phone lines for any questions, hard ones if you want.
	They need not be softballs if you have hard questions.
	Now is the time, so get on the phone.
	We'll give you a rendition of the numbers when we come back.
	You are listening to the American CBC Radio Network.
	I'm Art Bell.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Top of the morning, everybody.
	Good to be here.
	first-time dollars can reach our fellow at seven oh two seven two seven one two
	two two seven oh two seven two seven one two two two now here again
	art bell top of the morning everybody good to be here as we go back now to
	Richard Hoagland I'm reminding you that we're about to open the lines
	If you're trying to call us internationally, we've got a toll-free line.
	And the way you call us, no matter how you're hearing us, outside the USA, is to get the AT&T USA direct operator, or dial the USA direct AT&T access code for your country.
	And then, the nation's first completely international toll-free line, Which is 800-893-0903.
	And it will be for you toll-free from any point in the world.
	800-893-0903.
	Now, this might be fun as we go back to Richard Hoagland.
	Art, let's drive Richard Hoagland nuts.
	Just suppose, he says, our government Back-engineered some wreckage or whatever and produced flying craft that utilize zero-point energy.
	If the government admits Roswell, it would naturally lead to more stonewalling on the research and development.
	If the drive system of UFOs, for our craft, is zero-point technology, these secrets must prevail as long as possible.
	Why?
	Well, if some unnamed third-world nation should figure it out, We'd be dealing with weapons systems a thousand times worse than our present nightmares.
	The whole thing would be a Pandora's box, no matter how you look at it.
	That's an interesting perspective, and I'm sure it's true.
	Isn't it?
	Yeah, no, I think he's absolutely right.
	Which, of course, then asks the question again, why is Ed Mitchell saying, you know, that Roswell is real and the moon stuff is not?
	And talking about zero-point energy.
	Yeah.
	Well, you can be sure I will ask him these questions.
	All right, now there's another thing you need to ask him.
	All right.
	Ed Mitchell became a kind of an iconoclast even during his astronaut days when he conducted a so-called ESP experiment.
	Yes.
	En route to and from the moon.
	Yes.
	The familiar Ryan Cards and all that.
	Well, hyperdimensional physics now provides a perfectly logical scientific explanation for all of these so-called metaphysical phenomena.
	From telepathy to ESP, from precognition to clairvoyance, it all falls out of the equation.
	It falls out of the woodwork.
	And the way it works is very simple.
	If you're looking at multiple dimensions, you know, from three dimensions on up, the analogy is equivalent to from three dimensions on down.
	And this has been done before.
	It's done in Michio Kaku's book, Hyperspace, which I heartily recommend to everybody.
	That's the New York University professor of physics who's written a pretty interesting book on hyperdimensional physics, from a historical perspective up to and including things like superstring theory, which is current contemporaneous physics' attempt to grapple with hyperdimensionality.
	The interesting thing is that the current physicists claim that hyperdimensions exist They just claim you can never see them, you can never taste them, you can never prove they exist.
	And our difference is that we think that we can, and we go back to Maxwell, who claimed that he could.
	And that's going to be an interesting thing in the coming years, you know, who is ultimately proven right by the data, by the predictions, by the physical phenomenon, like Apollo 13, which we can explain elegantly and much better.
	Toward the end of the program last time, Richard, we had a question that was not answered because there was not enough time.
	One of the preeminent people in physics today, being Stephen Hawking, this person would like to know if anyone has gotten him any information on hyperdimensional physics theory, because this faxer thinks that Mr. Hawking could probably do a great deal to verify what you're saying.
	Unless he's too far into the Einsteinian relativity trap.
	And again, there's always these political considerations.
	Science and physics is not objective, you know, to wit Carl Sagan's demeanor over the last 13 years.
	Yes.
	In terms of who's going to maybe make Stephen aware of things that he already knows about, or maybe has forgotten, or has not given a high priority to, in about a month, I and some colleagues are leaving for England.
	For a set of presentations in London and in Leeds at Imperial College University in London and at the University of Leicester at Leeds with Graham Hancock and Robert Laval.
	I intend to, in my three hours, because it's a whole day presentation from eleven in the morning to about seven o'clock at night, divided between me and Hancock and Laval with a couple of surprises.
	I intend to not only Lay out the artifacts, which are the cornerstone of our investigation.
	But the physics at Imperial College, where, you know, Newton held the chair, that are, I think, the cornerstone of what we've now found.
	The really important thing that I keep coming back to, of all of this work, our work, is not the artifacts.
	It's the physics.
	Because the physics give you a handle on how to move the universe.
	That's what life is really all about.
	How to control more and more your environment, so things you want to have happen will happen, and things you don't want to have happen don't happen.
	Let me ask you, I've received these supposed artifacts from Roswell.
	Richard, if the original Big Bang Theory is correct, by the way, do you subscribe to that?
	No.
	You don't?
	No.
	No, I think that... The question just went down the tubes.
	No, I think that the steady state universe of people like Fred Hoyle, And others, it's much more elegant and much more in keeping with the kind of unlimited possibilities that hyperdimensional physics is showing us than a limited universe that had a beginning, and a middle, and an end.
	Well, then... And you've got to always ask the question, Art, if there was something before the Big Bang, what was it, and why did it change?
	Yes.
	Well, that gets in God's country, I suppose.
	Well, but that's what we're grappling with here.
	It is.
	But big stuff.
	The reason I was going to ask about that is because any artifacts that might be from elsewhere, given the Big Bang theory, Would be made of elements just like the ones we have here, which, according to the scientists that tested what was brought back from the moon, I think they found nothing particularly more elegant than we have on Earth.
	Oh, not true at all!
	Not true?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	We should do a whole show.
	We'll put it up on the website, alright?
	We will actually lay out the elemental analyses of what were brought back in the Apollo samples from the moon.
	Well, that was a common belief, that there were rocks.
	But, look, Art, the common belief is, among a lot of people, is we never went to the moon at all.
	Well, okay, no problem.
	The common belief is that we should have been in Vietnam.
	Yeah, but I don't want to talk about that.
	The common belief, you know, common belief... Look, I believe we went to the moon, Richard, I have no problem with that.
	My point, politically, is don't hold out the common belief, because most people believe what they're told.
	All right, shatter it for us.
	What did they find on the moon that differs in any measurable way from what we have on Earth?
	It's not that it differs.
	It's of a different variety.
	All right?
	Remember, there's elements, and there's chemistry, and then there's alloys.
	There are very strange alloys that were found.
	Samples, for instance.
	We have something on Earth called rare Earths, which are things like europium, diprosium, samarium, things like that.
	In the lunar samples, in the papers that we have, the abundances of these so-called rare Earths Go up and down by a factor of a million from grain to grain within the same so-called rock sample.
	And that can't happen.
	I mean, just naturally, what would cause one little grain to have a million times more europium than the grain next to it in a piece of rock?
	Unless the rock was really a shattered computer, bashed and battered by umpteen years of micrometeorite and larger meteorite bombardment, and the element segregation of these rare earth elements, which are very useful for making electronics, was because what we're really looking at is the chemistry of shattered technology, welded and re-welded and welded again by random impacts and the heat and fusion caused by these impacts.
	And that's why you have weird, bizarre radioactive abundances that go up and down by factors of about a million as well, only in certain parts of the moon.
	Not all over the moon, but only on the western side.
	Where Apollo 12 landed in the Oceanus Pro Salarum site.
	And there are other strange things, like half the weight of the lunar sample turns out now to be in the form of glass.
	Remember the films of the moon where you see the astronauts bounding around on the surface?
	Oh yes.
	Remember how many times they fell down?
	Yes.
	Did you ever wonder why they were clumsy?
	Why under one-sixth gravity, where you have time to correct yourself... I bet you're going to suggest they were slipping on glass.
	They were!
	They were slipping on these little tiny beads of glass.
	It's like they were walking on pulverized beaded screens.
	Have you ever tried to walk on glass beads?
	Not recently.
	Well, good.
	They're very slippery.
	And half the lunar regolith, half the soil, that gray powdery stuff that coated them, was glass beads.
	Now, where do the glass beads come from?
	The conventional crowd, the geology crowd, will say, oh, when you have meteors bombarding the moon, it makes glass.
	The Hoagland crowd, you know, the crowd that says there's stuff there, is basically saying, look, this is the shattered fragments of the domes, dummies.
	Help me out with this, Richard.
	When we first went to the moon, wasn't there some school of thought That the Lunar Module would disappear into the deep dust on the Moon's surface?
	No, this was Tommy Gold's idea.
	Tom Gold is a very bright astronomer at Cornell.
	He is probably best known, by those who know him at all, as the successful proponent of the theory that pulsars, these enigmatic, very rapidly pulsing radio sources in deep space out in the galaxy... Yes.
	...are in fact the spinning cores of burned out neutron stars.
	Correct.
	Highly evolved ancient stars that have collapsed, like the Sun at the end of its projected lifespan.
	That's Tommy Gold's claim to fame.
	Well, during the Apollo years, Tommy Gold was brought on board NASA as a consultant, and he was very concerned that the Moon would swallow the Apollo astronauts without a whisper.
	Because their lunar module would sink grandly into these very deep oceans of dust, cosmic dust, produced by eons of impact and redistribution of the material, pounded and pounded and pounded and pulverized, until it had the consistency of liquid flour and flowed back and forth on electrostatic fields, occasioned by solar wind and other influences from the sun.
	So how come it didn't?
	Because, to Tommy's credit, he was able to look at the data and admit not only were there no deep seas of dust, but there's very little dust on the Moon at all.
	In fact, one of the peculiarities of the standard lunar model, if the Moon has been there for billions of years, you know, like the Earth has, and it's been subject to all this pounding and pulverizing of micrometeorites, is why the astronauts found very few, if any, rocks with dust on top of the rocks.
	They found rocks on top of the dust, of the soil.
	But I have a paper in my files where Tommy Gold writes in Nature, one of the amazing peculiarities is the absence of dust on the rocks, or fillets of dust, you know, that are draped in the shadows or around the edges.
	Yes.
	As you'd expect if you had this fine sifting of material being redistributed by meteor impact from other places on the moon.
	You'd expect that at some point there'd be a mantling of dust on the tops of exposed surfaces.
	Absolutely.
	And in fact, that did not occur.
	We have photographs of the astronauts puzzling over the fact that that dust did not seem to be sitting on the rocks.
	Now that's a real weird question, because you'd expect somewhere that there'd be ample
	concentrations of dust on tops of rocks if the moon is as old and has gone through the
	kind of geology process that the classical guys, the NASA guys, have claimed it's gone
	through.
	But you see, the general public, who always in America has a lack of interest in details,
	they never have followed the details of the mysteries.
	And if you don't follow the details, you are forever trapped by experts who are trying
	to force their view of reality, distilled, absent details, on you in place of the real
	joy of the search and the penetration of the mystery to what the real answers might be.
	Well that's why I enjoy you so much, Richard.
	Listen to this.
	Now, see if you can make sense of this, because I don't fully.
	Arden Richard, here's a way to understand the energy force that Tesla was able to tap into.
	Electrical fields are observable only if the potential between two poles is uneven.
	In other words, a battery.
	If we lived inside the battery, we would see no voltage potential.
	If the entire universe had an electrostatic potential of 110 volts, nobody would notice.
	Surrounded by free power, but we can't see it or use it.
	Tesla understood this and found out how to tap it.
	The term in particle physics is a scalar field.
	These fields exist all around us and only manifest themselves in their interaction with W and Z particles.
	At the far end of this discussion is the possibility of many alternate universes, each with its own law of physics or laws.
	When you study this field, it's easy to see how an entire universe might exist in a speck of dust.
	If these fields are part of the generation of existence, then the energy potential is staggering.
	Would you agree?
	Yeah, and basically, the guy's right on.
	I presume it's a guy, but it may not be.
	Signed, A.H.
	We will never know.
	We'll never know.
	But that is pretty much right on the line.
	Yeah, Tom Bearden, for years, has been talking about scalar fields.
	Yes.
	Alright?
	In the original Maxwell equations, for those who need a translation code, the scalar fields in the Maxwell equations is the key to the hyperdimensional physics I'm talking about.
	It's one and the same.
	The scalar fields were hyperdimensional.
	They were written in these hyperdimensional terms called quaternions.
	Which are geometric operators that are multi-dimensional in Maxwell's original work.
	Okay.
	So it all hangs together.
	The Tesla work, the hyperdimensional nomenclature I used, and Maxwell's scalar nomenclature are all one and the same.
	Well, this all takes me back to what that other faxer said.
	And that is that all of this information, if what we're discussing regarding your physics is accurate, Then it would produce weapons that would be our very worst nightmare, and for other people, other smaller countries to get hold of this information, would be an outright, absolute disaster.
	Yeah, but it could also produce defenses that are the worst nightmare of the weapons makers.
	Well, don't you go for as much time as you can to construct those defenses before you want to face somebody with that same power?
	Well, look, the world now knows how to build H-bombs, right?
	Oh, yes.
	And there are a bunch of people running around the Soviet Union trying to sell weapons-grade plutonium to the highest bidder, right?
	Yes, indeed.
	And the President just was over there having meetings with Yeltsin and colleagues saying, guys, you've got to keep this under better control because we don't want to face, you know, a kind of a truck nuke in the middle of Washington someday.
	Well, not to mention the fact that I still don't think, or I'm not aware of the technology we have to stop two or three incoming ballistic anythings.
	Well, the odds of The odds of a random group being able to fire ballistic missiles is small.
	The odds of a random group being able to purchase black market plutonium, smuggle it in through, let's say, the Caribbean or the Mexican border or someplace like that, or fly it into MENA, Arkansas.
	I'm being facetious, please.
	All right?
	And then build the weapon here and take it in a Ryder truck to the middle of Washington.
	That's a much more likely scenario.
	If you believe any of this as a likely scenario.
	Well, that's true.
	The point is that that technology is loose on the land.
	We can't stuff the genie back in the bottle.
	Suppose I were to tell you that hyperdimensional physics can make it so that a nuclear weapon cannot explode.
	Well, I would think that... Or it can alter radioactive half-lives so that the enormous amount of nuclear wastes, which are huge and present danger tonight, At every place from Hanford down to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, down to, what is it, Barnwell in South Carolina?
	All of that can be basically eradicated in a few short years.
	We don't have to wait 200,000 years.
	I don't even understand hyperdimensional physics to the degree that you do, but suppose I were to suggest anything as powerful as unlimited energy.
	Which hyperdimensional physics to me even suggests would be available.
	Right.
	Could be used for destruction as well as protection.
	So wouldn't that be true?
	Going back to Tesla.
	Remember what Tesla was talking about in the waning years of his life when the only people who would listen to him For the columnist for the New York Sun.
	All right, we're going to have to finish this after the bottom of the hour.
	Repeat after me, Richard.
	I promise to take phone calls in the next hour.
	I promise to take phone calls.
	All right, you heard it.
	You heard it.
	Phone calls coming up, and we'll finish up on this, and then I promise we'll get to phones, everybody.
	Remember, if you want to get a copy of this program, you can call 1-800-917-4278.
	That's 1-800-917-4278.
	1-800-917-4278. That's 1-800-917-4278. We'll be right back.
	This is the end of side one.
	Please leave the cassette exactly where it is, flip it over, and begin again.
	Go to Richard Hoagland, Science Advisor to Walter Cronkite, Engstrom Science Award winner, Advisor to NASA, and with us this morning.
	I've decided I'm not even going to ask Richard anything else.
	I'm going to go to the phones, alright?
	All right, Richard.
	Go ahead.
	All right, good.
	We've got to do that.
	On our first time caller line, you're on the air.
	Where are you calling from, please?
	Yes, this is Janet from Portland, Oregon.
	Hi, Janet.
	And because it's my first time calling, I'm a little nervous, but I am just very grateful, Mr. Bell, that you've taken my call, and I am just ever so pleased to hear Mr. Hoagland speaking tonight.
	I'm so nervous.
	What I'd like to say is that I feel that a person like Mr. Hoagland and yourself, who is very brave and courageous to keep going forward in searching for the truth of what is of life outside of our world here, and because I had experiences of When we had 3000 Acre Ranch was the first experience with UFO and then it altered my life so much in raising my children.
	I learned to be fearful and always hide in the closet and not speak of the things that happened and so on.
	So my question to Mr. Holtman is, after listening to this very interesting program where he Yes.
	that he feels that things are coming more and more where we are going to have more revelation
	of the facts and the truth about other life outside of what we know here.
	Do you feel that it will be soon, I'm saying soon within a year or two, that it will be
	more comfortable for people like me who I am just an ordinary housewife who have had
	dramatic experiences and do not speak about them?
	Of ridicule, yes.
	I know exactly where you're going.
	And it really is kind of a good question, Richard.
	You take a lot of shots.
	I take a lot of shots.
	That lady, if she starts telling her stories, is going to take a lot of shots.
	I could speak for myself, but I'd rather hear what you say.
	You take a lot of shots.
	I mean, the Washington Post, lots of big ones have taken shots at you.
	You should be riddled with holes by now.
	I'm sure you are in a way.
	Yeah, I have to be careful when I drink water.
	I have to leak all over the carpet.
	Exactly.
	How do you keep going?
	And are there moments when you get discouraged and depressed and where you feel like you're fighting an uphill battle that you're not going to prevail in?
	Well, you know, this is a very important question because an awful lot of people... How do I do this gently?
	We depend so much for our day-to-day existence, for the reaffirmation of people around us, and a lot of times I think we pay too much attention to a lot of people that we should not pay that much attention to.
	The people that we should be Wanting approbation from, that we should be wanting respect and concern and support to be the people who care about us, people we love, people we respect highly for substantive contributions, people who are worthy of respect, not just a name, a celebrity, somebody who makes a lot of money, but someone who has
	Who has done something of value, has given something of service, is worthy of being respected.
	And too many times, particularly in this culture, we listen to what celebrities say, we listen to what people who are in the news say, we listen to what people who are politically appointed or who we have elected say, and we don't listen to ourselves.
	Our own experience, particularly if we've done it the hard way, if we have come from the ground up, If we have unique experiences that almost cannot be shared because they're not democratizable.
	They fall in the realm of an extraordinary personal set of experiences and fascinations or preoccupations.
	Those things you have to keep your own counsel.
	You have to stand on your own even when you're ridiculed.
	As a scientist, what I can say, because I haven't experienced the structures on the moon, I have not experienced the structures on Mars, what I've experienced in my education and in my work and my profession is a process whereby when I see this data, when I see these pictures, I know that what I'm seeing does not accord With what the conventional experts are telling me should be in these pictures.
	My database says that if they're right, then the physics I was taught is wrong, and the physics is right because I can test it myself.
	I don't have to depend on their word.
	So that means there's some flaw in the expert's opinion versus my opinion, and the opinion of others I've reached out to, colleagues, professional, compatriots, well-wishers, supporters, It's not been told to us.
	journeyers on this extraordinary adventure that we are all engaged in.
	And so what keeps me going through the long dark nights when it can get kind of hot and
	heavy is the knowledge that the truth that we are working with is a truth that we have
	won through bitter personal experience and hands-on process.
	It's not been told to us.
	It's not been revealed to us.
	It's something we have earned by doing it ourselves.
	Well, I'd put it just a little different way.
	Perhaps more simply and in a short way, I would simply say that if I follow in other people's footsteps, even people I admire, Rush Limbaugh, others who have done great things in radio, the only place I'm going to go is where others have been.
	And that's where you get when you follow in somebody else's footsteps.
	So I choose not to do that, and you apparently choose not to do that as well.
	That's why the big trucks have a sign that says, don't tailgate.
	Yeah, that's exactly right.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hogan.
	Hello.
	Yes, hello.
	Where are you, sir?
	The state of Florida, northern Florida.
	Yeah, accolades and tremendous thanks to both of you.
	Thank you for putting together such a tremendous array of knowledge, shall we say.
	To make a quick quote of the Bible, as a matter of fact, I can't hear you right now, only on the phone.
	The local affiliate went to some other morning show.
	Oh, the frustration, my gosh.
	I should have got that put together a short while ago.
	That's all.
	We're at 262 or 3 or something now, Richard.
	And climbing.
	And climbing fast, yes.
	Anyway, caller, go ahead.
	Yes, yes.
	You know, Mr. Hoagland, when you spoke, it was in a previous hour or so there, I've got a good portion of it on tape I've got to relay to some friends about the, you know, in the past 6,000 years living in somewhat of a tyrannical Every civilization somewhat has been under some sort of tyranny
	or some despot or whoever be the case.
	You hit the proverbial nail on the head, shall we say.
	And it has certainly at times squelched freedom, true freedom of the spirit, not only of the
	spirit but of the acquisition of knowledge.
	Therefore is a quick quote of the Bible and Proverbs, it says, he that appreciates knowledge
	geteth understanding.
	Another quote is, of all you get in life is understanding.
	Obviously you are a very knowledgeable if not wise man.
	Another quick quote is that...
	Alright, sure.
	Well, we really...
	Okay, just bear with me just very quickly.
	Very quickly.
	I know there are other callers I have tried to call in.
	Yes, go ahead, go ahead.
	Yes sir, thank you.
	Is that...
	is a...
	One other quick quote is that a fool blurts out all he knows all at once, but a wise man holds his tongue.
	Therefore, in listening to your program, you have done so, see?
	And by golly, at this time, there is certainly time that, like you said, we're ready.
	All right, sir.
	I appreciate the call.
	There is another kind of tyranny, though, Richard, and another kind of censorship.
	Even in our supposed free society today, there is a censorship of omission.
	Yes.
	And there is a tyranny of inaccurate information.
	So while we have personal freedoms, as the world may never have known before, I don't know what good they do you without Without information, without real good information, you have no direction to go, but in a circle.
	But it's even more basic.
	When Ben Franklin was asked by that nameless woman after the Continental Congress, you know, in Philadelphia, what kind of a government we had, and he said to her, Madam of Republic, he also then added, if you can keep it, The keep it part is you've got to do your homework.
	You can't turn this over to experts.
	And what we've done is turned over our lives, our reality, to a bunch of experts.
	What I'm trying to do in this investigation, with the help of some very dear friends and colleagues, and more growing every day, and now democratize through this marvelous new tool called the Internet, where we launch the Enterprise Mission this evening, to boldly go where someone has gone before, We are trying to democratize a process.
	It's not so much that we have wisdom, sir.
	It's that we have a process for ultimately, if we live long enough, acquiring a modicum of wisdom.
	Everybody can do this.
	This is not, pardon the pun, rocket science.
	All you've got to do is go back to basics and start asking questions of how does the world really work, and don't listen to Ted Koppel.
	A lot.
	Some, but not a lot.
	As a reference at least.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland in New York.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Where are you?
	I'm near Seattle in Renton, Washington.
	Okay.
	And I listen to you on Como.
	Yes, sir.
	And my question is basically about a comet.
	I heard some information previously by both an interview, you interviewed Mr. Hoagland previously, and he talked about the Hale-Bopp comet.
	Yes.
	And it gave off indications that it had been manipulated by an outside force.
	No.
	No?
	Well, before we cut this gentleman off, it depends on what you mean by indications.
	It had particulation which said that it had not been to this solar No, not quite.
	What I said was that the reports of course corrections, as far as I can determine, are totally erroneous.
	This thing is on a trajectory as Keplerian as every other comet, a body flying through space around the sun like the planets.
	What I said was unusual this early, which was two astronomical units Farther out than Jupiter, alright?
	And AU is the Earth-Sun distance.
	That means 2 times 93 million miles.
	So it's 180 million miles beyond Jupiter's distance, which is half a billion miles from the Sun.
	This thing was exhibiting such outgassing and such activity that the question I had was, where's the energy coming from?
	What is making it hot out there, causing the gas to escape, causing it to be visible?
	Not enough sun energy to account for the outgassing.
	So I suggested a possibility.
	Remember, if Ed Mitchell is claiming now that guys are visiting the solar system, it means there's a whole bunch of guys running around out there doing all kinds of interesting mischief.
	See, that's one of the implications of Ed leaping into the, they're here.
	You have, they're here and they play games with us.
	Alright, well I...
	Richard, I've got one for you.
	The Japanese comet that made a fairly close pass not long ago.
	Can you pronounce it?
	Hayakazaki.
	Very close, very close.
	Have you noticed a stunning coincidence?
	What I noticed was that there were sudden reports at its closest point to Earth of emission of tremendous amounts of X-ray radiation.
	Well, not tremendous, but X-ray.
	It's only tremendous in that nobody expected it.
	Never previously detected?
	Well, never previously looked for.
	Remember, you can't find something unless you're willing to look.
	And nobody in the astronaut community would have given a dollar to Navy Beans that a comet would be emitting X-rays.
	So until this close flyby, nobody ever looked.
	That's number one.
	Number two, they didn't have the equipment upstairs in orbit to look.
	You can't see X-rays from the ground.
	You've got to be in orbit.
	There was a specific satellite called the RORSAT for... I forget what the acronym stands for, but anyway, it can see X-rays.
	Right.
	It can make images of objects in space in X-rays.
	Well, it saw.
	What the guys did was, as a kind of a lark, you know, maybe in the middle of the night when nobody was looking, they just kind of turned it toward the comet and took some data.
	In other words, they acted as real scientists.
	They didn't have a defensible position In their back pockets, they could say to anybody, this is why we think we might find some.
	They just decided, I mean, good grief guys, they decided to just look!
	And because they threw away their preconceptions, they made a stunning Nobel-level prize discovery, when the prizes get around to be handing out.
	They found x-rays coming from Hayataki, this comet that flew by the Earth between March 25th and April 1st.
	Why?
	Why is it emitting x-rays?
	Well, this is where Tom Van Plannen and I had a wondrous discussion, and you should probably talk to Tom.
	Get Tom back on your show, because the x-rays coming from Hayataki appear to be another confirmation of Tom's model that this solar system has gone through violent episodes, and that comets, in fact, are fragments of an exploded planet, or planets, in the past history of the solar system.
	The way it works is as follows.
	The comet that we see with an optical telescope or with the naked eye is a little tiny speck of something, presumably ice, surrounded by a cloud of gas being emitted as the ice melts under the action of sunlight, right?
	Right.
	That's the standard model.
	Sure.
	In Tom's view, the comet is actually a group of twirling objects all orbiting around each other.
	Think of a bunch of flying rocks or icebergs, alright?
	Surrounded by large quantities of invisible dust.
	Hmm.
	For which there is some melting and outgassing from the sun, which causes the visible tail and stuff like that.
	Yes.
	In Tom's model, as this comet comes flying into the inner solar system at over a hundred miles per second.
	Think of it, a hundred miles per second.
	That's really moving.
	From here to Washington, from New York, where by the way, dawn.
	You know, dawn is coming again, guys.
	It's moving westward.
	Dawn has risen here on the East Coast, I can dutifully report, live, here at whatever time in the morning it is.
	In four seconds, this comet could have flown from here to Washington, 400 miles, all right?
	And in, what, 40 seconds, it could go across the country, all right?
	4,000 miles.
	Well, at 100 miles per second, those little dust particles colliding with the solar wind With the very tenuous outer atmosphere of the sun, in which we are all immersed, of hydrogen and helium ions boiling off the sun, the coronae we see during an eclipse.
	Yes.
	At 100 miles per second, he and I calculate that the energy of the collision in the solid of dust particles should have caused the dust particles to emit x-rays.
	And what was interesting in the observations by the RORSAT satellite The x-rays appeared to come from a surface that was kind of crescent shaped, like they were coming from some kind of sphere, solid sphere.
	Meaning that the x-rays are being generated by an exterior and not from the interior of a gas cloud.
	In other words, they were coming from the dust particles closest to the surface Bombarded first by the solar wind producing the emission of x-rays.
	Fascinating.
	And only a model of a broken-up planet can supply that amount of dust to provide that amount of x-rays that we wouldn't know about if the RORSAT guys hadn't just thrown caution and their peers' ideas to the wind and simply gone for it and looked.
	All right.
	Your own path.
	Richard, we've got to pause here at the top of the hour.
	You've come this far.
	You might as well go the whole way once again, right?
	Okay.
	We'll take the sun up a little further on the East Coast.
	Stay right where you are.
	You're listening to the CBC Radio Network, the American CBC Radio Network.
	we'll be right back on wake up out there
	Until he's sleeping on that skirt Don't touch that dial
	Giddy up, bang the door Giddy up
	Giddy up, bang the door Giddy up
	Giddy up Thank you.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	Art Bell is taking calls on the wildcard line at 702-727-1295.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Once again, here I am reminding you that at any point outside the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, you can call us toll-free internationally by getting hold of your AT&T direct access number, or the AT&T operator, and then calling 800-893-0903.
	That's 800-893-0903.
	Now, back to Richard Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Hi there.
	Are you still awake?
	I'm still here.
	All right.
	You're a real trooper.
	I'll sure give you that.
	You really are a trooper.
	Let's go back to the phones.
	Lots of people waiting.
	First time caller line.
	You're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Where are you, please?
	Indiana.
	Indiana.
	Good to have you.
	Thank you.
	My question was on Transistors and Roswell.
	Any connection that has been looked into?
	In other words, okay, let me translate that.
	Roswell, 1947.
	Then the advent of transistors and a technological revolution at a pace that is hard to account for in any terrestrial way.
	That would be about a proper translation of that question.
	Is there any connection, do you suppose, Richard?
	Well, I mean, this is an interesting idea.
	It's certainly something that should be asked of people like, you know, Ed Mitchell tomorrow night.
	Let me give you an analog.
	We went to the moon 30 years ago, and we're now seeing a series of rather remarkable technological developments in the normal 30-year duty cycle of example-to-mature technology.
	Let me give you two rather controversial indications of that.
	One is the STS-48 video.
	At the end of the UN tape, we have photographs, film, video from NASA showing from the shuttle something remarkable which is controlled, darting about in the skies over Australia, leaping off tangentially to the Earth's surface at 14,000 Gs.
	From a standing start to 200,000 miles per hour in, you know, a couple of three seconds.
	Is that the development of a technology that had its genesis in the bringing back of clues and of physics or parts of a library from the Apollo missions to the moon?
	The time frame would be just about right.
	All right?
	Let me give you another much more mundane example.
	Okay.
	Candace Bergen.
	Candice Bergen, before she got two hit shows, was known for her sprint commercials, right?
	Yes.
	And the sprint commercials are known basically for, you can hear a pin drop.
	Yes.
	The reason you can hear a pin drop is because we have developed a technology of ultra clear and pure optical fibers.
	But allow us with very few relays to send laser pulse signals carrying digital telephone voice, you know, data and other information from coast to coast with very few repeaters.
	The transparency of these optical fibers can only be appreciated if you look at the photographs we now are looking at taken of the moon.
	Because the glass structures we're looking at... Remember the Memphis guy who was so impressed with the Earth rising?
	I do indeed.
	And distorted over the... Wait till you see this video.
	You're not going to believe what you're going to see, Art.
	What's remarkable is that until the exposures are lengthened extraordinarily long, compared to average exposures, the glass causing this distortion cannot be seen.
	As a scattering medium.
	You know how dirty window glass you can see it in the sunlight?
	Sure.
	It shows up as a fine film.
	Of course.
	Well, this stuff is so transparent that if I were to put the numbers, the only glass in our experience now which is as transparent over hundreds of miles is the glass in the optical fibers where Ms.
	Bergen is talking about in the Sprint commercials.
	Now, Is it possible since AT&T slash Bellcom was in charge of the site selection for the Apollo program?
	You didn't know that, did you?
	I did not, no.
	That the phone company picked the landing sites, boys and girls, for the Apollo astronauts on the moon.
	Ask Dr. Mitchell this tomorrow night.
	And it's the phone company that suddenly comes out, because they're all one.
	It's like there's only one network, alright?
	Sprint and MCI and AT&T, they all share the same executives and the same data at some level.
	The technology is really all the same.
	Is it not possible that maybe this is another example of a technological transfer from a very sophisticated culture to a less sophisticated culture, namely ours, in the normal 30-year, 25-year duty cycle of science to engineering to technology to making money to profits on the stock market?
	I don't know.
	But I've always thought if any one entity would take over the world, it would be the phone company.
	There was a film, a stunning film with James Coburn.
	I need to be nice.
	They've been very nice to me lately, and so I can't say nice.
	Called the President's Analyst.
	Yeah, I remember it.
	Remember the President's Analyst?
	Of course.
	And it, I mean, this was back at the beginning of the conspiracy curve, when it ultimately turned out that TPC was running the world.
	That's right.
	Well, you can tamper with anything but the phone company.
	And TPC was The phone company.
	I know, I know.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hello.
	Yes, hello.
	Where are you, sir?
	This is Paul calling from Los Angeles.
	LA, K-A-B-C.
	That's correct.
	And I'm a writer and an actor.
	I was in the film Communion with Christopher Walken.
	No, no, I'm kidding.
	i had got started in the title role of a re bradbury theater episode entitled
	appropriately enough at the martian uh... and um...
	i wanted to ask you a richer about uh... the castle yes the castle
	um...
	i heard you say on more than one occasion that it was uh...
	i don't remember the exact distance
	It was how far above the surface?
	It's about nine miles above the surface that we can see.
	Alright, now, do you mean it's suspended above the surface?
	No, it is held in a grid.
	It is held in a matrix of this glass-like material, highly shattered.
	From the surface?
	From the surface, yeah.
	I mean, it's like a fly in amber.
	It's not hanging on any gravity nine miles up.
	And if you look at the enhancements, particularly at the two versions that are on the website,
	you'll see this panel of material, this shattered material all around it, structurally holding
	it in place.
	It is a fragment of something that was once much bigger and obviously a lot more splendiferous
	than the thing we're seeing now.
	And it is not a castle.
	That is a metaphor for you.
	I had somebody write to me and say, Mr. Hoagland, I really appreciate your work, but frankly, I think the castle is much more technological.
	Richard, have you read the Martian Chronicles?
	Absolutely.
	In fact, our first Mars investigation At SRI International, the name of the computer conference that we put together to knit our merry little band of researchers coast to coast was called Martian Chronicles.
	Oh, perfect!
	I'll have to tell Ray about that.
	He's a very good friend of mine, actually.
	Well, it would be nice to hear what his thoughts are on what we've been doing, because the last time I talked with Ray, he did not want to hear about any of this from hunger.
	I am consistently disappointed at how the science fiction crowd, you know, those you would think would be on the cutting edge, really want to be over in the NASA ballpark.
	They want to be more credible than NASA.
	Oh, I have arguments with him all the time about this kind of thing.
	I mean, you know, he and Jerry Pornel and Larry Niven and all those people that I know so well and have called my friends for years, I'm really astonished at how conservative and anal retentive some of these folks are.
	Oh, absolutely.
	But that should not be an absolutely.
	They are supposed to be our early warning system.
	That's good, Richard.
	Make friends with them.
	Well, they are my friends.
	They know this is what I think.
	Remember, Carl wasn't saying terrible things, and then the other day he said, maybe I'm right.
	Finally.
	It has nothing to do with whether your friends are.
	It has to do with where the politics are going.
	That's my point.
	This is all intensely political, and it should not be.
	Something is wrong.
	Radically wrong here with the people we've been looking up to.
	Yeah, let's talk with Ray about this.
	As you may recall from the Martian Chronicles, he talked about their cities of glass.
	Yes.
	Kind of prescient on his part, whether he knew it or not.
	Exactly.
	If this isn't prescient on the Bradbury model, that we get to Mars and find ourselves, Give me a break.
	Is this why maybe Ray can't look at this?
	Because it's too close to home?
	He'd have to ask himself where he got the inspiration deep in the middle of the night for that stunning series of novelettes to turn into that novel?
	Good point, Richard.
	Uh, my other question is, uh, are you going to be putting out a new documentary which will, uh, disseminate all of this new information and photographic material?
	We have two tapes in progress.
	One from the Washington Press Conference, which will be two hours.
	One to fill through with all kinds of neat stuff that was not at the press conference, because we're constantly learning more, and you produce these things, and We'll weave it together so that Sarah McLendon, who was there, you know, is seen in her best light and all that.
	And the other one will be built around our summer excursion, our late spring excursion to London and to Leeds with Graham Hancock and Robert Vivaldi.
	It would be great if you could get into these documentaries, one or the other of them, the stuff about Sagan and Thatcher as well, if there was any way of doing that.
	I think there might be a way to do that.
	That would be terrific.
	All right, thank you very much.
	I know, but anal retentive, Richard.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hello.
	Am I really on the air?
	No.
	Can you hear me?
	I have a cold.
	Yes, I hear you fine.
	I can hear you so well I can even hear your cold.
	Thank you.
	Where are you, by the way?
	Well, I'm in San Joseph, Missouri, Pony Express country, and I just awakened out of a deep sleep I've been trying to call.
	something said to me, get up and go and try to call him again.
	I think that's a metaphor for the human condition.
	I've been trying to call.
	I wanted to tell you that I have spent many calls trying to get the people to turn on
	Mr. Hoagland's comments and things when he was at that conference, trying to get them
	to open up some of the air channels and things so that it wouldn't be closed over.
	I don't know what had happened, but I do know that we had some people here on TV and so forth make many calls.
	I assure you it was to some effect, believe me.
	I certainly hope so.
	And the reason I called tonight is, first of all, something awakened me.
	You spoke a while ago about learning when you're older, about learning when you were young so that you could keep learning when you're older.
	I'll be 75 in August.
	You don't sound it.
	Well, I certainly am.
	But that's because of my training.
	When I was very, very young, my father was Greek.
	I'm from the old world and the new world here.
	I was taught many, many things.
	I just love hearing what Woods said.
	Art spoke about lying on a quilt, looking up at the stars.
	When I was a child that was fun every night to go out and look up and my father would explain about all the constellations they appeared in.
	All the many, the seven sisters, and all the many things that were there.
	So I learned to think.
	And I was very lucky to be in a church where they would bring down Dr. William Pattengill who helped write the footnotes for the Schofield Reference Bibles.
	And studied many, many things under him both in the Old and the New Testaments.
	And I remember studying about the Tower of Babel.
	And about the when God and it said, and we, whomever we were, decided that they could not let this go on because it was not time yet for this reference cycle, which I think is close to 6,000 years.
	And so it had to be put down.
	I do not know to what extent they were developed, except we certainly are not to that stage yet.
	And I was thinking, as you were talking, perhaps Some of the glass that's around there is when this was
	destroyed.
	Perhaps that building was made, those blocks were made of some kind of glass-like material.
	And in thinking of that, everything comes together.
	And I've done many reading around the clock and I do know that the wheel of life that
	I've been on has brought me directly right down the hub to where we're speaking of divine
	intelligence.
	All right, well, ma'am, we've got to hold it there.
	With reference to the glass, Richard, glass is actually, as she was pointing out, glass is a surprisingly proper building material given the conditions, for example, on the moon, isn't it?
	Well, even given conditions on the earth, would it surprise people to know that of all the schemes, and I use that in the largest sense of the word, that the federal government has considered and offered contracts to and solicited requests from industry for handling radioactive materials, radioactive waste, the most viable, technically, is to basically put it in glass bricks and store it in a desert.
	Where there's little rainfall, so there's no hydrochloric leaching or any kind of acidic attack of the glass, and the glass will sit there for tens of thousands of years with the radioactive material bottled up inside.
	It'd damn well better.
	Even on Earth.
	Now, we know because of the new technology that we discussed earlier tonight, that this hyperdimensional slash scalar slash Tesla physics, that is being discussed by people like Gene Maloff.
	You should have Gene Maloff, by the way.
	On your show.
	Arrange it for me.
	He has asked me to intercede.
	He is the former head science writer at MIT.
	I would like that.
	He quit over the matter of principle on cold fusion and is now up to his eyebrows in hyperdimensional physics experiments and real technology.
	I want to ask you about cold fusion.
	Well, it's hyperdimensional physics.
	Does it work?
	Yeah, of course it works.
	Yeah, more energy output is coming in, and Harold Abston, who's a physicist in England, actually is proposing in the literature an explanation for coal fusion, which is really not fusion, it's hyperdimensional physics.
	I recall the two scientists up in Utah said, we've got it, we've got it, we've got it.
	We've got it, they said.
	And then everybody took a look at it, and they said, no, everybody didn't take a look at it.
	Well, a lot of people took a look at it.
	There was an intense political hatchet job carried out on these two gentlemen.
	Who are now very nicely funded by the Japanese in France.
	That's what I heard.
	That's exactly what I heard, yes.
	Okay?
	And are going to make money for somebody else, but not for us here in the United States.
	No, Gene Maloff, who has impeccable credentials, and more important, an impeccable curiosity, would be a very valued guest for you to have, and this is why.
	Because Gene will cite you chapter and verse of all kinds of stunningly credible institutions Ranging from Los Alamos to North American Rockwell, the folks that built the Apollo Command and Service Module?
	Yes.
	Who are doing experiments now where radioactivity is mysteriously disappearing by application of this physics in experiments that are confounding the nuclear scientists of this planet.
	You've got to have Gene on because it's another critical component to this broad front revolution which is sweeping the world.
	Alright.
	This may seem like a silly question while I don't think the moon is made of blue cheese or whatever it is people said.
	A green cheese I guess it was.
	Is the moon hollow or solid?
	No.
	The moon has a core.
	Gary Latham's seismic experiments taken there by the astronauts and left until NASA mysteriously turned off the network in 1978.
	...reveal a structured planet like the Earth.
	What makes the moon act weird seismically, what makes it ring for four hours, is all these glass domes lying around on the surface.
	Sort of like a tuning fork.
	Exactly.
	Precisely.
	Take a wine glass.
	Take your finger, dip it in the wine, rub it around the edge of the glass, and you get this piercing tone.
	You get a resonance.
	That's a resonance.
	What happened is that when the various objects were hitting the moon and the seismometers were transmitting the data back to Earth, the moon rang like a bell, and because the geologists were thinking of this as granite and basalt and rock, they had no model, no conceptual idea To incorporate into the data that would allow them to see what the truth really is.
	So how did they explain the returns?
	Oh, they have been talking about, you know, regolith and deep soil and dislocated rocks and fractures and all that.
	And it makes absolutely no sense at all.
	Because if I have a rock pile, any geologist knows that a rock pile, when I hit it with something, All those little bits and pieces, like rubble, collapse together, are going to absorb the energy, not transmit the energy losslessly for hours around and around and around the moon.
	I bet that killed them when that began to happen.
	It did, and they've been flailing around for decades, literally decades, trying to figure it out.
	There was one guy up here at Columbia University, a geophysicist, whose paper I have, it was published in 1969, Who came within a whisker of a correct explanation.
	He said the only way to explain the ringing of the moon was a high-quality ceramic, i.e.
	glass.
	All right.
	Right after his paper was published, he was killed in a head-on collision on the George Washington Bridge.
	Coincidence, of course.
	All right, Richard, hold on.
	We'll be right back to you.
	A half hour to go.
	You're listening to the American CBZ Radio Network.
	I'm Art Bell.
	stay right where you are.
	This is the end of side one.
	Please leave the cassette exactly where it is, flip it over, and begin again.
	Birthday boy here in a moment, Richard Hoagland, spry indeed for the early 70s, wouldn't you say?
	Tomorrow night, I want to remind you that Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut, Edgar Mitchell will be here at 1 a.m.
	Pacific Time.
	You don't want to miss that.
	We'll be asking him a lot about, well, a lot about what you've heard this morning.
	And I guess what it's like to walk on the moon, too.
	I bet he's answered that five trillion times.
	Maybe we'll fish about for a different answer tomorrow night.
	Now, back to Richard Hoagland.
	Richard, you're back on the air again.
	Yeah, I'm getting kind of spry here.
	Well, really still a mover for a man in his 70s.
	That's great.
	You want to tell us how old you are, Richard?
	I don't think I'm going to keep that a secret.
	All right then, it's back to the phones, and to our first-time caller line, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Where are you calling from, please?
	Uh, Antelope.
	Antelope, California.
	California, all right.
	Very good.
	Yeah, hi, my name is Todd.
	I got about, uh, five questions.
	Five?
	Okay, um, one is... Kind of greedy.
	One is, okay, if even with Apollo 13's internal gyros turned off, wouldn't, wouldn't the rotation of the craft, like, stabilize it?
	No, because it's a matter of balancing the angular momentum.
	If you look at the momentum between the large vehicles slowly rotating and the tiny gyros relatively small, spinning at several thousand RPM, it's the small gyros that have a much bigger effect.
	If we're right, remember, this was over several days.
	It's a tiny effect that adds over a long period of time.
	And you need to find a cause which is not linked to anything that was ever done on any previous or post mission.
	And the only thing different about Apollo 13 was they turned off all the electricity and everything rotating in that machine stopped except for the craft itself, which very slowly turned in the barbecue mode to expose all sides to the sun.
	But it was relatively slow.
	Very slow.
	And so the speed would have a big part of it.
	Absolutely.
	Okay, and another thing I wanted to know is the gyros themselves, do they like, were they just, um, for, like, did they, um, did they affect the system?
	Like if one, if a gyro, if one of the gyros went off balance, did it have a automatic, like, um, Restabilizing effect, like with a thruster?
	I'm not sure, you know, I don't know.
	No, no.
	See, what you have in an IMU, an inertial measuring unit, is you have three gyros.
	Actually, they have six, you know, three in the backups.
	Orthogonally oriented, meaning they're on three different axes, X, Y, and Z. Length, width, and height.
	They're at right angles to each other in the three dimensions.
	Were those dual rate?
	Or like, or what I'm thinking of, were those like each gyro has Two axis, or are they only like single axis?
	They were each single axis, but there were three of them, and there were two sets.
	It's been a long time since I've looked at the specs of the IMUs, the inertial measuring units, in the Apollo Command Module.
	The point is, when you turned off the power, the gyros, because of friction, spun down.
	They stopped rotating.
	They were not spinning.
	And that's what was different.
	And no one, of course, without looking at the De Palma experiments and the Maxwell stuff earlier, Would have a clue as to where to look for that explanation.
	Fortunately, because we've been looking, we do have a clue, and that's the direction that we think.
	You know, what I'm hoping we can do in a few more weeks is to get some actual numbers where we can predict, based on the mass and the rate of spin of these gyros, what the trajectory effects should have been compared to what they were.
	That'd be good.
	Well, that's what science is, and that's what having more people on the website and all that.
	which is www.enterprisemission.com.
	Or Art Bell's web page and then jump to Richard's if you have a hard time with that.
	Okay. Yeah, I agree with Tom Van Flanders in the planetary breakup,
	but another thing I wanted to know is the people who believe that
	the comets originated from like, what was it, like the Oort cloud or something?
	They're saying they are primordial, yeah.
	How would they get their velocity from just evolving in a cloud?
	Well, the same way we all got our velocity, I guess.
	Well, they're looking at what is called differential ejection.
	Alright, think of the solar system as a vast circular freeway with multiple lanes, like a racetrack.
	And the inner planets go around faster than the outer planets.
	Right?
	So the tidal forces on objects orbiting between the planets, little bits of flotsam and jetsam, will vary over time.
	Makes sense.
	The idea is that what happens is that this nudges, in a cyclic way, orbits of the little bitty stuff at the expense of very little motion of the big stuff.
	Because the little guys will move quicker than the big guys, because of inertia.
	So you then wind up with orbits that cross the orbits of the big guys at some point, or other guys, and because of gravitational deflection, some of these pieces are ejected from the solar system, others wind up smashing into planets, and so what initially starts out kind of circular, winds up very elliptical, so some of this stuff is ejected into very long orbits, that then comes back in after several million years, and that's what we see as first-time, first long-period comets.
	That's the standard primordial model.
	What Tom says is that you had solar system formation, you had planet formation, and then you have some mysterious force that tends to blow planets up, which is unsettling to an awful lot of people.
	Think about it.
	We live on one.
	And that the pieces then come back in these long elliptical orbits, and it's the pieces of blown up planets from past eras that we're seeing as asteroids and comets.
	If there are clear observational predictions you can make that should allow you to distinguish, to differentiate between these two radically different ideas.
	And in terms of keeping score, so far Tom's side is ahead, except the game is rigged.
	The other guys have, they control the journals, they control the airwaves, they control the media, they control the conferences, and so Tom and his people are way outnumbered And it ain't fair, but that's science the way it's practiced in the latter part of the 20th century.
	All right, Culler.
	That's going to have to do it.
	That's your quota plus a little.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Mark.
	Good morning, Dr. Hoagland.
	This is Gary Kelley.
	Not doctor, but thanks anyway.
	OK, where are you, sir?
	Santa Rosa.
	All right.
	OK, first, I'd just like to say, Mr. Hoagland, you are stretching my mind so far, my hair is hurting.
	But the question I had was now, Buckminster Fuller built an entire geometry around the tetrahedron.
	He certainly did.
	And he based that geometry on nothing but information he could harvest through his own eyes and reliable information based on science.
	Well, he was a Renaissance man.
	He read widely.
	Leonardo of the Space Age doesn't begin to... That's right.
	The isotropic vector matrix sounds to me like the ether.
	He was on to this.
	Of course.
	Of course he was.
	And read his Synergetics 1 and 2.
	I have.
	You'll want a really good encapsulation of hyperdimensional physics from its geometric perspectives.
	Oh, well, I absolutely thought so.
	He himself said that contradictions in quantum physics could be eliminated By casting the equations in his geometry, he thought the fact that you had to multiply equations by constants was real messy, considering there's no... that when nature makes a bubble, you don't... nature doesn't use pi.
	That was his metaphor for that.
	Yes.
	And that nature knows just how many molecules are put in a bubble before it takes out the 720 degrees of angle and closes the system.
	Okay.
	Well, one more thing, the 19.5 point, where if you put a tetrahedron inside a sphere, the 19.5, what relation is between that particular latitude and the great circles on the sphere that you can trace out by connecting the edges of the tetrahedron?
	What connection is there between?
	Well, the reference point is you have to put one point of the tetrahedron, which is a four-corner pyramid, on the point of the rotation of the sphere.
	The rotation defines latitude.
	It gives you a polar axis.
	If you put one point on the polar axis, the other three points will lie either at nineteen and a half north or south, above or below the equator, in this rotating sphere.
	So is that one reference point?
	That's right.
	You've got to have it on the rotation.
	In other words, the sphere has to rotate.
	Unless it's rotating, there's no reference point at all, and you can put the tetrahedron anywhere inside and there would be no magic 19.5.
	It's all in relation to the spinning rotational axis.
	The physics is all keyed to rotation.
	That's why the non-rotating gyros in Apollo 13 are a major clue.
	Ah, ah, ah, ah.
	All of a sudden that makes sense.
	Yes!
	Rotation!
	Rotation!
	You know how the old Maxima business You know, the three rules of business are location, location, location.
	That's right.
	Well, the three rules of hyperdimensional physics are rotation, rotation, rotation.
	Got it.
	I knew it.
	Yep.
	Ease to the Rockies.
	You may really feel that from now on.
	Thank you.
	Rotation, rotation.
	I'll remember that.
	Ease to the Rockies.
	You're on the air with Spry Man for his 80s, Richard Hoagland.
	And growing older every minute.
	Hi, this is Steve from South Dakota.
	Hi, Steve.
	I just want to say what a great honor it is to talk to Mr. Hoagland.
	I bought his videos recently, and I'm just amazed.
	We have Richard Hoagland parties here in South Dakota.
	I've been calling everybody in, and I've been getting the local newspaper involved in some of his photographs.
	I was interested in knowing if I could contact... We downloaded some photographs from ArtsWeb on the Clementine photos, and there's an address here for the Enterprise mission.
	Yes.
	In Weehawken, New Jersey?
	That's right.
	Now, I wrote them about a month ago and I haven't received a response.
	That's probably because our staff was overstressed with the press conference and all the stuff that was hitting the fan afterwards.
	Okay.
	But we've had people in, literally volunteers, mailing and faxing and writing to their heart's content.
	So you will probably get a response this week.
	Super.
	Second of all, I have a book here by Sherrington.
	It's called Exploring the Moon Through Binoculars and Small Telescopes.
	Right.
	On page 46, there's a picture of the crater Gesende and the half-crater Latron in the late afternoon light, and I put an overhead transparency over it, just sort of curiously.
	It looks to me like in the middle of that there's an equilateral-type, triangular-type rays in the middle of the crater, and on the edges, Well, those, I think, correspond to that wondrous dome we see in the Xon 3 photograph, where it's on the limb.
	Oh, really?
	The Xon 3 lunar dome, on our website and on our site, corresponds to Kissimmee, which also corresponds... By the way, ask Ed Mitchell this, Art.
	Why did the Bell people, Belcom, Interesting.
	then reject Cassandra as one of the two last landing sites for Apollo 17 before they switched
	up to Taurus-Littrow.
	And why, coincidentally, does Cassandra happen to correspond to the site of the Zon 3 lunar
	dome?
	All right.
	Interesting.
	All right.
	I overlaid my overhead and I drew lines to correspond to those three little curves in
	the crater rim, and it forms like a Star of David.
	Yep.
	And if you look at the Zon 3 photo, you'll see that you're seeing a three-sided tetrahedral
	shape in the form of that dome edge on.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And, you know, lastly, is the...
	Phobos moon of Mars in a solid orbit.
	Oh, that's a good question.
	There was a strange prediction made by Gordon Michael Skalyan regarding Phobos recently.
	Oh, really?
	Yes, there has been.
	So, that is a good question.
	How solid is the orbit of Phobos?
	Well, it's... Alright, let me go back to the early part of the century.
	An astronomer named Sharpless and another astronomer named Douglas working out of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Measured night by night by night, for years, by photographic means, the position of Phobos as it orbited Mars.
	Now, because Phobos is a little potato-shaped chunk of rock about 18-20 miles across, it doesn't have any real gravitational field to speak of, and it has no atmosphere, of course, and it orbits 6,000 miles above Mars, so it was presumed that it would be flying around like clockwork.
	In fact, they found over the years that the predicted position of Phobos was slightly different than the observed position.
	When we got to the Viking era, when the Viking spacecraft, to leap to the end of the story, went to Mars and carried out its own photographic measurements by means of its cameras, and those were correlated with the Douglas and Sharpless observations, the telescopes from Earth, the discrepancy really became apparent.
	And it was obvious that Phobos is slowly spiraling in to where in the next 10 to 40 million years, I underscore 40 million years, it will crash onto the surface of Mars.
	Now the problem we have with this is that this means that the human race essentially is living in the last few ticks of the clock of the lifespan of a natural moon of the solar system, which is It just can't happen.
	Statistically, it just doesn't make sense.
	Unless, in our model, the technological civilization that came to Mars and put down the stuff at Sidoni and other places we see, also gently moved a couple of asteroids from the belt into orbit around Mars to furnish them the raw materials to provide the stuff on the surface that was needed.
	And in that case, if you put the numbers in, it turns out that the rate of deceleration of Phobos The spiraling in due to tidal effects gives us a date when all that happened of about 200,000 years ago, which of course coincides beautifully with a number of other dates for when Cydonia died.
	All right, first time caller line, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Turn my radio down.
	Yes, turn it down, please.
	Mr. Hoagland.
	Where are you, sir?
	This is Jim in PAX country.
	Yes, Jim.
	I'd like to ask a question that you've asked Mr. Hoagland.
	Three or four times on various shows that he's never, ever answered.
	All right.
	And that is, can the structures on the dome be picked up from the Hubble telescope?
	Well, no, it's not that I have an answer.
	What I've said is that when we asked NASA, when one of our members wrote a letter officially to the Space Telescope Institute and asked NASA if they would turn Hubble toward the moon to look, they claimed in writing that the moon was too bright for Hubble to look at.
	Which is patently a lie.
	So that is untrue?
	It's untrue.
	It's false.
	Now, I have a book by Jason, who was the chief public astronomer for Hubble with SDI.
	Yes.
	At Harvard, called the Hubble Wars.
	And in the Hubble Wars, there are photographs taken of Hubble, taken by Hubble, looking down at the Pacific Ocean, at the clouds over the Pacific.
	Now, the clouds over the Pacific from 200 miles down are numerically, you can easily do the calculation, 10 to 100 times brighter than the lunar surface looking at the moon from Earth orbit.
	That would make sense.
	So, if they can take pictures of white clouds over the Pacific, which they do routinely, for what they call flat field frames.
	They can sure point at the moon.
	They can sure point at it so they blind to it.
	And we've caught them in the lie.
	It's not that I haven't answered the question, sir.
	It's that NASA, your friendly local space agency, taking your money, is not telling you the truth.
	Because they don't want to point at the moon.
	Of course not!
	They're not dummies!
	They know that if they started looking at the moon with Hubble, they'd see all kinds of things, and the people who were not bought, who were not part of the system, the honest people, would say, gee whiz, look at that!
	And the cat would be out of the bag.
	So they're not going to point Hubble at the moon unless we elegantly demand it.
	Why don't you get Dr. Mitchell?
	Use his influence to get Hubble to look at the moon, and we'll give you a set of interesting objects to look at.
	Well, that's another good question to ask.
	I'll never get all these in.
	Um, the cat is slowly climbing out of the bag, or maybe not so slowly, uh, anyway, Richard.
	Look, we're out of time.
	I'd like... Again?
	Yeah.
	Gosh, how time flies when you're getting older.
	Especially into your early 90s, huh?
	Um, give your website address again.
	Okay.
	Tonight, we have lunch.
	We have launched Commit for the Enterprise Mission at www.EnterpriseMission, one word, lowercase, dot com.
	Or to my website, www.artbell.com, and then jump right over to his, or from his to mine, there will be interlinks.
	There will be a link.
	You know, I'm sitting here holding a copy of a speech by John Kennedy I wanted to close tonight.
	Because I didn't realize this until very recently.
	People have asked me why we changed the name to the Enterprise Mission.
	Less than a minute.
	Did you know that John Kennedy, when he gave his joint address in the U.S.
	House and Senate in 1961, enunciating the Apollo mission, said the following, Now is the time to take longer strides.
	Time for a great new American enterprise.
	Time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth.
	He was enunciating that he believed that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.
	Richard, once again, it has been a distinct pleasure.
	Thank you, my friend.
	Happy birthday.
	We'll do it again, of course.
	I had warped back to 1.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Richard, say it.
	You get the honors tonight.
	Say goodnight, America.
	Say goodnight, America.

▲