O.J. Simpson attorney Prof. Gerald Ullman debunks myths in Lessons from the Trial, highlighting jurors’ untelevised walkthrough of Simpson’s house, where blood evidence inconsistencies (like white carpet stains) were noted, and dismissing claims of defense targeting jurors or Cochran’s "race card" argument as misplaced. He reveals the team abandoned Simpson’s stand testimony due to cross-examination risks, crediting his client’s intelligence and financial advantage—$6M in resources—for their victory, while criticizing Congress for defunding death penalty support post-verdict. The episode also pivots to Alaska’s 1996 wildfires, fueled by dry conditions and high winds, evacuating 2,000+ amid HAARP conspiracy theories, and touches on fringe topics like the Chupacabra, CIA remote viewing, and media censorship, framing systemic distrust in institutions as a recurring theme. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good morning, good evening, dependent on your time zone across all these many.
From the Tahitian and Hawaiian Island chains, eastward all the way over all the bots, flyover country, to the Caribbean and the U.S. Virgin Islands, south, into South America, north, to the pole worldwide.
On the internet, this is post-to-post a.m.
Oh, good morning, everybody.
USA Radio Network just reported milk and cookies are more harmful, more likely to give you cancer than second-hand smoke.
No melted cookies in all households obviously have got to go.
As promised, coming up here shortly, Professor Gerald Uhlman, who was OJ Simpson's attorney, one of them, and lessons his book, Lessons from the Trial, which I happen to think is a wonderful title.
And we'll get to all of that shortly.
unidentified
*Screams* It...
Coast of Coast AM is happy to announce that our website is now optimized for mobile device users, specifically for the iPhone and Android platforms.
Now you'll be able to connect to most of the offerings of the Coast website on your phone in a quick and streamlined fashion.
And if you're a Coast Insider, you'll have our great subscriber features right on your phone, including the ability to listen to live programs and stream previous shows.
No special app is necessary to enjoy our new mobile site.
Simply visit CoastToCoastAM.com on your iPhone or Android browser.
Looking for the truth?
You'll find it on Coast2Coast AM with George Norrie.
There seems to be a deadline in their brains, and they need to get this done.
unidentified
They know their whole New World Order is inches from going up in flames.
So they're afraid of the awakening and they know that their collapse is about to take place because we've been asleep at the switch and we've let incredibly corrupt interests take control of our society.
Now we take you back to the night of June 6th, 1996, on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Law professor Gerald Ullman, Professor Ullman, was preparing for sabbatical back on the 16th of June, about a day before my birthday in 1994, and three days after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
He got a call from Robert Shapiro and said, how about it?
And I guess he said, okay.
Professor Ullman was at the epicenter of the trial of the century.
His position on Simpson's legal dream team, unique.
Not only an advocate for his client, but also a teacher and a scholar.
And he is with us this morning or this evening, depending on your time zone.
In other words, I presume that you've reviewed the television coverage, and I'll tell you up front, I was a junkie.
I was there every single day.
I rearranged my sleep patterns to see that trial.
And I wonder if what we saw on television was even a close, accurate representation of what went on.
unidentified
Well, it was close enough to create the impression that we were seeing everything the jury saw.
And I think that's one reason so many people are ready to say, well, I saw the same thing the jury saw, and I came to a different conclusion and reject the verdict of the jury.
But it was an illusion.
You really did not see the trial that the jury saw, believe me.
I can offer just one example of that.
We were all really struck by how the jury was impressed by the view they made of the premises, which was not, of course, televised.
How when the jurors walked into O.J.'s house and saw that the stairway leading up to the second floor and back to his bedroom was covered with white carpet, and you could just see them almost thinking, well, how could somebody drenched in blood make their way from this door up to that bedroom without leaving a drop of blood on the carpet?
And lots of little things like that nuances that you just can't pick up from watching the case on television.
How do you answer the charges that some jurors were intentionally targeted and eliminated, the famous letter and so forth, that resulted in Judge Ito dismissing a juror who might have held out for conviction?
unidentified
Well, we were actually concerned from the opposite standpoint, that we were losing jurors who we thought would favor acquittal.
And the question of whether jurors were targeted is a question that was raised by the defense, actually, in the midst of the trial.
The one juror whose dismissal has been questioned after the trial was actually dismissed for lying to the judge in an investigation he conducted in the middle of the trial.
So frankly, I'm really surprised at how much credibility people are putting in her story of how she would have voted and why she was excused.
I think we tend to grasp at straws that support what we want to believe.
unidentified
You know, there's a lot of truth to that, that people have come to a conclusion and they tend to emphasize the portions of the case that support their conclusion.
I saw that a lot with the commentators.
It got so you could almost predict what spin they would put on the day's events once you knew how they wanted the case to come out.
I'll tell you frankly, in the beginning, I very much thought O.J. Simpson was guilty.
But when I watched the trial, and you got to the point where you had the motion to dismiss because of an alleged Fourth Amendment violation when investigators jumped offense and all the rest of it, I thought that was a very, very strong case.
And I said, you know, guilty or not, as I look at this, I think they've made their case there was a Fourth Amendment violation.
And to this day, I believe that.
unidentified
Well, you know, from a tactical standpoint, what that motion really revealed was the willingness of police officers to play games with the truth.
And once we had exposed that, I think it started creating doubts.
And ultimately, that's, I think, where the jury really had problems with this case.
It's not that they rejected the science of DNA.
They just rejected the messengers who brought the evidence into the courtroom and concluded that you really couldn't trust what they were being told by the LAPD.
So that planted the seed that resulted in the, you think, in the dismissal in their minds of the DNA evidence, which did really seem quite compelling.
unidentified
Well, it was compelling only if you actually believed that each exhibit came from the source that they said it came from, that there had been no contamination, no mixing up of swatches, you know, that everything had been done by the book.
And it was pretty clear, I think, especially with the suspicions raised about the blood that was found on the sock and on the back gate.
Professor, if you had to do all over again from the day you got the call from Robert Shapiro, would you do it all over again?
unidentified
You bet.
I wouldn't hesitate for a moment.
As a defense lawyer, you know going in that people will regard you as some sort of sleaze and you'll have to put up with a lot of the dislike of your client.
It always rubs off on the lawyer.
But as a law professor, I realized going in that this is a case we're going to talk about for the next 20 years.
That's true.
Every issue that we talk about in courses, in criminal law, criminal procedure, evidence, they were all litigated in this case.
So it's going to be a wonderful teaching tool, and to have been right in the middle of it just gave me a fantastic perspective.
Toward that end, was there any precedent, legal precedent established, do you think, in that trial?
unidentified
Well, you know, precedent is established when an appellate court writes an opinion that will be followed by future courts.
So from the standpoint of the technical meaning of precedent, no.
But from the standpoint of how this case will affect the behavior of participants in the criminal justice system in the future, I think it's going to have enormous impact.
And some of the impact will truly be positive.
I mean, we have seen a real increase in the Number of police laboratories seeking accreditation.
I think police are going to do a better job of training their personnel, and especially as we're kind of on the verge of this new technology of DNA that's going to really have tremendous impact on the future of criminal justice.
So it was really good, I think, for everyone to get a wake-up call and realize if you're going to use this technology, you've got to gear up so that you can do it right.
Can you discuss, well, are you representing O.J. Simpson in any way in the civil matter that's presently underway, wrongful deathsuit?
unidentified
Well, all the lawyers, I think, are being consulted from time to time as the lawyers handling the civil case prepare it.
But my direct involvement has been limited to arguing one motion, and that was the challenge to the punitive damages aspect of the civil case as double jeopardy.
Well, I'm going to try a question on you, and maybe you can and can't answer it.
NBC, it was, several days ago, reported that in deposition Marcus Allen said that O.J. had called him and asked him to lie for him in suggesting that Marcus had had an affair with Nicole and that O.J. was trying to show that, in fact, he was not wildly jealous and had hosted Marcus's wedding and all the rest of it.
Marcus denied all this and said O.J. lied.
unidentified
Well, I think we'll have to see who's lying about that.
You have to bear in mind that there's lots of motivation to conceal the relationship, if it existed, on Marcus Allen's part, too.
Marcus was a very, very reluctant witness.
He fought the subpoena when he was subpoenaed at trial.
So we'll see how that all shakes out.
I would be very careful about what stock you put into these leaks of what's coming out of the depositions.
It's really a replay of what happened at the trial where the plaintiffs' lawyers have motives in terms of trying to shape public opinion by leaking selected portions of the evidence without the whole thing coming out.
And that's what was going on prior to the criminal trial with the LAPD leaking a lot of information.
Speaking of reluctance, did your defense team have a terrible time trying to get witnesses to testify because of the public nature of this whole thing?
A lot of reluctance?
unidentified
That's one reason I ultimately concluded that the television cameras were a mistake.
It really affected the willingness of witnesses to come in and testify for fear of the notoriety that would accompany their testimony.
And other witnesses testified like they were doing a gig.
I think when the cameras start to have that impact on what actually is going on in the courtroom, that's the time the cameras should be put out.
Well, we've got court TV, but I've noticed in a lot of high-profile cases since, judges have chosen to not allow TV cameras in.
Is that a trend that will continue?
unidentified
It's certainly a trend up until now, although I think the reluctance may wear off.
And in most cases, there's no reason to be concerned.
I think it's only a case that attracts this degree of attention that the cameras become like gasoline on a fire and really just exacerbate the problem.
All right, here's a question I've always wanted to ask somebody of your caliber, and that is, if I were accused of a murder and I retained you as an attorney to represent me, and at some point, perhaps midway through, you either discovered or I told you that I was guilty, what kind of pressure and ethical dilemma does that bring to bear on you?
Have you ever had to face that without discussing any specific case?
unidentified
Well, I think most criminal lawyers have faced similar kinds of problems.
The limitation that knowing your client is guilty puts on you is you cannot participate in the knowing presentation of perjured evidence.
So at that point you couldn't put your client on the stand to lie about it and say, I didn't do it when he had told you that he did do it.
And it may put some limits on what kind of other evidence you can present.
That never became a problem in the Simpson case.
O.J. insisted on his innocence with all of his lawyers at all times throughout the proceedings.
And we never really had any reason to doubt his denials.
How close did the defense team come to putting O.J. Simpson on the stand?
unidentified
Well, if you listened carefully to Johnny Cochran's opening statement, you would have bet money that O.J. was going to testify.
And that was certainly our intention at the time.
As the case developed, we realized we were succeeding in focusing the jury's attention on June 11th, on June 12th, and away from all of the 17-year prior relationship.
And that's where the prosecution wanted to focus the jury's attention.
I mean, they started out and they never let up on the attempt to kind of demonize Simpson as a wife-batterer and to kind of keep the case in that posture.
In fact, the rumors flew that he had kind of a rehearsal, and I'm sure you would do that sort of thing, and that it went poorly, and that was part of what factored into your deciding not to put him on the stand.
Truth, truth or not?
unidentified
Well, I think the rumor is inaccurate in reporting that he did poorly.
Actually, he did quite well.
But I think it helped us persuade him as to what the prosecutors would do with the cross-examination because he realized the extent to which they would bear down on the prior relationship.
Listen, there was a big brouhaha over the use of the so-called race card, and it was said that Robert Shiro got very upset, nearly left the team as a result of it.
Any truth to that?
Is that something you can talk about or want to talk about or don't?
unidentified
Well, there was never really any explosive blow-up within the team.
I think that all happened after the trial was over.
And I think Bob stands alone on that issue.
I certainly disagree in terms of the criticism of Cochran's closing argument.
I thought the argument was right on point, and what was being played was not a race card.
It was a credibility card, that the racial attitudes of Detective Fuhrm were an issue that had to be confronted, it had to be talked about, it had to be squarely faced.
The burden of proof in a civil trial is quite a bit less.
Do you have any predictions regarding the outcome of that ongoing?
unidentified
Well, you know, despite the fact that they will not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and they will not have to convince all of the jurors even, because in California, a civil verdict can be returned by nine of the 12 jurors, I think that the probability is that the case will come out the same, because there's one big difference on the defense side, and that is that O.J. will testify.
And I think his testimony will be quite credible and quite persuasive.
What mistakes did the main mistakes you think the prosecution made?
unidentified
Well, I think that the primary weakness on the prosecution side was an arrogance about the case that they were presenting in terms of really not anticipating its weaknesses, not digging deep enough to expose the potential problems they were going to run into, especially with Detective Fuhrman.
There were plenty of warning signs and signals to them that this is a witness who could blow up in their face.
And when that happened, I think they were completely blindsided because they hadn't done the work that they should have done to investigate his background in advance.
And how important a factor was that, the demonstration in court of the glove not fitting and all the rest of it?
People called up and complained bitterly on the radio here and everywhere else that it was an inaccurate demonstration that the whole glove thing was a farce.
And how do you respond to that?
unidentified
Well, I think the whole thing has been overemphasized from the perspective of the jurors who have commented since the verdict.
They really didn't see the glove experiment as pivotal.
You know, the line that I contributed to Johnny Cochran's closing argument, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Actually, Cochrane's closing argument was a wonderful, like a symphony pulling together a lot of suggestions from all of the lawyers.
And that's the way Johnny works.
And he's very good about acknowledging the help that other people have given.
That line came to me more from the jury instructions than from the glove experiment, although I thought it was a wonderful way to kind of reprise the glove experiment as well.
But the real gist of it is that the most important instruction the jury was given on circumstantial evidence told them that they have to put all the pieces of the circumstantial evidence together, and if it points to either guilt or innocence, they must go with the interpretation that points to innocence.
In other words, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
And it really summed up the whole approach that we took in the closing argument in terms of the circumstantial evidence.
The attorneys on your side were so very different.
You took a very quiet, academic approach.
Shapiro, Bailey, very different.
Barry Chuck, yet different again.
Johnny Cochrane, yet different again.
It is amazing to me that the defense team, with such differences in style, held together so well, seemingly.
unidentified
Well, you know, the difference in style in part reflected the different roles that were assigned to everyone.
I never addressed the jury.
My role entirely was to write the motions and argue the motions with respect to what evidence would be admitted and kept out and to prepare the jury instructions and argue those.
So, you know, the approach I took was the one that I believed would be most persuasive with the judge.
Whereas Cochran and Scheck had the task of persuading the jurors and getting them to come together to be of one mind.
And I thought the coordination of their closing argument was really the high point in terms of the team working together.
I thought that between the two of them, they really captured the hearts and minds of the jurors.
I thought we won the case in the closing argument.
You know, I, in the book, give Judge Ito an A-plus for the jury selection.
I thought he handled jury selection in a way that where all of the jurors virtually had been exposed to pretrial publicity, the lawyers were given enough opportunity on Voadir and through the questionnaire that was administered to really probe the jurors and be satisfied that they would be able to put aside what they had been exposed to prior to trial.
But it's interesting that that's the one aspect of the trial that was not televised.
And it's almost as though Judge Ito performed best when the camera was not on.
In fact, for me as a viewer, my heart skipped a beat when the day he was prepared to throw television cameras out and, in fact, really had done so, and then reversed himself.
Why do you think he did that?
unidentified
Well, actually, the arguments in favor of keeping the cameras at that point were quite persuasive arguments.
I thought the lawyers representing the media did a wonderful job of really stressing the level of public interest and public concern with this case.
Ultimately, though, I think the cameras were a mistake, but I have to admit we had some benefits from the camera, too.
People tend to overlook the fact that but for the television cameras, there's testimony and witnesses that never would have been found in this case.
The best example of that from the defense side is Kathleen Bell, a key witness in impeaching Detective Fuhrman, who recognized him when he was testifying on television and said, hey, that's the same cop I heard making all those racist comments five years ago.
Most recently with Chris Darden, who was on with Howard Stern and sort of actively not denying an allegation that he had had a relationship with Marshall Clark, an intimate relationship with Marsh Clark, and laughing it off and suggesting that it, well, yeah, it might have happened.
What would you say about the professional level of two prosecutors who would become personally involved during the CrossFit case?
unidentified
Well, frankly, I don't even want to comment on that.
Yeah, I teach at a law school, and I practice law as well.
Okay.
Regarding the blood spot they found on the gate, you know, where they say that O.J., whenever he was walking off from the murder, they said they found the bloodstain there.
Right.
How many weeks, how many days did it take to find that blood drop?
And was it contaminated with that, what do they call it, EB something?
EDTA.
EDTA.
Yes.
That blood was removed from the gate three weeks after the murder, after the crime scene had been washed down.
And what's most interesting is that The concentration of DNA in that blood spot was higher than any other blood sample that they found.
And of course it is, is justice equal in America in the sense that O.J. Simpson was able to get you and many others, Professor, because he had the money?
unidentified
Yeah, there's no question but that the resources that he had gave him a significant advantage.
If someone is indigent and accused of a crime of this nature, of course, they can come to the court and say, please appoint an expert to assist in my defense.
And they'll get a DNA expert, but it'll be halfway to trial before they see that expert.
And I think the real advantage we had with so many lawyers was being able to get this case prepared for trial very quickly and get our experts on board very early in the proceedings.
Was he, in effect, able to purchase reasonable doubt?
Is that unfair?
unidentified
Yeah, I think it's unfair.
I think we would have had the same outcome, but it just would have taken a lot longer to get there.
What worries me is that if we have to admit that money makes a difference, and I think we do, then we have to admit that lack of money makes a difference.
And I'm more concerned about the injustice that occurs when we don't provide a defendant with the necessary resources.
Within weeks after this verdict came down, Congress voted to defund 20 death penalty resource centers throughout the country.
And these centers were just doing marvelous work of raising the level of competence of representation for indigents who were on trial for their life.
And in effect, Congress is saying we don't want to spend the money that it takes to ensure that those on trial for their life are well represented.
And to me, that's just incongruous when everybody says, oh, look at the difference that money made in this case.
Professor, while we're going down this road, there is presently a death row inmate, and I'm sure you're up on this, who has been, I think, appealing since about 1986 or 2007.
And, of course, the President, as part of the anti-terrorism bill, signed a new law limiting appeals to one and then a quick review by a three-judge panel to stop frivolous appeals after that.
He is challenging that whole thing, claiming it's unconstitutional to limit appeals, and it's going to go to the U.S. Supreme Court where there is going to be, possibly, a constitutional crisis.
And I guess the issue is, can the U.S. Supreme Court be told by Congress what cases it can and cannot hear?
Is this going to be a crisis?
unidentified
Well, lawfully, Congress does have that power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear appeals.
And the real question that's coming up is the application of this law to cases that were in the pipeline before the law went into effect, kind of the retroactive impact of the law.
So this law will certainly have significant impact on future cases.
And there are lots of examples of cases where people have been on death row for years before the evidence was finally found to exonerate them and show their innocence.
We just had an example of that in Illinois this past year, the case of Rolando Cruz, who spent 10 years on death row before they were able to establish that it was police perjury that put him there.
And through DNA tests, established that someone who confessed to the murder eight years ago actually committed it.
And the police had spent the last eight years trying to discredit that confession.
Well, I like to write, and this was a great opportunity to put it to what I hope is a useful function of helping people understand what really went on in this case.
Was the O.J. Simpson case, Professor, the highlight of your career?
unidentified
Well, from the standpoint of being a law professor, the opportunity to be right in the middle of a case that we're going to talk about for the next 25 years just about has to be, I guess, huh?
Continuing now and moving into open lines in a moment.
This is Coast to Coast A.M. We just did one hour with Gerald Bowman, Professor, O.J. Simpson's attorney, one of O.J. Simpson's attorneys, and I've always wanted to do that, always wanted to talk to that man.
Now I have.
All right, let's cover a few topics.
And there's not a whole lot in the news, so we're going to let it kind of sort of drift this morning.
We've got a guest coming up Friday night, Saturday morning, who I think you're really, really going to enjoy.
And that would be Dr. Pepsi Togar, who interprets dreams, and not in a way that you've heard before.
If you didn't catch Dreamland, I think you'll enjoy Friday night, Saturday morning.
The doctor is very different in what you think a dream means.
Well, I'll tell you what, it doesn't.
You'll find out.
Alaska.
We have a lot of coverage of Alaska.
As a matter of fact, like a blanket, we cover Alaska.
And there's a big fire up there right now, 60 miles north of Anchorage.
It really is a big fire.
And reinforcements are being called in.
150 homes have been destroyed up there.
37,000 acres have been consumed.
1,000 people have been evacuated.
And guess what?
Investigators tonight are saying they believe fireworks began the blaze.
Interesting.
Now that issue for a second aside, isn't it a bit early for such dry conditions in Alaska?
Now, I would think that the water from the melt would still be keeping things fairly green and moist.
And so I'm very surprised that Alaska is having this much difficulty this early.
I watched a movie earlier today about Alaska, which I thought was very good.
And I'm trying desperately to remember the name of it.
It was The Blue Arctic or something like that.
and it was uh...
it was quite well done it was about I guess it was in a way, a sort of a murder mystery drama type thing that took place way outside Fairbanks.
And at one point in the movie, they actually had KFAR and Fairbanks mentioned in the movie, I suppose, out in the bush, way outside Fairbanks.
KFAR is about the only thing you can hear.
That was the setting of the movie, someplace outside Fairbanks.
And it was really a well-done movie.
I'm going to have to go into the other room and dig out the name of that movie for you.
I think a lot of you in Alaska would be interested.
A lot of you not in Alaska would be interested.
Alaska, as you know, is a very, very different kind of place.
And this movie was not your normal murder mystery.
It addressed the kind of people that live in Fairbanks and outside Fairbanks and way outside Fairbanks.
And it's a very different kind of world that if you have never lived there.
Well, it's kind of like The Last Frontier.
It was absolutely fascinating.
Now, there's a big Medicare fight going on.
As you know, the trustees of Medicare opened their books yesterday, and they said, gee, guess what?
Medicare is going to go Broke by the year 2001.
That's a year earlier than they previously thought.
Unless the politicians do something to fix it, the rapid growth must be cut.
Republicans say the president vetoed the balanced budget amendment that would have fixed it for a few years.
The Democrats say the Republicans rejected fixes that both sides had previously agreed about.
In other words, both sides aren't really doing a damn thing.
Both sides do not want this as a campaign issue.
Both sides know the long-term problem for Medicare is actually insoluble, and they won't even talk about that.
They will, no doubt, eventually talk about a short-term fix because they're going to have to.
But long-term, it's like our debt.
It may be past the point of no return, and they know it.
They know it.
There are 37 million people on Medicare in America today.
That's one in eight over 65 years of age in our country.
And by the year 2030, one in five will be over 65.
And instead of 37 million, there will be 70 million on Medicare.
And it'll be far past broke.
So the problem, you see, is insoluble.
And both sides, they're not even going to talk about it.
They don't want it as a campaign issue because then they would have to talk about what's really coming.
So as far as I am concerned, both sides, Democrats and Republicans, in varying degrees perhaps, are being dishonest, lying to the American people, lying by omission.
If the real truth is this program and all the others are going to be consumed by the increasing interest on the debt, and that is what's going to occur, as well as their own burgeoning costs, then that's what they ought to tell the American people.
But the American people don't want to hear that.
They don't want to hear it.
Did you know that one-third of the $200 billion Medicare money every year is spent in the last year of life?
The last year of life.
And one half of that amount, one half of that amount is spent in the last 10 days of life.
The last 10 days.
With exotic machines that keep you breathing, keep your heart beating.
Even though your brain is never going to recover, they keep it going at great cost.
Maybe somebody ought to start talking about that.
What do you think?
So I'm presently sort of disgusted very nearly equally with both sides on this issue.
I wonder how you feel about it.
FBI and a member of the anti-government, Freeman, have held the first face-to-face talks between the two sides in more than two weeks.
The get-together occurred Wednesday night away from the compound, where members of the separatist group have been holed up since late March.
A man identified by neighbors as Edwin Clark met with federal agents at a church about a mile from the ranch, which is being used by the FBI as a field post.
Session lasted just about two hours.
No word on what was said.
Afterward, Clark was driven back to the Freeman compound by his wife, who then get this, left the ranch by herself.
More stories on the Chupacabra.
Every day.
More stories.
The Orange County Register.
Mythical chupacabra instills fear.
Some claim to have seen the monster now in Santa Ana.
Santa Ana?
Chupacabra in Santa Ana?
Now, how would the chupacabra make its way through a densely populated area like Santa Ana without being photographed, printed, identified?
And you just wouldn't think Los Angeles area would be a good place for any chupacabra to hide.
But I suppose that it could get out into the hills and not be spotted.
I don't know.
But every day, a new and major newspaper is reporting on the Chupacabra.
unidentified
Chupacabra.
Looking for the truth?
You'll find it on Coast to Coast AM with George Norrie.
I think now, as we look back, we can probably say with pretty good certainty that some people in government might have been aware of what was going on and they turned their cheek the other way just to let it happen.
I also believe that some bigger groups got involved with al-Qaeda to do what they did on that horrible day.
This wasn't just a small group of people who came in and did their thing.
There was a much bigger picture there.
And if you see the events that have unfolded since this tragedy occurred, how we've lost rights, how we used it to go in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how it has really not stopped.
Because it's going to continue.
We're going to have more and more episodes and more and more involvement in other countries.
And just mark my word, this planet is going through an incredible change.
And thank God we've got you here to talk with us about it.
unidentified
Coast of Coast AM is happy to announce that our website is now optimized for mobile device users, specifically for the iPhone and Android platforms.
Now you'll be able to connect to most of the offerings of the Coast website on your phone in a quick and streamlined fashion.
And if you're a Coast Insider, you'll have our great subscriber features right on your phone, including the ability to listen to live programs and stream previous shows.
No special app is necessary to enjoy our new mobile site.
Simply visit CoastToCoastAM.com on your iPhone or Android browser.
Streamlink, the audio subscription service of Coast2Coast AM has a new name, Coast Insider.
You'll still get all the same great features for the same low price, just 15 cents a day when you sign up for one year.
The package includes podcasting, which offers the convenience of having shows downloaded automatically to your computer or MP3 player, and the iPhone app with live and on-demand programs.
You'll also get our amazing download library of three full years of shows.
Just think, as a new subscriber, over 1,000 shows will be available for you to collect, enjoy, and listen to at your leisure.
Plus, you'll get streamed and on-demand broadcasts of Art Bell's Somewhere in Time shows and two weekly classics.
And as a member, you'll have access to our monthly live chat sessions with George Norrie and special guests.
If you're a fan of Coast, you won't want to be without Coast Insider.
Visit Coast2CoastAM.com to sign up today.
Now we take you back to the night of June 6th, 1996, on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
I have received more email, more faxes on the Demon Seed.
The Demon Seed, so-called, nicknamed, we've got to nickname everything it seems, comes or is on its way from the Seattle area.
Bill grew this horrible thing in his yard.
He had to finally hack at it with a hacksaw and even now doesn't have it under control, claims it is Darnier contacted authorities, was going to contact me.
I requested him to, but he doesn't want to be on the air, and I don't blame him.
This thing was consuming his yard, threatening to consume him, I guess.
Grew some horrible, ugly meat.
Meat, mind you.
So he's sending me the seeds.
Why me?
I have no idea why me.
I guess it's just my lot in life, whether it's Roswell Parts, a legend, or demon seeds.
As I said yesterday, I fully expect to go to the post office and see some sort of cage there with a full chupacabra banging back and forth waiting for me.
Dear Art, I have only been in the Washington State area for a couple of months, but I tuned into your radio broadcast recently, heard the disturbing news of the gentleman who found some mystery seeds in his grandfather's lead-lined lock box.
I'm writing to warn you not to plant them.
Although I've not been in the area for long, I have in the past been employed at a facility similar to the Hanford nuclear plant, and I am aware of ongoing secret research into genetic cloning and radioactive isotope flora experimentation.
This is taking place at this very moment in nuclear facilities in the Midwest, and I've heard rumors of the same here in Washington.
For ethical reasons, I had to terminate my previous employment.
I'm now living incognito here in the great Northwest.
Arn, from what I've heard on your radio program, you seem to be a reasonable man.
I beg of you, for God's sakes, don't plant this foul Frankenstein offspring.
If you have any concern for your fellow man, if you have an ounce of care for the environment and the posterity of future generations, if you have even one shred of decency as a human being, then I appeal to your conscience now.
I will be contacting you in the near future with documentation that will prove the existence of these horrible, mutant, bastard bean plants.
God.
Although the researchers involved have the fine goal of feeding starving humanity through scientific advances at heart, nevertheless, they have opened up Pandora's box.
It's a box of horrors, the likes of which Bill has described in his backyard is only the beginning.
I hope it's not too late, Art.
Destroy the killer seeds with fire immediately.
Don't breathe the fumes.
You'll be hearing from me soon, signed, Worried, in Seattle.
And then to give a little credibility to this whole subject, hello, Art.
About a week ago, I watched a show on animals of the occult on the Discovery Channel.
Guess what?
They covered several animals that have been admired by several cultures over the centuries, bats, beetles, snakes, etc.
At one point, they discussed a couple of plants within the topic.
One was a plant with a large, hideous flower that smelled like rotten meat.
The plant was used in order to attract flies.
The flies, then in turn, would transfer pollen from plant to plant.
Well, I guess they do.
I always thought that was the job of bees.
In one of God's unusual miracles, I guess, since this aired before you received your facts about the seeds, I really didn't pay close enough attention to get the name of the plant.
But there's got to be someone out there who has it.
And it goes on and on and on.
An email, Art, I must also express my opinion as to your course of action regarding meat seeds, which are now winging their way into your sweaty and hesitant palms.
I say don't plant them.
At least not now, anyway, considering what Dames and others have said is in our future.
I think you should save the seeds for a time when other less hardy plants are unable to survive the harsh environmental conditions.
You will then be known and remembered as the person who saved humanity from starvation and extinction.
In the great tradition of Johnny Appleseed, the name Arthur Demonseed Bell will live on in the legends of our descendants.
The teenager, whose name, of course, will not be released until he is charged as an adult later this week, had been hiding in neighboring Livingston Parish since the infant was attacked eight days ago.
According to Kelly, the victim's mother left the baby with her two young sisters and two neighborhood children, including this 16-year-old while running errands.
When she returned, the infant was bleeding heavily, had bruises on her face and back.
The child was taken to a hospital, then transferred to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center for Surgery.
Pediatric surgeon, Dr. Faith Hansborough, said the baby suffered a very serious degree of physical trauma from the sexual abuse.
Quote, this is the worst case I've ever seen since I've been practicing.
If convicted as an adult, by the way, the teenager could be sentenced to death.
Now, you know, I don't even, I don't, I don't like these stories, and I don't know what to do with them except to add them up and sort of just want them in with everything else that seems to be going on.
Our society is in serious moral and ethical decline.
It is what I choose to call the quickening.
I'll let you speculate about where it's going, why it is.
I don't know.
I truly don't know.
I just know that it is occurring, and that if we don't do something about it, it is going to get us in one of many ways.
And I can't tell you what.
You know, I am not a prophet.
I can't tell you that the jet stream is going to come down and visit us with 300 mile per hour winds or California is going to fall off into the ocean.
And I just, I'm not a prophet, even though I interview people who say that kind of thing.
I don't know that kind of stuff to be true.
It may be.
What I do know is that I observe by the day that things are worsening.
Our social interactions, our racism, our hatreds, they're all on the increase.
And I'm telling you, this is headed towards something.
You know me in religion, a believer, but still a little skeptical and unsure of a path there.
So I don't predict that it's the final days and Christ is going to be coming back shortly.
I don't know.
I just know there is something going on.
It's headed somewhere, and we better do something because it won't be long.
unidentified
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
Coast to Coast AM from June
6th, 1996.
Coast to Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
Coast to Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time, tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
Art, I'm working late, but lost out of frustration facts this message.
Your guest, meaning Professor Owens, is the best example I've heard of a detached, cold, heartless, lost soul.
He's found not only the nerve to be part of a defense of a very sick killer, but has seen his way clear to profit from the death of Simpson's wife.
To him I'd say spend the blood money from your book, knowing you will be ultimately judged for defending this monster PSR.
You've reached a new low in having this creep as a guest.
That's from somebody named Dexter, not of the flowers.
Well, you know, I'll have anybody as a guest, and besides that, I don't feel that way about Professor Oman at all.
As a matter of fact, I was kind of a fan.
I thought that his motions were filed articulately, academically, well-argued, and I respect the man greatly.
And that has nothing to do with what I think about the guilt or innocence of O.J. Simpson.
I very much respect the man.
I think he's a scholar, and I'm very proud to have had him on the show.
So reaching a new low, I don't think so.
As you must have learned by now from listening to this program, I do all kinds of interviews on all kinds of subjects, and I don't limit myself or this program to any particular road.
As a matter of fact, more than ever, lately I've been disgusted, absolutely disgusted, with politics, and this whole Medicare thing is right at the top of the list.
As far as I'm concerned, both sides are lying to the American people, flat-out lying.
And I can't get into a debate about the minutia of political, meaningless crap.
And as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is with regard to political issues for the campaign right now.
It's minutia and crap.
I'm sorry.
But if you look downline a little bit, there is no solution to the Medicare problem, none at all.
And both sides are not going to talk about it.
So as far as I'm concerned, pots on both their houses, you know.
And that's just the way I feel about politics right now.
I go back and forth and back and forth.
When I see a real issue, I'll sit here and fight it out like anybody else.
But I don't see any real issue right now.
I see rhetoric.
I see the re-election of Bill Clinton.
I don't think Bob Dole's going to beat him.
And now that will bring facts to saying, oh, stop saying that, Art.
It's what I think.
If that changes, I'll let you know.
Right now, the way I see it, Bob Dole is a wonderful guy.
It's when people who are very good in a job and as a minority and then majority leader, he was very good, rise to a position for which they're not qualified.
And that is not that he would not be qualified to be president, but that he's not qualified to campaign against Bill Clinton.
Clinton's going to beat him.
And we're going to have, it may be a terrible whooping, in my opinion.
One that would bring a majority of Democrats back to the Senate, maybe even the House.
And you try and figure another four years with Bill Clinton.
So that's my opinion.
And as far as the political campaign goes so far, totally uninterested.
And I'm not going to sit here and sponsor a meaningless argument.
You know, I'm sure there's big discussions going on elsewhere about Medicare and ooh, our plan is better and our plan is better.
They both stink.
And both of them are lying to us by omission.
Medicare is going to go broke.
We're going to go broke, period.
And they're not even talking about that.
At least when we had the Texan in the race, we had a little bit of honesty injected about what was coming.
Now that's all forgotten, and they're going to argue meaningless minutia.
Arctic Blue.
That was the name of the movie I saw earlier today.
Arctic Blue.
Has anybody seen that?
God, that was a good movie.
It was about Alaska, and it was about, it was sort of a murder mystery, but it was about the people who live in the bush outside Fairbanks.
And I would like to hear from some of you up in Fairbanks.
Was that a fair representation of what it's like once you get away from the big city in Fairbanks?
Which really isn't a very big city in the sense that it's still kind of a frontier location itself.
But what about once you get out in the bush?
And I've received this with respect to Alaska as well.
Art need help on the fire thing.
Live between Wasilla and Big Lake.
Alaska, fire's out of control.
It's from Jim.
He said, my home and my friends are in trouble right now.
So I would like to hear from you, any of you up in that particular area or any of you up in the Fairbanks area and kind of try to get an idea of whether what was depicted in Arctic Blue.
That was a good movie.
I forget.
It may have been on Cinemax 2 or something like that.
Check your TV guide.
See if you can catch it.
So if you're up in Alaska in one of the two locations, give me a call on our West of the Rockies line right now at 1-800-618-8255.
Would everybody else on that line for just a little bit hold off?
I really would like to hear from Alaska.
I don't know why I'm suddenly obsessing on Alaska, the fire, I guess, in the movie earlier today.
So I'd like to hear from Alaska.
Everybody else, just hold off a little bit.
Let Alaska get through, if you would, please.
Let us get a few reports from the fire area.
It's horrible.
It's horrible.
And somebody else wrote and said there just wasn't enough snow.
And this is June, early June.
What's it going to be like in August?
Early September?
Awful.
Really awful.
So, Alaska, please.
1-800-618-8255.
And it was, again, it was kind of heartening to hear in the movie Arctic Blue, the only station heard way outside of Fairbanks was KFAR.
Well, to be fair to them, though, they were fooled.
They actually thought they had it under control, and then suddenly the wind came up.
unidentified
Well, see, the wind was already out there, and anybody with brains that's lived up here long enough can tell our humidity has even been crazier than it's normal.
I mean, it just has not been regular weather.
And I don't know right now if my home, my Justice Cedar home, the only thing I have of over 20 years of marriage, is destroyed or not because nobody's allowed back in there.
I want to hold that line for Alaska for a bit here.
I think we're having a change in weather, folks.
I really do.
And I had a report the other day, prior to the discussion with Major Dames, a USGS person, suggested that there really is a change in the weather, that we are not experiencing just a cyclical upturn or downturn or however you want to look at it with the weather, that there really is a basic change.
And I think each new season brings more credibility to that argument.
I think we're having a weather change.
Something is drastically changing.
unidentified
Looking for the truth?
You'll find it on Coast2Coast AM with George Norrie.
I think now, as we look back, we can probably say with pretty good certainty that some people in government might have been aware of what was going on and they turned their cheek the other way just to let it happen.
I also believe that some bigger groups got involved with al-Qaeda to do what they did on that horrible day.
This wasn't just a small group of people who came in and did their thing.
There was a much bigger picture there.
And if you see the events that have unfolded since this tragedy occurred, how we've lost rights, how we used it to go in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how it has really not stopped.
Because it's going to continue.
We're going to have more and more episodes and more and more involvements in other countries.
And just mark my word, this planet is going through an incredible change.
And thank God we've got you here to talk with us about it.
unidentified
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time, on Premier Radio Networks.
Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
If Whitewater gets anybody, it's going to get Mrs. Clinton.
unidentified
Yeah, yeah.
As a matter of fact, the Journal did a piece today called Non-Denial Pardon.
And I was talking to my attorney today, and he said Clinton cannot afford to give the denial before the election, but he's probably, I mean, the pardon before the election, but he's probably talking to the McDougalls and Jim Guy Tucker right now saying, slow down, once I'm elected, I'll pardon you guys.
I don't believe the polls that support what I think and dismiss the polls that I don't agree with.
And that's what people tend to do.
They tend, as we were discussing with Professor Ullman, they tend to grasp and hold on to things that support their point of view, and they're not objective.
I think, objectively, that unless there is a really big smoking gun that is found, this president is going to be with us for another four years.
Once again, for about, I'm going to give it 30 more minutes, and we're going to hold the line open for Alaska only.
I'm particularly interested in hearing from the area where the fire is going on, one outside Anchorage, and from the Fairbanks area, or from anybody who's really out in the bush, because I just saw Arctic Blue.
Have any of you up there seen Arctic Blue?
Does that reflect reality in that area?
And as far as politics goes, I say it again.
This fight over the Medicare business is ridiculous and meaningless.
And as far as Bill Clinton is concerned, you know what's coming, and I do too.
unidentified
Four more years.
I say four more years coming your way.
We'll be right back.
You're listening to Arc Bell somewhere in time on Premiere Radio Networks tonight.
An encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 6, 1996.
I'm so excited.
And just say hi.
I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I want to.
I want to.
I know, I know, I know, I know, I know.
You're listening to our bell somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks tonight and on your presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
Well, you know, whether it does or does not have something to do with HARP, people are going to blame it on HAARP.
You can be damn sure of that.
I mean, weather control was part of what effect a lot of people believe HARP could have.
So even if it's not responsible, this really weird twist in the weather is definitely going to get blamed on HARP.
unidentified
Well, you know, and that's good.
I mean, blame or no blame, it's that the awareness that's coming about about HAARP, and you need to be really, really congratulated on all you've done to help that awareness get out because public knowledge of things that our government is having control over and the awareness is the only thing that's going to save us.
Well, I thank you, and our wishes and our prayers are with you.
Believe me, I know what your area is like.
Thank you.
I lived there.
I lived actually in Smenard, in Anchorage, and worked for the affiliate that now carries me there, K-E-N-I.
Alaska is a hard place to explain to people who have never lived there.
In fact, impossible.
Even watching Arctic Blue, which I thought was a really, really good movie.
Boy, what a sleeper that was.
Even that, although it gave you a hint of what Alaska is about, you just cannot imagine what this state is like until you have been there.
The wilderness, the majestic, incredible vistas of it's just an amazing place, and I can't find the words to really explain it to you except that I was there, so I know about it.
And to imagine an out-of-control wildfire in Alaska this early in the year is scary.
Reno, we're holding this line, sir, open for Alaska, but I appreciate the call.
Until about the bottom of the hour, we're holding the West of the Rockies toll-free line open for the state of Alaska, particularly in the fire-affected areas.
it's a horrible thing going on up there right now.
unidentified
Now we take you back to the night of June 6th, 1996, on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
You know, when last week when your wife had that attack, and they had to put a different radio, a tape program on, do you think that you could put a program on that's a little bit older that maybe some of us haven't heard before?
You've had a lot of people comparing Bill Clinton with Ronald Reagan, saying how great Ronald Reagan is.
I have to say the difference between Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton is that Bill Clinton is the most fiscally responsible president we've ever had, and Ronald Reagan is the most irresponsible president on a fiscal level that we've ever had.
You conservatives in the 1980s built up this big, giant lie.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of young people out there who don't understand that, and a lot of people are falling for that.
Truth is, Ronald Reagan spent a great deal of money for six years of economic growth that the young people are going to have to pay for for generations to come.
Had we continued to go in the other direction, had the Carter plan for disassembly of the CIA and military continued, well then I'm sure the other side, instead of deciding to crumble, would have decided to face.
I'm in the intelligence field, and I can tell you that probably at least 12 years before the Soviet Union went down, you had the CIA saying that they had a few years left, and that was it.
Whether we spent money on the military or not, that's how it is.
And I think the elderly people who are listening to this program should keep one thing in mind.
When you press that lever for Bill Clinton or Bob Dole, think, is a Republican, and you know the record of Republicans, are they really interested in saving Medicare?
Are the Democrats, the Liberals, are they interested in saving Medicare?
Your future depends on it, and I think they're going to make the right decision and vote for the Democrats.
The chubacabra is, I believe, some sort of creature, and I don't know exactly what it is, but it has something, has killed about 2,000 animals.
And whatever you may hear or read, the truth of the matter is that there have been a number of autopsies done, many autopsies done on animals that have been killed by this creature.
The autopsies show the bite marks in the neck, typically on the outside, two large bite marks, and then on the inside, four marks.
The blood has been drained from these creatures.
The chupacabra is not a bat, and I don't want to get gross with you here, but bats bite necks and then lap up the blood.
They do not, as a vampire would, suck the blood.
This creature, this chupacabra, or whatever you want to call it, or imagine that it is, does that, or something out there is doing that.
It began with reports as far back as a couple of years ago in Puerto Rico, then began to be reported in South America, then Central America, now border states, including California, Arizona, Texas, and other areas.
So there is something to this.
How much there is to it, I don't know.
Somebody sent me what purports to be a photograph of a chupacabra.
It is the only one I know of.
It may be real.
It may be a fake.
I don't know.
It's on the webpage.
There have been drawings by eyewitnesses.
They too have been scoffed at by zoologists, as has my photograph.
I didn't take it.
If you want to see the drawings and the photograph of the chupacabra, which, by the way, are going to be published in our newsletter.
Otherwise, we get the photographs up on the internet.
But people that want prayer in their schools should really think about what they want.
Because what's going to happen when they get some little voodoo child in a classroom somewhere that wants to dance around and cut up chickens and stuff?
But if there's an area where the vast majority or even all of the people are and they want prayer, this is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and all that sort of thing.
And I'm not sure of the efficacy of one person going to court and preventing an entire community or a whole group of people from having what they want.
In other words, if you have 99.999% people who want prayer in school in their area and you have one person, one person, who says no and goes to court and then a court rules against virtually all of those people, I'm not in favor of that.
I'm also not in favor of forcing anybody's religion down your throat.
So somewhere in the middle, I've always thought there should be some common ground.
What do you think?
Common ground.
Freedom.
Liberty in America.
Is that a workable concept for you?
We'll be right back.
unidentified
You're listening to Arkbell somewhere in time.
Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
Coast AM from June
Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
6th, 1996.
Thank you.
Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell somewhere in Time.
Tonight's program originally aired June 6th, 1996.
Forecast is they say the winds might die down in a couple days, but right now they're not.
man a couple of days more of this yeah there are i think that they're not saying we could just call their voices are under it down at local radio that there are I just moved up here six months ago, so I'm not really sure where that is.
I think that eventually all of this had better get turned back to the states and localities for what they want to do or people are going to get restless.
unidentified
All right.
Because I went to one of the schools in that county and, you know, for years, you know, we just had prayer and we didn't think nothing twice about it.
And, I mean, in that county, you found possibly 52 churches.
I'm aware that it was overturned, that there's not going to be prayer there.
And I'll tell you something.
In this country, we're going to have to learn that different states and different localities have very different feelings about things.
And when one person can file a lawsuit and get 99.99% of the rest of the people to do something they don't want to do or prevent them from doing something they do want to do, it's eventually going to lead to trouble.
You know, restless trouble.
That's what I have to say about it.
First time caller line, you're on the air.
Hello.
unidentified
Yes, Arn, I think you may have a solution to your problem, but it's a good news, bad news solution.
Okay, well, over the winter, I had a dream of a tornado in my area of Michigan.
The Grand Blanc area, actually, which would be a little south of me.
I live in Flint, Michigan.
But I predict it will happen before the end of the month because the dream I had, I was standing out on my balcony looking towards the south, you know, towards the Grand Blanc area, and I see a giant funnel cloud.
I've never had a dream like this before.
It was pretty clear.
I've never claimed to be psychic or anything, but I will give a time limit toward the end of this month because I'm not going to be living where I'm living.
And I was wondering if there is still any activity out there, because we used to hear things about objects crashing north of Las Vegas, and they would send the Air Force out there.
Is there still any of the activity going on out there?
I have this inner sense that he's dead on the money.
And that what we're seeing right now is just a precursor.
That's what I think.
This weather?
Normal?
No way.
A precursor, what the major said, maybe.
Could be.
Would be if what he said is ahead.
I just, I have this feeling.
And so it scared me.
unidentified
The End Streamlink, the audio subscription service of Coast2Coast AM, has a new name, Coast Insider.
You'll still get all the same great features for the same low price, just 15 cents a day when you sign up for one year.
The package includes podcasting, which offers the convenience of having shows downloaded automatically to your computer or MP3 player, and the iPhone app with live and on-demand programs.
You'll also get our amazing download library of three full years of shows.
Just think, as a new subscriber, over 1,000 shows will be available for you to collect, enjoy, and listen to at your leisure.
Plus, you'll get streamed and on-demand broadcasts of Art Bell, Somewhere in Time Shows, and two weekly classics.
And as a member, you'll have access to our monthly live chat sessions with George Norrie and special guests.
If you're a fan of Coast, you won't want to be without Coast Insider.
Visit CoastToCoastAM.com to sign up today.
Now we take you back to the night of June 6th, 1996, on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Well, what I'd be worried about is, you know, since the wind is so horrible and apparently keeps changing direction, you guys have got to keep a very close eye on it.
unidentified
Yeah.
Yeah, I don't know, Art.
I don't know if I want to get close enough to it to keep an eye on it.
But anyways, to me, all this stuff that's going on, and I'm considered some kind of a nut because this nation is under a curse, all the curses, because they don't know where Israel is.
They think Israel is in Palestine and Israel is in Christ.
Live Overnight Talk Radio because this radio station cares enough for you to have it on.
Now, from Wasilla, Alaska, Bonnie says, front firefront line, we are exactly three miles from the fire line, about halfway between Wasilla and Big Lake.
We will most likely be one of the next areas to evacuate.
The sky glows red.
Ash falls all around our home.
The car is packed and we are pacing the floor.
The winds have changed from south to southeast to north, making the fire go in a big circle.
Imagine a letter C with the opening facing up.
We are in the opening of the sea, and the sea is the fire.
Carload of people on the road now, carrying all they can pack.
Their faces are dazed and show fear.
The fire is uncontrolled and raging.
That's from Bonnie in Wasilla, Alaska.
So I imagine they're up late tonight with us in Alaska, and we are praying for you all.
According to what I was taught when I was a child, I am not able to go now, of course, because I'm ill and I've been away from Wichita into Oklahoma for so many years, and I would have to drive, like, over 100 miles to get to church and back.
But I'm disabled and can't do anything now.
But anyway, I did not realize that the Mormon Church believed that they cannot ordain a black person.
Right, it's cloudy right now, but it's, you know, it's been quite sunny, you know, a little warm, and, you know, we haven't had as much rain as we usually get, and it's been quite dry.
And all I can say for those folks up in Alaska is be prepared for lots of sore eyes and headaches and coughs.
Sure.
It's an absolute mess.
It gets so bad that I imagine the smoke is probably so bad that the sun, you know, it could be clear sky out there above the smoke, but underneath it's just...
Yeah, I remember up in the Grand Teton one night they had what was called, it was like Black Thursday or something, the wind shifted on us, and the fires moved within just a few miles of us, and of course it was the same talk of the evacuation of workers and things there.
And it just, it became very surreal.
It became almost so strange that we started almost having a party about the whole thing.
Hey, if it happens, we'll just run down to the lake, and ash is falling out of the sky, and you have to shake it out of your hair.
So be prepared for lots of headaches and sore eyes up there.
Yeah, he was, well, that can't be, as far as I know.
I appreciate your call.
He was saying, he was referring to a book about alien animals.
We hardly even know about aliens.
And he was saying documentation of alien animals.
I don't know how there could be documentation.
I guess he meant just a book about alien animals.
That there could be.
Documentation on alien animals.
The best we've got is that so far in the Chupacabra, if it's even alien.
We don't even know it's alien.
Look, this thing, whatever it is, could have come out of a lab.
It could have come, you know, the theories range from time portals to dimension jumps to a simple evolutionary quirk to somebody's secret lab somewhere.
It could be any of the above or none of the above.
Well, I thought that maybe that caller who called from the IRS could yank the tax-exempt status from the Mormon church, and Mr. Wallace could drop his lawsuit.
Well, I don't think our IRS employee had that kind of power.
He's just, as he said, a contract employee, so he doesn't make policy.
He just executes it.
unidentified
Well, when his niece Linda finally comes to her senses and renounces her racist pagan religion, she'll know who to turn to because he seems like a pretty good guy.
I was thinking about, you know, the question that you've been posing and I don't know either, but, um, you say, um, you're wondering whether blood is thicker than ideology and...
Maybe it is, and maybe it's not.
I don't think it is, but I think that love is.
Okay, well, listen, I've got to go.
All right.
Thanks, Bart.
See you later.
All right.
Bye.
We'll be right back.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 6, 1996.
Coast to Coast AM from June
Coast to Coast AM from June 6, 1996.
6, 1996.
Coast to Coast AM from June 6, 1996.
You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks tonight, an oncore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 6th, 1996.
I just want to say also that one of the worst things about the fire that I feel bad for are the families who don't know if their house is burned down or not because they can't say anything about specific structures.
And when they get going this fast, this is out of control.
It's really frightening.
really, really frightening.
These kinds of fires are You're helpless in its path.
Man is helpless in its path.
And for all the good we can do with firefighting, when nature is really out of control and the conditions are right and the winds are bad, you can't stop it.
I wonder if the HARP Project might have gotten to the weather and don't know about that.
and also about the demon feed.
I've studied plants and so forth, and I sort of believe it, but then when he says that the fruit is like meat or meat itself, that kind of puts me off because...
Well, he's not like William Pierce exactly, but I just read a column, a national columnist, his last name is Cullen, but I can't remember his first name, in today's paper saying that David Irving wrote a book that claimed that Joseph Goebbels was actually the instigator of the anti-Semitic acts in Nazi Germany and so forth.
And there's been a lot of suppression of his book.
He was going to have it published.
This is in England.
And supposedly the pressure was so much that the book has been banned in effect.
And these are the reasons that you need to have other information sources.
One of the best is shortwave.
If you don't have shortwave, you ought to have it.
You can listen to Britain, you can listen to Moscow, you can listen to Havana, you can listen to the BBC.
Well, I said that in Britain.
You can listen to Canada, Tokyo, and then you'll know what's going on.
unidentified
A lot of times, though, like, because I've been studying the ocean, because that's my major ocean studies.
Yes.
And, I mean, I've just found out so many diseases that are running through the whole system of the coastline and everything.
And we're not even informed of, you know, how the hazardous waste is just pouring out.
I know it's just a little extreme, but, I mean, it's really frightening to know that razor blades and, like, medicine is just going right by it and landing right in the coastline shores where little kids are playing and we're surfing and everything.
It's just ridiculous.
We don't even, we're not, I mean, we're informed to extent, but I mean, all these things are just floating around.
It's not an insidious plot to keep information from you.
But the major networks, even CNN to a degree, but certainly the major networks that have 30 minutes of news time every night can only deal with so many topics.
30 minutes is a very short time indeed.
And they have to cover the major stories.
And so there is a whole world of information out there, if you want it, that obviously, not for reasons of specific censorship, because I don't believe that.
But just because they only have so much time is simply not covered.
That doesn't mean that you can't get it.
We live in America.
It's still a free flow of information.
Internet is a good example.
That's another good information source.
The Internet.
Wonderful, actually.
Are you on the Internet yet?
Do you have a computer?
If not, you really ought to move in that direction.
Short wave.
All of these alternative information sources are available to you.
So if all you do is sit and watch the evening news, then I guess really, in a lot of ways, you don't have a right To complain, you could complain if these alternative sources were not available to you, but the answer is they are now.
unidentified
We take you back to the night of June 6th, 1996 on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Sir, you're going to have to talk into your phone.
unidentified
Yes.
I just wanted to tell you that the woman from Salt Lake City, also, just in case she had a premonition, is that also her religion is from Golab, which is from the Mormons, is from outer space.
I've got a kind of a promo of what's coming up in this newsletter.
Ah, yes, here we go.
In the June edition of After Dark, expect the following.
A comprehensive eight-page spread on Richard Hoagland, including an article by Hoagland himself, accompanied by 20 key moon photos, key moon photos, both black and white and color, the Brookings report, and much more.
My commentary on where the presidential race is headed.
A photo of my mom with my wife Ramona, along with an excerpt of my interview with my mom.
I did that one night.
Three color photos of Art's possible Roswell artifacts, accompanied by an extensive explanatory article, an article on the Unibomber, and much more.
Well, I would guess we've got a lot of listeners tonight because they're sure not sleeping.
I wouldn't be.
unidentified
No, not in this area.
I've never seen traffic like this.
This time of night, we were driving down from Denali Park and from the fire on east all the way through Wasilla, Palmer, and east of there where I live, the traffic is quite incredible.
Fortunately, right now, outside where I am, they're still, as we were coming through the fire, there were, I would guess, 5 to 10 mile an hour winds still.
They are still predicting more winds, 15 to 20 miles an hour for tomorrow.