Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 20, 1997 - Art Bell

03:26:35

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	East of the Rockies and you're listening to AM 1500 KSTV.
	♪♪♪ From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I
	wish you all good evening or good morning, wherever you may be, from the Hawaiian and Tahitian 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 ye olde internet, courtesy of, uh, Our audio net friends in Dallas, this is Coast to Coast AM.
	I'm Art 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.
	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 chupacabra 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.
	Uh, that showed up, um, at Silbury Hill.
	Just months ago, a month ago or so.
	Absolutely incredible.
	You should go up there because you should go to the Rogue Market and buy some Art Bell stock.
	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.
	Keep trying.
	Now, coming up, Thursday, tomorrow night, is Rio de Angelo.
	You're about to be blown away with new information.
	Rio de Angelo is the man who found the bodies at Heaven's Gate.
	Rio de Angelo 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 Michio Kaku.
	I'm going to have to learn to say that correctly.
	He is a professor of theoretical physics at City University in New York.
	Monday, tentatively, James Van Praagh.
	And then September 4th, Mark Ehrman.
	Uh, all booked.
	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, uh, in just a moment.
	Alright, 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.
	So what?
	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 in a recent, 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, according to him, 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?
	Uh, the man that I've got on the phone, uh, right here.
	Uh, his name is Skip Porteus.
	Is that a correct pronunciation, Skip?
	That's correct, all right.
	Where are you, Skip?
	I'm in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
	All right, and you wrote the words I just read?
	I did.
	All right, um, I listened, you know, I called, I was aghast, aghast, of course, and I called you, and you played for me the segment from the 700 Club.
	Now, I never precisely I heard Pat Robertson say that all UFO believers should be stoned to death.
	What's your take?
	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.
	Or God said it.
	Yeah, or God said it, and he was very careful to quote from the book of Deuteronomy and 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've studied UFOs and space
	aliens.
	Then they had a piece from Roswell, New Mexico, and there were depictions of people
	dressed up as slanty-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 worship them either the sun or the moon or the host of
	heaven.
	Now, he got into a thing about the host of heaven.
	I interpret that to mean the sun and the moon and the stars, but Robertson believes the host of heaven.
	are spirits, they're good angels and bad angels, fallen angels.
	And he says, can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, funny-looking creature?
	Of course he can, or he can't.
	Or of course they can deceive people.
	And if they lead people away from the true God, away from Jesus Christ, anyway, it 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 in that 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 Satan.
	Dispose them.
	Killed by Stoney?
	Yes.
	And the Bible is quoted directly there.
	And this disturbs me because it's not...
	This appeared, everybody should know, this appeared in a very, very mainstream kind of
	news group called UFO Updates, which is quite well respected and is moderated.
	It's a very, very good news group.
	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
	Malthow or anybody else who investigates this kind of thing.
	Is that about your take?
	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...
	I, in my opinion, accept responsibility.
	And he uses the Bible, and it says, God says, and it leaves him off the hook.
	Okay, Skip.
	You publish something called Freedom Rider Magazine?
	Yes.
	Uh, where does a person get Freedom Rider Magazine?
	Uh, anyone who'd like a free sample copy could just write to us.
	It's Freedom Rider, W-R-I-T-E-R-I.
	We're in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
	The zip is 01230.
	It's Freedom Rider, Great Barrington, Mass.
	Give the address one more time, people are slow.
	Freedom Rider Magazine, Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
	The zip is 0-1-2-3-0.
	It's as easy as 1-2-3.
	Skip, I really appreciate your coming on and rolling over this for us.
	I'm still absolutely astounded by it.
	Astounded.
	Thank you.
	Anytime Mark.
	Alright Skip, take care.
	So that is that and there is Skip Porteus.
	So that is that, and there is Skib Porteous.
	Now comes a young lady named Danuta.
	Now, who is Danuta?
	Danuta 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, Danuta?
	That's right.
	That's absolutely right, Art.
	You were actually the co-host on the 700 Club.
	They used to call us the Black, the Blonde, and the Baptist.
	Did they really?
	I was the Blonde.
	That's right.
	Alright, well, after I received all this from Skip Porteus, 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 a planet.
	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 agent 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?
	Or that we are demons?
	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, we could be the intelligent life out there.
	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.
	And you, um, you just about...
	Dropped my teeth.
	Yeah, dropped your teeth.
	And so he did indeed say those things.
	But listen, but listen Art, I am no apologist for Pat Robertson, first of all, at that level.
	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, oh 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 worshipping 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.
	Well, it sounds like he thinks he knows what's out there.
	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.
	Alright, so you sat across from him.
	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?
	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, that is, 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.
	Right.
	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.
	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 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.
	It's easily construed to sound like he is advocating death for UFO believers.
	And I think that, you know, 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.
	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.
	Yes.
	Well, he said that because they apparently had the graphic to go up on the screen as he was saying.
	That graphic comes on after the live show is done and then the show is taped live.
	Then it is edited later.
	So any Any scriptures that are used throughout the program are then later post-edited in.
	So this was not premeditated at all.
	Except as you just mentioned, they would have had the opportunity to take it out before it aired?
	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.
	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.
	I sure would.
	I'd just love to hear him on the Art Bell Show.
	I laugh because, again, he would know that he's about to be challenged.
	And challenged outside of his arena of control.
	He's not comfortable there.
	You spent five years with a man.
	What caused a separation?
	Can I ask that?
	With me?
	Yeah.
	Pat Robertson was running for president and it became, 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 Two 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 Kingslow left.
	Well, again, I think it's fair to say that Pat Robertson did not say kill all UFO believers.
	No, he didn't.
	But he did say that God said here's what ought to happen in this kind of a case using Uh, stoning as, or elimination, he used both those words.
	Well, because the Bible does say that.
	I know it, but what concerns me... Let's be clear on that.
	I know that, but what concerns me is that somebody who takes every word as absolute gospel, no, or pun intended I guess I ought to say, is going to do something awful to somebody in the UFO community because of that.
	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.
	Or, or... And blow something out of proportion.
	Nor are we God.
	Nor are we God.
	So I, you just have to take this in context and realize that, that Pat does not always think things through.
	Alright, well Pat is hereby invited on the program.
	Should he show up, you're invited back too.
	And I really want to thank you for coming on tonight.
	A pleasure, Art.
	Thank you so much.
	Take care.
	That's Danuta.
	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 Hovland, 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.
	Please subscribe to my channel.
	Thank you for watching.
	Please subscribe to my channel.
	Thank you for watching.
	And she...
	And she...
	She...
	Only loves...
	Me...
	Hartfeld is taking calls on the wildcard line.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First line callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	1295. That's 702-727-1295. First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222. Now, here again, 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 Preplay 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 Nino?
	Oh my God!
	Five to ten degrees rays and 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 Dale 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 7 bands of shortwave.
	It's a full-size portable.
	It was built in South Africa and, God, I tell ya, 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 7 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 1-800-522-8863.
	RC-1888.
	Gold KRC.
	Now, how did the debate that is about to ensue get started?
	That's 1-800-522-8863 or C1888, gold KRC.
	Now, how did the debate that is about to ensue get started?
	Well, a very interesting way.
	James Collier wrote a book called Boat 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 fax from James Collier.
	Let me read it to you.
	And then you 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 Lew Upton 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 verboten?
	Well, the hair's on the back of my neck.
	Go up with that.
	Verboden?
	Nothing's verboden 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.
	Uh, and that more than puzzles me.
	First of all, how did they convert the silica to glass on the moon?
	Factory's magic?
	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.
	Mainstream 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 5, and then the other gets 5, it's boring.
	And so I would like to allow A reasoned interaction between these two parties.
	It is, uh, not exactly a grey 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?
	New York.
	New York.
	That's where Richard used to be.
	Right.
	All right.
	And Richard, you, of course, are up there near Albuquerque.
	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.
	I'm sitting on a beautiful mountaintop, and it's raining like hell.
	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?
	All right.
	Well, first I want to say hello, Richard.
	Hi, Jim.
	All right.
	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.
	James, is your book out?
	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 work 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 named... Great title, by the way.
	Oh, thank you.
	My wife Phyllis figured that one out, who's also a writer and co-writer with this.
	A guy named Ralph Rene came to me, and he's quite famous out there in America, for a book called NASA Mooned America.
	That's right.
	And he actually came to the publishing company, and he had a transcript called The 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 Rene was putting forth.
	And basically, it was damn good physics.
	Just physics, you know?
	So, uh...
	It took about three months, and as I got into what he was into, I got questions more than stuff that he never even considered.
	So, uh, 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, uh, so I proposed, was it only a paper moon, to the, uh, publisher, and they said, uh, 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 the talk shows and art and all these people to get feedback, because this investigation is by no means over.
	It is merely just beginning.
	Brian, are you convinced we didn't go to the moon, James?
	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.
	Oh, and he may convince you tonight.
	Richard's very good at that.
	Okay, well... Even if you come to your senses later.
	I read the Ed Mitchell thing and I saw how he works on your mind.
	Alright, so let us begin with facts, James.
	Give me one good solid fact, for example, that says we didn't go.
	Alright, 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 the size of the moon.
	And the Earth is four times bigger than the Moon, and so people who criticize, 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.
	All right, we better take these on one at a time, or they'll get lost.
	Yeah, let's see what Richard has to say.
	I mean, Richard there, what about this?
	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 Greenville, and it's the Goddard Space Flight Center right outside Washington.
	And we spent two days going over every inch of the 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 done 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 It's 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, uh, get the Earth in the, in the, in the, in the shot.
	But James says there were no such pictures except one, which was fakie, he said.
	No one has ever seen them except Richard.
	So if Richard, if you could get me a copy of that... Well, 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 69 or in 70 when the, when the missions, you know, 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.
	So Richard, you're saying it's just a conspiracy of media stupidity and laziness?
	Yeah, and I work for the media, and I have every right to say that.
	All right, well, I asked NASA to give me that particular shot, and I spoke with the people in Houston, and I spoke with the people in the archives.
	Now, which shot are you talking about?
	The shot that 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 Antares, which landed, I think, three or four degrees above the equator, north of the equator at the Fra Mauro 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 framed 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, alright, 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.
	Can I ask you a question?
	Sure.
	It is the second important point.
	You said the Earth is two degrees of the photograph.
	Yep.
	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?
	Uh, half a degree.
	Half a degree?
	One quarter the size.
	One quarter the size.
	Now, the field of view of the Hasselblads, 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.
	Mm-hmm.
	So they had to be snapped in and snapped out.
	And we've got lists of what the focal length of the lens were, and 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.
	Alright James, do you have any arguments for that?
	One question I have, the camera that's strapped to their chest, the Hasselblad, well it's actually mounted on a metal bracket.
	Right, do they do that inside the LM before they come out?
	I don't know.
	Probably not because getting through that little door was difficult and it was basically very easily removable.
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright, now, was it air-cooled?
	Right.
	Alright Which has all kinds of, you know, involvement in the military and black budgets and black projects and 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 is 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 It maintains very terrestrial temperatures all the time.
	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.
	Or do you concede, James?
	No, no.
	He just made a statement I've got to deal with.
	All right.
	That's what I thought.
	Good.
	Stay right there.
	From the high desert near dreamland, this is CBC.
	...at nine on AM 1500 KST.
	...and it's rolling on. They gotta get right back where we started from.
	Love is good, love's moving fast. They gotta get right back where we started from.
	...and it's rolling on. They gotta get right back where we started from.
	you 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.
	That's who we are and we have got with us James Collier from New York.
	8255 East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	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 grey 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 haven't talked 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 stock 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.
	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 it, what every 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 Hasselblad cameras, they could have never taken a picture on the moon.
	They couldn't have taken video.
	Why 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 videos 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.
	Richard?
	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 65, 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 cosmonaut spacewalking.
	And, uh, it was Alexei Leonov, the, uh, the Russian cosmonaut who, uh, you know, has now become great friends with Tom Stafford and has been over here so many times and appeared at dinners in the museums in the Smithsonian and all that.
	Well, back in 65, 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 Wyclough, 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 Wyclough from 65 on.
	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.
	Film that would operate at 250 degrees?
	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, alright, film That was used to record every nuclear test in Nevada, not very far from where you are tonight.
	I know, I know.
	And those cameras and that film required to film nuclear tests a few miles away from a second sun, you know, a megaton, ten 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 can 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 up close and personal.
	Let me ask you a question.
	But let's try and keep it brief if we can and go back and forth here at 250 degrees.
	The point 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.
	All right, now, did he have a, uh, how did he, did he have a Kodak-type arrangement where he could make the emulsion and all that?
	What he did was he literally, at EG&G, 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 used the film.
	Do you have any documented proof that Your friend, uh, made specifications that Kodak built for him.
	Yes!
	He has the spec- he has his own file.
	Can I get that documentation?
	Because you told me it- and the laboratory was destroyed.
	No, no, James, don't twist my words, alright?
	You're getting ahead of the story, alright?
	Okay.
	What he would do was to go to Rochester and- 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 would 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 rolls 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.
	Please, I am not under interrogation, all right?
	This is not a cross-examination.
	I'm trying to tell you... It is, though, Richard, fair to ask, um, how would you prove that that was true?
	Because I'm going to put him in touch with Charlie Wyckoff.
	All right, that's... Charlie's own records... Let's drop 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.
	So you can lead him, then, to the proof.
	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 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, in normal television, if you find a TV camera, the old tube-type TV cameras in a studio, That 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.
	Alright, somebody's got a radio on or something.
	We're gonna have to get that off.
	Okay, so I've got a radio on.
	And you did it!
	Alright, so where is that film today?
	Ah!
	I actually got to use that film!
	Where is it today?
	The film does not exist.
	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.
	Why not?
	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.
	You'll notice the film's a commercial color film.
	It'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.
	All right, but that I have a little hard time with, Richard.
	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, mile per gallon carburetor.
	Mark, this is not a secondhand story.
	I use roll after roll after roll this film.
	I understand, but to say it does not exist today is incredible.
	No, 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, but let's move on.
	You said that this film was so sensitive... Well, when you go to visit Charlie, and that's what you're going to have to do, he 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.
	He's not very far away from here.
	Believe me, I will be back on the Art Bell Show with whatever I get from Charlie.
	This investigation is going to go all the way to Congress and Senate, 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 Uh, which could take pictures.
	It was so sensitive, and I'm going to get this tape back to Mark Bell.
	James, James, do the numbers.
	Sit down with a calculator and do the numbers.
	All right, all right, okay.
	We won't go any further.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	If they would have had any stars in any NASA photo ever, where is it?
	It's a critical point.
	James, you ask a question, I'm going to answer.
	Go ahead.
	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 from memory.
	Compare it 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 1, not a million to 1.
	So you're basically photographing astronauts on a bright sunlit landscape in broad daylight.
	And you're doing it at a hundredth of a second or something.
	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 pictures of stars?
	They set it up in the shadow of the lunar module, It was not a chest pack Hasselblad.
	It was a telescope and camera combination.
	It was aimed from the shadow up at the sky, and there were time exposures that 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!
	But 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!
	Alright, 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?
	Oh, roughly.
	I mean, that's... Two and a half times brighter than it is here without atmosphere and with no diffused light?
	Well, I'm talking direct radiation.
	You know, we're talking perception by the human eye.
	We're not talking actual radiation.
	Perception by the human eye, right.
	Perception by the human eye with no atmosphere.
	How bright was that sun?
	Well, the absolute magnitude of the sun is 27.6.
	Minus 27.6.
	Alright, 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 intimate measurements.
	Would a camera not perceive it to be brighter?
	It would be a few percentage points brighter to a camera, to an instrument.
	Not much.
	Not much, no.
	So then, in other words, uh, uh... Because remember, the peak of the sunlight is in the peak of the transparency of the Earth's atmosphere, in the blue-green region of the spectrum.
	So you're telling me that the bright sun at high noon on the moon... But we're not on the moon at high noon.
	But you are, because I've got... Here's another thing.
	No, we're not.
	Well, okay, let's move on then.
	We'll get out of this.
	No, no, no, James, you can't move on.
	You make the statement that we were on the moon at high noon.
	Because I got a video from NASA that proves that their shadow is not even their own length.
	But that's because you're trying to interpret the photographs without a full data set.
	Oh, come on.
	Let me move on a little farther.
	It is an interesting question.
	If the shadow is virtually non-existent or very tiny, that means, does it not, that the sun is roughly above you?
	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, though.
	No, we're not going to move on because that is a key 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.
	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 Um, to, uh, hide from us the artifacts that are on the moon.
	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 2 or 3, so we're talking 15 people versus 400,000.
	No, we're talking only 6 people who could- 12 people could ever prove they went to the moon.
	Alright, break time, you guys.
	Hold tight.
	Um, and I'm not gonna let you hold- I'm not gonna 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.
	Oh, I am. Oh, clear to me now.
	Art Bell is taking calls on the wild card line.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	The debate, did we or did we not go to the moon?
	The participants, Richard C. Hoagland 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 the pictures taken by the astronauts from the chest cameras, not anything on their heads, went clearly to Richard Hoagland.
	Round 2, regarding the film, tentatively, I would have to give to James.
	Because, how could that film disappear for 30 years?
	Round 3, 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.
	It's not.
	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 just a moment.
	Richard, how can you explain, you know, the lack of a long shadow?
	I mean, doesn't that indicate the reference point of the sun to the human being standing there?
	Well, all right, this conversation needs to have a larger context, right?
	It is my contention, and the Enterprise team, and 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.
	Wow.
	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, that database at NSSDC.
	Okay, Richard, but... Number two, number two.
	Wait, 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.
	No, no, I said that's one explanation.
	And what's the other?
	The other explanation is that because this was in the late 60s and early 70s, Thirty 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.
	Now, 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... 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, uh, wouldn't you, wouldn't... Another thing they wouldn't have done... Wait a minute.
	You mean to tell me that the Ed Findel, who was running the TV camera on the rover from Houston... Yeah.
	You claim there is no, uh, tape.
	Video tape.
	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.
	Huh?
	You send it to me.
	Okay.
	Okay, we'll be back on the Art Bell Show again.
	If you can produce that tape, send it over to us.
	But I don't understand why it's significant, because I can make a TV shot like I can make a film shot.
	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.
	James, 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 have the intelligence and 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 shot so important?
	Because that would have then proven we went to the moon.
	No, it wouldn't.
	Well, to me it would.
	All it would do is prove that somebody had put a gold... I mean, I was in charge of the simulation... To us, 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 simulation.
	And did you have a lunar lander in the CBS studio in New York?
	Yes!
	I know.
	It was actually out of Beth's... That's part of my story.
	That's very true.
	It was out of Beth Bay's Long Island where Grumman was.
	Exactly, you did.
	Everything was exactly what Duplicate.
	And what you said is true.
	It was done here on Earth and they did fake the video.
	One of the things that can prove it... Well, believe me, we had a budget of several million dollars for these shots back then.
	That was a lot of money.
	Why didn't you tell us that then?
	And during Apollo 12, when Alan Bean pointed the TV camera at the sun, so we suddenly lost all live TV, which 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 designed at Bethpage.
	There's a famous picture of Alan Bean taken by Conrad, or Conrad taken by Bean.
	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 or 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 astronaut was standing in a hole.
	No, it wasn't.
	You can see in the reflecting plate of the mask that the guy's wearing, in the gold plate, that he's in front of the LM on a flat surface.
	No, he's not in front of the LM.
	No more than 12 feet away, because you can see the shadow.
	That shot was taken a good mile away from the LM, over the horizon.
	So you can see the pods of the LM in the reflection of his mask.
	But that's not the LM.
	That's the structures, that's the artificial structures that are in the faceplate reflected, James.
	Give me a break.
	Go to our website, www.enterprisemission.com.
	They look just like the pods in the wind.
	But alright, I'll give you that.
	Look at those photographs 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 astronaut 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 face plate.
	It introduces severe distortion.
	It's like photographing flamingos, 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 gonna 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.
	Why?
	They never did that, ever.
	Ever threw anything in the show anti-gravity.
	One fish gravity.
	Have you seen the film of the rooster tail from the rover on the Apollo 16 mission?
	Oh, I love you sir.
	You know, I talked to the head, the guy in charge of astronaut training on my video.
	Art, can I tell people how to get this video?
	Of course.
	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 and back of the rover.
	And so I analyzed... I'm a dummy.
	One of you.
	What is the rooster tail?
	Okay, now, the rover's the little car that drove on the moon, and when it moved along, it spit, you know, like a speedboat spit out the... It had wire wheels, Art, and it picked up lunar dust, and like a centrifuge, it spit it out behind it.
	It spit it out the back.
	It's called a rooster tail when you go water skiing, or a boat, you know, a speedboat.
	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.
	Well, what... 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?
	Yeah.
	Well, it will look somewhat like a fan, alright?
	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, uh, uh, Mr. uh, Hoagland.
	The law of physics is... Wait a minute, these were not solid wheels.
	They were wire mesh wheels.
	That doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
	It means that the dust was picked up between the surface of the wheel and the, and the axle.
	All the way down to the axle.
	Don't go looking 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, all right?
	I'm sorry, I took it back.
	I just exasperated for people who think that you're giving them... This is junk physics you're giving, because I'm going to tell you what I think.
	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... And I also...
	Was the person that proposed on Apollo 15 that Scott dropped the hammer and the feather.
	Are you aware of that?
	I sure am aware of that.
	And I definitely time both.
	And the gravity on the moon is one-sixth.
	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, with the, uh, with the, uh, visual we saw on television.
	Like you said, why?
	Why?
	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.
	Look, 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.
	I'm not ducking it.
	I'm saying that it's a more complicated problem than you're going to lay out.
	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.
	Wait a minute, James.
	Yes?
	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. 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.
	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.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	And if it goes straight up and stops... No, no, no, no.
	When it's going up, no, when it's going up, it's being propelled, it's being shot.
	And so... That doesn't make any difference, Art, even though it does it, even though it's propelled.
	Is that... Richard, is he right?
	Actually, James is right on this one.
	Okay.
	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.
	Alright, now.
	That's in the ideal.
	Let me dance.
	But that's with only one particle.
	Alright, no, 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.
	Well, 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.
	Now look, here's what happened.
	It's a much more complicated, real-world problem.
	Yeah, 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 in any... Who is Dr. John Lawrence?
	Who is Dr. John Lawrence?
	got hung up in atmosphere and formed what looks like sound waves.
	Who is Dr. John Lawrence?
	What?
	Who's the head of media for NASA?
	He's what?
	Head of media at NASA.
	I'm 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 that physics on the moon is different than physics on the Earth, because it is not.
	Wait a minute.
	Have you compared side-by-side footage of the lunar rover doing this?
	With, uh, you know, uh, the dune buggy 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 thing?
	Let me tell everybody to get this video.
	I'm gonna 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 who sees it... 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 at some backwater.
	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 same?
	It'll come out exactly the same.
	I've seen it myself in life, I know, many times.
	I told you I got it deep.
	I've done it.
	To play fair, you have to show your humor.
	Well, you know, I didn't have the money to do that kind of thing.
	Wait a minute, 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.
	It's not extraordinary at all.
	It's very basic business.
	Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
	I would think that comparison is a good part of your case.
	This is not extraordinary.
	It's quite obvious.
	Let me ask you one more thing.
	Let me tell you one more thing.
	I want to ask you a question.
	You're claiming this then proves that this was done in an atmosphere.
	In an atmosphere, no question about it.
	And I've had other people who know physics.
	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 would in fact be a different physical phenomenon?
	No, it's impossible.
	Why?
	Because it would go against the laws of physics.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	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.
	If we knew everything there was in the universe, why would we have science, James?
	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.
	Alright, 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.
	The rooster tail behind the rover looks exactly like on Earth and I slow it down and stop action and you can see it.
	Art, can I please give this address?
	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.
	Okay.
	You're going to get a chance to give out information on how to get your tape so people can see this, and maybe you'll even have time to get a side-by-side photograph in there.
	Yes, I'd love to.
	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?
	Or not?
	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.
	Have you heard?
	I'm Art Bell and this is CBC.
	Thanks for watching.
	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.
	It is.
	Good morning.
	I'm Art Bell.
	8255-1800-618-8255. East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033. This is the CBC Radio Network. It is. Good morning. I'm Art Bell. For
	two hours, we have been debating, and will continue debating, about whether we went to the
	moon or not.
	James Collier, in New York, says we never went to the moon.
	Richard C. Hoagland, near Albuquerque, says we certainly did.
	That's the debate.
	It will continue in a moment.
	and somebody just sent me a science and mechanics magazine dated January of 1966 it looks like
	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.
	God, it's weird.
	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 gonna 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.
	Uh, coming up in the near future, uh, by the way, uh, tomorrow night, Rio de Angelo, and a real shocker, there are more Heaven's Gate folks out there.
	We will discuss their philosophy and what they're going to do tomorrow night with Rio de 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, uh, waiting to hear, I believe, James Von Braun.
	September 4th, Mark Furman, just some of what's coming here.
	You've got nothing to lose but the pain.
	Alright, 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?
	Yes.
	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 moon.
	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 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.
	Have you got their phone number?
	Yes, it's 212-809-9090.
	And it's at 67 Wall Street.
	Right, the phone number's probably more important.
	Okay, 212-809-9090.
	street. All right the phone number is probably more important. Okay uh 212 809 9090. Right
	there's an 800 number for credit cards which is 1-800 real easy to remember 888-9999 1-800-800.
	That is easy.
	And it costs 23 bucks.
	23 bucks?
	That includes the shipping.
	And when you're done viewing this, you'll know we never went to the moon.
	Right.
	It's a 90-minute tape and nobody has ever seen it, including hard-boiled newsmen I've shown it to, who ever again believe that we went to the moon.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	Now, to be fair, Richard?
	Yes, sir?
	You have materials, too.
	Well, I don't want to talk about materials, I want to talk about something that's coming up.
	If you want, okay.
	We have two major announcements tonight, and I guess Los Angeles has now joined us.
	That's right, that's right.
	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, etc, etc.
	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 de-orbit burn will take place at about 6.30 California time.
	Yes.
	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 Karman 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 Cydonia 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.
	Okay.
	He's at area code 408-356-1430.
	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, CNN and everybody else,
	that people can be there.
	care and would like to see this issue resolved.
	Okay.
	Now the second event is going to be that evening.
	At the Double Tree 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 has been
	on your program many times, former NASA expert, test pilot, currently at Boeing, will join
	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 And that'll be all presented?
	really up to. And that'll be all presented. That will be all presented. There is an information
	number for that event, which is that evening, so you can go to both. Alright, and that is?
	310-967-1377. 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.
	I have, yes.
	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.
	I know it.
	James, you think that Zass has only been playing games with the moon?
	Alright, hold on guys, hold on.
	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 that night.
	Alright, alright, alright.
	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, Sean?
	Okay, in the parking lot at Johnson Space Center at 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.
	If anybody has any video of it going, then he's a liar, because I believed I saw it go, and it looked like it was on a string.
	James?
	Yes?
	I have an even better mystery for you.
	Uh-huh?
	Have you read Shepard's book, Moonshot?
	I just finished it and it stinks.
	Well, forget the quality of the book.
	Have you read the book?
	Yeah.
	Moonshot.
	Have you looked at the photographs?
	Yeah.
	In the centerfold 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.
	Uh-huh.
	Remember that shot?
	Yeah.
	That picture is a total fake.
	I know!
	Well, that's what I'm saying, they're all fake.
	This is what's important.
	Alan Shepard, in his own book.
	Now, we spent a lot of time trying to track this picture down.
	Right.
	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.
	Right.
	There was a chest pack camera, a Hasselblad on Mitchell.
	There was a chest 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.
	Right.
	The angle of this shot, which is the centerfold in Shepard's own book,
	is of photographic quality.
	In other words, it is an actual photograph.
	It's not a TV picture.
	Right.
	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 the TV camera shot, Flipped it in the computer, mapped it into the scene, drew the shadows from the S-band antenna that was sending the TV signals down to Earth.
	In other words, it 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, demedled, 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, and the man is guilty as you can get.
	Well, 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 Alright, let me tell you a couple things here then.
	Don't talk for a minute.
	One, that article you got, Art, was by Lloyd Mallon.
	You're correct.
	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 astronaut, 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.
	All right, Richard, how do you respond to that?
	He's saying the Soviets did take their spacewalk.
	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 Leonov 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 the show, I'll read Lloyd Mallon's, and it is the... 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.
	So what are we talking about here, then?
	A fake gap between the Americans and the Russians?
	Who could take it better?
	Yeah, 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 Mercury, from the Gemini capsule, on Gemini 4?
	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 dollars, 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... You said that you knew that in CBS, which I found out.
	Do you know Jim Scott?
	No.
	Okay, well Jim told me.
	He said, 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 a 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, 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.
	Because of standards and practices.
	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're making?
	That you knew, and so did Cronkite, that you were doing just what you said you were doing, and nobody was writing about it.
	Everybody knew!
	We put a super on the screen that said CBS News Simulation.
	Oh, is that what you're saying you did?
	That's what I'm saying we did!
	And I kept quibbling with my director because he kept putting it up there and I said leave the shot so we can see what the damn... Why did they go to that elaborate length 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 Best 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 have the air to ground.
	We have 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?
	They didn't hear the first part?
	That's right.
	Los Angeles joined at midnight.
	That's correct.
	They didn't hear the first two hours of this?
	No, that's correct.
	They did not.
	Okay, so in 30 seconds I'm going to tell them.
	Well, you don't have 30 seconds.
	You will when we come back.
	We're at the bottom of the air.
	We spent a lot of time giving out numbers and information and stuff, alright?
	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.
	Her hair's a hollow gold.
	Her lips a sweet pride.
	Her hands are never cold.
	She's got Betty Davis eyes.
	She's trying to lose it for you.
	You won't have to think twice.
	She's pure as New York.
	One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.
	Hartwell is taking calls on the wildcard line.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First-time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	702-727-1222.
	First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Did we or did we not go to the moon?
	James Collier in New York, Richard Hoagland near Albuquerque.
	We'll get back to them in a moment.
	I see.
	All right, back now to James Collier and Richard C. Hoagland.
	James, you wanted to do a 30-second recap.
	Let's hear that.
	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 will give you how to get 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.
	All right, let me stop you right there.
	Here's a fax.
	It says, here is the photo that James Collier claims can't be found.
	In five minutes, I found it.
	At http://nix.nasa.gov.
	Uh-huh.
	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.
	I know!
	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.
	All right.
	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 simulations showing the Earth above our lunar landscape here on Earth in the simulation, why do you put so much importance in Ed Findel 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, 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, I totally understand that, but I don't have it, and in my investigation, that was just one of the points.
	If I think, you and I both agree, they faked a lot of video.
	No, I said they faked some.
	I didn't say a lot.
	Okay, some, I'll take some.
	Be very careful on a case-by-case basis to make the decision.
	Okay, then the other thing I said is they never threw anything up in the air to show one-sixth the 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?
	Centripetal 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 Infidel 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.
	All right, while we're on that subject, gentlemen, here's another fact, sir.
	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.
	Without an atmosphere.
	That's because of air resistance.
	Yeah, ask him what it would do without atmosphere.
	The model was on the moon without an atmosphere.
	A scientist should listen more carefully.
	Right.
	Junk science.
	Okay, so anyway, let me move on now.
	For you people in LA, get the tape.
	I was talking about Earth, so... Right, right.
	For Earth, you were right, Art.
	But we're talking about being on the moon.
	In a vacuum.
	In a vacuum.
	So let me ask this point.
	Right.
	Remember the hammer and feather?
	Yeah, I dropped it.
	I spent a lot of time getting NASA, not being in NASA, not being at CBS at that point, but just being me.
	Right.
	Through friends and colleagues to get the astronauts to actually drop a heavy thing and a light thing on the moon simultaneously.
	Right.
	As a replay of the old Galileo experiment.
	Correct.
	And on Apollo 14, Uh, uh, 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.
	Right.
	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 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, say one, and it will fall at the same rate as the hammer.
	I did it.
	I've demonstrated it to people because I got the feather.
	Is it on your tape?
	No.
	No?
	Nothing you claim you've proven is on your tape!
	Yeah, but Galileo's Law... Wait, Galileo's Law is consistent.
	James, what good is the tape if you don't put your proof on your damn tape?
	Because 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.
	Wait a minute, what about that terminal velocity?
	If a bullet will reach a terminal velocity, a feather will reach a much Slower terminal losses because it's air resistance per unit mass is much greater.
	Yeah, but not a feather with a quill like that.
	I've got the same feather, and believe me, it falls the same rate as the hammer.
	But you didn't put it on video.
	Why don'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, 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 Uh, of investigating this, the 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 Fortean Times three months in a row.
	Anyway, uh, is that when you... I got the NASA video.
	They land the LEM.
	The LEM 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 fake.
	Well, no, wait a minute.
	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 We're 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 as 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.
	Alright, well then we agree on that point.
	NASA videos demonstrate... The question, James, please let me... The question is whether or not we were on the moon, and toward that end, please, both of you listen to this from Brett in 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.
	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 all right now I've dealt with that in in the of
	Guy who did the moon thing?
	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 Lick 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 Lunokhod 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.
	Which didn't mean man went there, but let me ask you this question.
	What was that?
	It doesn't mean man went there.
	The name I was looking for was Jules Verne in his movie, 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'll 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.
	So that kind of laser pulsed off the little reflectors through an amateur telescope could easily be picked up by amateurs.
	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, Richard Hoagland would have had to have been part of the cover-up with Walter Cronkite.
	Correct.
	I mean, based on what Holguin claims he is, he would have to have known something there.
	First of all, we do have him admitting that NASA video is fake, 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.
	Well, bring out the big guns.
	If you've got big guns, bring them out.
	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 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, you know, 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.
	They thought we might sink into lunar dust and just disappear.
	That was Tommy Gold's idea, but even the more benign models said there would maybe be a fluffy layer, And that the descent engine coming down in a vacuum should basically scoop out a crater.
	Well, what you gotta 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 test carried out in an atmosphere here on Earth.
	Yeah, but you know...
	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 striations at all.
	Well, I will put the photographs up on our website of the striations 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 it?
	Remember, we landed at different places on the moon.
	I know, but it doesn't make any difference.
	It's not homogenous.
	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.
	There's another question we're going to deal with, and 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.
	They didn'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.
	James, I have a question for you.
	What?
	The crater question.
	If we were going to set out to fake The whole moon landing business.
	Right.
	And the operating assumption was... Excellent question, Art.
	...that there was a lot of loose material and there would be craters, then wouldn't we fake craters?
	Yeah, it would seem to me they would, but they didn't.
	That's what it would seem to me they would do.
	Now, what does that tell you, James?
	Now, wait.
	That we're dealing with dumb engineers?
	Wait, I haven't even begun.
	Let's rewind and I'll show you why.
	What does that tell you?
	Well, according to a guy named David Percy in England who's putting out a book called Whistleblowers... David Percy is an agent for MI5.
	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 Art wants, I will spend the next hour describing a meticulous... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, we don't want to do that.
	I imagine you would want to move on, yes.
	We will not okay now when I started investigating the limb itself
	Oh Well, wait one other thing. What do you know about the Van
	Allen radiation belt?
	Here comes a big gun Well, I know that they are donut 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, uh, from where, 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, uh, Oh, maybe 500 to 600 miles up and extends outwards to 10,000, 15,000 miles, something like that.
	Okay.
	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.
	We were 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.
	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. Hoagland in New Mexico.
	Near Albuquerque.
	Near Dreamlands.
	In the Nevada desert.
	I'm Art Bell and this is CBZ.
	If you were concerned about the health of your child, call Art Bell.
	West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	at 1-800-618-8255. 1-800-618-8255. East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	This is the CBC Radio Network.
	Richard C. Oakland and James Collier square off.
	Did we, or did we not go to the moon?
	James Collier says no.
	Richard says yes 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.artbell.com Because there's a new Chupacabra picture there.
	This one's gonna 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 little 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?
	Bet you didn't.
	There's more Heaven's Gate people out there.
	Tomorrow night, you're gonna learn what their real philosophy is.
	Rio D'Angelo, because we've got time in radio to do that kind of thing.
	In a moment, Richard C. Hoagland, James Call, 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, uh, push this button.
	Gentlemen, now I think you're back on the air.
	James?
	Am I on?
	You're on.
	Okay.
	Um, 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 It's 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.
	Now, what do you think of James Van Allen?
	You're asking me?
	Yeah.
	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 wafted 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 that did the experiment so the belts were called after his name.
	Alright, 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, you know, several sheets of paper depending upon their velocity and the energy.
	Okay.
	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 the 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.
	Right, 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 The Apollo astronauts did not go to and from the moon during any solar flare event.
	being trapped on the in the earth. Well you've 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 uh of uh the material uh
	that Ralph Rene gathered and it was 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, don't worry, don't go when there's no flare.
	It's always there. It's the northern lights.
	You see it. It'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 a hundred 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 interview, 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.
	Okay.
	And let them go through.
	Okay.
	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 do you mean you didn't write the report?
	And he said, my students wrote it.
	I said, then why'd they name it after you?
	He says, well, actually, I did write it.
	So he, right there, I know I'm dealing with some problems.
	So then I said, but he said... Dealing with what?
	Problems.
	Because the man reversed himself.
	Right there, on me.
	Now... Well, allow for the fact that he's how old?
	Eighty-two?
	Eighty-three.
	Eighty-three.
	Okay, I'll allow for the fact.
	A lot of work done by distinguished professors is done by graduate students, Jim.
	You know that.
	Alright, so wait, wait, wait.
	We're going to go a little farther.
	Now, so I said in your first paragraph, in that, in 59, in your last paragraph in 61, you said that even though astronauts would travel, 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, and the Scientific American's been around since 1845, and it's 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 the Aerospace Magazine of 1965, and in December 1969,
	that Aerospace Medicine Magazine, so that NASA could have an excuse to go through the belt.
	I... 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?
	Well, that's what I said.
	That's what I said to Van Allen.
	No, no, no.
	Just because he found something doesn't mean he did accurate measurements.
	Maybe... No, the military did the measurements.
	They put it up on the Explorer I and II.
	James, there were all kinds of spacecraft that we sent on cislunar trajectories between 1958, when Explorer I 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, you know, solar flare activity, etc., etc.
	The fact that the radiation is high does not mean it was lethal.
	Now, here's a question I have for you.
	Okay.
	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, that's a key number.
	Alright, Richard, if you know, give it to us.
	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?
	Right.
	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, Art, 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?
	Correct.
	Sure.
	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 seven.
	How many went to and from 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?
	Are you saying they didn't go?
	They didn't even get skin cancer, they didn't... How many of those astronauts have died of cancer?
	None that I know of.
	You're wrong.
	Well, I think one did, yeah.
	James Swiger.
	Swiger, right.
	That's right.
	Died on Apollo 13.
	He came home, ran for Congress, and died of cancer.
	Correct.
	So, one out of twenty... How many?
	Twenty-one?
	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 that they did suffer some kind of deleterious environmental effect.
	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.
	Right.
	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?
	We're not going for that reason, and in the last Discovery Magazine, that's exactly what they wrote.
	They said, Golden's biggest problem is he doesn't know how to solve it.
	Richard?
	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.
	But with conventional... That is not a showstopper.
	With conventional science, right now, it's a stopper.
	In other words, it... Well, on a long-term trip to Mars... Yes?
	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?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Electricity from space, a la Gene Maloff, 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, It does open the door to the following question.
	which is not part of the, it's 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 gonna have to do it.
	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.
	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 were 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?
	Right, risk over gain, right.
	Risk over gain, and the answer is An extraterrestrial civilization waiting to be discovered.
	Alright, now the point is that the Earth is being protected from this solar radiation by the belt.
	No, it's not the 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.
	You know, we're just a 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 it.
	They get trapped in it just by virtue of they exist.
	They're coming through the universe and getting trapped in the radiation, the magnetic field of the earth.
	Well, but I don't understand your point.
	They're also going through on the moon too, 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, you're getting 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, along with Mars and all the other planets.
	The background radiation, particle radiation from the sun, is non-existent.
	There might be risk, I suppose, from a flare.
	The flare is the big problem, and there were no flares during any Apollo mission, regardless of what Mr. René 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 at a court and slur him over.
	I know Rene personally.
	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.
	All right, gentlemen.
	Hold it right there.
	Bottom of the hour.
	We're gonna break, and we'll be right back and see what other big guns await examination.
	The moon.
	Did we go?
	When I was young, that life was so wonderful.
	Oh, miracle, oh, goodness, beautiful, magical.
	And all the birds in the trees, they'd be singing so happily.
	Oh, joyfully, oh, faithfully watching me Then they send me away, me how to be sensible
	Logical, oh, responsible, practical, and efficient Lonely days and lonely nights
	Take a trip to the city lights Take the long way, take the long way
	You never see what you're gonna see Forever playing to the gallery
	Take the long way, take the long way You take the long way home.
	When you're up, come to me.
	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.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	702-727-1222.
	First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, 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 Hoffman 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.
	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.
	All right, back now to my guest Richard Collier in New York and Richard C. Hoagland in New Mexico and this fact.
	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 We're 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.
	All right, 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.
	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 landings would not be asking the world to look so closely at the pictures and videos for mistakes, end quote, proving a cover-up of what they saw when they were there.
	I agree.
	What Richard is, I haven't really been able to determine, except he's damn smart.
	I know that.
	And he knows his stuff, but there's a lot of holes in what he's trying to say.
	Yeah, but if he was an insider, he wouldn't have been doing all this.
	I know.
	I understand that.
	But what he is admitting is that the video is fake.
	You know, I said some of the pictures have been altered.
	Okay, now, but here's what I'm... When you say the video was fake, that's such a blanket statement... Well, wait, and let me point this out, because as I point out, in the NASA video, in my tape, was it only a paper moon?
	This 90-minute tape we're here talking about, uh... Uh, Art, can I get an 800 number one more time?
	1-800-888-9999.
	$23.
	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.
	Uh-huh.
	Side-by-side, I put the anomalous object seen from the shuttle in September of 91.
	I saw that.
	On the right-hand side, I put the ice crystals floating between the S-IVB 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 here's what I think... Well, a 90-minute tape is not cheap, I know, because I've done a few.
	Yeah.
	So, how can you put on a 90-minute tape and not provide the best evidence?
	Well, wait, 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 limb, their shadow, the limb 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.
	Now, when you... 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 10-32-4822.
	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, Boat 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, and that the government went and found out something extraordinary And because of people like Pat Robertson.
	Remember how the show started?
	Yeah.
	We have a man claiming that people like you and I who think there's something out there should be stoned to death.
	Well, not quite true.
	He couches that by saying... Well, he said God should do it, but come on, let's not avoid responsibility here.
	Pat Robertson... He said that God said that.
	He said that God said that, but it's still a problem.
	Alright, let me answer this.
	It's 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...
	I agree.
	Find out the real weirdness going on.
	I agree, 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 that the, uh, 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'll 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 in the rock makes it look like an alligator mouth.
	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 and 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 that's 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 a minute.
	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 throwing 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 of that footage is that you're flying upside down.
	Yeah, but you're looking backward, you're not looking forward, you're looking behind you.
	I know, 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 stiration 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's still there.
	Nothing shows up.
	You can see that's phony.
	You can see all of that is phony.
	But that isn't even... Well, look, this is your opinion that is phony.
	No, but you can't miss it.
	You can't miss it.
	I have... 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.
	He's a very good friend of mine.
	Who I have had dub off from the original Apollo 10 film, the Apollo 14 film, to video, in a very complex Telecine, 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... Hold it, both of you.
	Richard, one quick question for you.
	You worked in 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?
	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.
	I know.
	At a time.
	I know, I'm gonna tell you.
	When you get my video... There was 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.
	Well, give me a break!
	There are not enough airplanes in the world to put Apollo hardware in to film, in quote, zero gravity, with realistic, you know, space views of Earth and Moon out the windows.
	Alright, 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.
	Uh, first of all, you see blue light coming in from the windows.
	There's no blue light in outer space.
	Ever heard of scattering?
	Uh, give me a break.
	Alright, I'll give you more.
	No, 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 there's... The blue light coming through that window is because there was a film of particulate matter from the crap floating around in the cabin We're creating a haze of blue scattering just like an atmosphere on the window.
	Alright, I'll give you that.
	Now, I videotaped the LEM in both Houston and the LEM in Washington.
	When you see it, you will see that the hatch on the ceiling of the LEM opens downward into the LEM.
	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 12-foot 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.
	Have you ever heard of the docking cone?
	What?
	You know about the docking cone?
	Yeah, it isn't in there.
	The cone, the docking cone is in the tunnel.
	The drogue is in the tunnel.
	It's not inside.
	The drogue is not the cone.
	There is no cone as you see this inside.
	And 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... You're saying there's no question.
	What?
	I happen to know that they used anamorphic lenses, and that the distortion of those lenses... No, Richard, you couldn't get your way out of this on a bet.
	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 doors 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 snow suit.
	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 space suit 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 and 32 inches wide, and the door opens in, Richard.
	And they, 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 LM, and they couldn't get into the LM, 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, and that's why I want people to get this tape, and I want them to go to their newspaper editors.
	The question I want to ask you is... What?
	The question I want to ask is as follows.
	If this is all true, if what you said is all true... Right.
	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?
	That's exactly what Jerry Kluger said.
	He said, in a quote, he said, and I have it on video.
	It's because... The video takes Kluger's words, Richard.
	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.
	And I have photographs of him In the simulations, in a space suit, in a pressure suit.
	Alright?
	The LM never flew on Earth.
	Never.
	What they had to tell the astronauts, Richard, is what, look, two things.
	They had 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, God, die.
	You're changing subject.
	Yeah, you are.
	Hold it, hold it, hold it.
	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.
	Straight out on answer to the question, could we, you're the one who would know, could we have faked it, Richard?
	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, I've, you and I have seen Maroon, remember Maroon?
	Of course.
	It's bad footage.
	Alright, 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.
	I'll give you 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.
	I'm in my boots again. On the dead of the ocean, finding love another day. Running out of time, losing the taste of
	life.
	Watching in slow motion as you turn around today.
	And I won't fade away.
	The Grown-A-Lot Bell, pull 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.
	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.
	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 with the 3Bs.
	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.
	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 V's thundered the Earth for miles and miles around at the Cape and lifted off into the sky and seemed to go Uh, into space.
	If they didn't go where they, you know, you're arguing they didn't go, then where did they go?
	Into space.
	The first 400 miles up.
	That's all they're doing now.
	That's all they can do.
	And that's all they ever will do.
	So what are you saying?
	That they went up and... Yeah, just orbited and then came back.
	They did that so many... John Glenn did it.
	Wasn't hard.
	So they just orbited and came home?
	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're good.
	Go to Ramona and say, 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 LM 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 tonight.
	No, do you remember Apollo 9?
	She'd probably ask me what was the pay.
	Jim, that's exactly what they did say, what's the pay?
	Jim, do you remember Apollo 9?
	Yeah?
	Well, Apollo 9 was the test of the Lunar Module in Earth's orbit.
	I know, 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 Roman to show me any paperwork showing what type of jet propulsion moved it sidewards, and they don't have it.
	And you don't have it.
	Look, look.
	It's like vector helicopter flight.
	If you tilt the thrust vector slightly forward or backwards, 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 at all, it would have thrown that thing off balance and tipped it over.
	It was not a helicopter.
	If you are absolutely flat out wrong, you don't know 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 astronaut.
	And I say to him, how did they get out of the LEM 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.
	Huh.
	Okay, now, the killer here, Richard, because I've nailed the NASA officials on this, is the rover.
	First of all, the LM itself never flew on Earth.
	All they ever did was go into a simulator and And pretend that, you know, what any kid can do in high school.
	And then they went there and they made this thing float horizontal to the moon's surface.
	And there is no dynamics at all that'll make this hunk of junk go horizontal.
	I don't care what you say.
	You are wrong.
	James, you are absolutely wrong.
	Alright, we'll debate that in a second.
	Let me give you the rover, and then we'll go back and debate that.
	No, no, let Richard say something, and then we'll go to the rover.
	Go ahead, 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 LM cannot pivot, it cannot tilt, it cannot use thrust vector control, give me a documented source, or two sources, 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?
	What, it should have been, I say in my tape, it should have been in the, uh, 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 sidewards, 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- It's not impossible, you keep, 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 bobbing on it.
	That's all it ever was, Richard, and it had a little hundred pound thrusters up at the top.
	If soon as you fired those thrusters off, it would have tipped it over right away.
	It would have pitched it over.
	There is no way it could have moved sideways.
	No, because the gimbaling allows the thrust vector to go through the center of gravity.
	No, as soon as that rocket gimbaled 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, but you're not proving it.
	And I'll hold that assertion all the way to the United States Congress, and if you can get any proof other than that, I'll take it and I'll drop that assertion.
	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've got enough film showing it moving sideways.
	Right, okay, fair enough.
	You've got film.
	Richard, how could they have kept that thing stable in a horizontal movement?
	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 in... Have you ever tried to balance a pencil on your Let's say your index finger?
	Yeah.
	Alright, have you ever seen jugglers balancing, you know, large objects?
	The key is to keep the thrust vector through the center of gravity.
	That's what the gimballed nozzle on the engine was designed to do.
	It wasn't maintaining an attitude only using the hundred pound thrusters outside the windows.
	It was using thrust vector control by gimballing 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, not in your wildest dreams are you going to equate a rotor helicopter to that gimballed engine.
	A gimballed engine means If a person, put 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 was also throttlable, remember that?
	It didn't make any difference.
	As soon as you cut the throttle down, it's just gonna fall faster through the gravity.
	Who said you throttle it down?
	You throttle it up to increase the thrust.
	No, but then it would have pushed it exactly perpendicular to the, you know, draw a straight line.
	It would have pushed it that way and shipped 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.
	Why are we arguing this?
	I know, Richard.
	Richard, and there's a lot of high school kids out there listening to me and saying you're damn right, Richard, and you're wrong.
	Can you find me an engineer who will look at the limb design and tell me that he agrees with you?
	Yeah, I'll find you- Boo!
	Boo!
	You're writing a book.
	You've got a video.
	Give me one name of one individual who's putting his reputation at risk.
	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 will 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.
	I have not found it.
	But you haven't yet, have you?
	It is a valid question.
	Do you have any engineer that would back up what you're saying right now?
	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 was proven wrong.
	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 miles along the surface of the moon.
	I kept trying to tell you and 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?
	Four and a half, almost.
	I have a feeling we're dealing with a person with a very closed mind.
	He has a model.
	He has an idea.
	And facts will not dissuade him from trying to sell his idea to the American people.
	You know, sir, I'm saying that if anyone is out there that knows, including all the scientists listening... Before you come on a national show, wouldn't it have been good for 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.
	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.
	I'll tell you somebody.
	The guy's name is Bill Kaysing.
	He's an ex-Rocketdyne technical writer.
	Who did the jet propulsion stuff for Rocketdyne and built the jet propulsion.
	Now is this the guy that wrote the book, We Never Went to the Moon?
	We 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.
	I'll tell you what, if you can get a... You have to provide Documentation for your statement, like I do!
	Alright, I'll tell you what.
	Let me go on to the... We'll pass this point, because I think the public has already heard it.
	I'm gonna go to the killer one.
	I went to Boeing, because Boeing put the little rover car on the moon.
	And I said, give me, uh... Let me describe.
	The LM 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 goes and comes back to Earth.
	Now, the bottom section is made like a tic-tac-toe.
	Picture a tic-tac-toe and then cube it.
	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 5 feet, was 10 feet long.
	The car was 10 feet long.
	The section is 5 feet high by 6 feet wide.
	The corner, triangular section, and only a couple of feet deep, because it's a triangle, it's half a square.
	So it wasn't as big as the squares.
	Now, the limb could not fit into a 10-foot car, can't fit into a 5-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'd drive it with.
	I said, alright, maybe they'll fold that down, but the tires would stick out the front, and the tires would stick out the back.
	And so, uh, It would have stuck out.
	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.
	Two and a half feet to the front, two and a half feet on the back.
	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.
	If 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.
	Well remember they're not tires in the conventional sense.
	I know but they're still they're circular and they have a they look like a tire.
	You can't miss that.
	And they're deformable.
	They're very flexible.
	I know, but I got photos of that.
	They're wireless.
	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 can 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.
	And the back folds up and goes straight up in the air.
	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.
	All right, let Richard consider that, uh, 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 Greenland.
	That applies to any show we do with a guest here.
	1-800-917-4278 from an area near Greenland.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	We're here to show you the Coast to Coast AM.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Art Bell is taking calls on the wildcard line at 702-727-1295.
	That's 702-727-1295.
	First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Once again, here I am.
	1295. First time callers can reach Art Bell at 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222. Now, here again, Art Bell.
	Once again, here I am. James Collier in New York says we didn't go to the moon.
	Richard Hoagland in Albuquerque, near it, says we did.
	It's been quite warm all evening long and I've got several printed faxes here.
	We'll try and get some of those and wrap this up in the next segment.
	Stay right where you are.
	Three.
	The Sea Green Company.
	All right.
	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 gimballed rocket fires on the LM, 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.
	No, wrong.
	All it does is keep it from tipping over.
	It doesn't move it sidewards at all.
	All right, Richard.
	I want to hit you with something now, and that is the following.
	The one, the only reason you said that they could not have faked the whole thing was there were too damn many hours of weightless activity.
	I 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.
	But how do you get weightless footage with the moon in the background?
	I don't have an answer for that.
	I was just throwing that in.
	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 the rover into the side of the lamp?
	But you see, you keep focusing on You know, almost inconsequential details.
	Why is that inconsequential?
	Well, if you couldn't get it to the moon, how did it get on the moon and how'd they get pictures of it?
	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, produce for me a blueprint, produce 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?
	NASA.
	No, there is no NASA.
	It's from, uh, from... NASA did not build the lunar rover.
	Boeing did.
	Boeing?
	Yeah, I got it from Boeing.
	I got the pictures showing where it 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.
	None.
	There's no battery, no seats, no heat sinks, nothing.
	That's why I went to... 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.
	And so, instead of... Yeah, I got schematics.
	I got them here.
	I got them from Grumman.
	They're from Bowie.
	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 Bethpage, 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 concept, so there was no way for me to produce In 1969, when we watched Apollo 11 land, I was in plant 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?
	Well the obvious comment is I know Wes Thomas and I'm just a tad suspicious of that facts,
	okay?
	Okay.
	I've known Wes Thomas for twenty-some years.
	You mean, uh, you're suspicious of, uh, his claim of where he was, or what?
	No, no, no.
	I'm suspicious of his representation of that incident.
	Okay.
	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.
	And you can see... 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 the 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, but let the public... What I'm saying is let the public decide.
	Jim, we happen to have a very good source at Boeing, who flew 3,000 hours in the lab.
	Or his name is Ken Johnston.
	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 moon.
	Do the wild thing at 702-727-1295.
	Look, no, no, no, no, no, there's a first time I had to hit the button. I know I'm sorry. That's a word
	I got emotional. I know you got the button. I got the FCC.
	Come on. Yes, I'm sorry But I got emotional about that because I'm not arguing semantics
	I'm telling you there's 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 know, I understand that!
	I understand that, but that's all you're 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 what you're claiming.
	That's what's with it.
	That's what you're claiming.
	Alright, it's a good question Richard.
	Then, let's follow up.
	Mr. Collier, why?
	Because they didn't have the technology to go.
	Then why do we go?
	Why do we try?
	The LM never flew and couldn't fly.
	They couldn't get through the Van Allen Belt.
	And they didn't want to lose 30 billion dollars because that's a great money.
	Wait a minute.
	Why would we commit to doing something that we couldn't do?
	Because there's a lot of money in it.
	And you can fool the American people like glass domes on the moon.
	Wait a minute.
	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 Colliers asking pesky questions.
	Nobody asked those things!
	Simply sweep it under the rug, and it amounts to ten 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.
	Oh, listen, Flat Earther and Wright Earther, I'm giving you facts and people can hear it and you're giving me rhetoric.
	No, you're giving us opinions.
	No, I'm telling you it didn't 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.
	They didn't take the rover there, which made Apollo 15, 16, and 17 a fraud.
	Is that equivalent to not going to the moon?
	Well, I don't care.
	That may be true.
	Now, I'll... No, no, no, no, no, no.
	This is a very important point, because it is my contention that NASA went to the moon, and they've lied up, sideways, down, backwards, about... Jim, would you stop talking over me?
	Right.
	Please stop talking over me.
	Right.
	Well, let's not do it to the degree of dead air.
	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.
	Yes.
	Because you obviously not looked at the evidence.
	On our website.
	I've seen your video.
	On our website tonight.
	I've got your video.
	Please don't talk to me.
	Let Richard get his website business out of the way.
	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 60mm DAC 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?
	And the answer is?
	The answer is, whatever you claim, if there was a man in that ship, I don't know that that's true.
	All I can do is give the people the... See, every time we put a piece of evidence out there, you dismiss it and we never win.
	I don't know, I may be... This is circular reasoning.
	This whole evening has been almost, almost pointless.
	James, he's right.
	You're not giving a specific answer, he gave you a specific answer.
	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 to silica.
	Who said they didn't have a factory?
	Where's the factory in your pictures?
	The moon is 15 million square miles.
	Well, okay, so...
	Listen, I read 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 You're supposed to be a journalist.
	What do you mean you don't buy it?
	I mean, your prejudice like that... No, no, I'm 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 holds up... 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, I have no idea whether it was Aceblad Pictures.
	Who took the metric camera photos?
	Who took the pan photos?
	I'm telling you that, uh, uh... Well, I don't know.
	Maybe it was, maybe it was taken just robotically.
	No, because of technology.
	You know, by things that were sent out there without mentioning it.
	As, as you have investigated thoroughly, the problem of the blivis.
	The rover in the lunar module.
	Right.
	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-situ, all of that.
	So, I know the sequence of how these photos were taken as well as anyone can.
	I know, but- And 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 gotta do- So how'd this man get there?
	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 LEM doesn't fit, the LEM doesn't fly, the rover doesn't fit, they can't go beyond the Van Allen Belt, they never threw anything up in the air to show that gravity was one-sixth.
	They never videotaped the moon, the Earth from the moon.
	James... All of those things are easily... You know, you gotta give those answers, and if I can get those answers... James?
	Yes?
	Here's what I think we ought to do, since we're coming toward the end of the time.
	Right.
	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.
	Yes.
	In the form of your tape.
	Let him examine it.
	Right.
	To you I suggest that you go up onto the web and look at the photographs he's got up there.
	Right.
	And then when you both have reconciled and are prepared to argue what you've both seen.
	Right.
	Then we get back together again.
	Right.
	And what I'd like is Richard and I both Well, until you come to some sort of consensus, you can't force squat because you're going to be tearing each other apart.
	In other words, you have presented some things that are probably deserving of examination.
	that what he's got is valid.
	Well, that's my point.
	I'm not saying that it's not valid.
	In other words, you have presented some things that are probably deserving of examination.
	Richard can do that.
	Yes.
	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.
	Well, real good.
	We're going to talk.
	I'll call him tomorrow.
	Are you going to be home tomorrow, Richard?
	Yes, I'm working on the September 11th event.
	All right.
	We'll talk, because we've got to find a consensus, because the common enemy is NASA.
	Well, I don't even want to say NASA is 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 us.
	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 NASA 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 the signals from the moon and the answer to that is they had satellites out there and it 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.
	Right.
	Where there was an observatory called the Cloudcroft Observatory.
	Right.
	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-IVB 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.
	Guys, time's up.
	Time, time, time.
	So we know they left Earth orbit.
	Richard, give the number for your event in Southern California.
	Okay, the event on September 11th is, if I can find the right piece of paper here, All right, just keep looking.
	James, give the numbers for your videotape.
	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.
	New York City.
	All right, Richard?
	9 9 and Victoria House is 2 1 2 8 0 9 9 0 9 0 all right city all right Richard
	the September event area code 3 10 9 6 7 1 3 7 7 excellent Gentlemen, examine each other's materials.
	We will get together again.
	Good night.
	Good night.
	Good night, everyone.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	You don't want to miss tomorrow night, folks.
	Boy, this really was something, wasn't it?
	Tomorrow night, we are going to have Rio de Angelo here, and you are going to hear things Uh, that you've never heard before about the Heaven's Gig 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 Heaven's Gig Group.
	You will also hear what they intend.
	That's tomorrow night.
	Friday, Professor Michio 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.

▲