Art Bell

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 20, 1997 - Art Bell

03:26:44

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard Hoagland vs James Collier - Moon Hoax Debate

Participants

Main voices

46:54

richard c hoagland

02:15:55

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
art bell ▲ ● ▼		East of the Rockies, and you're listening to AM1500 KSTP.
unidentified		AM1500 KSTP.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		From the high desert of the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening or good morning wherever you may be, from the Hawaiian and Teasian Islands in the West, eastward to the Caribbean and the U.S. Virgin Islands, south into South America, north to the Pole, and worldwide on the Old Internet, courtesy of our AudioNet friends in Dallas.
		This is Coast Coast A.M. I'm Mark Bell.
		Let me give you a very quick rundown of what's going on because we've got to move fast tonight.
		We're going to have a debate between Richard Hoagland and James Collier.
		Collier, I'll get it out about whether or not we went to the moon.
		Did we go to the moon?
		What a debate that'll be.
		Bottom of the hour.
		Now, why should you go to the website tonight?
		Oh, let me list the reasons.
		A brand new and very convincing chupacapera photograph.
		Finally, a real photograph of a chupacabra, it would seem, hit by an automobile.
		Where do you see that?
		A new crop circle.
		Unbelievable crop circle at Alton Barnes.
		Almost like one.
		You go figure out the difference yourself.
		That showed up at Silbury Hill just months ago, a month ago or so.
unidentified		Absolutely incredible.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You should go up there because you should go to the Rogue Market and buy some Art Bell stocks.
		We're about to go over the top, folks.
		You'll find the link on our page.
		Go over to the Rogue Market if you can't get in now.
		And we crash the market with volume.
		Then you should go to the Rogue Market tomorrow, during the day, whenever you can manage to get in.
unidentified		Keep trying.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, coming up Thursday, tomorrow night, is Rio DiAngelo.
		You're about to be blown away with new information.
		Rio DiAngelo is the man who found the bodies at Heaven's Gate.
		Rio DiAngelo will be speaking and representing the majority of the Heaven's Gate remaining surviving members.
		And just wait till you hear what he has to say.
		Find out what the people at Heaven's Gate really do believe versus what the media told you and didn't tell you.
		Friday, Professor Dmitrio Kaku.
		I'm going to have to learn to say that correctly.
		He is a professor of theoretical physics at City University of New York.
		Monday, tentatively, James von Prahe.
		And then September 4th, Mark Ehrman.
		All books.
		So I thought that'd give you a brief idea of what's going on now.
		In a moment, we are going to delve into a very, very worrisome thing that we're doing at the head of the program here about Pat Robertson.
		I'll tell you more in just a moment.
		All right, here's how it happened.
		I began getting a million email messages saying, oh my God, Art, read this.
		Pat Robertson has said, kill all UFO believers.
unidentified		I said, what?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And frankly, I don't think he said that.
		I don't believe he said that.
		But what he has said comes awfully close.
		I'll read you just a little bit here.
		This part of the message I was receiving from a million people.
		In a recent pronouncement, television evangelist and head of the Christian Coalition Pat Robertson advocated death by stoning, by stoning, for UFO enthusiasts.
		Well, again, I don't think he's exactly said that.
		We'll find out.
		Freedom Rider magazine, in its July-August issue mailed today, disclosed the Robertson statement.
		Freedom Rider is published by the Institute for First Amendment Studies, a group that monitors the right.
		Robertson used the news of the July 4th Mars landing to promote his extreme beliefs.
		A segment on the July 8th, 1997 broadcast of the 700 Club featured news of the Mars Pathfinder mission.
		Employing the historical event as a beginning point, the program delved into the possibility of the existence of UFOs and space aliens while Robertson viewed the space program with suspicion.
		On a more serious note, he launched into a diatribe against those who entertain the existence of space aliens and UFOs.
		He said, quoting her, in a rambling discourse, that if such things exist, they are simply demons trying to lead people away from Christ.
		According to Robertson, the threat is so serious that people who believe in space aliens should be put to death by stoning according to God's word.
		Now, who wrote that?
		The man that I've got on the phone right here.
		His name is Skip Ordeas.
		Is that a correct pronunciation, Skip?
unidentified		That's correct, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where are you, Skip?
unidentified		I'm in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, and you wrote the words I just read?
unidentified		I did.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		I listened.
		You know, I called you.
		I was a gas, of course, and I called you, and you played for me the segment from the 700 Club.
		Now, I never precisely heard Pat Robertson say that all UFO believers should be stoned to death.
		What's your take?
unidentified		Okay, there are two things you have to understand about Robertson.
		First of all, he's careful to let the Bible speak for him, and he can say, well, I didn't say that.
		The Bible says that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Or God said it.
unidentified		Yeah, or God said it.
		And he was very careful to quote from the book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament.
		And the second thing that anyone who has watched the 700 Club watches how Pat Robertson will use a news segment and then segue from that into comments about the news.
		And in this segment, on July 8th, he talked to scientists who have studied UFOs and space aliens.
		And they had a piece from Roswell, New Mexico, and there were depictions of people dressed up as slantied-eyed aliens, space aliens.
		And then he got into the Bible.
		And what I found interesting is that Robertson often sounds like he's ad-libbing what he says.
		But when he was reading from the book of Deuteronomy, the scriptures were flashed on his screen.
		In other words, his comments were premeditated.
		He thought this out.
		It wasn't just ad-libbing.
		And then he talked about people who have gone and served after other gods, and I'm really quoting him now, and worshiped them either the sun or the moon or the host of heaven.
		And he got into a thing about the host of heaven.
		I interpret that to mean the sun and the moon and the stars.
		But Pal Robertson believes the host of heaven are spirits.
		There are good angels and bad angels, fallen angels.
		And he believes, he says, can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, funny-looking creature?
		Of course he can, or he can.
		Or of course they can deceive people.
		And if they lead people away from the true God, away from Jesus Christ, any way happens, doesn't matter, you're going to lose your salvation.
		And then he again went to the Bible and he said, this is his own words.
		He said, this is rebellion against God.
		If I find anybody doing this sort of thing, then I want you to take him out and dispose of him.
		Here he was paraphrasing the book of Deuteronomy.
		But what he was trying to do is bring out this segment on UFOs and space aliens and saying these people are being deceived by demons, these slanty-eyed creatures that can appear as space aliens, but they're really not.
		They're demons.
		And anybody who gets involved is going to lose their salvation.
		And then he said twice that once he quoted the Bible directly, then secondly he paraphrased it.
		He said, I want you to take them out and dispose of them.
		So he made it very clear that he believes that God says that these people should be killed by Stony.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Disposed of.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Killed by Stony.
unidentified		Yes.
		And the Bible was quoted directly there.
		This disturbs me because it's not.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, this appeared.
		Everybody should know.
		This appeared in a very, very mainstream kind of newsgroup called UFO Updates, which is quite well respected and is moderated.
		It's a very, very good newsgroup.
		And so that's why I started getting a million copies of this.
		Now, naturally, people like myself are a little concerned about that because the more radical of those who believe out there might take a statement like the one Mr. Robertson made too much to heart and decide that Art Bell should be disposed of or John Mack or Linda Mulcau or anybody else who investigates this kind of thing.
		Is that about your take?
unidentified		Yeah, I received calls today about this from people who are UFO enthusiasts and they were really afraid.
		They said they're not throwing rocks through our windows yet, but we're a little bit afraid of this.
		I got calls from Virginia and North Carolina, places close to Robertson.
		And, you know, it's irresponsible for him to do this on national television, but this is the way he does it.
		He doesn't, in my opinion, accept responsibility.
		And he uses the Bible and says God says, and it leaves him off the hook.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Skip, you publish something called Freedom Rider Magazine?
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where does a person get Freedom Rider Magazine?
unidentified		Anyone who'd like a free sample copy could just write to us.
		It's Freedom Writer, W-R-I-T-E-R.
		And we're in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
		And the zip is 0-1230.
		It's Freedom Rider, Great Barrington, Mass, 01230.
		And mention the Art Bell Show.
		We'll send a free copy out.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, give the address one more time.
		People are slow.
		Freedom Rider Magazine, Great Britain.
unidentified		Freedom Rider, yep.
		Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
		The zip is 0-1230.
		As easy as 123.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Skip, I really appreciate your coming on and rolling over this for us.
		I'm still absolutely astounded by it.
		Astounded.
		Thank you.
		Thank you very much.
unidentified		Anytime, whatever.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Skip.
		Take care.
		So that is that.
		And there is Skip Porteus.
		Now comes a young lady named Denuda.
		Now, who is Denuda?
		Denuda is somebody who sat across from as co-host Pat Robertson for five years.
		Five years.
		That's a long time.
		I think that's about right, isn't it, Denuda?
unidentified		That's right.
unidentified		That's absolutely right, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You were actually the co-host on the 700 Club.
unidentified		They used to call us the Black, the Blonde, and the Baptists.
		Did they really are?
		I was the blonde.
		That's right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, after I received all this from Skiportius, I called you, and your first reaction when we talked, I mean, I wasn't ready to go on the air with this because I didn't believe it, frankly.
		And so I had a connection to call you, and I called you up, and you said, oh, no, Pat Robertson would never say anything like that because, I'm paraphrasing, because he believes that when human beings go to heaven, they'll be given some sort of stewardship over a planet or two.
		In other words, people will have responsibilities when they get to heaven, and they'll be given stewardship over eight planets.
unidentified		That's right.
		I remember him saying, not only saying that, but at the time, I was in the studio when he was transcribing a book that I actually helped him write at the time, in which he says that people will be assigned to watch over a planet or two, will be God's messenger or agents in ordering and running the universe.
		Well, if he believes that we are going to be sort of ruling over planets throughout the universe, who are we ruling over?
		And if he believes that any intelligent life out there is demonic, is he then saying that we're ruling over demons?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Or that we are demons.
unidentified		Or that we are demons that we're ruling over ourselves.
		I mean, it sounds like a very contradictory thing to say.
		In other words, there could be the intelligent life out there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
		So when you told me all that, I thought, right.
		And so I laid it back.
		Then I thought, no, wait a minute.
		I'm getting a million messages here.
		So I called Skip and I got the actual audio from the broadcast.
		And I called you back, and I played it to you.
unidentified		And you just about dropped my teeth.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Dropped your teeth.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And so he did indeed say those things.
unidentified		But listen, Art, I am no apologist for Pat Robertson, first of all.
		Let's make that real clear.
		But I also want to be fair.
		And from what I heard in the transcript, he was also saying that Deuteronomy calls for the stoning of adulterers.
		Yes, we do not hear Pat Robertson advocating that we should stone adulterers to death.
		And I think in the same vein, he was quoting the Old Testament rules of stoning to death to show the severity of how God feels about worshiping false gods.
		Somehow, Pat Robertson has made false gods out of planets and extraterrestrial life or intelligent life somewhere in space.
		And it's all speculation.
		I mean, we don't know what's out there.
		He doesn't know what's out there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it sounds like he thinks he knows what's out there.
unidentified		Well, that's the problem.
		You see, when Pat talks, he tends to ramble, and he says things he doesn't give really full thought to.
		I mean, at one point when I was in the studio, he said that women who get divorced and leave their families end up becoming witches and lesbians.
		He also says that only Christians have stimulating sex lives.
		He also says, you know, that here we are going to be ruling planets as intelligent life in outer space, and at the same time saying that any intelligent life in outer space is demonic and we ought to be stoned for, you know, for even thinking about them.
		So I really don't think he's thought it through.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Mark, you sat across from him.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, if this statement, the one that I played for you on the phone that he made, had been made with you sitting across from him, what would you have said?
unidentified		Oh, I would have challenged him.
		My role there was to challenge him.
		And unfortunately, there's nobody that challenges Pat Robertson today.
		And he's in a tower where everybody around him worships him.
		Nobody challenges him.
		Nobody questions him.
		No one challenges him in his own circle of friends.
		This is a man who is not questioned.
		He is very powerful in his own little kingdom out there.
		He's not used to being asked questions.
		He's not used to being challenged.
		So nobody there said, wait a minute, Pat, how could you say that?
		You don't certainly mean that you want people to go out stoning UFO believers.
		And I really don't think he meant that.
		But he is trying to show how severe God feels about it by quoting the Old Testament.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, Denuda, for those of us who investigate this sort of thing, it's a little scary even when he's saying that here's what God said and saying then applying it to the UFO business because there are a lot of people, you ought to know better than anybody else, Denuda, who hang on every single word Pat Robertson said as though God uttered it.
unidentified		It's easily construed to sound like he is advocating death for UFO believers.
		And I think that you could beat that drum and really get something out of it that I don't believe he meant.
		But at the same time, he is an intelligent man who ought to know better.
		And he knows that his words are carried.
		He knows that a lot of credence is given to his words.
		I have to say one thing that Skip mentioned.
		He said that these words were premeditated.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, he said that because they apparently had the graphic to go up on the screen as he was.
unidentified		That graphic comes on after the live show is done, and then the show is taped live.
		And then it is edited later.
		So any scriptures that are used throughout the program are then later post-edited in.
		So this was not premeditated at all.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Except as you just mentioned, they would have had the opportunity to take it out before it aired?
unidentified		They could have.
		They could have.
		And as I say, he does ramble, he doesn't get questioned, and sometimes he puts his foot in his mouth and proceeds to chew, unfortunately.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Listen, if I should get a call from the Pat Robertson folks about all of this, and he would want to come on the air, and I would want to let him on the air, would you be interested in once again being on the other side of a microphone from Pat Robertson on this issue?
unidentified		I sure would.
		I'd just love to hear him on the Art Bell show.
		I laugh because I laugh because, again, he would know that he's about to be challenged and challenged outside of his arena of control.
		And he's not comfortable there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If you spent five years with the man, what caused a separation?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can I ask that?
unidentified		With me?
		Yeah.
		Pat Robertson was running for president, and the show became not something to make people feel good about themselves and uplift them.
		It became a political soapbox for Pat Robertson's policies.
		And quite frankly, for some time, I had wearied of trying to adjust myself to political positions that I did not myself believe in.
		And so by that time, it was a parting of the ways.
		It was just not a comfortable place for me to be.
		And since Pat had left the show and his son was now in his shoes, the whole complexion of the program changed.
		And I left, and shortly thereafter, Ben Kinchlow left.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, I think it's fair to say that Pat Robertson did not say kill all you FO believers.
unidentified		No, he didn't.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But he did say that God said, here's what ought to happen in this kind of a case, using stoning or elimination.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He used both those words because the Bible does say that.
unidentified		I know it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But what concerns me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But what concerns me is that somebody who takes every word as absolute gospel, or pun intended, I guess I ought to say, is going to do something awful to somebody in the UFO community because of that.
unidentified		You have to remember that in the Old Testament, God did some pretty bloody things.
		And you cannot then start pounding down on somebody who quotes from the Old Testament about things that God did or said.
		So he used this example.
		It is in the Bible.
		What we have to be careful of, we cannot become like Pat Robertson.
		Blow something out of proportion.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Nor are we God.
unidentified		Nor are we God.
unidentified		So you just have to take this in context and realize that Pat does not always think things through.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, well, Pat is hereby invited on the program.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Should he show up, you're invited back too, and I really want to thank you for coming on tonight.
unidentified		A pleasure, Art.
unidentified		Thank you so much.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Take care.
		That's Denuda, Five Years Folks, with Pat Robertson.
		And that's the story that I thought we ought to get out that you needed to hear.
		Coming up, Richard Hopeland, James Collier, and we're going to be debating about whether the U.S. actually did or did not go to the moon.
		This is CBC.
unidentified		CBC.
		Oh I Freund Monsieur Holy Fools Was Pranked Mysterious лежaged Sleep with Planked Seed but
		have Heartbell is 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once again, here I am.
		Good morning, everybody.
		All right.
		Usually we call it, they did a big piece last night on CBS about Trevor Bayless, the inventor of the Beijing Free Play Radio.
		But after all the news lately, Bob Crane is going to start calling it the El Nino radio.
		Have you seen the forecast for the El Niño?
		Oh, my God.
		Five to ten degrees raise in ocean temperatures.
		They're talking about three times the normal rainfall along the west coast and the southwest.
		Sounds like we're in trouble weather-wise, but that's nothing new on this program.
		We've been saying it for, oh, I don't know, a couple years, and certainly months and months now with Stan Deo in Australia.
		Remember, folks, you heard it here first, not by a day or two, but by months.
		Anyway, when the weather gets bad, the power goes out.
		I mean, that's how it works.
		Power goes out.
		When you've had big storms, I'm sure you've noticed that your power flickers, dims, and then generally goes out.
		That's when you're going to want the Beijing radio, and I wouldn't wait one more minute to get one.
		You get AM and FM and seven bands of short wave.
		It's a full-size portable.
		It was built in South Africa, and I tell you, it's built like a tank.
		It's got a crank on the outside, and here's the deal.
		You turn the crank for 30 seconds, and this full-size portable, weighs seven pounds, plays at full room volume on AM FM or shortwave for 30 minutes.
		Now, if you can think of a better emergency radio to have around, you better go buy it.
		There is no better.
		This is it.
		Get one in the morning from Bob Crane.
		The number is 1-800-522-8863.
		That's 1-800-522-8863RC, 1-888-GOLD K-R-C.
		Now, how did the debate that is about to ensue get started?
		Well, a very interesting way.
		James Collier wrote a book called Bold Scam years ago.
		I interviewed him about that book.
		A chilling book indeed.
		But James' later work is about the moon.
		Our moon.
		You know, the one that was just full here a few days ago.
		He says we never went there.
		And somebody called me.
		There was a caller to the show.
		As a matter of fact, well, I'll look.
		I got a facts from James Collier.
		Let me read it to you.
		Then you'll understand how this got started.
		Dear Art, I read Chris Ruddy's piece on your website.
		Oh, yes, Chris Ruddy, it's up there on the website.
		You might want to read it.
		The Pittsburgh Tribune wrote a wonderful article on me.
		Anyway, he starts, I read Chris Ruddy's piece on your website, and he did his usual excellent job.
		As a matter of fact, I discussed it with him before he wrote it.
		In that Chris and I have been friends for many years, Chris wrote the first review of Vote Scam ever to appear.
		Chris also saw the, in quotes, moon tape and said that he was stunned.
		If you know Chris at all, you know he does not use hyperbole.
		Chris is surprised that you won't give the tape a fair airing on your show.
		I heard the young man who called you the other night say that he had done a voice reversal on me when I appeared on the Lou Epton show, and it showed I did indeed believe what I was saying.
		You agreed with him that I was sincere, but you said that you believed we indeed had gone to the moon and to Mars, and that was that.
		One of the observations I made to Chris was that you give all points of view dignity.
		Why is this one verboden?
		Well, hairs on battle and it go up at that.
		Verbodin, nothing's verbodin here, nothing.
		People have tried to explain your behavior to me as being intellectually dishonest, but I can't accept that of you.
		They say your love affair with Hoagland's theories are blinding you from presenting my point of view.
		I saw Hoagland's tape and his theory that a glass city was built on the moon.
		And that more than puzzles me.
		First of all, how did they convert the silica to glass on the moon?
	Factories?
unidentified		Magic?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hoagland claims a glass city was destroyed by meteorites.
		Why would an intelligent, advanced civilization build glass houses where God throws stones?
		I'd love to debate Hoagland.
		That would be a night to remember.
		Is there still room in your intellectual storehouse for dissenting opinion?
		Or are you full up?
		Then the hairs came out another inch.
		And so, of course, I called James Collier immediately on the phone.
		Now, I have sitting here two little red lights.
		One of them contains electronically James Collier.
		The other contains from his new digs near Albuquerque, Richard C. Hoagland, Ingstrom Science Award winner, a man who worked with Walter Cronkite when we were going to the moon, question mark.
		And here's what I want to do.
		I don't want this to be boring.
		And in presidential debates where one guy gets 10 minutes or 15 minutes to talk, or even five, and then the other gets five, it's boring.
		And so I would like to allow a reasoned interaction between these two parties.
		It is not exactly a gray area, folks.
		We either went to the moon or we didn't.
		So I'm going to bring both of these gentlemen up respectively.
		James Collier, where are you, James?
		Back east somewhere?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		New York.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		New York.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's where Richard used to be.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And Richard, you, of course, are up there near Albuquerque.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I'm sitting on a gorgeous mountaintop and I watched the moon rise about an hour ago over the Sandias and it is spectacular.
unidentified		I'm sitting on a beautiful mountaintop and it's raining like hell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, gentlemen.
		The issue is, did we or did we not go to the moon?
		And again, I would like to allow a reasonable interaction between you and try and avoid speeches.
		However, opening statements would be in order.
		James, why don't you begin and tell us why you believe, or at least begin to tell us why you believe, that we never went to the moon?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, first I want to say hello, Richard.
		Hi, Jim.
		All right.
		I spoke to you before.
		We spoke just before I left New York as we were moving out here.
		I think James was in the final preparations for his book, and he and I talked, and I had pointed him to some references regarding this question.
		And we never got a chance to really get together for me to show him some of the data that we've been working on.
		And so the book has come out, and unfortunately, I have not seen a copy.
		I've only heard about it, but I've not seen the book.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		James, is your book out?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, the book is not.
		So let's start from here.
		I started to do a book called Was It Only a Paper Moon for my publishing, the company I worked for in New York called Victoria House Press, which is the same one that did BoatScale.
		And the way I got that was a guy Oh, thank you.
		My wife Phyllis figured that one out.
		She was also a writer and co-writer with his son.
		A guy named Ralph Renee came to me, and he's quite famous out there in America for a book called NASA Mooned America.
		And he actually came to the publishing company, and he had a transcript called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.
		And they gave it to me to vet, actually, to say, what do you think of this?
		And I had never thought of this in my life up to that point.
		And so I was really not doing anything, and I started looking into it.
		And the more I looked into it, the absolutely more floored I was by what Ralph Renee was putting forth.
		And basically, it was damn good physics, just physics, you know.
		So it took about three months.
		And then as I got into what he was into, I got questions more, stuff that he never even considered.
		So it was taking too long, and Ralph pulled the book and self-published it.
		And I understand he's doing pretty well with it himself.
		And so I proposed, was it only a paper moon, to the publisher?
		And they said, all right, you go ahead and do it.
		Because there I was left hanging with this incredible story, but nothing to do about it.
		So they let me do it.
		And as I started to write the book, I realized that everything I was dealing with was visual.
		And I was trying to describe pictures and things, and it was terribly difficult.
		So I went into a realm that I'd never gone into, which was video journalism.
		And I went to a studio here, and I got all the NASA film footage of all seven shots.
		And I went to the Space Museum in Washington, and I went down to Houston, but we'll get into more of that later.
		And in the end, I had an incredible amount of footage of stuff.
		And so I started putting it together in the studio, and then I added a monologue to it and split it up.
		And basically, what you have is my monologue split up with all the facts and documentation.
		So that if anyone thinks that I'm just out here with an agenda that we didn't go to the moon, no, I just am an investigative reporter who found some incredible stuff and put it all down and then put it out to the public and to NASA and to as many places as I could send it out, including talk shows and art and all These people to get feedback because this investigation is by no means over.
		It is merely just beginning.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are you convinced we didn't go to the moon, James?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I am convinced we didn't go to the moon, but I want to make this clear that I am willing to be unconvinced.
		And that's why I called Richard, because I wanted Richard to convince me we went to the moon because I wanted to blow Renee's book out of the water.
		But Richard and I never got together, so we couldn't do it.
		So tonight is going to be a terrific night.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, then he may convince you tonight.
		Richard's very good at that.
		Okay, well, and even if you come to your senses later.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I read the Ed Mitchell thing, and I saw how he works on your mind.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, so let us begin with facts, James.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Give me one good, solid fact, for example, that says we didn't go.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, well, now the first thing you would do when you went to the moon would be to put a camera on the astronaut, and then you would tilt it upwards, and you would take a picture of the Earth and say, here's an astronaut, here's the Earth.
		If they had ever done that, I wouldn't be on the phone with you tonight.
		But they never did it in six times on the moon.
		Not a single shot of the Earth from the Moon was ever taken, except that one famous one that looks very phony.
		And Richard mentioned it in his monologue of Mitchell.
		And the only shot they ever did take of the Earth was that the Earth was the size of the Moon.
		And the Earth is four times bigger than the Moon.
		And so people who criticize, you know, who feel we didn't go, say, how could that possibly be?
		The basic physics is wrong.
		Somebody didn't think when they took that shot.
		So that was the first thing.
		The first, they never did it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We better take these on one at a time or they'll have to.
		Let's see what Richard has to say.
		I mean, Richard, there, what about that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, unfortunately, James's numbers just don't add up.
		In 1994, I took a team of eight people, geologists, photo experts, producer types, media people, a friend of mine that works with Ted Koppel, and we descended on the National Space Science Data Center at Greenbelt at Sagato Space Flight Center right outside Washington.
		And we spent two days going over every inch of film, and there are tens of thousands of feet of film, both in motion picture form and in the Hasselblad and the Pan camera and all the other photographic stuff that was taken during the lunar missions.
		And what I was doing was bringing to the lab problems that we had noted in the photography, anomalies, duplicate frames, curious administrative bureaucratic kind of problems in managing the resource, as well as being there on a reconnaissance trip looking for new data to either prove or falsify the model that there's interesting stuff on the moon not built by us.
		And I must have seen during that two days at least half a dozen shots of the Earth from the moon, from the lunar surface, some of which included the lunar module in the shot, some of which included the flag, some of which, I think on Apollo 17, there's a shot of Cernan with the Earth above him.
		And one of the reasons why there's a paucity in the earlier missions of Earth shots and astronauts and moon is because we landed at the lunar equator, basically more or less.
		And the Earth is directly overhead, which means it's 90 degrees to the horizon, more or less.
		It was only on the later missions, on 15 and on 17, that we landed at a high enough latitude where you could actually begin to, by bending down and crouching down, which is hard in a spacesuit, get the Earth in the shot.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But James says there were no such pictures except one, which was fakey, he said.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No one has ever seen them except Richard.
		So if Richard, the reason no one's ever seen them is because no one's ever asked.
		One of my problems with the whole Apollo program is if you go to any textbook, you know, and you can pick out a textbook written in 1969 or in 1970 when the missions first really began, or go to a textbook written now, an astronomy textbook, you'll find the same boring half-dozen pictures of the moon.
		Now, is this a conspiracy?
		Well, that's an interesting word, conspiracy.
		I think it's a paucity of imagination by publishers because basically they are thinking like Spiro Agnew who said, once you've seen one shot of Jupiter, you've seen them all.
		They think of a place with craters and holes in it, once you've seen one shot, you've seen them all.
		So we'll just keep using the same picture over and over and over again.
		If you actually go to the archive and start looking through the pile of images, you'll find all kinds of interesting shots, including all kinds of interesting things on the shots that normally the general public does not have access to because they just don't go.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So Richard, you're saying it's just a conspiracy of media stupidity and laziness.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and I work for the media, and I have a perfect right to say that.
		All right, well, I asked NASA to show me, to give me that particular shot, and I spoke with the people in Houston, and I spoke with the people in the archives.
		Which shot are you talking about?
		The shot of the, you said there's a half a dozen shots of the Earth.
		Oh, at least.
		I mean, that's not a complete list.
		I mean, we just happened to run into about half a dozen in what I was looking for.
		Let me tell you why I was looking for a shot of the Earth, all right?
		And in fact, in the Apollo 14 material that I got from Ken Johnston, we got in his archive, which he had squirreled away 30 years ago at the Oklahoma City College, we got three or four shots of the Earth above the lunar module and Tares, which landed, I think, three or four degrees above the equator, north of the equator at the Framara region.
		And Shepard had to stand out in front of the lunar module and lean back, because the camera was mounted on their chest packs, so they had to aim with their whole body.
		It wasn't like they had a camera they could move around separately.
		It was mounted on a rigid mount on the chest of the spacesuit, so they had to lean back and take the picture up the ladder, up the limb, above the antenna, and up into space a quarter of a million Miles away, and there's this beautiful frame crescent Earth.
		Well, the reason I wanted to get the Earth, which by the way, in that frame measured with those lenses, is two degrees across, it is exactly the right size, is because if there are glass domes on the moon, and there's more than one, Jim, all right, then one of the ways you would detect such glass domes would be by the interference or refractive bending effects of the glass on objects seen beyond it,
		or in a thing called forward scattering, which is the same phenomena when you're driving west at sunset and your windshield is dirty and the sunlight is lighting up all the bugs and all the stuff on the windshield and you can't see out.
		That's called forward scattered light.
		So if the Earth is up above a dome or a portion of a glass dome and the dome is pitted by micrometeorite bombardment, you would expect that you would be able to see a halo around the earth shining through a fragment of the dome, and that's what I was specifically looking for, which is why I went looking for all these shots, and I found tons of shots.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can I ask a question?
		Sure.
		It is the second important point.
		You said the Earth is two degrees of the photographs.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If you were to take, with the same camera and exposure and all the rest of it, a shot from Earth of the moon, how big would it be?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Half a degree.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Half a degree.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		One quarter the size.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		One quarter the size.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Now the field of view of the hassleblots, and I mean we've got all the all the spec sheets for the, they had bayonet lenses, which means they had snap-in lenses because they were wearing these bulky gloves, so they couldn't thread lenses in and out of the camera.
		So they had to be snapped in and snapped out.
		And we've got lists of what the focal length of the lens were, what the field of view was, and you do all those calculations.
		The earth in these shots that I saw and my team saw at NSSDC for two days was precisely two degrees across.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, James, do you have any arguments for that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		One question I have.
		The camera that's strapped to their chest, the Hasablot.
		Well, it's actually mounted on a metal bracket.
unidentified		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Do they do that inside the limb before they come out?
		Don't know.
		Probably not because getting through that little door was difficult, and they, I mean, it was basically a very easily removable.
		It kind of sit down in a mount so that gravity would hold it in.
unidentified		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, now, was it air-cooled?
		No, the camera wasn't cooled at all.
		It was coated in white, and there was a special film inside that was a higher temperature film than normally is used on the Earth.
		And the reason I know that is that a very good friend of mine, Charles Wyckoff, who was head of photographic development for EG ⁇ G, that's Edredson, Germis, Hausen, and Greer, which is a major aerospace R ⁇ D firm which has all kinds of involvement in the military and black budgets and black projects in NASA.
		Charlie was approached by NASA before the Apollo program as the chief photographic scientist to develop a special set of films to go to the moon.
		And one of the criteria was a film that would be low fogging under the ambient radiation conditions expected and would be resistant to the expected high temperatures.
		However, the high temperatures are highly overstated in most textbooks because although they claim that at noon on the moon it's 250 above zero Fahrenheit, meaning it would be above the boiling point of water, the Apollo landings took place early in the morning when the sun was 10, 12 degrees.
		And the suits and the cameras were white, so they reflected most of the light and the heat.
		So the actual film inside maintained very terrestrial temperatures all the time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, gentlemen, James, I'm going to give you a chance to respond to that.
		We're at the top of the hour.
		Everybody take a deep breath and we'll be back.
		I presume we are just getting started.
		Where do you concede, James?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, no, he just made a statement.
unidentified		I've got to deal with it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's what I thought.
unidentified		Good.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Stay right there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		From the high desert near Dreamland, this is CBC.
unidentified		CBC.
		at 9 on AM 1500 KSTP.
		All right, and it's coming up.
		We gotta get right back.
		Where we started from.
		Love is good.
		Love is good.
		We gotta get right back.
		Where we started from.
		Oh, oh, oh, oh.
		Call our bell, toll-free.
		West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
		1-800-618-8255.
		East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
		1-800-825-5033.
		This is the CBC Radio Network.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's who we are, and we have got with us James Collier from New York.
		He says, we never went to the moon.
		We never went.
		Richard C. Hoagland from near Albuquerque, who says, oh, yes, we did.
		And so we are engaging in a debate about whether or not we went to the moon.
		It's not something that's going to turn up in a gray area.
		Well, maybe we went, or maybe we went part way.
		Either we went to the moon or we didn't.
		We'll try and settle that as time goes on.
		Time is something we have in talk radio, fortunately.
		Remember, folks, tonight on the website, a new chupacabra picture.
		Ooh, it's a good one.
		Tell me what it is.
		A new chupacabra picture, a brand new crop circle, and a very, very impressive one.
		Almost a duplicate, but not quite, of Silbury Hill.
		Compare them.
		It's at Alton Barnes, and it is a shocker.
		Buy Art Bell sock on the Rogue Market.
		You can do that by going through my website tonight or tomorrow.
		Buy, buy, buy.
		We're about to go over the top.
		So all of that and more is on the website tonight at www.artbell.com.
		Right now, back to James Collier and Richard C. Hoagland.
		Gentlemen, you're back on the air.
		James, you wanted to respond to something Richard said.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Well, one of the first things I realized as I started investigating all this is that every bit of documentation having to do with going to the moon has been destroyed.
		I went to Grumman, who built the Lem, and every bit of whatever, what thought went into building the Lem has been destroyed.
		I went to Boeing, and I said, What went into the little car, the rover?
		And they said, Every bit of that has been destroyed.
		I went to all the archives the same way.
		And I just asked Richard off the air here, I said, what documentation is there that someone created a film?
		Because I called Eastman Kodak and I said, what temperature does film melt at?
		And they said, 150 degrees in the Hasablad cameras.
		They could have never taken a picture on the moon.
		They couldn't have taken video.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why not?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And they could not, because it was 250.
		Now, let me explain what Richard said.
		He said, and it's what the New York Times said, that they landed on the edge of night and that it really was only a nice, balmy 80 degrees like in Miami Beach.
		Well, first of all, even on the equator here on Earth, as soon as the sun cracks the corner, that temperature soars to over 120 degrees.
		So I don't buy that whatsoever.
		And secondly, I have NASA video showing them there in high noon with no shadow.
		And it was 250 degrees, and any film they had, any video, anything with emulsion would have melted.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, this is a very complex discussion.
		Let me go back to my source for my information.
		I was very privileged back in 1965 when I was at the museum in Springfield to one day see a piece of film on, I guess it was CBS or NBC, showing the first cosmonauts spacewalking.
		And it was Alex I Leonov, the Russian cosmonaut who has now become great friends with Tom Stafford and has been over here so many times and appeared at dinners in the museums and the Smithsonian and all that.
		Well, back in 1965, he was a cosmonaut and the first human being to step outside his spacecraft and float along with an umbilical.
		And the American press, the American media, and even some of the university people were absolutely aghast.
		And the first thing they suspected was that the Russians were faking the spacewalk.
		So what a friend of mine at New York University did was to provide a copy of the film from the Soviets to an American expert in film technology, Charlie Wyckoff at EG ⁇ G, to have Charlie analyze the film.
		And because I knew my friend at York University, that's how I met Wyckoff, and he was in Boston, and I was in Springfield, which was an hour and a half away down the Mass Turnpike.
		So I made an awful lot of visits, and I stayed at his house, and I mean, Charlie and Helen and I got to be very, very good friends, and I spent literally hundreds and hundreds of hours with Charlie Wyckoff from 65 on.
		Now, the reason the timing here is important is because Charlie was approached as the principal scientist for EG ⁇ G by NASA in between 65 and 66 to develop film to be taken to the moon during the Apollo program.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Film that would operate at 250 degrees.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, among other things, they were far less concerned with the film because basically the temperature at which film will melt depends on the base.
		It depends on the film base.
		Charlie had developed film that was used to record every nuclear test in Nevada, not very far from where you are tonight.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I do.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And those cameras and that film required to film nuclear tests a few miles away from a second sun, you know, a megaton, 10 megatons, whatever going off above ground, had to run at over a million frames per second.
		When Hazel O'Leary and President Clinton declassified those nuclear test shots a few months ago, and now you can buy the video, you see the late-night commercials for the incredible home video of all the classified nuclear tests, Charlie Wyckoff was responsible for developing the technology that allowed us to record a nuclear weapon, close and personal.
		Let me ask you a question.
		Well, let me finish my point.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, but let's try and keep it brief if we can and go back and forth here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		250 degrees.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The idea is that photographing a nuclear weapon reduces very high temperatures in the camera and on the film.
		Charlie was able to develop a film that could literally photograph a nuclear weapon.
		Part of the job description that NASA gave him was, look, give us a film that we can use on the moon, regardless of the time of day or night or whatever.
		And they were much more concerned with the light characteristics, the ability to record light, and the latitude, meaning the ability to record very bright objects and very dim objects on the same frame in the same exposure.
		They were not concerned with temperature because temperature was a non-problem in terms of film technology even in 1965.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Now, did he have a Kodak type arrangement where he could make the emulsion and all that?
		What he did was he literally at EGNG drew up the specs.
		He then would go to Rochester.
		They would literally hand produce in the lab emulsions to his specifications.
		All right, now stop right there.
		Do you have any proof of that?
		I use the film.
		Do you have any documented proof that your friend made specifications that Kodak built for him?
		Yes, he has.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He has a lot of stuff.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Can I get that documentation?
		Because you told me and the laboratory was.
		Oh, no, James, don't twist my words.
		All right, I'm getting ahead of the story, all right?
		Okay.
		What he would do was to go to Rochester and basically say, because it was a very, you know what the old board network is.
		Before we got so bureaucratized and so rigid, and we had 15,000 copies in triplicate, it basically was a guy of Charlie's reputation would walk into Kodak where everybody knew him and say, look, I've got this contract for NASA.
		I need a film that will do such and such and such and such.
		And they would go down the hall.
		He would sit down.
		They'd scribble a few notes.
		And a few weeks later, in the mail would come X number of roles of this film that they had literally hand-produced.
		Are you telling me that Kodak produced a film that wouldn't melt at 250 degrees and there's no documentation on it?
		You're not letting me finish the story, James.
		Wait, I'm not under interrogation, all right?
		This is not a cross-examination.
		I'm trying to tell you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is, though, Richard, fair to ask.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How would you prove that that was true?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Because I'm going to put him in touch with Charlie Wyckoff.
		All right, that's all that point until I can get to Charlie Wyckoff.
		Charlie's own records are separate from Kodak's.
		All right?
		Now, let me leap ahead of the story.
		The reason I was interested in the film in later years, long after my association with Mr. Wyckoff, is because it's the film record of what they shot on the moon and from lunar orbit, which is the basis of our hypothesis that there are alien structures built by somebody that NASA went and photographed and then has hid from the American people and the rest of the world for over 30 years.
		So the cornerstone of the evidentiary file is a photographic record.
		If we don't have photographs of those structures, ergo, there can be no structures that we can prove.
		So I'm extremely interested in the photographic process of documentation.
		That's why I've been pursuing the photographic angle for so long.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you can lead him then to the proof.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Now, here's where things get really interesting.
		Because I was privy to almost on a daily basis the soap opera, and I'm not overstating the case between Charlie and NASA in terms of developing a lunar film.
		What Charlie did was to develop a color film that the astronauts could take to the moon that literally was able to record what's called a straight line latitude, meaning the brightest and the darkest object in the same frame that can be exposed and still both be visible, 10,000 to 1 in brightness.
		Now, to give you some basis of comparison, a normal television, if you point a TV camera, the old tubes got TV cameras in a studio, the maximum range you could have was about 10 to 1 between the brightest and the darkest shadow, brightest light, darkest shadow, before either the light was overexposed or the shadow was underexposed, you would see no detail.
		Color film, color slide film, the Kodak was putting out in the mid to late 60s when NASA was going to go to the moon, had about the same straight line latitude.
		In other words, if you didn't get the exposure almost exactly right, the shadows would turn out too dark or the highlights would turn out to be overexposed and washed out.
		And everybody who's ever taken pictures on a picnic or in the mountains or on a vacation knows that you had to be incredibly persnickety about the exposure settings and the camera settings and the light values, otherwise you didn't get any decent pictures.
		It's because color film had lousy latitude.
		Charlie was approached by NASA to develop a stunning breakthrough film that would literally be 10,000 times better than existing color film.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, somebody's got a radio on or something.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We're going to have to get that off.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Someone got a radio.
		And he did it.
		All right, so where is that film today?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Ah, I actually got to use that film.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where is it today?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The film does not exist.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The film does not exist because of a very complicated legal wrangle between Charlie and Kodak because Kodak did not want this film to come out commercially.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why not?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Because it basically would have obsoleted every other film they ever had on the market.
		If you can take a picture, if I can give grandma a piece of film, it's just now beginning to quietly come out.
		If you'll notice the film's a commercial color film that's available, the latitude is getting better and better and better.
		That's because Kodak decided when they basically bought out the licensing agreement from EG ⁇ G because that's where Charlie worked.
		I mean, his relationship was through EG ⁇ G. And when you work for big laboratories, your own inventions many times are not yours.
		They're owned by the company you work for.
		So EG ⁇ G and Kodak worked out a deal whereby Kodak could sit on this incredible breakthrough 30 years ago and slowly dribble it into the marketplace.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, but that I have a little hard time with, Richard.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It seems to me that if something that dramatic had been invented, you're virtually telling us it's like the 100 mile per hour carburetor, a mile per gallon carburetor.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This is not a secondhand story.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I use roll after roll after roll of this film on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand, but to say it does not exist today is incredible.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, no, it does exist.
		And Kodak is now beginning to commercialize it.
		Well, I talked to Kodak and they said there is no such thing.
		Let's move on.
		You said that this film was so serious.
		Well, when you go to visit Charlie, that's what you're going to have to do.
		I will show you examples.
		I'll go visit Charlie.
		I can guarantee you, because you're going to put me on to Charlie.
		He's up in Boston.
		I'll go to Charlie.
		Believe me, I will be back on the Art Bell show with whatever I get from Charlie.
		Because this investigation is going to go all the way to Congress and fame, believe me.
		This is why this film thing is so critical.
		Right, and I know.
		And everything I look for as an investigative reporter has a very interesting way of disappearing in smoke.
		But let me ask you a question.
		You said this film was so sensitive.
		No, I didn't say sensitive.
		I said it was wide latitude.
		Okay, but you said it would take a picture of the smallest light and the brightest light, right?
		Because Westinghouse developed that camera.
		It's in the Space Museum in Washington, and I have a video.
		On my video, I show John Young on the moon with a NASA guy saying he's taking picture of the astronomy.
		And the sky on the moon is black, right?
		Because there's no atmosphere there, so it's pitch black.
		But there is no stars in any NASA photo.
		Why not?
		Because the stars are too damn dim.
		Okay, don't go any farther.
		I don't want to hear that.
		That's too damn dim.
		You just said that the film could take pictures.
		It was so sensitive, and I'm going to get back to Mark Bell.
		James, do the numbers.
		Sit down with a calculator and do the numbers.
		All right, okay.
		We won't go any farther.
		No, no, no, that doesn't.
		If they would have had any stars in any massive photo ever.
		James, you asked a question I'm going to answer.
unidentified		Go ahead.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Stars.
		The brightest star in the sky, and I wish I had a table in front of me here, so I'm going to do this for memory, compared to the sun, is probably at least a million times dimmer than sunlight.
		The film that Charlie developed was only good for 10,000 to ones, not a million to one.
		So you're basically photographing astronauts on a bright sunlit landscape in broad daylight.
		And you're asking, and you're doing it at a hundredths of a second or something.
		Whoa, wait.
		You're asking that film to simultaneously record stars that are a million times dimmer than that landscape, and there's no film that exists that can do that.
		Not even Charlie's film.
		Then what happened to the camera built by Westinghouse that's in the museum in Washington?
		Because the camera built by Westinghouse was an electronographic camera.
		It was a low-light level camera, an electronic image intensifier camera.
		Then where are the stars?
		Where are the pictures of stars?
		They set it up in the shadow of the lunar module.
		It was not a chest-packed Hasselblot.
		It was a telescope and camera combination.
		It was aimed from the shadow up at the sky, and there were time exposures.
		They were not looking at the landscape at all.
		They were astronomical pictures taken of the deep sky.
		They were taken of the Earth.
		They were taken of the Magellanic clouds.
		They were taken in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum, and they were time exposures.
		So of course you can record stars with a time exposure.
		If the astronaut had set up a camera on a tripod and simply opened the shutter and left it open for a second or two seconds or whatever, you would have seen all kinds of stars.
		But the landscape in bright sunlight would have been hopelessly washed out even with Wyckoff's film because the brightness range is a million to one.
		Then how come the Earth with reflected light got picked up?
		Because the Earth is 80 times brighter than full moonlight as seen from the Moon.
		All right, if the Earth is 80 times brighter, how much brighter is the Sun in no atmosphere?
		Well, it's probably maybe one order of magnitude brighter.
		Maybe two and a half times brighter as seen from the Moon than it is as seen from the Earth.
		Two and a half times brighter than it is here.
		Roughly.
		I mean, that's...
		Well, I'm talking direct radiation.
		We're talking perception by the human eye.
		We're not talking about how bright was that sun?
		Well, the absolute magnitude of the sun is 27.6, minus 27.6.
		All right, so it would have been horrendously bright.
		No, no, no.
		It would have been perceived to be substantially brighter, but we're dealing with a human visual system in terms of instrument measurements.
		Would a camera not perceive it to be brighter?
		It would be a few percentage points brighter to a camera.
		Not much.
		Not much.
		So that in other words...
		So you're telling me that the bright sun at high noon on the moon is high.
		But we were not on the moon at high noon.
		But you are, because I've got it.
		Well, okay, let's move on then.
		We'll get out of this.
		James, you can't move on.
		You make the statement that we were on the moon at high noon.
		Because I've got to say that proves that their shadow is not even their own length.
		But that's high noon.
		That's because you're trying to interpret the photographs without a full data set.
		Oh, come on.
		Let me move on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, it is an interesting question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If the shadow is virtually non-existent, or very tiny, that means, does it not, that the sun is roughly above you?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Or it means there are refractions that are filling in the light.
		There's no refraction without atmosphere.
		How about a glass dome, James?
		Oh, okay, well, let's move on.
		No, you're not going to move on.
		That is your glass dome.
		That's part of the model.
		Okay.
		You are basically asking the American people to believe, if I understand you correctly, that there is this vast conspiracy, that $20 billion and 400,000 employees conspired to basically sucker the American people into believing we didn't go to the moon, but we spent the money.
		I'm not asking the American people to believe anything.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I want to move on.
		Before you move on, Richard, I've got something to say to you.
		You, in effect, Richard, are asking the American people to believe that every bit as large a conspiracy occurred with as many people to hide from us the artifacts that are on the moon.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Not at all.
		Because the number of people who were on the moon were 12, and the number of people who handled the photographs in Houston were two or three.
		So we're talking 15 people versus 400,000.
		No, we're talking only six people who could, 12 people could ever prove they went to the moon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, break time, you guys.
		Hold tight, and I'm not going to let you talk.
		Not during the break, anyway.
		We'll pick it up where we left off.
		Did we go to the moon?
		What do you think?
		That's what we're talking about.
		James Collier, Richard C. Hoagland.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The debate.
		Did we or did we not go to the moon?
		The participants, Richard C. Holdland from Albuquerque and James Collier from New York, I thought, this is my opinion.
		Round one on the size of the moon in the photographs and the camera angles with regard to pictures taken by the astronauts from the chest Cameras, not anything on their heads, went clearly to Richard Hoagland.
		Round two, regarding the film, tentatively, I would have to give to James because how can that film disappear for 30 years?
		Round three, which we began just before the break on the angles of the sun, I would like to pursue before we move on.
		So that's what's coming up.
		Did we or did we not go to the moon?
		I'm Art Bell, and all this gets started again in a moment.
unidentified		It's not.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, gentlemen, we're back on one brief observation for both of you.
		I think, James, you tend to want to move on too quickly.
		And Richard occasionally wants to try and tell us about how the guy was born who invented the film.
		So somewhere in between is where we probably want to be.
		Let's not leave this sun angle thing for a bit, just a moment.
		Richard, how can you explain the lack of a long shadow?
		I mean, doesn't that indicate the reference point of the sun to the human being standing there?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right, this conversation needs to have a larger context.
		It is my contention, and the enterprise team of an awful lot of different people who looked at this now over the last half decade, that A, we did go to the moon, and B, NASA hid what was there.
		And in the process of hiding it, I am absolutely willing to agree with James, there are some very bizarre photographic anomalies that demand explanation.
		Some of the explanation that we have been able to figure out is the anomalies are caused by the very unusual lighting conditions on the moon, which is not as it has been represented.
		The moon is not an airless sphere covered with rock and craters where the sun beats down with nothing in between.
		The moon, in this model, has interesting glass stuff sticking up here and there, and that glass stuff, if you land close enough to it to explore it, which apparently is what we did in Apollo, will refract and interact with that sunlight and will cause a very bizarre light patterning on the surface.
		And if James wants to come out here to our lab, I will take him for hour after hour after hour through all kinds of photographs that not only I but other of my colleagues have been looking at that show these light patterns unequivocally because we look now at the database, the vast database at NSSDC.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Richard, but before you go on to number two, then your explanation is the only way the light or the shadows could be the way they are is if you account for the glass structures.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, no, I said that's one explanation.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And what's the other?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The other explanation is that because this was in the late 60s and early 70s, 30 years before the rise of computer technology, if you wanted to fake a picture, if you basically wanted to hide something so obvious that you couldn't do it in a computer because the computer didn't exist yet to do it, you'd have to fake it photographically.
		So some of the photographs that I think James has looked at that show remarkable anomalies are in fact studio shots.
		They were done in a studio, but that doesn't mean we didn't go to the moon, James.
		It means it's part of a larger pattern of hiding what was really there.
		All right, I'll accept that.
		And on a case-by-case basis, we have to make a decision.
		Why would they do?
		Okay.
		Okay, so now, because of your theory, you can slough this.
		You are so good at that.
		One of the things in round one.
		We have evidence.
		Hey, let me talk, because you filibustered.
		You said, Art, that you gave it to him because of the camera thing.
		He sloughed it again.
		I said that I wouldn't be talking to you if they'd have taken the video camera, put it on the astronaut, tilted it upward, and said, there's the Earth.
		I wouldn't be talking.
		They never did it.
		End of that case.
		I don't care what they did with their chest cameras.
		No one's ever seen those photos.
		Now, another thing they would have done...
		You mean to tell me that the Ed Findell, who was running the TV camera on the rover from Houston, you claim there is no tape, videotape, of the video camera being used to photograph the astronauts and the Earth simultaneously?
		If there is, NASA will not give it to me.
		Well, I got it.
		Well, you send it to me, and I will show it to Art Bell.
unidentified		Huh?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You send it to me.
unidentified		Okay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we'll be back on the Art Bell show again.
		If you can produce that tape, send it out to me.
		I don't understand why it's significant because I can take it on T-shot like that.
		If you'd have done that, I wouldn't be doing this.
		I'd have said, there's the moon, there's the Earth.
		We'd have seen it on television.
		Cronkite and you would have been real heroes.
		But neither one of you guys did that.
		Are you telling me that because something's on television, you believe it?
		I don't want to debate that.
		No, no, it's a very important question.
		Just because you don't see television.
		You don't believe it?
		If you read my book, you'll know that I believe that the news media, the New York Post, Washington Post, New York Times, and the media is as corrupt as you can get.
		So the answer is no, I don't believe it.
		Okay, so why is this shopping so important?
		Because that would have then proven we went to the moon.
		No, it wouldn't.
		Well, to me, it wouldn't.
		All it would do is prove that somebody had put a goal.
		I mean, I was in charge of the people who are not as sophisticated as you are.
		We would have believed it.
		James, I was in charge of simulations at CBS.
		We actually made Earth models.
		We photographed them on TV above models of the lunar landscape as part of our simulations.
		And did you have a lunar lander in the CBS studio in New York?
		Yes.
		I know.
		That's part of my story.
		That's what I'm doing.
		It was out at Beth Bays, Long Island, where Grumman was.
		Exactly.
		You did.
		Everything was exactly what duplicate.
		And what you said is true.
		was done here on Earth and they did fake the video.
		One of the things that can prove it...
		Back then, that was a lot of money.
		You tell us that.
		And during Apollo 12, when Alan Bean pointed the TV camera at the sun, so we suddenly lost all live TV, which now, in hindsight, I think, is incredibly suspicious, we had to go for the four or six-hour spacewalk, you know, the EVA, with simulations that I had designed at Beth Page.
		There's a famous picture of Alan Bean taken by Conrad, or Conrad taken by Bean, that said, you see it everywhere.
		It's the astronaut in the suit.
		Yep.
		And what you see is the camera is mounted on their chest.
		But Art, if you have that picture, ever get to see it, it's in every book and it's in advertising.
		The camera is taken from two feet above the head of the astronaut shooting down on his head.
		How did they do that?
		Well, because one astronaut was standing on an elevation, the other see in the reflecting plate of the mask that the guy's wearing in the gold plate that he's in front of the limb on a flat surface.
		He's 12 feet away because you can see the shadow.
		He's been a good mile away from the limb, over the horizon.
		See the pods of the limb in the reflection of his mask.
		That's not the limb.
		That's the structures.
		That's the artificial structures that are in the faceplate reflected, James.
		Go to our website, www.enterprisemission.com.
		Just like the pods of the limb.
		All right, I'll give you that.
		Look at those on our website.
		The picture was still supposedly taken by the man standing across the room with a camera on his chest, and it's taken from above.
		How did they do that?
		Because it's not taken from above.
		One is standing on an elevation, and the other one is standing in a depression.
		And in fact, it appears to be, if you analyze the photograph carefully, that the depressions are part of a foundation of a structure on the moon.
		And if you also analyze it closely, you'll see there's two shadows, one coming from in back of one of the astronauts and one coming from in back of the other, like there were two suns.
	No, it's the curved faceplate.
	It introduces severe distortion.
	It's like photographing flamingos in one of those lawn ornaments in Florida.
	Boy, the anomalies are never ending.
	All right, now, one of the things I would have done, we're going to get back to shadows in a minute because that's vital.
	One of the things I would have done to prove that I went to the moon was I would have taken a handful of dust, thrown it in the air, and watched it go up 60 feet in the air.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		They never did that, ever.
		Ever threw anything in the show anti-gravity.
		Have you seen gravity?
		Have you seen the film of the rooster tail from the rover on the Apollo 16?
		Oh, I love you, sir.
		You know, I had talked to the head, the guy in charge of astronaut training on my video.
		Art, can I tell people how to get this video?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Look, this video is so important because when I asked this guy, his name is Frank Hughes.
		He's in charge of astronaut training then and now, the only guy left from Apollo.
		I said, what have you got that proves we went to the moon?
		And he said, the rooster tail in back of the rover.
		And so I analyzed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm a dummy.
		One of you.
		What is the rooster tail?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, now the rover is the little car that drove on the moon, and when it moved along, it spit, you know, like a speedboat.
		It had wire wheels art, and it picked up lunar dust, and like a centrifuge, it spit it out the air.
		It spit it out the back.
		It's called a rooster tail when you go water skiing or a boat, you know, a speedboat kicking out.
		The dust particles will fly out tangential to the wheel rotating.
		I can do that with my Jeep on the beach.
		And they will fall in a parabolic arc, and on a place where there is no air, they will follow a Newtonian trajectory, and it should be a very classic example of objects moving under gravity.
		At least under a different gravity.
		If there is no gravity on the moon, how should that rooster tail have gone?
		Well, there's actually one-sixth gravity on the moon.
		I know if there's no atmosphere on the moon, how should that have gone?
		Well, it depends on, remember, these were wire mesh wheels.
		How should the dust that have left the wire mesh wheels gone?
		Depending upon the interaction of the dust and where the dust is picked up and the rotation of the wheel, well, it will look somewhat like a fan, all right?
		It will not look like a stream of water arcing because all the dust is not catching up the same radius from the wheel.
		All right, let me give you the law of physics, Mr. Hoagland.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The law of physics.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		By the way, these were not solid wheels.
		They were wider than the material.
		That means the dust was picked up between the surface of the wheel and the axle.
		All the way down to the axle.
		Don't go look in the mirror tonight.
		Your nose is going to hit it.
		When the dust comes up from the wheel.
		I don't think that kind of comment is appropriate in this discussion.
		I'm sorry.
		took it back i just exasperated for people who who think that you're giving them uh No, what I did was to actually measure the pendulum swing of one of the sample bags on Apollo 17.
		No, let's go back to that.
		And I also was the person that proposed on Apollo 17 that Scott dropped the hammer and the feather.
		Are you aware of that?
		I sure am aware of that.
		And I'm going to time both.
		Boy, you still know.
		And the gravity on the moon is 1-6.
		Now, you can claim that they changed the film speed or the tape speed, but if that's true, then they had to somehow sync up the live transmission with the visuals we saw on the movie.
		Yeah, why?
unidentified		Why?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If it was all done in advance and it was phony, what difference does that make?
		That was easy to do.
		What they couldn't do, let's talk about the rooster tail.
		You're claiming that if we saw a picture of the Earth from the rover camera, you would buy that we've been to the moon.
		They could have faked that, too, as I said before.
		Well, so what?
		That's true.
		But let's talk about the rooster tail.
		Because I know you're ducking this.
		No, I'm not ducking it.
		I'm saying that it's a more complicated problem than you're going to lay out for the problem.
		Okay, I'm going to tell you the uncomplicated problem.
		I'm going to tell you the uncomplicated problem.
		The law of physics is that in no atmosphere, whatever goes up, at whatever speed it goes up, it must come down at the same speed.
		Even here on Earth, you shoot a bullet in the air, it will go up and it will come down at the same speed.
		But in no atmosphere, the dust from in back of that little car should have gone on an arc like a rainbow.
		At the top of the arc, it should have continued down at the same speed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wait a minute, James?
		Yes.
		I'm not a scientist, but if you fire a bullet into the air, you're firing it at a much faster speed than terminal velocity, much faster.
		And so when it reaches its arc and begins back down, it is going to attain nothing more than terminal velocity at best.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's going to go up and come down.
		Once it hits that arc, it's going to come down at exactly the same speed that it went up.
		It's the law of physics.
		It does not slow down on the returning arc.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, no, no, no.
		And if it goes straight up and stops, when it's going up, it's being propelled.
		It's being shot.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And it doesn't make any difference, Arc, even though it does it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Even though it's propelled.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is that, Richard?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is he right?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Actually, James is right on this one.
		If you have an impulsive, if you add energy, momentum to an object impulsively, like an explosion or it's flung off like a wheel, it will rise in an arc, and he's absolutely right.
		It will descend at the same velocity it hit the surface at the same speed at which it left the surface.
		All right, now.
		That's in the ideal.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let me dance.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But that's with only one particle.
		All right, no.
		When you're riding on the moon with a wire mesh wheel, you're collecting several hundred grams of dust, and you're flinging it backwards, and the dust is colliding with itself, James.
		You're not allowing for what's called equipartition of energy.
		Yeah, right.
		The dust that's colliding with itself is going to fall out faster, so you get a fan.
		You don't get a rainbow arc.
		You get a fan of material.
		Some falls out sooner, some falls out later, and also it falls to both sides because it's not kept on the same track.
		You're right.
		Here's what happened.
		In the video, I slow it down, I speed it up, and you can see it.
		What happens is that all the dust, no matter where it goes up or which part of it, goes halfway up the arc, just like on Earth, and then it gets hung up in atmosphere.
		And it forms a C fan, just like a ring, like a circle, a C. Make a C with your thumb and forefinger, and it forms like rings in back of them.
		In other words, it got hung up in the atmosphere, and it couldn't go any farther because it was done on Earth.
		And I say that to Frank right on the film, and I called NASA, and I talked to Dr. John Lawrence, and he said, you really savaged him with that one.
		And of course, it was true, and any physicist looking will know that that stuff in fact of the rover got hung up in the atmosphere and formed what looks like sound waves.
		That is Dion Lawrence.
		What?
		He's the head of media for NASA.
		He's what?
		Head of media at NASA.
		Not familiar with him.
		Okay, anyway.
		So anyway, you can't miss it.
		It forms C rings in back.
		It doesn't complete the arc because it didn't have the energy to go through the atmosphere any farther.
		That's consistent with atmosphere.
		And I don't care if you try to tell people not.
		Wait a minute.
		Have you compared side-by-side footage of the lunar rover doing this with Doombuggy Hot Rodders somewhere out in the Mojave Desert?
		Absolutely.
		I've seen it my whole life.
		But have you compared it on the video?
		The video that you'll see.
		Have you done the same?
		Let me tell people to get this video.
		I'm going to forget.
		No, no, no.
		Have you done the comparison side-by-side, split screen?
		No.
		Why not?
		Because I don't have the capability.
		Nor did I care to.
		Wait a minute.
		It's so obvious to anybody.
		If you're claiming that the moon, in other words, you're claiming they were down on the moon, they were on the earth, and they were doing this in some backbox.
		It is so obviously done in atmosphere that the physics of it is quite obvious.
		Then why not compare dune buggies on sand dunes with fine particulate matter and the lunar rover stuff side by side with the moon?
		It'll come out exactly the same.
		I've seen it myself in life, I know, many times.
		I told you I've got to cheat it.
		To play fair, you have to show yourself.
		But you were.
		Well, you know, I didn't have the money to do that kind of thing.
		Wait, a split screen?
		I don't have it.
		I don't have the kind of money you got.
		But wait, you're making an extraordinary claim as there is a friend of mine.
		Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
		It's not a case of a certainty.
		This is not part of your case.
		This is not extraordinary.
		It's quite obvious.
	Let me tell you one more thing.
	Let me tell you one more thing, Harry.
	I want to ask you a question.
	You're claiming this then proves that this was done in an atmosphere.
	In atmosphere, no question about it.
	Other people who know physics see it.
	Anybody who sees it knows it.
	Have you asked someone with a vacuum chamber to set up a centrifuge so you can spit out dust and analyze what happens under one gravity?
	Because gravity should simply change the length of the arc.
	It shouldn't change the basic dynamics, right?
	That's correct.
	So if you do it in a vacuum chamber, is it possible you might get interesting inter-dust effects that would mimic an atmosphere, but it would in fact be a different physical phenomenon?
	Impossible.
	Impossible.
	Because it would go against the laws of physics.
	Wait, wait, baby.
	How do you know the laws of physics?
	Because I was taught them.
	No, the reason we went to the moon was to discover if we need to add to our laws of physics.
	Okay.
	If we knew everything there was in the universe, why would we have science, James?
	Okay, let me ask you.
	You're claiming that we know everything about ballistic flight and that we don't need to do actual experiments and compare side-by-side examples because we already know what we should expect to find.
	All right, I'd love to do it.
	Now, here's two things now.
	So far, we didn't take a camera and put it on an astronaut and show the Earth.
	They never took anything and threw it up in the air to show that there was no gravity.
	It should have gone six times higher than on Earth.
	Never once did they ever do it.
	And the rooster tail behind the rover looks exactly like on Earth.
	And I slow it down and stop actioning it, and you can see it.
	Art, can I please give this advice?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		James, we're near the top of the hour.
		So when we come back, look, we have the luxury of time and radio.
		Don't worry about it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, you're going to get a chance to give out information on how to get your tape so people can see this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Maybe you'll even have time to get a side-by-side photograph in there.
unidentified		Yes, I'd love to.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Hold on, gentlemen.
		We're at the top of the hour.
		And again, I'm separating you audio-wise.
		And we'll bring you both back after the top of the hour.
		This is cool.
		What do you think?
		Did we go to the moon?
unidentified		Or not?
unidentified		I don't know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's obviously going to be a very, very interesting evening.
		So buckle in, stay right where you are.
		More to come from the high desert near Dreamland.
		I'm Art Bell, and this is CBC.
unidentified		Don't leave me this way I can't buy, I can't say goodbye without your love.
		Oh, baby, don't leave me this way.
		Have you heard?
		Call art bell, toll-free.
		West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
		1-800-618-8255.
		East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
		1-800-825-5033.
		This is the CBC Radio Network.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is.
		Good morning.
		I'm Art Bell.
		For two hours, we have been debating and will continue to debate about whether we went to the moon or not.
		James Collier in New York says we never went to the moon.
		Richard C. Hopeland near Albuquerque says we certainly did.
		That's the debate.
		It will continue in a moment.
		Somebody just sent me a science and mechanics magazine dated January of 1966, it looks like.
		It says, exclusive proof that the Russians faked their spacewalk.
		Four months of research uncovers new evidence from over 30 scientists.
		That's all I've got as the cover.
		All right, folks, before we get back to it, a few things.
		Number one, on the website, a lot of things to do.
		Oh, boy, there are a lot of things to do.
		That website is www.artbell.com.
		www.artbell.com.
		On there tonight, you will find a new picture of a chupacabra.
		You tell me what that thing is.
unidentified		God's weird.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You will find a brand new crop circle at Alton Barnes.
		Very, very, very, very much like a duplicate nearly, but not quite at Silbury Hill, right below it.
		You go take a look.
		You let me know what you think.
		And don't forget the Rogue Market.
		Buy Art Bell stock.
		And the earlier you get in, the more you're going to make.
		All you do is click on Rogue Market, fill out their form, and go buy all the Art Bell stock you can get as quick as you can get it.
		That is what you can be doing on the website.
		Coming up in the near future, by the way, tomorrow night, Rio D'Angelo and a real shocker, there are more Heavensgate folks out there.
		We will discuss their philosophy and what they're going to do tomorrow night with Rio D'Angelo.
		He's the one that found the bodies at Heaven's Gate in Rancho, Santa Fe.
		Maybe we'll get some real information instead of what the press said.
		Then Friday, Professor Amichio Kaku, and he is a professor of theoretical physics at City University in New York.
		Monday, tentative, I hope, waiting to hear, I believe, James von Frag.
		September 4th, Mark Fuhrman, just some of what's coming here.
		Five, nine.
		Got nothing to lose but the pain.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, here we go again.
		James Collier, Richard Hoagland, the debate.
		Did we or did we not go to the moon?
		James, are you there?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I'm going to bring you up first, and I'm going to give you a quick opportunity here to tell people how to get your tape, the one that proves we didn't go to the moon.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And when people get it and see this, I want them to call their congressmen senators, and I used to say Art Bell, but we'll pass that one up.
		You can get it, Victoria House Press in New York.
		And if you've got my book, Vote Scam, that's the same place you get it.
		And it's in the phone book, Don't Get Victoria House Apartments.
		They're in New York, too.
		Victoria House Press.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Have you got their phone number?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes, it's 212-809-9090.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And it's at 67 Wall Street.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, the phone number is probably more important.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		212-809-9090.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Right, and there's an 800 number for credit cards, which is 1-800.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Really easy to remember.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		888-9999.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		1-800-888-9999.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That is easy.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And it costs $23.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		$23.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Includes the shipping.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And when you're done viewing this, you'll know we never went to the moon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's a 90-minute tape, and nobody has ever seen it, including hard-boiled newsmen I've shown it to whoever again believed that we went to the moon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Hold on.
		Now, to be fair, Richard, you have materials, too.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't want to talk about materials.
		I want to talk about something that's coming up.
		If you want to, we have two major announcements tonight, and I guess Los Angeles has now joined us, ABC.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		A few weeks ago, on your show, we did a rather remarkable historical thing, which was a simulcast on your show from Phoenix, on the internet, et cetera, et cetera.
		We are holding a sequel in Pasadena on September 11th, which is a little less than a month away now.
		That night, at around 6.30 California time, Pacific time, the second NASA spacecraft headed for Mars arrives.
		Mars Surveyor will be put into orbit.
		The deorbit burn will take place at about 6.30 California time.
		What we have planned, what the Enterprise mission has planned, is a double whammy for that day.
		We are going to do a demonstration outside JPL in the morning, beginning between 9 and 11 a.m., when there is a major briefing on the upcoming insertion burn, and all of the press and other NASA employees and scientists, whatever, will be gathered in the von Kármán auditorium.
		So if you would like to participate in this rally, which is basically to hold their feet to the fire and make sure that Sidonia is re-photographed now from the surveyor mission, I'm going to be there.
		I don't normally go to demonstrations.
		I'm going to go to this one.
		And I have an information number.
		If you want to call David Laverty, who was our kind of rally coordinator, he is at Area Code 408-356-1430.
		That's Area Code 408-356-1430.
		If you want to be there or be square and to show NASA and the press and CNN and everybody else that people care and would like to see this issue resolved.
		Now the second event is going to be that evening.
		At the Doubletree Hotel in the nice part of Pasadena, about a mile away from JPL, we're putting on a five-hour intensive that evening, starting at about 7 o'clock.
		And Ron Nix, who is our geologist on the project, one of them, and Ken Johnston, who's been on your program many times, former NASA expert, test pilot, currently at Boeing, will join me.
		And we may have a couple of surprise guests.
		And our discussion for the evening is going to be pretty groundbreaking because we have been, since our last program, several weeks ago, looking intensively at the Pathfinder imagery.
		We have had some major breakthroughs in this 15-year quest to find out what the heck NASA's really up to.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And that'll be all presented.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That will be all presented.
		There is an information number for that event, which is that evening.
		So you can go to both.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, and that is?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's Area Code 310-967-1377.
		There'll be a lot of information on that line.
		We're going to have some astonishing photographs, Art, and you have seen one of them.
		You have seen a photograph of a pyramid, a three or four foot tall pyramid lying a few feet away from the Pathfinder lander.
		I have also discussed with you and with Ron how in other photographs taken from the lander, that object has disappeared.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I know it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		James, you think that VAS has only been playing games with the moon?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, hold on, guys.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		They've been playing games with our heads for over 30 years, and on Thursday night, the 11th, we're going to have the convincing proof, finally, of what they've been up to, what they've been hiding, and we may have, if things break just right politically, a couple of very important surprise guests at night.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		All right.
		Both of you then have made your announcements.
		Here's something from my webmaster, Keith Rowland.
		With regard to the discussion we're having prior to the top of the hour, Keith asks, hey, what about Alan Shepard's golf ball?
unidentified		Sean?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		In the parking lot at Johnson Space Center in NASA, when I spoke to Frank Hughes, I said, hey, I saw that golf ball go.
		And he said, well, you're trying to get me.
		He said, because nobody ever saw that golf ball go.
		It was taken from the side, and I have NASA's video right here of it, and he's correct.
		Nobody ever saw that golf ball go anywhere.
		Well, if anybody has any video of it going, then Hughes is a liar, because I believed I saw it go, and it looked like it was on a string.
		James?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have an even better mystery for you.
		Have you read Shepard's book?
		I just finished it, and it stinks.
		Well, forget the quality of the book.
		Have you read the book?
unidentified		Yeah.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Have you looked at the photographs?
unidentified		Yeah.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		In the center fold of Alan Shepard's book, there is a double-page spread of the lunar module and Shepard and Mitchell and the golf shot with the golf ball suspended photographically in its flight outward from after Shepard hit it.
		Remember that shot?
		Yeah.
		That picture is a total fake.
unidentified		I know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's what I'm saying here.
		Alan Shepard in his own book.
		Now, we spent a lot of time trying to track this picture down, trying to get a NASA number for it because as soon as I looked at it, I knew it had to be faked, and here's why.
		There was no third film camera on the moon.
		There was a chess pack camera, a Hasselblad on Mitchell.
		There was a chess pack Hasselblad on Shepard.
		And there was a little TV camera sitting on a tripod about 20 feet away from the lunar module to the north, if I remember correctly.
		The angle of this shot, which is the center fold in Shepard's own book, is of photographic quality.
		In other words, it's an actual photograph.
		It's not a TV picture.
		But when you begin to look at it, I can show you from the photographs that Ken provided me from 14 from his private archive where he squirreled them away, the photographs that were used reversed in the computer.
		It is a completely fake computer shot.
		And they've taken a little picture of Mitchell from his putting up a TV camera shot, flipped it in the computer, matted it into the scene, drew the shadows from the S-band antenna that was sending the TV signals down to Earth.
		In other words, they've completely doctored this picture, and we got hold of Shepard's secretary, who'd been the one to provide the photographs to the publisher, and we could not get a number.
		She claimed she had no idea where this photograph came from.
		And that's where we had to leave it because the trail literally runs out.
		Now, here's my problem.
		Why would Alan Shepard, first astronaut, admiral, demetal, you know, American hero and et cetera, put an obviously fake picture in the middle of his own book?
		Because he never went to the moon.
		He's faked everything.
		He's made his money off of it.
unidentified		And the man is as guilty as you can get.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And he has no conscience.
		That is one hypothesis.
		The other hypothesis is that Alan Shepard and a lot of other NASA people, including the ones we're discussing now the Pathfinder problem with, are desperately trying to leak information so the cavalry comes over the hill and Rescues them from this thing they're caught up in where they can't tell us what they really found.
		All right, let me tell you a couple things here then.
		Don't talk for a minute.
		Because, one, that article you got was by Lloyd Mallon.
		You're correct.
		It was in, and I have the entire article.
		And Mallon was one of the top investigators in America.
		He had government clearance, and he went to Edgerton, and they proved, and it's all documented with CIA, FBI, Edgerton, universities, Kodak, everybody, that you could see the wires of the cosmonaut who walked in space first.
		It was a fraud.
		And the reason they did it was for political reasons to shake up the United States.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard, how do you respond to that?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He's saying the Soviets did take their spacewalks.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, the guy who did the analysis for EG ⁇ G, Charlie Wyckoff, told me, showed me that at the end of the day, when his work was done, he felt that Leonoff did spacewalk.
		They were real photographs.
		And so that's a complete 180 from what this man has just represented.
		Well, I can read that article to you, and the next time if I do this, I'll read Lloyd Mallon's, and it is.
		But you are depending upon the honesty and integrity of Lloyd Mallon, who unfortunately is no longer with us.
		That is correct.
		The honesty and integrity of Lloyd Mallon and his documentation is all I can go on, and it's pretty heavy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What are we talking about here, then?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A fake gap between the Americans and the Russians?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's a Russian.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You can fake it better.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Well, here's the thing.
		Well, Jim, then let me ask you this.
		Do you think that Ed White did the spacewalk from the Zemini capsule?
		I don't know because I can't go any farther, but they're probably doing it now, so they probably figured it out.
		But in the space race of 65, which I'll get to later, and how this all started, I think the Russians faked that.
		And then the Americans took that clue, realizing they could do that and pull the wool over people's eyes.
		And therefore, by 1969, when they didn't have the technology to go to the moon, because I haven't even discussed the LEM yet, they said, hell, we're going to lose $30 billion, and we're not going to do this.
		And the question is, Walter Cronkite and you had to have known that.
		You knew it was faked in studios.
		You were a big science writer.
		The people at the post, and believe me, for people who have, I haven't even begun to give you the guns yet.
		Jim, let me be clear.
		You are accusing me of knowing that NASA faked it.
		You said that you knew that in CBS, which I found out.
		Do you know Jim Scott?
		No.
		Okay, well, Jim told me.
		He says, I walked in the studio and I saw the whole fake thing there, and there was one in Dallas, and it was an exact moonscape with a limb on it, and they were doing simulations.
		And we used to super, I mean, my director and I used to have words because he insisted on putting up simulation every time we went to those shots.
		And I said, Jim, I said, you're destroying the artistry of the moment.
		We can get away with a few shots where we don't have to have CBS simulation.
		Boy, here in the Art Bell show.
		Here on the Art Bell show, I got an admission that I have been looking for.
		I went to the Broadcast Museum.
		Do you know in the Broadcast Museum in New York, they have taken all NASA video film away but one little clip?
		What kind of admission are we thinking we were doing?
		That you knew, and so did Cronkite, that you were doing just what you said you were doing.
		And nobody knew about it.
		I didn't put a super on the screen that says CBS News Simulation.
		Oh, is that what you're saying you did?
		That's what I'm saying we did.
unidentified		All right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And I kept quibbling with my director because he kept putting it up there, and I said, leave it a shot so we can see what the damn thing is.
		Why did they go to that elaborate lengths to put that into a studio like that?
		Because we wanted to make sure that if the TV camera broke, and it did, we would have a backup.
		Remember, television is pictures.
		And in fact, it was very boring.
		Seeing our guys out on that set at Beth Page for hour after hour when there was no live TV from the moon was one of the most boring television experiences of my life because we only had the air-to-ground.
		We had the live radio coming back from the moon, but we had to use our own guys in their fake spacesuits on this simulated lunar surface, and we've kept putting up CBS news simulation.
		And of course, the drama of the moment goes away when you don't have actuality, when you don't have real pictures.
		All right, let me go into something else here that will interest you.
		Did you say that L.A. just joined us?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They didn't hear the first two hours.
		That's right.
		Los Angeles joined at midnight.
		That's correct.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so they didn't hear the first two hours of this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, that's correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They did not.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so in 30 seconds, I'm going to tell them this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you don't have 30 seconds.
		You will when we come back.
		We're at the bottom of the.
		We spend a lot of time giving out numbers and information and stuff.
		All right?
		So everybody hold tight, and we'll be right back.
		James Collier from New York, Richard Hoagland from an area near Albuquerque.
		Did we or did we not go to the moon?
		That's the question.
unidentified		Her hair's a tall old gold.
		Her lips are sweet and bright.
		Her hands are never cold.
		She's got better days inside.
		She's turned on you, gone.
		You won't have to think twice.
		She's your new 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did we or did we not go to the moon?
		James Collier in New York, Richard Hoblin near Albuquerque.
		We'll get back to them in a moment.
		Art C. All right, back now to James Collier and Richard C. Hoblin.
		James, you wanted to do a 30-second recap.
		Let's hear that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, for my friends in L.A. Basically, it's a debate between Richard and I, and I have a 90-minute videotape out called Was It Only a Paper Moon?
		And I'm claiming that we did not go to the moon based on what I've discovered and put on this 90-minute tape, which we'll give you how to get in the next hour.
		And what we've established so far is that I claim that one of the reasons if you'd have gone to the moon and taken a video camera and put it on an astronaut and tilted it up and said, there's the Earth, I would have believed we went, but they never did it.
		Richard debated that.
unidentified		All right, let me stop.
unidentified		Hold it, James.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let me stop you right there.
		Here's a fact.
		It says, here is the photo that James Collier claims can't be found.
		In five minutes, I found it.
		Manage it at http forward slash forward slash nix.nasa.gov.
		Can't Mr. Collier perform a single web search?
		The picture reference is image number AS17-134-2038.
		It shows Harrison Schmidt, the lunar horizon, the Earth, and Old Glory all in one shot.
unidentified		I know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's the one shot taken.
		And I said a video camera.
		That one shot, I don't believe.
		That's the only shot ever taken, and it's always there.
		It's standard.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And that movie shot.
		James, let me ask, you know, given the state of the art of television in 1969, which I was obviously intimately familiar with, given the fact that we were doing simulation, showing the Earth above our lunar landscape here on Earth in the simulation, why do you put so much importance in Ed Findell pointing the camera up and looking at the Earth?
		In fact, there is video of him doing that.
		And I have looked through hundreds of hours of this stuff looking for other evidence of the things that we're pursuing.
		And, you know, I will provide it to you.
		But to me, it's almost a non-sequitur because, so you got a shot of the Earth on the TV.
		If you think they faked it, why wouldn't they fake that too?
		I totally understand that, but I don't have it.
		And in my investigation, that was just one of the points.
		You and I both agree they faked a lot of video.
		No, I said they faked some.
		I didn't say a lot.
unidentified		Okay, some.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I'll fake some.
		Very careful on a case-by-case basis to make the decision.
		Okay, then the other thing I say is they never threw anything up in the air to show one-sixth gravity.
		Actually, they did.
		They threw equipment.
		I know I got that video.
		It went horizontal to the ground and out of the picture, and it never went up in the air.
		And the guy says, what's that proof of?
		Centrifugal force?
		I've got that.
		I got all seven NASA video shots, all seven Apollo runs.
		It sounds to me like you wished you'd been the director standing behind Nfindel in Houston telling the astronauts what they should do to prove to you they were on the moon.
		Hey, listen, I asked a kid in grade school, I said, what would you do?
		He said, I'd throw a ball in the air and put a video camera on it.
		They never did it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, while we're on that subject, gentlemen, here's another talker, Phil in Houston, at NASA, who says the following.
		Art, you were right.
		Both of your guests were wrong.
		Terminal velocity is a limiting factor in a projectile returning to the surface of the Earth.
		For example, a bullet shot vertically from a high-powered rifle can have a muzzle exit velocity of 3,000 feet per second.
		When that bullet falls back to Earth, it will have at most a velocity of approximately 60 feet per second or terminal velocity.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Without an atmosphere.
		That's because of air resistance.
		Yeah, ask them what it would do without atmosphere.
		The model was on the moon without an atmosphere.
		The scientific nation should listen more carefully.
		Right, junk science.
		Okay, so anyway, we've established.
		Let me move on now for you people in LA, get the tape.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I was talking about Earth, so.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Right, right.
		Well, for Earth, you were right, Art.
		But we're talking about being on the moon.
		Yeah, in a vacuum.
		So let me ask this point.
		Right.
		Remember the hammer and feather?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, drama.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You spent a lot of time getting NASA, not being in NASA, not being at CBS at that point, but just being me through friends and colleagues to get the astronauts to actually drop a heavy thing and a light thing on the moon simultaneously as a replay of the old Galileo experiment.
		And on Apollo 14, what's his name, David Scott, actually stood there with a geology hammer and a falcon feather, symbolically representative of the Air Force Academy and the Falcon lunar module.
		And he dropped them, and they hit the lunar surface simultaneously.
		Now, the rate at which they fell is one criteria.
		And I've looked at the tape and I've measured the velocity of the acceleration and it's about 1 6 G within the limits of measurement.
		Correct.
		The fact that they hit the surface simultaneously, a heavy steel hammer and a feather, indicates to me that it was done in a vacuum.
		No, I've got a feather here, same one, and it will fall at the same rate as the hammer.
		I did it.
		I've demonstrated it to you.
		Look at that.
		Is it on your tape?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No.
		Nothing you claim you've proven is on your tape.
		Yeah, but Galleria was wrong.
		James, what good is the tape if you don't put your proof on your tape?
		Galileo's law is consistent, so I didn't deal with it at all.
		It's consistent.
		Something will drop on Earth no matter what its weight, the same speed, 32 feet per second per second, the same.
		It doesn't make any difference.
		The only thing that won't be.
		But what about that terminal velocity?
		If a bullet will reach a terminal velocity, a feather will reach a much slower terminal velocity because it's air resistance per unit mass is a massive state.
		Yeah, but not a feather with a quill like that.
		I've got the same feather, and believe me, it's the same rate as the hammer.
		Why wouldn't you put it on video if it proves it?
		Because I didn't want to deal with what was already obvious.
		Let me go on to things that I do have on video.
		Okay, here's a really important.
		Let's just deal with shadows right now, real quick, and then we'll go on.
		One of the things that gets you into this game of investigating this, that people who bring you into it, there's a lot more people than me doing it around the world.
		There's a BBC documentary coming out, David Percy in England.
		There was a story in 40 and Times three months in a row.
		Anyway, is that when you, I got the NASA video, they land the lamb.
		The lamb is 32 feet long, 33 feet long.
		The shadow it casts is 33 feet long.
		It's one time its length.
		They step out from the shadows, and their shadows are 18 feet long, three times their length.
		How did that happen?
		It's on the video.
		You can't miss it.
		And they did it in Apollo 11, 12.
		You can't miss that.
		Their shadows jump to three times their length, and within an hour walking on the moon, it goes to less than their length.
		In the same video.
		Demonstrably faked.
		Well, no, what this proves is that the photographs have been tinkered with.
		But that's what we've been claiming all along, that the photographic evidence is a critical part of the evidentiary case that NASA is hiding something huge.
		Why would they tinker with that?
		Because that's what they're hiding.
		In other words, if you have to take shots in a studio, have you ever done a movie?
		During filming, there is a person who is consistently tagged or tasked with looking for inconsistent detail, minutia.
		Is the book on the edge of the coffee table tilted at a certain angle?
		Are the lamps lit in the proper sequence?
		Are the candles the same length that they were in the previous shot?
		Stuff like that.
		But they're claiming this was done real time, really happening.
		I know they're claiming that, but we already know that that claim is not true.
		All right, well, then we agree on that point.
		NASA videos demand.
		Please let me have it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The question is whether or not we were on the moon, and toward that end, please both of you listen to this from Brett, Austin, Texas.
		As much as I distrust and generally dislike NASA or whatever it's become, there can be no doubt we went to the moon.
		There is actual physical proof that men were there because we left something there.
		Well, several somethings, but one thing in particular that can be verified easily and has been verified, that something was a hexagonal-shaped mirror designed so it bounces light back exactly in the direction from which it came.
		The McDonald Observatory in Texas bounced a laser off the mirror on the moon, which we left there, in order to measure extremely precisely the distance from here to there.
		I forget the details, which Apollo mission left it, but it's there.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, now I've dealt with that.
		In the guy who did the moon thing, oh, why do I draw a blank?
		Anyway, they should have put a reflector on there.
		They should have put it where any astronomer could have seen it.
		Instead, what they're doing is saying that you need a laser beam to do it, and you've got to be in the government to prove it.
		They could have put it there.
		The Hubble Telescope has never photographed all of that garbage we supposedly left on the moon.
		And I don't know why that is.
		Why is that?
		James, James, the Hubble could not see it because it's very tiny.
		When I was with Cronkite doing the site surveys, we went out to the Lake Observatory, which at that point was the second largest telescope in the world.
		The largest was the 200-inch in Palomar in Southern California.
		And I had the thrill of my young lifetime at that point because I was able to look through the 120-inch at the moon.
		Very few astronomers ever look through a huge telescope these days because all of the work is done electronically and by computer and CCD and chips and all that.
		But I actually got to look through the 120-inch, and the reason was that the 120-inch was being prepared that night in a supporting role to fire one of the laser beams at the retro reflectors that the Apollo 11 astronauts, Armstrong and Aldrin, were to set up during the Apollo 11 landing.
		Several of the missions carried these retro reflective packages, including the Russian Lunikhod missions with the reflectors built by the French, and many observatories all over the world, not just government, have bounced pulses, laser pulses.
		Even amateurs have been able to time the distance between Earth and Moon, firing pulses off these little corner reflectors.
		So yes, the faxer is correct.
		That is absolute proof that something is on the moon that was not there before 1969.
		Well, it didn't mean man went there, but let me ask you this question.
		It doesn't mean man went there.
		The name I was looking for was Jules Verne in his movie by going to the moon, in his book, said you could have put a giant reflector there where any telescope could have seen it.
		They could have done that, but they didn't do it.
		But that's very anecdotal.
		And whether an amateur can fire a laser beam, where's an amateur going to do that?
		Where?
		By having a large telescope and commercially available lasers.
		The technology has moved on in 30 years.
		I mean, I could go get myself a laser beam and a telescope that will do that?
		Well, it would cost you a bit of money.
		Okay, why?
		There are commercial firms.
		In fact, I was in Seattle talking with a friend of mine about doing exactly that, and he was talking with a major corporation, I will not mention which one, that wanted to basically use a laser beam to write on the moon a sign that everybody on Earth, half the Earth, could see.
		That's the power of lasers now.
		All right, but this is the same.
		So that kind of laser pulsed off the little reflectors through an amateur telescope could easily be picked up by amateurs.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		James, let's go back to something that was quite contentious.
		You said that if what you believe is true and we did not go to the moon.
		Right.
		Richard Hoagland would have had to have been part of the cover-up with Walter Cronkite.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
		I mean, based on what Hoagland claims he is, he would have to have known something there.
		First of all, we do have him admitting that NASA video is faked.
		And I don't know if he knew it then.
		I've just learned it now because I've studied it.
		But he was around then, and he could have looked at this video, and I haven't even brought the big guns out yet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, bring out the big guns.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If you've got big guns, bring them out.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, now, one other little gun before I go there.
		The famous shot of the Apollo, of the lunar lander on the moon in Apollo 16 has no crater underneath it, and it had a 10,000-pound down thrust engine, and it doesn't even disturb a pebble underneath it.
		Why not?
		It should have blown a big crater.
		Actually, that is not true.
		When I looked at the Apollo 14 photography, which Ken provided me, it was the first generation.
		And it's very important that we compare apples with apples on apples and oranges.
		And I wanted to look at this pristine film and photography, which had been kept in a vault for 30 years.
		One of the key things that I looked at was the close-ups under the descent engine bell of the blast effect on the lunar surface from the descent of Apollo 14.
		Because obviously, as with James, I have been questioning every single facet of the lunar program, looking for inconsistencies, looking for where NASA is not telling us the truth, looking for ways in which I could calibrate or test this model that there's things on the moon they don't want us to know are there.
		And one of the things I found out with the close-ups that I had never had access to before was a radial striation pattern on a relatively hard pan surface where the descent engine, as it came down, it blasted out radially, very light stuff.
		And in fact, you can see wind streaks radially extending out from the engine bell, but you do not see the crater.
		He's absolutely right.
		Now, why don't you see a crater?
		The answer has to do with the consistency of the lunar surface in opposition to the models of the lunar surface before we got there.
		In other words, it's very interesting to argue theory over fact.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They thought we might sink into lunar dust.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That was Tommy Gold's idea, but even the more benign models said there may be a fluffy layer and that the descent engine coming down in a vacuum should basically scoop out a crater.
		Well, what you've got to understand is that in a vacuum where you don't have a constraining atmosphere, like on Earth, a rocket exhaust is not a pencil beam of fire coming out in a directed blast.
		It, in fact, is a sphere.
		As soon as that exhaust gas leaves the engine bell, it expands as a sphere in all directions.
		So the pressure per square inch on the ground is relatively small compared to the same tests carried out in an atmosphere here on Earth.
		Yeah, but it looks 10,000 pounds of down thrust.
		I don't care what you're telling me.
		It was only a foot or so off the ground.
		And the famous picture that anybody can go to their book and look at shows you no strirations at all.
		Well, in all the NASA videos.
		I will put the photographs up on our website of the strirations under the Apollo 14 because I specifically looked to see if we could see that evidence.
		And it's there.
		It's not on Apollo 16.
		Where did you get into that?
		Well, but remember, we landed at different places on the moon.
		I know it's necessary to be different.
		It's not homogeneous.
		It's heterogeneous.
		It has different characteristics.
		That's why we ostensibly went to different places.
		I know, but the soil, they took soil samples.
		They hand-pounded a core into the ground three feet.
		So we know at that point.
		In some places, and they had incredible difficulty pounding it in a few feet away in other places.
		Then how, there's another question that we're going to deal with, but that's geology.
		But let me go to something else here because that's going to be a debate.
		Those people who want to believe that a 10,000-pound down thrust engine holding up tons of metal on the moon isn't going to blow away a crater under the Apollo 16 shot of it that's in everybody's book in their home, that they can block it.
		It doesn't blow a crater on any of the missions.
		Look at Apollo 11, look at 12, look at 14.
		It didn't blow a crater, right?
		Huh?
		It never blew a crater.
		There are no craters under the engine bell.
		There is a pattern of striations on a very hard pan-packed surface.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		James, I have a question for you.
		It's a crater question.
		If we were going to set out to fake the whole moon landing business.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And the operating assumption was.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Excellent question, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That there was a lot of loose material and there would be craters, then wouldn't we fake craters?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it would seem to me they would, but they didn't.
		That's what it would seem to me they didn't.
		What does that tell you, James?
		Now, wait, are you dealing with dumb engineers?
		Well, wait, I haven't even begun.
		Let's begin, and I'll show you why.
		I'm going to be showing you.
		What does that tell you?
		Well, according to a guy named David Percy in England who's putting out a book called I will trust David Percy as far as I can throw him, which is not very far.
		All right, so I won't discuss David Percy.
		David Percy is not a reliable source.
		He is part of the cover-up.
		And if Mark wants, I will spend the next hour describing a meticulous detail of the University of Rwanda in terms of that.
		We'll move on from that.
		I imagine you would want to move on, yes.
		Okay, then we will not.
		Okay, now, when I started investigating the limb itself, wait, one other thing.
		What do you know about the Van Allen radiation belt?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Here comes a big gun.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I know that they are doughnut-shaped.
		I know that they are trapped by the Earth's toroidal magnetic field.
		I know that they're fairly high radiation.
		But if you transit them at very high velocity, 25,000 miles per hour, you can go through them quickly enough that you get a very small minimal radiation dose inside the command module.
		But how high above the Earth does it start and how far out does it go?
		Well, the inner belt, I mean, this is back in the 50s when we measured these.
		The inner belt starts, oh, maybe 500 to 600 miles up and extends outwards to 10,000, 15,000 miles, something like that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And the outer belt?
		Well, the outer belt is composed of electrons and it varies in intensity.
		You know, sometimes there's more, sometimes there's less.
		It depends on solar flare activity, the loading factors.
		The phase of the moon even has something to do with it.
		But it all depends.
		Radiation dose depends on the amount of dosage and the rate at which you fly through it.
		We flew through the Van Allen belts at very high velocity.
		Well, you went, what, 26,000 miles an hour?
		Well, it was decreasing as you're obviously falling uphill, right?
		So you're going to spend at least a half an hour in the lower, most deadly part of the belt, right?
		Presumably.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		This is one of the big guns.
		I know it is.
		Gentlemen, we're at the top of the hour.
		Everybody take a good deep breath.
		When we come back, we will discuss one of the major contentious issues regarding whether or not we went to the moon.
		That is whether the astronauts and or cosmonauts would have been killed by the amount of radiation they would have absorbed.
		So we'll pick up on that issue.
		It is a very important one when we come back.
		James Collier in New York, Richard C. Hobland in New Mexico, near Albuquerque, near Dreamlands in the Nevada desert.
		I'm Art Bell, and this is CBZ.
unidentified		I'm Art Bell, and this is CBZ.
		If you were concerned about the health call Art Bell, toll-free.
		West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
		1-800-618-8255.
		East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
		1-800-825-5033.
		This is the CBC Radio Network.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, good morning, everybody.
		Richard C. Ogland and James Collier, square off.
		Did we or did we not go to the moon?
		James Collier says no.
unidentified		Richard says yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But if I still get In a moment, we're going to be talking about the radiation belt.
		The cosmonauts and the astronauts would both have had to have gone through to get to the moon.
		So that coming up, why should you go to my website, www.artbellt.com, because there's a new chupacabra picture there.
		This one's going to be, I want this identified.
		I've never seen a creature like this.
		It's dead.
		It was hit by some, but boy, it's weird.
		You tell me, chupacabra or not, a new crop circle photograph that'll knock your socks off at Alton Barnes.
		Very much like one, except not quite like one, at Silbury Hill that appeared a short time ago.
		And then, of course, the rogue market.
		Don't forget the rogue market.
		You've got to get in there now and buy Art Bell stock.
		The rumor is it may split soon.
		Then one more item.
		The rogue market is something you can click on, go fill out a win form, and then buy the stock.
		One more item, and that is tomorrow night, Rio D'Angelo.
		He's the man who found the bodies at Heaven's Gate.
		Did you know, I bet you didn't, there's more Heaven's Gate people out there.
		Tomorrow night, you're going to learn what their real philosophy is.
		Rio D'Angelo, because we've got time and radio to do that kind of thing.
		In a moment, Richard C. Hoagland, James Cole, you're back.
		All right, here we go.
		Let's talk radiation.
		Gentlemen, you're back on the air.
		Hello there.
		Oh, wait a minute.
		Let me push this button.
		Gentlemen, now I think you're back on the air.
		James?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Am I?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		The radiation belt goes around the Earth, and what it is basically is the Earth is a magnet.
		And if you put a magnet in a bowl with iron filings, one half will attract the filings, the other half will repel.
		So the Earth repels its magnetic force out at about 400 miles up, and then it just has this incredible, up to 100,000 miles of magnetic field, and it traps the solar radiation from the sun.
		And now, what do you think of James Van Allen?
		Are you answering me?
unidentified		Yeah.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, we call the Van Allen belts, the Van Allen belts, after James Van Allen, who was a physicist at the University of Iowa, who put a Geiger counter on the first Explorer spacecraft lofted by Von Braun into orbit after the Sputnik debacle.
		And the meter was pegged off scale, and we found that there was trapped radiation in the magnetic field.
		And Van Allen was the guy who did the experiment, so the belts were called after his name.
		All right, now, Van Allen wrote his first report in Scientific American magazine in March of 1959.
		And again, he wrote in Science Something magazine in 1961 and reiterated that everything he found in 59 was the same in 61.
		And what he said was that the astronauts would have to travel very quickly through it.
		And even though they traveled quickly through the belt, they'd have been in there anywhere from, what, six hours, they would have needed extraordinary protection, meaning lead, in the spaceship.
		And the problem was they couldn't boost a spaceship with lead off the ground.
		Now, what do you think of aluminum as a prevention for radiation?
		Well, it depends on the kind of radiation.
		Radiation in the belts is in the form of two kinds of particles, primarily protons, hydrogen nuclei, and electrons.
		Electrons can be stopped easily by aluminum and or even several sheets of paper, depending upon their velocity and the energy.
		Protons are harder to stop.
		But sometimes low-velocity particles are more damaging than high-velocity particles.
		Because low-velocity particles will get trapped and will produce secondaries, which then puncture or penetrate vital biological areas of the human body.
		Whereas high-velocity, high-energy particles go right through, almost like a pane of glass, and very few of the particles interact with the organism and therefore leave radiation damage.
unidentified		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And so also they found out that when those particles hit metal, they turned into x-rays.
		That's depending upon the energy and the strength and all that.
		Look, there are numbers and papers covering all this.
		What's the bottom line?
		All right.
		So anyway, Van Allen says this in his paper, and it was standard up to that point, 1961, that you could not travel through the belt.
		He didn't say paper would stop it or that aluminum would stop it.
		He said you needed extraordinary protection from radiation in space, the solar flares being trapped in the Earth's astronauts.
		Well, you introduced a second variable.
		We're talking about the constant belts versus what happens during a solar flare event.
		The Apollo astronauts did not go to and from the moon during any solar flare event.
		As a matter of fact, in 1972, it was one of the worst flares ever done, according to the material that Ralph Renee gathered.
		But not during an Apollo mission.
		Yeah, it was, right during the mission.
		But anyway, let's talk about it.
		So anyway, he didn't say that.
		He didn't say you have to, don't worry, don't go when there's no flare.
		It's always there.
		It's the northern lights.
		You see it.
		That's the Aurora Borealis, you see.
		The bottom line, James, is what is the radiation dose?
		Give me a number.
		Okay, now here it is.
		According to the standards on Earth at the time, it was something like you couldn't get five REMs in a year or a lifetime.
		And to go through there, the military and Van Allen determined that it was 100 REMs an hour.
		So three hours out and three hours back would have given you 600 REMs no matter when you went through it.
		And so I interviewed, and no, let me go one more time.
		Now, 1965, in Aerospace Medicine Magazine, there is a report in March of 1965.
		And it says that the military decided that they would get the radiation standards totally eliminated from the astronauts.
		It was called gain over risk.
		In other words, what would kill a person here on Earth, what they claim would.
		They said, look, we're going to drop all the standards because we can't go through the radiation belt if we have any.
		So we're going to drop all standards and let them go through.
		And then it said that they tested all kinds of stuff and they decided that aluminum would stop radiation.
		Well, I've talked to people who know radiation, and they said aluminum would stop radiation in a pig's eye, and that it would, just as Van Allen said, convert to x-rays coming through, and it would have killed them.
		Eyeballs, testicles, all of that.
		They never could have made it through.
		So what they did is they set up two criteria that they needed in order to pull off this hoax of going to the moon was get rid of radiation standards and what Van Allen and the military said would kill you if you tried to get through it and make aluminum a protection against x-rays and radiation and gamma rays that are coming from the sun.
		And so there they were.
		Now we can go to the moon.
		So I called James Van Allen at Iowa, and I interviewed him.
		He's 83 years old, professor emeritus, and I said, they trashed your report in a scientific American magazine that you wrote in 1959, and they named the belt after you.
		And he said, well, I didn't write the report.
		I said, what?
		What do you mean you didn't write the report?
		And he said, my students wrote it.
		I said, why did they name it after you?
		He said, well, actually, I did write it.
		So right there I know I'm dealing with some problems.
		So then I said, Problems.
		Because a man reversed himself right there on me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now.
		Well, allow for the fact that he's how old?
		82?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		83.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		83.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I'll allow for the fact that the science professors is done by graduate students, Jim.
		You know that.
		All right, so wait, well, wait, we're going to go a little farther.
		Now, so I said, in your first paragraph in 59, in your last paragraph in 61, you said that even though astronauts would have to travel through it very quickly to not die,
		and that they needed extraordinary protection in order to do it, meaning lead, and that there was a booster problem, and that NASA has not been able to find a way to boost a craft that had lead protection, like when you go to the dentist's office and you need a lead vest when you do x-rays, they're going to have a real problem going to outer space.
		And he said, it must have been a sloppy statement.
		I said, what?
		Sloppy statement?
		He says, well, it was written in a popular magazine.
		I mean, Scientific American's been around since 1845 and is hardly popular magazine.
		And it was a popular statement.
		So I said, this is junk science you're dealing with.
		If it was written in another magazine, you would have told us the real truth.
		And basically, I said, Dr. Van Allen, your belt is a paper tiger.
		Or you're yielding to NASA and you've been told to keep your mouth shut.
		He says, I stand by my original statement.
		They would have been killed.
		And so I got a mercurial man, and anybody can call him over there, and you can interview him, Richard.
		And he reversed himself for NASA in order to get through the belt that is in the textbook saying it'll kill you to go through.
		And the only place that it doesn't say that is in this Aerospace Magazine of 1965 and December 1969, that aerospace medicine magazine, so that NASA could have an excuse to go through the belt.
		I still don't quite get the point.
		The point was that Van Allen, who said you would die if you tried to get through the belt without lead protection, reversed him, kept his mouth shut all these years.
		Jim, who made Van Allen God?
unidentified		Well, that's what I said.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's what I said to Van Allen.
		No, no, just because he found something doesn't mean he did accurate measurements.
		The military did the measurement.
		They put it up on Explorer 1 and 2.
		James, there were all kinds of spacecraft that we sent on cislunar trajectories between 1958 when Espore 1 went up and 1968 when the first Apollo 8 went around the moon.
		Those spacecraft carried all kinds of measurement instruments to actually measure the belts, not theoretical profiles, but actual measurements at different times, different solar flare activity, et cetera, et cetera.
		The fact that the radiation is high does not mean it was lethal.
		Now, here's a question I have for you: What is the ratio of cancer in the human population in the United States as a whole per 100,000?
		I don't know.
		Well, but that's a key number.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard, if you know, give it to us.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know it offhand either, but here's how we can test this model.
		The radiation is there.
		Apollo had to go through it twice, once on the way up and when they came back home, right?
unidentified		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Which means if it didn't kill them outright, if they had some kind of drugs, and we can discuss that because I happen to know there was a very active program, and Ken Johnston was a part of that program in Oklahoma, which you might want to ask him sometime, a very intensive medical program to develop, among other things, anti-radiation drug therapy to keep them from being killed.
		That was part of the NASA that we've only just found out about.
		But assuming that that only forestalled immediate death, the long-term problem is cancer, is it not?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Correct, sure.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, we've got how many astronauts that went to and from the moon, Jim?
		Well, no, I'm saying we have zero.
		Otherwise, you have to went to the moon.
		You have six times three.
		Seven times three went through the belt.
		Twenty-one.
		Oh, twenty-one.
		How many of those astronauts have died of cancer?
		I was saying they didn't go.
		They didn't even get skin cancer.
		How many of those astronauts have died of cancer?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		None that I know of.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You're wrong.
		Well, I think one did, yeah.
		James Swiger.
		Sweiger, right, that's right.
		Died on Apollo 13.
		He came home, ran for Congress, and died of cancer.
		Correct.
		So one out of 20, how many?
		21?
		Right.
		So in a random sample of people in your neighborhood, in America, tonight, is one out of every 21 people dying of cancer?
		Or is the statistic much greater?
		In other words, my gut feeling is that the death rate from cancer for astronauts as a unit, as a population study group, is much higher than the average population, meaning some kind of deleterious environmental effect.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Point well made, Richard, but I have a question for both of you.
		Right.
		If you agree on the dangers of radiation, Richard thinks they withstood it or took some damage from it.
		You think we didn't go at all, and it would have killed them.
		But both of you, I would ask, what's going to happen when we go to Mars?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We're not going for that reason.
		And in the last Discovery magazine, that's exactly what they wrote.
		And they said Golden's biggest problem is he doesn't know how to solve it.
unidentified		Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a very long, complicated answer, having to do with physics, hyperdimensional technology, the real space program.
		We can't get into that tonight.
		That is not a showstopper.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		With conventional science right now, it's a stopper.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		In other words, on a long-term trip to Mars, presuming the belt problem is not a problem.
		The long-term trip to Mars, there's always been a concern with solar flares and extensive discussions about shielding versus other things.
		Let me give you just one example of how you can solve the problem.
		Remember the ABC demo, the hyperdimensional physics, the excess heat?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, yes, yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Electricity from space, a lajine mailoff, is coming up fast.
		If you have a lot of energy, what you do is you create superconducting magnetic fields.
		You shield your ship in a magnetic bubble similar to how the Earth is shielded, and you basically, you know, deflect the radiation, which is not electromagnetic, it's particle radiation, away from the vessel.
		That means you have to have a big spacecraft and lots of power, but that's the way you're going to have to do it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, all right.
		James, if you've got other big guns, I think that was a pretty good one.
		That's a hard one to answer.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, it does open the door to the following question.
		In the model that we did go to the moon, which is my model and most Americans and most reporters, if you are waiving the radiation dangers, if literally you're writing in the literature three years before you go that you're going to send them regardless of whether it kills them, then that raises the important question, what is so damn important that you would risk the lives of these test pilots regardless of risk over gain.
		And the answer is an extraterrestrial civilization waiting to be discovered.
		All right, no, but the point is that the Earth is being protected from this solar radiation by the belts.
		No, it's not a field.
		The belts are a byproduct of the field.
		The belts are a secondary problem.
		They're not a primary protection.
		If those belts were not there, all that radiation would kill us.
		No, if the belts were not there, the belts would not be there.
		In other words, it's the cart before the horse.
		Because of the presence of the Earth's magnetic field, the charged particles from the Sun are deflected and go into little spiral orbits around the field lines, creating the belts.
		No, the belts create the belts.
		They get protection.
		They get trapped in it just by virtue of they exist.
		Well, they're coming through the universe and getting trapped in the radiation, the magnetic field of the Earth.
		Well, but I don't understand.
		They're also going through on the Moon, too.
		That's the same group.
		Because when you go to the Moon and you're walking around on the Moon and there's no belt to protect you.
		No, there was direct radiation.
		By the time you get to the Moon, the Van Allen belts no longer exist.
		I know, but the radiation from the Sun is still there, as on with Mars and all the other people.
		The background radiation, particle radiation from the Sun, is non-existent.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There might be risk, I suppose, from a flare.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The flare is the big problem, and there were no flares during any Apollo mission, regardless of what Mr. Rene says.
		And Mr. Rene is not exactly a sterling source.
		Mr. Rene confuses silhouettes and shadows in his book on photography, so I wouldn't really put him in a court and slurred me.
		I've met him.
		I've vetted his book, and I know where he got his sources.
		He got it directly, and what they wouldn't give him is the x-rays.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, gentlemen, hold it right there.
		Bottom of the hour.
		We're going to break and we'll be right back and see what other big guns await examination.
		The moon did we go.
unidentified		When I was young, my life was so wonderful.
		A miracle, a beautiful, magical, And all the birds in the trees made me singing so happily.
		Oh, joyfully, oh, faithfully watching me.
		Then they send me away, teach me how to be practical, logical, all responsible, practical, practically night.
		True streets to the daily life.
		Take a long way.
		Take a long way.
		Never be what you wanna be.
		Let a play through the gallery.
		Take a long way home.
		Take a long way to go.
		When you're up on the stage, it's all unbelievable.
		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, what do you think?
		Did we go to the moon?
		James Collier says, uh-uh.
		Astronauts, cosmonauts would have died.
		Radiation would have killed them.
		Richard Hofman says, no, they had drugs, and besides, there was cancer.
		We'll find out if there's any more big guns out there.
		There's something new under the sun.
		That is, that portion of it from which we are protected.
		Your honor, it's called prepaid cellular.
		And here's the concept.
		A lot of people can't get cellular phones.
		You know why?
		Because they have bad credit.
		Or they have no credit, which is just like having bad credit.
		You'll go and ask for a cellular phone, fill out a form, hand it to them.
		They'll go, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, go away, son.
		But not anymore, because here comes prepaid cellular.
		And what is that?
		Well, it's like a prepaid phone card.
		In other words, they can load so much use into the cellular phone.
		You pay cash.
		They hand you the cellular phone.
		They're happy and you're in business.
		For you, this is an investment opportunity already constructed now in two cities, so it's well underway.
		The investment opportunity requires an investment capital of $8,400.
		They will pre-qualify you to determine that you can invest that kind of bucks, that kind of money.
		And then they will send you a free investment kit and video cassette outlining the whole thing.
		The whole thing.
		So all you've got to do is call one free phone number, and you might have an income for the rest of your life.
		Find out how it can be part of your IRA or retirement account.
		Find out.
		It's free.
		The number is 1-800-444-1050.
		That's 1-800-444-1050.
unidentified		Smart.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Back now to my guest, Richard Collier in New York and Richard C. Hoglund in New Mexico.
		And this facts.
		If we didn't go to the moon, says Harry near Richard and Albuquerque, then the Russians would have exposed it.
		After all, we were in a race to the moon with them at the time, and certainly the Russians were no dummies, unless you want to contend that it was a fake gap and both sides were trying to come up with best fake pictures, which I presume, Mr. Collier, is what you believe occurred.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly right.
		The reason the Russians didn't go and didn't try is they understood the Van Allen radiation belt would kill them.
		That's exactly correct.
		And even if they did print it in what, the communist paper?
		Do you think that the American press was going to copy it and translate it from Russian and tell us?
		Give me a break.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		You said Richard was part of the cover-up.
		Here's Rob down in Phoenix who says, hey, Art, if Richard was part of the cover-up, then why would he put the photos under a microscope and tell everybody about inconsistencies to prove his claims about the artifacts that are there?
		This proves he's on the, quote, outside, end quote.
		Anyone involved in hoaxing the landings would not be asking the world to look so closely at the pictures and videos for mistakes, in quotes, proving a cover-up of what they saw when they were there.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I agree.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What Richard is, I haven't really been able to determine, except he's damn smart.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I know that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And he knows his stuff, but there's a lot of holes in what he's trying to say.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but if he was an insider, he wouldn't have been doing all this stuff.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I understand that.
		But what he is admitting is that the video was fake.
		Oh, I said some of the pictures have been altered.
		Okay, now the video was fake.
		That's such a blank statement.
		Well, wait, let me point this out because as I point out, in the NASA video, in my tape, was it only a paper move?
		This 90-minute tape we're here talking about.
		Can I get an 800 number one more time?
unidentified		1-800-888-9999-23.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You can get this tape and see what I'm talking about.
		I took all the NASA video, and it's analyzed for you right there, all seven shots.
		The problem, Jim, is you didn't do what I did when I put on the UN tape, the 30-minute extension of the so-called STS-48 UFO footage.
		Side by side, I put the anomalous objects seen from the shuttle in September of 1991.
		I saw that.
		And on the right-hand side, I put the ice crystals floating between the S-4B and the Apollo Command Service Module en route to the moon and showed how the motions were totally dissimilar.
		In other words, a visual comparison for television.
		Twice now, I've asked you, have you done that visual comparison on your tape to prove your point, and you said you couldn't afford it?
		I know, but I have to do it.
		A 90-minute tape is not cheap, I know, because I've done a few.
		So, how can you put on a 90-minute tape and not provide the best evidence?
		I'll give you what I've got.
		Believe me, this tape is just the beginning of my investigation, because remember, I did it to send to NASA.
		So, what I've got is the analyzation of what I do have.
		And several of the things I do have, we've already talked about the shadows that obviously show you that they keep altering themselves on the moon's surface.
		And when they walk out from outside the lamb, their shadow, the lamb is one time its length, and they go to three, and then it goes to less than their length.
		But that isn't the thing.
		Wait, wait, wait.
		We have already documented that NASA has a lot more footage than it's publicly admitting.
		There are 11, maybe 12 now copies of one Apollo 10 frame, AS 4822, AS 10-324822.
		12 different versions all masquerading under one frame number.
		That means, if you use that rule of thumb, there's 12 times more film that we haven't seen.
		So when they put it out in various formats, I can see where they might get a bit confused.
		All that proves is there's something weird going on.
		You know, Jim, look, you strike me, particularly when you wrote that first book, Vote Scam, as a pretty decent guy out for the truth.
		What I want to know is why, not once this evening, have you even raised the possibility that our model for this weirdness might be right and that what you could be seeing is part of a bigger problem.
		I was going to say that.
		And that the government went and found out something extraordinary.
		And because of people like Pat Robertson, remember how this show started?
unidentified		Yeah.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We have a man claiming that people like you and I who think there's something out there should be stoned to death.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, not quite true.
unidentified		He couches that by saying God should do it, but come on, let's not avoid responsibility here.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Pat Robertson, a big political problem because it is the thesis, the contention of the Brookings report that if NASA ever found what we think they found and are going to prove they have found on Mars come September 11th,
		Thursday night in Pasadena, and the phone number, if you want to come, is 310-967-1377.
		If that's true, if NASA has been hiding all of this because of people like Pat Robertson, then the weirdness, Jim, that you have found is only the tip of the iceberg, and I wish we would join forces to find out the real weirdness going on.
		Harry, Richard, I couldn't agree more.
		Except, let me give you a few more guns, and then we'll deal with that.
		Here's some of the things I found.
		On the video I analyzed, you can see the limb, that ridiculous thing they call a craft, going along the surface of the moon horizontal.
		First of all, that thing was sitting on a 10,000-pound rocket, holding up thousands of pounds, and it had a little hundred-pound thrusters at the top.
		It never could have moved horizontal to the ground under any circumstances.
		It would have been like a fat person sitting in a chair, and when you pushed on the shoulders, they would have tipped over.
		Its only purpose, even in life, was to supposedly keep it from pitching and yawing.
		It could never have moved horizontal.
		Now, when you see the graphics, I point out quite clearly in some of the shots, in one shot that will really blow you away, Apollo 17, they go up to the top of a mountain on one day and you see the rover up there.
		And they come down the mountain and you see the series of rocks, and one I call an alligator rock because the shadow and the rock makes it look like an alligator mouse.
		The next day, they go to a different mountain that's miles away.
		There's no rover at the top, and they come down, and it's exactly the same mountain, the same rocks, everything.
		It's a total embarrassment.
		Then you see the horizon on the bottom of your screen never moves as they take off from the moon.
		The top comes flowing into you in some ridiculous form of graphics, but once pointed out, you see that the bottom never moves.
		A crater that was a certain size remains that size, never disappears, never goes away.
		Oh, wait, wait.
		I looked at hours and hours and hours of footage, again, for reasons quite different than you've been looking, and I have noticed none of these inconsistencies.
		But look at my tape.
		I've noticed other inconsistencies.
		But I mean, we're all drawing from the same pool of footage.
		I understand it, but I'm telling you.
		Now, wait, wait, Richard, let me finish.
		I have looked at the ascent footage from the lunar module taken from the DAC camera, mounted in the window, looking down.
		And one of the problems with that footage is that you're flying upside down.
		So you're looking backwards.
		You're not looking forward.
		You're looking behind you.
		No, but in the one where you see them taking off and you see them taking off in several, what I'm telling you is true.
		When they're landing, what is supposed to be a dust storm you can see is demonstrably phony light rays like taken underwater and they're not coming out in the proper striration from the center of the rocket.
		You can see it.
		And you can see like a little crater, and they land, and the little crater is still there.
		Nothing fills up.
		You can see that's phony.
		You can see all of that is phony.
		But that is the opinion.
		Well, look, this is your opinion of this phony.
		You can't miss it.
		You can't miss it.
		I have missed it.
		Look, we have a team.
		The Enterprise mission has a team of experts in a wide variety of disciplines.
		We have NASA people, we have geology people, we have imaging people, computer people.
		There's an imaging guy in Los Angeles named John Stevens, who's a very good friend of mine, who I have had double off from the original Apollo 10 film and the Apollo 14 film to video in a very complex Telescope, which he has literally reinvented and drove 3,000 miles by himself in a van to sit at Goddard and look at original film and transfer it for this project.
		And I have looked at hours and hours and hours of this footage, and I do not see the same things in the same way as you do.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, hold it, both of you.
		Richard, one quick question for you.
		You worked at Network TV.
		You were with Walter Cronkite.
		You were actually at the network when all of this occurred.
		Hypothetically, Richard.
		Could we have faked it?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You know, everything Jim says is plausible, except for this key point, and I'm going to answer your question: How did we fake the zero gravity?
		We have hundreds of hours of astronauts floating, sending soup cans and flashlights and, you know, bananas and every other conceivable consumable back and forth in the command module, in the lunar module.
		On the night of the Apollo 13 tragedy, I was sitting at the broadcast center there on 57th Avenue, 57th Street, and looking at the live shot from the Lovell TV downlink of the tape recorder, the little cassette tape recorder, rotating slowly in front of the windows of the lunar module with the moon out those triangular windows, and this tape recorder is hanging in zero gravity.
		James, how the hell did they do that?
		Richard, I'm afraid that I'm about to deal you a crushing blow.
		The Apollo 13 is one of the absolute proofs that it was a fraud.
		And I'll tell you why.
		How do they simulate zero gravity?
		I'll give it to you right now.
		They did it in an airplane simulator, and I'll tell you why.
		You can only do 30 seconds at a time.
		I know.
		I'm going to tell you.
		When you get it.
		There's a tremendous amount of money spent by Ron Howard on Apollo 13 to film in tiny 30-second segments that footage in the so-called Vomit Comet.
		We have literally hundreds of hours of zero gravity.
		I know.
		The hardest airplanes in the world will put Apollo hardware in to film in, quote, zero gravity with realistic space views of Earth and Moon out the windows.
		All right, let me talk.
		Now, in the film that I have, which is NASA's film, I want to make that clear.
		It's NASA.
		They gave it to me.
		It's supposed to be happening in real time with James Lovell on that ship.
		First of all, you see blue light coming in from the windows.
		There's no blue light in outer space.
		Ever heard of scattering?
		Give me a break.
		All right, Dr. Have you ever heard of Rayleigh scattering?
		Why is the sky blue, Jim?
		Because there's atmosphere.
		No, it's because of the size of molecules interacting with wavelengths of light.
		Are you telling me that...
		All right, I'll give you that.
		Now, I went to, I videotaped the limb in both Houston and the Lem in Washington.
		When you see it, you will see that the hatch on the ceiling of the limb opens downward into the limb.
		That's the one that lands on the moon.
		And there's a rim around it that's one inch.
		This is above the ascent engine.
		Above the ascent engine, right.
		It's one inch thick.
		And then there's three feet from that hatch opening to the top of the ascent engine, the bell, right?
		Now, in the Apollo 13 real NASA video, you will see James Lovell coming down, and there is a 12-inch silver cone coming down from the ceiling.
		One foot.
		It does not really exist in the limb.
		It was a fraud.
		And then he dives down the length of that 12-foot cone where the hatch is at the bottom of that cone.
		Wait a minute, listen to me.
		How do you know it's 12 inches?
		Because I can see.
		He put his hand on it, and you can do the measurement yourself.
		When he comes down the cone, he puts his hand around the side of it.
		And then you do the measurement.
		It goes up to the ceiling.
		There is no cone in the real limb, Richard.
		And so when he comes down, he dives the length of the cone.
		Wait, the length of the cone.
		The docking cone?
unidentified		What?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Do you know about the docking cone?
		Yeah, it isn't in there.
		The cone, the docking cone, is in the tunnel.
		The drug is in the tunnel.
		It's not inside the water.
		There is no cone as you see this inside enough.
		Let me finish this.
		He dives down.
		There's only three feet in reality, and I show you this in the video because I go and I videotape a real limb.
		Three feet between the top ceiling and the top of the bell.
		He dives down seven feet and he never touches the bell.
		His entire length of his six-foot body and another foot of the cone.
		There's no question it was a fraud.
		None whatsoever.
		And no one who's ever seen it.
		No question.
unidentified		What?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I happen to know that they used anamorphic lenses and that the distortion of those lenses...
		I've shown this to enough people, and there's no one who doubts it.
		There's a silver cone.
		It was not the real limb, and you can see it.
		And the more you study that film, you'll see it was taken in two different configurations.
		It was taken at two different times in two different phony simulated limbs.
		And he has the door opening to the rear.
		I point that out.
		When the door opened to the side, the hatch door came down to the left side in the phony NASA video with Lovell there.
		It opens to the rear.
		I showed that to NASA.
		They don't deny it.
		It was a fraud, the entire Apollo 13.
		Now, let me tell you something about the movie.
		Jerry Kluger, who writes for Time Magazine, did the book on the Apollo 13 movie.
		In it, he says that they were in the limb, and I measured the limb.
		The hatch between the command module and the limb itself, where the drogue was inside there, was only 24 inches of clearance.
		They could not possibly have gotten through that at all with a ballooned-up suit that Jerry Kluger said was so ballooned up, four pounds of pressure per square inch in a vacuum, that they couldn't move.
		They had to waddle their arms.
		It was like a kid in a snowsuit.
		Now, I measured the inside of the limb, the crew compartment, which Kluger Said was no bigger than a telephone booth, and he's right.
		I show you on the video.
		I go to Houston and I measure it with Frank Hughes.
		It's 24 inches from front to back and 36 inches wide.
		A man in a spacesuit facing front to the instrument panel with his backpack on is 24 inches.
		He's 12 inches and his backpack is 12.
		He's smack up against his nose, is up against the instrument panel, and his back is trapped to the back.
		Two men standing shoulder to shoulder are 54 inches wide, and it was only 36 inches wide.
		They couldn't have moved.
		It was worse than a sardine can, but even worse.
		The instrument panel goes down in front of them to the mid-thigh, and then the door starts.
		32 inches from floor up to mid-thigh is 32 inches wide, and the door opens in, Richard.
		And as soon as they, they had to blindly try and bend their knees in a suit they could hardly move in and try to open that hatch door blindly.
		And then when they opened it, it might have opened maybe an inch, and they couldn't get out of their own way, and they couldn't get out of the limb, and they couldn't get into the limb.
		And I challenge you or NASA or anyone else in Houston or Washington to disprove that.
		Well, if all you're saying is correct, then we're dealing with a bunch of idiots.
		We're dealing with a bunch of idiots who have gotten away with this.
unidentified		What?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The question I want to ask is as follows.
		If this is all true, if what you said is all true, then obviously somebody really screwed up big time.
		Big time.
		Because why didn't they make it big enough so it would all be plausible?
		Exactly what Jerry Kluger said.
		He said, quote, he says, and I have it on video.
		It says a little oversight at Grumman, he called it.
		Well, I happen to know a gentleman who has 3,000 hours as a test lunar module pilot at Grumman.
		His name is Ken Johnston.
		He never flew it on Earth.
		The Limb and I had photographs of him in the simulations, in a spacesuit, in a pressure suit.
		All right?
		The Lem never flew on Earth.
		Never.
		What they have to tell the astronauts, Richard, is look, two things.
		They have to go to their wives and say, look, we're going to be guinea pigs.
		One, we're going to go through the Van Allen radiation belt, and if we don't die, or not.
unidentified		Yeah, you are.
		Hold up, audience.
		Hold it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, hold it a second.
		We're at the top of the hour again.
		Richard, I just want to ask you one more time, seriously now, a straight answer to the question, could we, you're the one who would know, could we affect it, Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And the answer is no, because the zero gravity would get you every time.
		There's too much footage of zero gravity in ways that optically not even Hollywood.
		I mean, you and I have seen Maroon.
		Remember Maroon?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's bad footage.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, hold it there.
		We're at the top of the hour, and we'll be back.
		To get a copy of this program, you can call 1-800-917-4278.
		Obviously, it's going to be a five-hour show.
		That's 1-800-917-4278.
		Operators are, you know, standing around and waiting.
		We'll be right back.
		100 KSTP.
unidentified		my food so you can.
		All in all, I'm in love with you.
		Stay beside Stay beside Wanting no more as you turn around toll full-free.
		West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
		1-800-618-8255.
		East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
		1-800-825-5033.
		This is the CBC Radio Network.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Was it Capricorn One and all done in a studio somewhere?
		Or did we really go to the moon?
		James Collier in New York says we didn't go.
		Richard Hoagland in New Mexico says, oh, yes, we did.
		In a moment, I think I've got a pretty good question.
		Fine.
		Now, the following offer, the one you're about to hear about now, is never going to be repeated again.
		It's going to end this Sunday.
		The end of Dreamland.
		And it's never, ever, ever, ever going to be repeated again.
		So listen carefully.
		Imagine you sit down, get comfortable, turn on your TV.
		Now imagine you've got an extra remote control.
		Push one button, and instantly you're headed for the World Wide Web on your television.
		No hassles, no computer.
		Just plug into your TV and the internet's in your living room.
		Welcome to the Web TV Revolution.
		It's fun, easy to set up, views, plus parental controls for websites, and six email addresses all built in.
		Give them a call.
		The Lewis Brothers will tell you about the optional wireless keyboard, the custom graphics and the super fast modem, their personal 24-hour toll-free helpline, and much more, all with a money-back guarantee and no sales tax.
		You can be on the web for just $249.95 with two months of free internet access, a $40 savings.
		And now, for a very short time, you can get the wireless keyboard absolutely free, too.
		That's right, two months free access and a free wireless keyboard.
		This won't last.
		That's $130 worth of freebies.
		They're practically paying you to call them.
		Call the Lewis Brothers now at 1-800-659-2669.
		Tell them you want Web TV.
		I've got it and love it.
		Call now, 1-800-659-2669.
		Back now to James Collier in New York and Richard C. Hoagland in New Mexico.
		James, I have one quick question for you, and then I'll let the two of you proceed with more big guns.
		Right.
		All those years of space shots, including even the more recent years, but particularly during the moon shots, when those great, big, giant Saturn Vs thundered the earth for miles and miles around at the Cape and lifted off into the sky and seemed to go into space.
		If they didn't go where they, you know, you're arguing they didn't go, then where did they go?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		In their space, the first 400 miles up.
		That's all they're doing now.
		That's all they can do.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And that's all they ever will do.
		So what are you saying?
		They went up and...
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		They did that so many.
		John Glenn did it.
		It wasn't hard.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So they just orbited and came home?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
		Because, now look, here's what they had to do.
		They had to go to their wives.
		And you and I got wives, you know, and you go to Ramona and say, look, look, Ramona, they're going to make me a guinea pig twice, but I got the right stuff.
		One, I got to go through the Van Allen radiation belt.
		I could come home with chromosome damage, brain damage, cancer terminal, but we're going to test it.
		They're dropping the standards.
		We're going to test it.
		And they're telling us that aluminum is fine, and don't worry about it.
		And then when we get to the moon, we never flew the lamb on Earth.
		It could never lift off in the Earth's gravity.
		We only sat in a penny arcade type simulator.
		And so we're going to test it out there.
		And nothing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		She probably asked me what was the pay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly what they did say.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What's the pay?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Tim, you remember Apollo 9?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, Apollo 9 was the test of the lunar module in Earth's orbit.
		Oh, no, but they never flew it in a gravity sense.
		It didn't fly in gravity anywhere on the moon or here.
		And Richard, how did it move horizontal to the moon's surface?
		I've asked Grumman to show me any paperwork showing what type of jet propulsion moved it sidewards, and they don't have it.
unidentified		They don't have it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Look, look, it's like vector helicopter flight.
		If you tilt the thrust vector slightly forward or backward, the object will float forward or backward.
		No, it will not.
		It will not.
		It had a gimbaled engine on the bottom, and if it tilted it at all, it would have thrown that thing off balance and tipped it over.
		It was not a helicopter.
		It was a hunk of junk.
		You are absolutely flat out well.
unidentified		No, I'm not.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's not your physics.
		No, my physics is absolutely correct, and you're wrong.
		That thing was a hunk of junk, unbalanced, and I haven't even given you the killer yet, Richard.
		I'm about to give you the killer that let's say none of this really mattered.
		And I think the public has heard enough here to know damn well that they didn't go to the moon, and I haven't even given you the killer.
		One of the things I want to tell you before I give it to you is that I have Frank Hughes on tape, NASA official, the guy who trained the astronauts, trained the astronauts.
		And I say to him, how did they get out of the limb if the door opened in and there was no room?
		And I said, what was the procedure?
		What is the, you know, you told them when to piss.
		How did you, what was the procedure to get out?
		And he said, we left it up to them to figure it out for themselves.
		Okay, now, the killer here, Richard, because I've nailed the NASA officials on this, is the rover.
		First of all, the LEM itself never flew on Earth.
		All they ever did was go into a simulator and pretend what any kid can do in high school.
		And then they went there and they made this thing flow horizontal to the moon's surface.
		And there is no dynamics at all.
		It'll make this hunk of junk go horizontal.
		I don't care.
		I'm wrong.
		James, you are absolutely.
		All right, well, we'll take that.
		Let me give you the rover, and then we'll go back and do that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, no, let Richard say something, and then go to the rover.
unidentified		Go ahead.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
		You know, you are making flat assertions based on your opinion as an authority.
		What I would like you to do is quote me documented sources.
		When you say the LEM cannot pivot, it cannot tilt, it cannot use thrust vector control, give me a documented source or two sources.
		There is none.
		Or maybe better, even three.
		There is none.
		That's the whole point, Richard.
		When you try to go to Grumman, and I've done it enough, and say, give me what was the paperwork that convinced NASA to give you the contract to build this thing?
		It should have been, I say in my tape, it should have been in the Nobel Prize should have been given to you guys.
		It should have been in every museum.
		What was the paperwork that shows how you could make this hunk of junk move sidewards on the moon's surface?
		And you see in the NASA video that it is moving considerably sideward, and you talk in their books, oh, move it a little this way, move it a little that way.
		It was impossible to do.
		All it ever was.
		You keep making these assertions.
		Demonstrate for me why it's impossible.
		Because just the normal physics of a rocket, all that thing was, was like a cork on a hose or on a water coming out of a hose.
		The rocket was the hose, water, and the cork is bobby on it.
		That's all it ever was, Richard.
		And it had little hundred-pound thrusters up at the top.
		As soon as you fired those thrusters off, it would have tipped it over right away.
		It would have pitched it over.
		There's no way it could have moved.
		And the gimbaling allows the thrust vector to go through the center of gravity.
		As soon as that rocket gimbled to any direction off of dead center, it would have tipped the ship in that direction, and it would have tumbled out of control.
		Well, you're making this as an assertion that you're not...
		Well, you keep making assertions as if it's proof, and it's not proof.
		It's an assertion.
		I know, but that assertion I'll stand on.
		I'll stick my knife in the cards.
		I'll put them on the table, Richard.
		And if you find me any documented proof anywhere that showed where NASA could show how that ship moved sidewards, and I got enough film showing it moving sideways.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right, okay, fair enough.
		You've got film.
		Richard, how could they have kept that thing stable in a horizontal movement?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Because you're dealing with frictionless environments, all right?
		It did have a lot of 10,000 pounds of thrust, he's right, coming down.
		It was coming down in a forward direction.
		As it came down, it pitched over.
		That's what the little 100-pound thrusters are designed for.
		The key is, have you ever tried to balance a pencil on your, let's say, your index finger?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, have you ever seen jugglers balancing large objects?
		The key is to keep the thrust vector through the center of gravity.
		That's what the gimbal nozzle on the engine was designed to do.
		It wasn't maintaining an attitude only using the 100-pound thrusters outside the windows.
		It was using thrust vector control by gimbaling the entire engine so that with a little bit of tilt forward, you had a component of velocity in the forward direction or sidewards or even back if it was in a hover.
		Like a helicopter.
		If you see a bell helicopter tilting slightly, it can move backwards and forwards.
		There's no difference in force between rotor blades and rocket thrust in a vacuum, provided it's under control.
		Richard, Matt, in your wildest dreams, are you going to equate a rotor helicopter to that gimbaled engine?
		A gimbaled engine means if a person puts your hand, your palm up straight with your fingers pointing at the ceiling and where the heel of your palm is is the thruster engine and tilt it over a little bit.
		And just think about it.
		At best, it would push it in that direction upward, except it's falling on its own weight.
		And so as soon as you gimbal the engine over, which means move it, it moves it.
		It was also throttleable.
		Remember that?
		It doesn't make any difference.
		As soon as you cut the throttle down, it's just going to fall faster through the gravity.
		Who said you throttle it down?
		You throttle it up to increase the thrust because you have to go.
		No, but then it would be vertical.
		Then it would have pushed it exactly perpendicular to the, you know, draw a straight line.
		It would have pushed it over.
		This reminds me of arguments I used to have with Physics 101 when you talk about mechanical vectors and mechanical advantage and all that.
		I mean, this is basic, basic high school stuff.
		I know, Richard, and there's a lot of high school kids out there listening to me and saying you're damn lucky, Richard, and you're wrong.
		Can you find me an engineer who will look at the LEM design and tell me that he agrees with you?
		Yeah, I'll find you book.
unidentified		Boo, boo.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You're writing a book.
		You've got a video.
		Give me one name of one engineer whose putting his writing says this thing won't fly.
		Richard, I'm on the Art Bell Show with 10 million listeners, and I want any person out there who disagree with me to write me and tell me what it is, and I will put it in the video and put it in the book.
unidentified		You haven't yet, have you?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is a valid question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you have any engineer that would back up what you're saying right now?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't.
		Simon Newcomb, before the Wright brothers, who was a very prestigious representative of the U.S. government, wrote a definitive treatise why heavier-than-aircraft never could get off the ground.
		He wants to prove it.
		I know.
		I am saying, look, as far as I'm investigating, I am putting forth this challenge to anyone listening, and I am willing to agree with you, Richard.
		If anyone out there, NASA, Grumman, or anyone else, can tell me what moved that ship horizontal 10, 12, 15, you won't listen.
		You kept telling me it's impossible.
		Someone who gives you the answer, you know, James, I have come to the conclusion, we're now, what, we're about three and a half, four hours into this?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Four and a half almost.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have a feeling we're dealing with a person with a very closed mind.
		He has a will.
		He has an idea, and facts will not dissuade him from trying to sell his idea to the American people.
		No, sir, I'm saying this.
		Anyone is out there that knows, including all the scientists listening.
		If you come on a national show, wouldn't it have behooved you to find one or two experts?
		I mean, when I come on this show and represent incredible things, I bring an enterprise colleague, I bring an expert, I introduce strange people who we've never met to have colloquies with.
		You have brought no evidentiary proof of any of your assertions from anyone other than you.
		Give me a break, Richard.
		I said right in the very beginning, this is a beginning investigation.
		I put everything down that I had.
		I just told you.
		I've told the Art Bell audience, I haven't even given you...
		Before I went on the national stage, I spent five years doing my homework.
		Before I opened my mouth about the lunar artifacts at Ohio State University, I spent four years.
		All right, I'll tell you somebody.
		The guy's name is Bill Casey.
		He's a rocket dyne.
		He's an ex-rocket dyne technical writer who did the jet propulsion stuff for Rocket Dyne and built the jet propulsion.
		Now, is this the guy that wrote the book, We Never Went to Moon?
		Never Went to the Moon, and he's suing James Lovell in court October 7th.
		This particular gentleman, I think, is very suspect.
		I would prefer you have an independent engineer.
		I'll take anyone you got.
		Well, no, I'll tell you what.
		You have to provide documentation for your statement, like I do.
		All right, I'll tell you what.
		Let me go on to the...
		I'm going to go to the killer one.
		I went to Boeing because Boeing put the little rover car on the moon.
		And I said, give me the, let me describe the limb is in two sections.
		It's the bottom section called the descent stage, and the top section is the ascent.
		When it lands on the moon, the top stage blasts off and comes back to Earth.
		Now, the bottom section is made like a tic-tac-toe.
		Picture a tic-tac-toe and then cubit.
		That's all the bottom is.
		And so if you take a tic-tac-toe and you connect the perimeter lines, you will have five squares and four triangles.
		In the center square is the jet thruster, is the jet, in the middle square.
		You mean the descent engine?
		The descent engine, right.
		The four squares around it are where the fuel tanks are.
		The limb was put in one of the corner triangular sections.
		The limb was five feet, it was ten feet long.
		The car was 10 feet long.
		The section is five feet high by six feet wide.
		The corner triangular section, and only a couple of feet deep because it's a triangle.
		It's half a square.
		It wasn't as big as the squares.
		Now, the limb could not fit into, a 10-foot car can't fit into a five-foot section.
		Do you know how they got it in?
		Well, they folded it.
		How did they fold it?
		Look at the engineering diagram.
		I did.
		At first, when I read NASA's stuff, it said they folded it in half.
		So I said, oh, well, there I lose.
		I can't do anything.
		I said, but the tires, if they folded it in half in the middle of the chassis, there's a battery there, and there's the post sticking up that they drive it with.
		I said, all right, maybe they'll fold that down.
		But the tires would stick out the front, and the tires would stick out the back.
unidentified		And so it would have stuck out.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It wouldn't have fit into the Saturn rocket because it was tight.
		They couldn't let it rattle in there.
		It was tight in its compartment in the Saturn V. So then I went back to Boeing and I said, how could that be?
		And they said, no, no, it was folded two and a half feet off the back, folded up and over onto the chassis.
		Like put your palm flat and fold your fingers over.
unidentified		Two and a half feet to the front, two and a half feet on the back.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And the tires then folded up and over, forming a triangle.
		And therefore, now they're both over the center of the chassis and it would fit into the triangle because the tires coming up and folded in would form a triangle.
		Because you can't get rid of the tires.
		You have to fold them away from the side and up because it wouldn't fit in a triangle.
		Remember, they're not tires in the conventional center.
		I know, but they're still, they're circular, and they look like a tire.
		You can't miss that.
unidentified		You'll see.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And they're deformable.
		They're very flexible.
		I know, but I got photos of that.
		And I show it in the video.
		I show what NASA shows it folded, and they're not deformable.
		They're there and they're solid.
		So I said, well, okay, they could get in.
		And I thought about it for a while.
		And I studied the pictures, and I said, good Lord, there's equipment in the front of this car in the first two and a half feet.
		There's heat sinks and all kinds of stuff sticking up 10 inches, filling the whole front of it.
		And there's a battery in the middle.
		I said, it couldn't fold in half because it's filled with equipment.
		The best it could do is a 90-degree angle, forming a square U. The front folds up and it stays straight up in the air because the equipment would hit the center part of the chassis.
unidentified		And the back folds up and goes straight up in the air.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And so I went to Houston and I got Frank Hughes to say on the video, when you get it, you'll hear him say, yeah, it's folded on a 90-degree angle.
		You're correct.
		But what does that do?
		That leaves the tires sticking out the front three feet and the tires sticking out the back three feet.
		So you have a five-foot chassis with six feet of tires.
		It wouldn't have fit into the side of that thing on a bet.
		And I went to Houston and I asked NASA what they did.
		I said, give me any video, show me any picture, show me anything you've got showing that thing going into the side.
		And they said they've got nothing.
		And so did Boeing and so did Grumman.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let Richard consider that, if you would please.
		We're at the bottom of the hour.
		And we'll come back and do the stretch run.
		Very, very, very interesting.
		If you would like to get a copy of this program, and I can imagine you might want that, you can get one by calling 1-800-917-4278.
		That applies to any show we do with a guest here.
		1-800-917-4278 from an area near Dreamland.
		This is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified		Coast to Coast AM
		Coast to Coast AM Coast to Coast AM Archbell is taking calls on the wildcard line at 702-727-1295.
		That's 702-727-1295.
		First-time callers can reach Archbell at 702-727-1222.
		702-727-1222.
		Now, here again, Archbelt.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once again, here I am.
		James Collier in New York says we didn't go to the moon.
		Richard Oglin in Albuquerque, here near it, says we did.
		It's been quite warm all evening long, and I've got several pointed faxes here.
		We'll try and get some of those and wrap this up in the next segments.
		Stay right where you are.
unidentified		Three.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The Sea Crane Company.
unidentified		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gentlemen, you're both back on the air.
		Somebody in San Jose writes, Bob in San Jose writes, some things that I can't repeat or wouldn't, but he says, when the gimbaled rocket fires on the limb, and yes, it does want to lift or tilt over rather by physics, there are thrusters on the top that are controlled by an inclinometer unit.
		The more it wants to tilt over, the more thrust countering the leaning movement, thus giving it a sideways thrust.
		Anybody can figure that out.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, wrong.
		All it does is keep it from tipping over.
		It doesn't move it sidewards at all.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard, I want to hit you with something now, and that is the following.
		The only reason you said that they could not have faked the whole thing was there were too damn many hours of weightless activity.
		Suppose you take the contention of Mr. Collier that the Saturn V and all the rest of them did nothing but orbit, that would give them lots of hours of weightless footage.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But how do you get weightless footage with the moon in the background?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't have an answer for that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I was just throwing that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And believe me, the state-of-the-art of motion pictures, Kubrick notwithstanding, in 1969 was not adequate to fake what we have seen on these films.
		Now, I have probably spent, as an individual, more time looking at film and still photos of the moon than perhaps almost anybody else in the country.
		You know, I've spent literally years.
		And even notwithstanding the presence of the artifacts, the fact is that a meticulous examination of these photographs proves to me two things.
		One is we did go there and took real pictures of an extraordinary place, and NASA also very artfully tried to hide a lot of interesting things we found by doing a whole combination of things, including putting out absolute fake pictures.
		My problem with Jim is not that there's a weird mystery here.
		It's that Jim is focused on the trivial mystery as opposed to the big mystery.
		How do you get the lamp and zoo over into the side of the lamp?
		But you see, you keep focusing on almost inconsequential details and a picture.
		Well, if you couldn't get it to the moon, how did it get on the moon and how did they get pictures?
		But the fact is you are claiming, again, that you have proof that one guy told you to fold it one way, produce for me a Boeing engineer, produced for me a blueprint, produced for me an actual template of how they claim they did it.
		I got it.
		It's on the video.
		And the source is from?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		NASA.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, there is no NASA.
		It's from the United States.
		NASA did rebuild the lunar rover.
		Boeing did.
		Boeing.
		Yeah, I got it.
		From Boeing.
		I got the pictures showing what folded in half, and it couldn't.
		It was a fraud picture.
		You can see it.
		There's no equipment on the thing that they got folded in half.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		None.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		There's no battery, no seats, no heat sinks, nothing.
		When you say you have a picture, do you have a picture from the PR department or an actual engineering blueprint?
		They don't have engineering blueprints that they'll give you, and I do have schematics, yes.
unidentified		And so instead of, yeah, I got schematics.
unidentified		I got them here.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I got them from Grumman.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		They're from Bowie.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, I want to interject something here.
		Try this one out, either one of you.
		To Art and to the gang from West Thomas.
		I was a Grumman, human factors engineer, responsible for videotaping the Lunar Module Cold Flow facility for training purposes.
		This was at Grumman behind Plant 5 in Beth Page, where Richard did his simulations.
		Cold flow refers to the cryogenic systems on the lunar module.
		It became obvious there was no coordination between the various engineering departments, no overall test concepts, so there was no way for me to produce a meaningful training tape.
		In other words, there was no way I could see for the lunar module propulsion system to actually work.
		In 1969, when we watched Apollo 11 land, I was in Planet 5 with the engineering team.
		We all turned to each other and said, how the blank, you can imagine the word there, how the blank did they do that?
		We were totally amazed.
		Any comments, Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, the obvious comment is I know Wes Thomas, and I'm just a tad suspicious of that fact, okay?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I've known Wes Thomas for 20-some years.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You mean you're suspicious of his claim of where he was?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm suspicious of his representation of that incident.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, the public can hear it.
		They couldn't fit the rover into the side of the LEM that made Apollo 15, 16, and 17 a total fraud because it was never there.
		Jim, you understand there were different LEMs for different blocks.
		No, they were all.
		I checked that with Grumman.
		They were all the same LEM because they would have had to change the Saturn rocket configuration if they changed the LEM, and they never did it, because the LEM fit so tightly into it so it wouldn't vibrate to death.
		And therefore, it had to have fit properly into this corner, and it didn't do it.
		It was 11 feet long when it folded on a 90-degree angle with a tire sticking out the front and the back, and NASA has not denied it.
		And you can't get away from that.
		You couldn't.
		It's case closed.
		Well, it's not case closed just because you say so.
		I know.
		We happen to have a source.
		What I'm saying is what the future is.
		Jim, we happen to have a very good source at Boeing who flew 3,000 hours in the LEM.
		His name is Ken Johnson.
		What do you mean in the simulator?
		That's what I mean.
		I know, but that's not the limb.
		The limb is what went to the movie.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do the wild thing.
		It's 702-727-1295.
		No, no, no, no.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I'm telling you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There's the first time I had to hit the button.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's a word you got.
unidentified		I got emotional about that.
unidentified		And I know you got the button.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I got the FCC.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Come on, Jeff.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I'm sorry, but I got emotional about that because I'm not arguing semantics.
		I'm telling you there is a major fraud and that Richard Hoagland is trying to protect his position that people built glass houses on a place where God throws stones.
		I don't buy it whatsoever.
		Well, see, that's your prejudice.
		I don't buy that.
		I understand that.
		That's all you are protecting, Richard.
		Mr. Collier, you are asking us to believe that there is a major, fundamental, fascinating, fantastic conspiracy for stealing $20-plus billion dollars from the American people and perpetuating the greatest fraud in history.
		That's correct.
		That's correct.
		That is correct, and I'm asking the people.
		That's what you're claiming.
unidentified		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's a good question, Richard.
		Then let's follow up.
		Ms. Gollyer, why?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Because they didn't have the technology to go.
		The Lamb never flew and couldn't fly.
		They couldn't get through the Van Allen belt, and they didn't want to lose $30 billion because why would we commit to doing something that we couldn't do?
unidentified		Well, because we're not going to do it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Because there's a lot of money in it, and you can fool the American people like glass domes on the moon.
		Wait, wait, wait.
		There is so much more money to be made on black projects where there is no accountability, there is no congressional oversight, there aren't any Jim Coggers asking pesk questions.
		Nobody asks questions.
		We sweep it under the rug, and it amounts to 10 times the Apollo budget.
		You were there, Richard Hoagland, when they had the lem in that time, and you never asked once how that lem fit into the side.
		And I'm saying that all the science writers from the Washington Post, the New York Times, and everybody else, nobody asked.
		And I'm telling you, it didn't fit.
		And if it didn't fit, all of you were derelict or you knew.
		And I don't know what your particular thing is here, but I'm telling you right now that the American public has been stolen from and cheated by NASA for money.
		You sound a bit like Simon Newcomb.
		Oh, well.
		Who proved the Wright brothers could not fly.
		No, listen, Flat Earther and Wright.
		I'm giving you facts and people can hear it, and you're giving me rhetoric.
		No, I'm telling you.
		It did not fit into the side.
		Just if that's all we ever used, is that the rover could not fit into the side?
		It is not my opinion.
		It is a fact.
		That does not prove we didn't go to the moon.
		It didn't take the rover there, which made Apollo 15, 16, and 17 a fraud.
		That's not equivalent to not going to the moon.
		Well, I don't care.
		That may be true.
		This is a very important point because it is my convention that NASA went to the moon and they've lied up, sideways, down, backwards, and about eight.
		Jim, would you stop fucking over me?
		Please stop fucking over me.
		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's not do it to the degree of dead air.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, I'll concede that to you now.
		What I want to know from NASA is why they have lied about details of an extraordinary project, including what we found.
		What you seem to be focused on is hanging them for never doing it at all and avoiding looking at the evidence.
		You have a prejudice against glass houses on the moon because you obviously not looked at the evidence.
		On our website.
		I've seen your videos.
		On our website tonight, I've put up.
		Please don't put your tips on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, let Richard get his website business out of it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, go ahead.
		On our website tonight, I had Keith put up stills from the Apollo 10 footage of Earthrise seen over Mare Smythe during the Apollo 10 May 1969 mission.
		It is the most astonishing sequence of video, frankly, that I have found in the entire Apollo sequence.
		It shows an Earth rising over an airless body, visibly distorted, becoming less so as it rises higher, exactly as the moon appears distorted when it sets or rises behind the atmosphere of the Earth.
		The problem is it isn't symmetrically distorted.
		It is asymmetrically distorted.
		It is geometrically being refracted.
		The light is being bent.
		And I've got several sets of images up tonight on the website, which is available through Art Bell's website, because there's a link showing this detailed time-lapse footage taken by the 16-millimeter DAT camera that was mounted in the window of the lunar module.
		If we never went to the moon, James, how did that sequence of photographs get back to Earth?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And the answer is?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The answer is whatever you claim, if there was a band in that ship, I don't know that that's true.
		All I can do is give to the people the answer.
		See, every time we put a piece of evidence out there, you dismiss it.
		I don't know.
		There's circular reasoning.
		This whole thing is almost pointless.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		James, he's right.
		You're not giving a specific answer.
		He gave you a specific question.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I don't have that answer because I haven't seen what he's got there, and I don't know that it isn't some kind of graphics.
		I can't prove it because I haven't investigated it.
		I don't know that answer.
		The same as you don't know the answer of how a civilization built glass houses on the moon without a factory to convert the silica.
		Who said they didn't have a factory?
		Where is the factory in your pictures?
		The moon is 15 million square miles.
		Well, okay.
		So listen, you know, I read your Edward, you know, your astronaut thing.
		Who was the guy, Ed Mitchell?
		And you didn't have the answer then.
		So I don't know.
		To build a glass house on a moon where it's pulverized by meteorites, I don't buy it.
		But, you know, it's the same.
		At least one of them is.
		You're supposed to be a journalist.
		What do you mean you don't buy it?
		I mean, you're prejudiced like Passelblad.
		No, no, I am willing to.
		I said, I'll yield you that, and I'm willing to go and challenge NASA.
		And if you've got, if your video and all that, that you're doing hold.
		But then the question, Jim, if you're willing to do that, how did we get this data?
		Who took the Hasselblad pictures?
		I have no idea whether it was Hasselblad pictures.
		Who took the metric camera photos?
		Who took the pan photos?
unidentified		I'm telling you that the lunar issue.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Who knows?
		Maybe it was taken just robotically.
		No, but they know it's sent out there without me.
		As you have investigated thoroughly the problem of the Blivet, the rover in the lunar module, I have investigated very thoroughly with lots of experts, many of whom have appeared on this show, the problem of the photography of the moon, how it was transmitted back, the lunar orbiter, unmanned robotic, television, camera, facsimile kind of technology, versus the Apollo literally brought back by astronauts, taken in CETA, all of that.
		So I know the sequence of how these photos were taken as well as anyone can.
		I know there had to be a man behind the damn camera taking the pictures we've been looking at.
		Richard, the one thing we've got to do...
		None of us have seen.
		I mean, some people have seen your stuff, and whatever the stuff is, it isn't out into public consumption.
		What I'm saying about what I've got on was it only a paper moon video is demonstrable stuff.
		The limb doesn't fit.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The limb doesn't fly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The rover doesn't fit.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		They can't go beyond the Van Allen belt.
		They never threw anything up in the air to show anti-gravity.
		Gravity was 1.6.
		They never videotaped the moon, the Earth from the moon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		James.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All of those things are easily, you know, you've got to give those answers.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And if I can get those answers.
unidentified		James.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		James.
		Yes.
		Here's what I think we ought to do since we're coming toward the end of the time.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You have presented certain very interesting questions, and maybe one of them is a stopper.
		What I would suggest to you is to send what evidence you have to Richard Hoagland in the form of your tape.
		Let him examine it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		To you, I suggest that you go up onto the web and look at the photographs he's got up there.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And then when you both have reconciled and are prepared to argue what you've both seen, then we get back together again.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And what I'd like is Richard and I both to force this into Congress.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Either way, both of our materials.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, until you come to some sort of consensus, you can't force squat because you're going to be tearing each other apart.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't want to tear Richard any more apart because the possibility that what he's got is valid.
unidentified		That's my point.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I'm not saying that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, you have presented some things that are probably deserving of examination.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard can do that.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I ask you to examine what Richard has given, and then the two of you get together and find you either have a consensus or you don't, and we can get back together and settle it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, real good.
		We're going to talk.
		I'll call in tomorrow.
		Are you going to be home tomorrow, Richard?
		Yes, I'm working on the September 11th event.
		All right.
		Then we'll talk because we've got to find a consensus because the common enemy is NASA.
		Let me, well, I don't even want to say NASA's the enemy.
		NASA is not the enemy.
		There are a handful of people who have been directing this vast agency using American taxpayer money who have not been forthcoming with the American people.
		There's a lot of other people in NASA who went to bed and got up every morning and went to work without overtime, without overtime pay, because they had a dream.
		And those people, if they have been snookered in either way, deserve to know the truth, as well as the people who paid for it, which is all the rest of this.
		Correct.
		And now when people say, oh, thousands would know.
		No, only basically a handful of people had to know they orbited.
		All the rest of the massive people just stood there and applauded what they saw.
		Nobody had to know any more than the 21 guys and Chris Kraft.
		I know there's someone out there saying, look, I was a ham radio operator, and I got signals from the moon.
		And the answer to that is they had satellites out there, and that would have been the first thing they did is bounce those signals back off the satellite.
		Well, in terms of specifics, when I was with Walter, one of the things I did was convince our executive producer to put me on an airplane with him and to go out here to New Mexico, as a matter of fact, down south to a little place called Las Cruces, where there was an observatory called the Cloudcroft Observatory.
		And I convinced him that we could actually see the spacecraft with this electronic camera that my friend Alan Hynek had put in this observatory at that time, state of the art.
		We could see the spacecraft, the Apollo spacecraft, in orbit.
		We were able to follow the S-4B and the command service module and see the urine dumps as bright sparklies of sunlight about three-quarters of the way to the moon from the Earth with this observatory.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Guys, time's up.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Time, time, time.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		So we know they left Earth orbit.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, give the numbers for your event in Southern Columbia.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The event on September 11th is.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If I can find the right piece of paper here, which I can.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, just keep looking.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		James, give the numbers for your videotape.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, it's Victoria House Press in New York City.
		If you don't have a pencil, it's in the phone book, Victoria House Press, and the video.
		And there's an 800 number for credit cards, which is 1-800-888-9999.
		And Victoria House is 212-809-9090.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, New York City.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The September event.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Area code 310-967-1377.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Excellent.
		Gentlemen, examine each other's materials.
		We will get together again.
		Good night.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Good night.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Good night, everyone.
unidentified		Okay, that's it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You don't want to miss tomorrow night, folks.
		Well, this really was something, but tomorrow night, we are going to have Rio DiAngelo here, and you are going to hear things that you've never heard before about the Heavensgate group.
		You think they're gone?
		Well, they're not all gone.
		There are things you will learn tomorrow night that you were never told about in the press before, ever.
		You may even hear from some additional members of the Heavensgate group.
		You will also hear what they intend.
		That's tomorrow night.
		Friday, Professor Micho Kaku, theoretical professor of physics at New York City University.
		It's New York University, actually.
		If you'd like a copy of this program, and I bet you would, it's 1-800-917-4278.
		That's 1-800-917-4278 from the high desert.

▲