Art Bell

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 14, 1998 - Art Bell

02:43:19

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard C. Hoagland. Tom van Flandern - Mars Images

Participants

Main voices

46:33

richard c hoagland

01:04:02

thomas charles van flandern

26:13

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		A bell in the Kingdom of Nineveh.
		Send it to him at Area Code 702-727-6899.
		Please limit your facts to one or two pages.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
		Now, here again, the advice.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once again, here I am.
		Good morning, everybody.
		It has been a rough day in more ways than one.
		I've got a very shocking, surprising program coming up for you.
		My guests are going to be Richard C. Hoagland and astronomer Tom Van Flandren, Dr. Van Flandren.
		He's about the face on Mars.
		The second Mars photograph is in.
		The raw image is obviously much, much better than we had of the face.
		I mean, you can see actual stuff in the raw image this time.
		The enhancements will be kind of in the hours to follow.
		So there is going to be some really shocking information throughout the night for you.
		And if you want to know what's really going on, you'll keep it tuned right here.
		Just a couple of items that I'd like to run by you.
		One is I would like to do again at this hour because of coverage into the area.
		When I was very young, my cousin, my first cousin, lived down the street from me, and he was my step.
		And Freddie and I would play magic carpet all the time.
		Sounds dumb for an adult to be talking about, right?
		But in my room, we would put a carpet down.
		We'd put a fan up at the front of the carpet.
		That was the propulsion system.
		And we had various buttons and knobs that we would twiddle and fly to different points on the earth.
		And we played what we called magic carpet.
		And Freddie was very, very close to me.
		And my first cousin, Rob.
		News that Freddie is dead.
		Frederick Lenz, I'll read from the Associated Press, Frederick Lenz II, a best-selling author who packaged his Eastern philosophies for a 90s audience, was found dead in a bay near his $2 million Long Island mansion, the New York Post reported today.
		He was 48 years old.
		Lenz and the police have not ruled out accidental drowning because a deck railing on the property was broken.
		His body was found Monday in the waters off the town of Sautucket.
		In his home, police found an unidentified woman who was talking incoherently, the newspaper said.
		Lenz's 95 book, Surfing the Himalayas, related his snowboarding adventures and his spiritual philosophies.
		In 96, his snowboarding to Nirvana was published.
		St. Martin's Press Editor Jimmy's World Book.
		Lenz and hundreds of devout followers drew pictures after he announced that he was the incarnation of a Hindu deity.
		That's Freddy.
		That was Freddy.
		Taking, I guess, the last magic carpet ride.
		And I've been talking to my family all day and to the coroner and to the homicide detectives.
		But reading between the lines and talking to the homicide detective that there is a lot of information they were not about to give to me.
		They knew I was a member of the company.
		As an adult, we both went our separate ways, and my cousin is dead at just 48 years of age.
		All right, in a moment, we are going to turn our attention to something absolutely astounding.
		When the IRS takes on a taxpayer, it wins 85% of the time.
		That's true.
		The lose, but the pain.
		All right, now to the mountains of New Mexico, where Richard C. Hoagland resides.
		Richard, at one time, an advisor to NATO Cronkite and the winner of the Angstrom Science Award.
		Good morning, Art.
		Good morning.
		And let us also now bring Tom Van Flandren, Dr. Van Flandren, an astronomer.
		Tom, are you there?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I am.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning to you.
		Richard, is Earth shaking or Mars rattling?
		I'm not sure how to put it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's echoing across the solar system tonight.
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The images now are...
		So I think what I'd like to do is begin by talking about what occurred with the face and in fact was absolute CRAPOLA.
		But we now know a lot more, don't we?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Tom participant, because Tom and I are old friends.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		He's been on the cutting edge, you know, hanging out, you know, 10 over the edge of the board for almost as long as I have.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And he has come to some very independent and very important conclusions based particularly on Dr. Mark Carlato's independent imaging analysis and enhancements of what's on the website.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And for everyone who has a computer, you have to go to Art Bell or the Enterprise Mission website and look at what we have up there because we are linked directly through the image that Dr. Carlato prepared, the orthographically rectified from the ground-up enhanced version of the face on Mars from the MGS first Sidonia image taken last Sunday morning.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How new is the Carlato imaging, Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's about 20.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold on.
		Now, bear in mind, everybody, when this first came in, I said it looked like a cat box to me, just a mass of mush.
		And in fact, that is what it looked like then.
		So there's been a lot of water to the great unwashed American media, which in turn turned it over to the American public.
		And the immediate decision was no face on Mars, just nothing but a trick of light and shadow.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I have in front of me a squib from Newsweek.
		As you know, I was inundated this week by a whole bunch of press.
		By the way, NBC Channel 4 called late tonight and are coming up here at the crack of dawn tomorrow because of the new data coming down.
		But anyway, I was on the phone with Newsweek, the editors at Newsweek, probably three times this past week.
		And I want to read you their short, little brief article because it's the perfect setup for why we're in trouble.
		It says Mars Makeover, dated from Newsweek April 20th, 1998.
		New NASA pictures.
		When NASA released the first pictures of the region of Mars called Sidonia, taken by the orbiting Viking 1 in 1976, even the agency's own researchers joked that the little blur in the corner looked a heck of a lot like a face.
		Officially, they said it was nothing but a trick of light and shadow.
		To those who believed in UFOs, ancient alien civilizations, and other topics of the paranormal, NASA's asking recently on dozens of websites, they argued that the face and a nearby collection of objects they call.
		Last week, taking advantage of a photo op provided by some tinkering in the orbit of Mars warpling the red planet, NASA took the first new picture of the face in two decades.
		As a result, it doesn't look like a face anymore.
		What it does look like is a mesa with an asymmetrical top and a thick straight edge.
		Why the difference?
		The surveyor camera captures objects barely 15 feet across, 10 times smaller than Viking could do.
		Quote, it looks like a perfectly natural eroded object, said Arden Alby, project scientist for surveyor.
		Of course, anything ufologists like Richard Hoagland, head of the private enterprise mission, thinks NASA or a contractor doctored the image by reducing its resolution.
		Quote, they must really be scared of what's down there, he says.
		Scientists outside NASA, who've made Sidonia their hobby, weren't as lurid.
		Quote, I don't think the question of artificiality can be resolved with this picture, says Mark Carlato, an image processing expert who has analyzed the face.
		The picture probably couldn't have quieted believers in Martians no matter what it showed.
		Quote, you underestimate these people, says Dennis Stacey, co-publisher of The Anomalous, the journal of the paranormal.
		They have books and talk shows pending.
		But most agree that the real triumph was getting NASA to exceed the public demand that it chase evidence of UFOs.
		That was the real conspiracy here, and it worked, even if it didn't turn out the way the ufologists expected.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		The first realization after looking at the raw images was that something had to be wrong because all you could see a control base consisting of a couple of rocks placed on the ellipse underneath that looked like a comic or mock face.
		And anyone looking at that must wonder, was that what all the fuss was about?
		But this wasn't what we had seen in the Viking photos from 20 years ago.
		So the first task was to figure out where were the features in the Viking photo and how had we been fooled.
		Well, it didn't take too much work to begin to match up one for one.
		And then we came to realize that contrary to what we've realized that in this new image that we were looking from far that once we got the perspective right, we saw that we could not see significantly over the nose bridge at all.
		We were only looking at the west side, more or less in profile, of what was the face that was visible in the original images.
		More than that, in the original images, the sun was also, and only the east side, the side we couldn't see, was in bright sunlight.
		The side we could see was entirely before and certainly eliminated the trick of light and shadow effect if everything significant that we can see is in shadow.
		So we had to and we had to allow for the fact that there was considerable projection distortion this time that wasn't there before just because of our low viewing angle.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, additionally, I believe that Dr. Malin, at the cloudy conditions at the moment of the photograph, he admitted to that somewhere downline.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is that correct, Doctor?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that's right.
		That's correct.
		And so all of this contributed to not immediately being able to see in the images what was actually there.
		But once we got the perspective right and locked in, and anyone looking at the images that are now on the JPL site, which have been properly image processed, can see this.
		If you look at the nose bridge and follow along that and keep in mind that you're only then seeing the profile of the west side of the face, it will pop out and you can see the face as it originally was.
		And when that happens, you see that actually there's a very good semblance of a half of a face there, seen from this low angle.
		And Dr. Carlotto has reconstructed what this would look like as seen from overhead.
		He can do that because he has height information on the face from the old Viking images.
		There were several of those and two of the better ones allow you to get a stereo view.
		So you can get height information.
		You can use that height information.
		The height of the nose is different than the height of the enclosure and the height of the forehead and so on.
		Put all that information in and you can correct for the parallax or distortion and reconstruct what the face Would look like if viewed from above.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you virtually end up with a three-dimensional image.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that's right.
		And in fact, on Dr. Carlado's website is a stereogram, two images side by side from a slightly different angle, computer reconstructed from all the information and the new image.
		And it's possible to view those and to fuse the two images while you're viewing them and see the whole Mesa in three dimensions.
		It is a shocking experience to see that Mesa in three dimensions.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, okay, Doctor, what do you conclude from it?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, just describing what we see first, and then I'll tell you the bottom line.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		First, the surrounding desert is remarkably flat and featureless.
		Suddenly, out of this flat, dark, featureless desert, we have a 400-meter-tall enclosure that completely surrounds the Mesa.
		It's a very regular height all the way around.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sort of like the objects that rise from the flatness of Giza.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		Yes, it is.
		The enclosure itself is fairly uniform in height, perhaps tapering off very gradually to the north.
		And the sides are perfectly straight, as that report noted.
		The top, not counting the ornaments on it, the top is perfectly straight.
		The top and the sides make 90-degree angles.
		Corners are usually associated with constructed objects rather than natural objects.
		The bottom is smooth and round, and the whole enclosure is quite symmetric.
		It is complete except for a tiny area in the lower east corner, which might possibly be an entranceway.
		We don't have detail on the east side, so we can't really tell what it is.
		But one's first impression is, wow, that enclosure is impressive because it's so regular and so symmetric.
		Then you look at the mesa itself, which is what's inside of the enclosure.
		And on the mesa, after you have a trow separating it from the enclosure, is this face-like object.
		The face-like object has a well-defined and traceable forehead and left eye socket.
		Just the bare corner of the right eye socket can be seen peeking out from behind the low part of the nose bridge.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So between the old Viking photos and the new photos, we have symmetrical shapes.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that's right.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		They do match up very well once one gets the perspective, and especially if you do as Mark Carlato did and correct for the different parallax, then there's an almost perfect match.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, and if I may stop you for one moment, Richard, where may that corrected enhanced photograph be viewed?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, if you go to your website, www.locbell.com or the Enterprise Mission website, www.enterprismission.com, all one words, lowercase.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It is the first item at the top of the homepage.
		There is a subset image of the two views side by side, Dr. Carlato's orthogonal rectified version and Tim Parker from JPL's earlier geometrically rectified version.
		You click on that, you'll go to a page which has kind of a full display graphic with Tom's great quote at the top.
		And below that are direct links to Dr. Carlato's website with his preliminary paper, a step-by-step description of how he got this image from the same raw data we all saw and threw our hands up over about four days ago, five days ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard Holt.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And below that is Van Flandern's also commentary.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, hold it right there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So all you computer people, be on your way.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Go take a look.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's new, it's revolutionary, and we'll talk about it in a moment.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		From the Kingdom of Knives, this is Coast to Coast A.M. with ourselves.
		From East of the Rockies, call Art at 1-800-825-5033.
		West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico at 1-800-618-8255.
		First-time callers may reach Art at Area Code 702-727-1222.
		And you may fax ART at Area Code 702-727-8499.
		Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
		Now again, here's Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		From Nelson in Santa Ana, I think he puts it pretty well.
		Hi, Art, a lot of excitement in the air.
		Wow, Mars pictures.
		I'm sure the consensus is eventually going to agree that there is, there are in fact, artificial structures on the Martian surface.
		Let us assume then some of the resulting ripples on the people in our society paradigms Are going to change.
		And that's what we're in the middle of this night.
		Stay right where you are.
unidentified		255.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right, once again, the way to see the photograph of the face that we are talking about now, and this would be the Carlotto rectification photograph of the face on Mars, which only now are we beginning to understand that we had a very poor rendition of and a very poor angle of.
		To see that, you go to my website at www.artbell.com, go down to the name Richard Hoagland, and simply click on the link there, and it will take you to the Enterprise Mission website, and it will be right there on the front page.
		Now, bringing back Richard Hoagland and Dr. Van Flandren, gentlemen, welcome back.
		Hi there.
		Hi.
		And Doctor?
		Yes, sir.
		I'm going to hurry things along a little bit by simply reading what I see here on the website above these photographs.
		It quotes you, Doctor.
		It says, quote, in my considered opinion, there is no longer room for reasonable doubt of the artificial origin of the face mesa.
		And I have never concluded no room for reasonable doubt about anything underlined in my 35-year scientific career.
		Dr. Thomas Van Flandren.
		Your words, Doctor?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that's correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's an extremely strong statement.
		And so a direct challenge to you.
		My God, you've told us some of what you're basing this on, but that's such a strong statement with such great implications.
		Please do it again in a way.
		Tell us why you so conclusively believe this is not artificial.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, because in science, you can talk about coincidences all you want, and they can even be one in a thousand or one in a million coincidences, and they don't matter a bit if it happens after the fact, because you can always find very unlikely patterns in any random data set.
		But if you predict something before the fact, and it only has one chance in a thousand or one chance in a million of happening, and it happens anyway, then you have to pay attention.
		That's part of scientific method.
		It's the way scientists are all supposed to be trained, though sadly very few of them are anymore.
		And it's how we tell the difference between what we can trust from scientific deductions and what is not to be trusted, rather than argue endlessly over things like, does it look like a face or doesn't it?
		That would get us nowhere.
		So applying that to the data that we actually got from this object, we already knew that it had the overall appearance of a face with eyes, nose, mouth, in general, a shape.
		The new information surprised us because those are the gross characteristics of a face, but of course when you look at a face just a little more closely, you see more characteristics than that.
		You see eyebrows.
		You see pupils in the eye sockets.
		You see nostrils.
		You see detail to the mouth, which has a curvature, especially near the lip.
		Those are true of any humanoid face.
		We had no way to see such details in the old Viking images.
		Now we have high resolution.
		We could, of course, see such details.
		The amazing thing is, although we didn't dare expect such things, no one specifically predicted them in words, but the hypothesis that this is a constructed face would tend to imply that if the artist was being this detailed, he would have to put such features in.
		The amazing thing is, those features are there.
		There is a triangular eyebrow over the left eye socket.
		Again, we can't see the right eye socket.
		It's just the right size.
		The shape is like a furrowed eyebrow.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But the right eye socket, Doctor, was one major feature of the Viking photograph, correct?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		I should be saying west and east.
		It's the west eye socket that we see in both of them.
		Okay.
		And so we have an eyebrow.
		At the end of the nose, we can now see two little round holes, the right size and place and orientation, to be nostrils.
		Looking in the eye socket, which is no longer seen in shadow as it was in the Viking images, we can see clearly that it is a large round cavity.
		And inside the cavity, in very low contrast, there is a smaller circular object right in the center near the bottom that would be just the right size and shape and positioning for being a pupil representation.
		The mouth likewise has the mouth curl that I described in this image.
		And although we can't see it in the new MGS image, the Mars Global Surveyor image, we can see in the old Viking images that the mouth and the east eye socket are, the mouth goes all the way through and the east eye socket is present too, so that the face is symmetric when we can see all of it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Doctor, what are the chance odds of this just being, even with all of the detail you talked of and the symmetrical features, of it being a chance occurrence?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a very good question.
		And if take a feature like the nostrils or any of the features I mentioned, the eyebrow, the pupil, the nostrils, the mouth curl, if there were other features on the plateau like that, if there were other features around on the desert like that, and you were just picking and choosing ones that were correctly located because the mind wants to form a recognizable image here, then the chances might be very good of it happening by accident.
		But they're not.
		These features are unique.
		They happen to be in just the right place, and there's nothing else like any of these features anywhere else around.
		And there is a complete absence of stray features on this Mesa.
		Although there are additional features on the face, they appear to be of an ornamental nature that fits in with the face theme, the fact that it has a headdress and possibly a crest.
		It's a decorated face, not just a plain face.
		And the other features seem to be related to the facial features.
		There does not seem to be a single rock on that Mesa which is not purposefully placed there.
		We have very little for the mind to choose from in making images out of what is actually noise.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Doctor, can you actually put numbers to it yet?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		The odds of any one of the features I mentioned, the eyebrow, the pupil, the mouth curl, the nostrils, having the correct size, shape, orientation, and location are individually of the order of one in a thousand or less.
		And collectively, of course, the probabilities multiply.
		I base that on just having looked at images of thousands or tens of thousands of planetary objects on the moon and on other planetary surfaces.
		And we just do not see things like this very commonly anywhere else.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So are we talking about tens of thousands to one that this object is not a natural occurrence?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, we multiply the probabilities of several things that are less than one in a thousand chance.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		And we are down to one in a billion or less.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you say one in a billion?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		One in a billion chance that those facial features would show up in just the right location, size, shape, orientation, with the a priori hypothesis, the before-the-fact prediction, that this thing, if artificial, would look more like a face.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		One in a billion chance.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		In addition to all those features, we have the extreme symmetry of the enclosure, the right angles, and we have a cap over what appears to be the headdress and a sweeping crest over that, which goes practically halfway around the outside enclosure on the desert sand.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to have to ask you what is no doubt an impossible question, but I must ask it, and that is, is there any way to even roughly guess at the age of these objects, of the face?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is there any way to guess at the age?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		We, of course, have no direct measurements of rock dating.
		There are two methods in use.
		One is using cratering statistics.
		And this is a very difficult thing to do on Mars because, unlike most other surfaces in the solar system, Mars is dichotomous.
		That means that one hemisphere is saturated with craters so heavily that if you put another crater down anywhere, it would destroy craters already there.
		The other hemisphere is very sparse in cratering.
		This makes it really tough to do dating by counting craters, because obviously something happened to one hemisphere or the other.
		I think, in fact, that I have some good evidence as to what did happen, that Mars was the former moon of a planet that exploded, and we can date that event, or the most recent such event, to about 3.2 million years ago.
		And therefore, the face object must be at least that old, 3.2 million.
		We've talked about this on an earlier show.
		The face is built right on the old Martian equator and has the correct orientation, right side up and the nose along a north-south line with respect to the former location of the Mars equator before this last cataclysm that Mars underwent, apparently at 3.2 million years ago.
		What's interesting about 3.2 million, as opposed to 3 billion or some other number, is the sinnoid-looking face.
		And something significant happened on this planet 3 million years ago.
		Before that, we have only primate fossils.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So, to sum up, a one in a billion chance putting together that the face is anything else but a face.
		In other words, you're declaring it with all your professions to be not a natural object put there by some intelligent beings.
		Do you have any guesses, Doctor, about that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Tom loves guessing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's a terrible thing to ask, but it's an obvious question.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, the visual impression of a human face rather than an alien face is what is very striking.
		And we're right down to the fine detail now of human faces.
		So it's humanoid, yet it's very ancient.
		And this dating is suggestive.
		And what it suggests to me, and again, now we're going into speculation where I would not give you strong odds that we've got the story straight.
		But what seems to make sense is we seem to have had this explosion event of what presumably was a parent planet to Mars.
		Mars was its moon keeping its same face towards the parent.
		And this event would presumably, well, the conjecture here is that Mars being so inhospitable to life in its present condition,
		and it's kind of difficult to imagine that it was ever rich enough for a long enough time with its atmosphere and water resources to have evolved advanced life.
		What would make more sense is if the advanced life evolved on the parent planet, that they had evolved to the point of having space-faring capability, that they built these artifacts on their own moon to be seen as seen from the parent planet.
		That's why they're looking up instead of something that they could see from the surface, which they can't.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This afternoon, Tom and I were actually speculating wildly, and he was trying to figure out how they might have lit these things in the dark during the night side passes when the moon, Mars, would have been kind of toward the sun, so you were looking at the night side.
		And I reminded him of some work by my good friend, now departed, Kraft Erike, who came over in the late 40s with Von Braun's team.
		He was at Rockwell International.
		He was one of the developers of the liquid-fuel hydrogen Centaur rocket.
		He was one of the pioneers of the American space program.
		But he was a synoptic genius.
		Kraft Eriki wanted to utilize the solar system for the betterment of all mankind, and during the 70s and early 80s, railed against NASA's lack of imagination and foresight and vision and all those things, to the point where he wrote a stunning book called The Magnificent Heritage, which was basically his prescription for how we, humankind, could inherit the solar system.
		And unfortunately, because of the politics of the time, he wound up having to have it published in the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War art.
		American publishers would not touch it.
		NASA did not want to talk about inheriting the solar system.
		Well, as part of his grand vision, Kraft came up with a concept called soletas, which were huge mile-sized mirrors made of mylar that would be orbited around the Earth and attitude stabilized so they could project spot beams of sunlight onto the dark side to either warm up crops during cold fronts and freezes in Florida so your oranges wouldn't go up in price,
		or light cities where power had gone out after major disasters so rescue workers would have 24 hours of essentially sunlight to rescue people and pull them up from down buildings and all that.
		Well, that concept, I said to Tom, would make a wonderful way for the ancient, ancient, prototypical Martians to have illuminated the monuments of Mars.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, here's another one for the both of you, either one of you, and that is, let's think about it for a second.
		If we here on Earth now had the technology to construct a monument on the moon to be seen from Earth, what would we construct?
		What would we put on the moon to be seen from Earth?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		I think that depends on who's paying for it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But I mean, assuming that the better nature of humankind were to win out with respect to what it would be, would we put an image of our God?
		Would we put an image of ourselves?
		Or would that be the same thing?
		Or surely we would think very, very hard about something like that.
		And I wonder what we'd put up there.
		And I ask this question because obviously they, I say they, whatever parent planet, put that face up there.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, one of the secular lines of thought I was going to complete relates to that because perhaps the they realized that their planet was going to explode and looked around for another place to go to live and they would have noticed Earth.
		And perhaps there was a migration, not a mass migration.
		You could only put so many of the population on board spaceships.
		But they may have migrated here to Earth shortly before 3 million years ago.
		And they couldn't have breathed our atmosphere or lived in our biosphere without protective environmental suits.
		But it's a space-faring civilization if these artifacts are artificial.
		So they would have had advanced knowledge of DNA and they could have produced a hybrid species from the primates here that would have their appearance and intelligence.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Dr. Van Flandry, have you ever seen the ancient pictographs here on Earth of beings in helmets?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I have.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Just a thought.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, we're going to have to take a break here at the top of the hour, and when we come back, I would like, if we could, to summarize some of what we have just talked about because it's so very, very important.
		And then we'll move on from there.
		So, Dr. Van Flandren, Richard Hogland, both of you, please hold on.
		All right.
		Ladies and gentlemen, consider what you have just heard.
		Dr. Van Flandren is an astronomer, and he has just told you, with his reputation online, the odds of the face Being a natural construct are about a billion to one against.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
		To talk with Artbell in the Kingdom of Nye, from east of the Rockies, dial 1, 800-825-5033, 1-800-825-5033.
		West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, 1-800-618-8255.
		1-800-618-8255.
		Now again, here's Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once again, here I am.
		My guests are astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandren and Richard C. Hoagland of the Enterprise mission.
		The new Mars photographs, the Sidonia region photographs of the area known as the city, are just in.
		The raw strips are in, the first enhancements of those raw strips are in, and we have yet to talk about those.
		However, we have for the last hour, and we will summarize it for you, talked about the face on Mars.
		Dr. Carlato has done, Mark Carlato has done an enhancement of what we thought was irretrievably bad data and has added it to the original data from the Viking face on Mars.
		And to summarize for you, Dr. Van Flandren has said, and I quote, in my considered opinion, there is no longer room for reasonable doubt of the artificial origin of the face mesa.
		And I have never concluded no room for reasonable doubt about anything in my 35-year scientific career.
		Dr. Thomas Van Flandren.
		That is as strong a statement as you can make or get.
		And it's funny, I just got a fact from somebody who said, Art, if you don't get to the point, I'm liable to go postal.
		And I think this person probably has already gone postal and doesn't know it and has suffered a self-inflicted wound.
		If statements like the ones heard in the last hour are insufficient for you to get the point, then you probably have shot your point off.
		Dr. Van Flandren has said, collectively, with the new image, which, by the way, you can view by going to my ravaged website, going down to Richard Hoagland's name along with Tom Van Flandren, and clicking on the link, which will take you to the Enterprise site.
		You can see the new photographs of the face, the Corlato images of the face.
		And Dr. Van Flandren has said collectively there is about a one in one billion chance that this object is a natural formation.
		In other words, put another way, it was put there by somebody or some beings long ago, perhaps as long as three and one-half million years ago.
		And so, my friend, if you don't get the point, then you have not been listening.
		We will get back to Dr. Van Flandren and Richard C. Hoagland in a moment.
		5151.
		That's 1-800-472-5151.
		Buy two.
		Get one free when you call now.
		Telemart Bell sent you.
		Well, all right.
		Back now to Dr. Tom Van Flandren, who is an astronomer, and Richard C. Hoagland, who is, what are you, Richard?
		An advocate, I guess.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, I'm, no, no, no.
		I'm a generalist, and I was a NASA consultant.
		I was at the Hayden, and I have been one of the principal investigators on this puzzle almost from the beginning, although I did dismiss it when I was at JPL 27 years ago.
		I picked up the cudgels in 83, and I have been pretty consistent that we had to go back and look.
		And what I realized early on, Tom and Art, is that this was not a scientific problem.
		At its heart, this has been an intense political problem.
		And I really have to hand it to the audience because I don't think without the Art Bell audience, millions of people who express their appreciation for consistency and for curiosity and who voice their interest and their avid curiosity in knowing this puzzle,
		this answer, that we would be sitting here tonight talking about this historic breakthrough that we literally can now put on the table bona fide evidence that there's about a billion to one chance that this thing is not natural.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A billion to one.
		Dr. Van Vlandren, if I were a severe critic, I would say something like the following.
		On a nice cloudy day, oh, you know, I can look up into the clouds and I can see the face of Dick Clark looking down on me.
		Or Mickey Mouse or whatever.
		How do you address that kind of critic?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, there are a couple of different things.
		One is the point I already made about you can always find unusual patterns after the fact, even things that only have one in a million or one in a billion chance of happening in random data sets if the data set is large enough.
		But making a prediction before the fact and finding something after the fact are at the opposite ends of the spectrums as far as scientific significance goes.
		And with the face, finding the face in the original Viking photos was an after-the-fact find, and We could argue endlessly about whether or not there was any significance to it.
		But having the face hypothesis going into this image with 10 times the resolution and then finding uniquely facial details in just the right place, size, shape, and orientation, that's an a priori prediction and has almost no chance of happening coincidentally.
		The other thing that is true in general of faces in particular, we do have a tendency to see faces like the old man and the mountain.
		That's a profile, though.
		That is just basically you only need a single curved line to make a profile.
		And there are also things that look like faces from Tricks of Light and Shadow, which is basically a flat representation of a face with dark and light areas that happen to resemble facial features.
		The face in Sidonia is neither of those.
		It's actually a three-dimensional contoured object.
		The eyeballs are really deep cavities.
		The nose bridge is really raised up, and the mouth is a cavern, and it's actually carved in rock in three dimensions.
		There's nothing like that anywhere else in the solar system except on Mount Rushmore.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Dr. Richard, hold on one second.
		This question.
		Suppose we wanted to produce the face on Mars here on Earth, and we got out all of our Earth movers and explosives and whatever else we could do, much as we put the face of presidents on the side of a mountain, and we wanted to make a face on Mars.
		Could we do it?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		It's about a mile and a half across.
		It's a huge structure.
		It's close to not quite half a mile high at its peak.
		I suppose that if we put the resources of the planet to the task, we could accomplish it, but it would be a project that might compare with the building of those pyramids in Egypt.
		It would take an enormous labor force dedicated to this goal.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What do you expect?
		I mean, the statement you have made is so strong that I would expect there would be a reaction from your colleagues, Doctor.
		What do you expect?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, I hope that colleagues in particular would not go by words that they hear on the air, but go to the written statements which are at the websites, especially go to the pictures and not just glance, but analyze them for themselves.
		There is a wealth of detail in those pictures, far more than we've had time to discuss here.
		The rest of the strip also contains some amazing things to see, and some of them look fairly unnatural, too.
		I would hope they would go and take a look for themselves, get a little magnifier or use a zoom feature on their computer, look around in fine detail, and they're going to see all kinds of things that they've never seen before in lunar or planetary images.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gentlemen, let me ask you both.
		Does what you have told us tonight and what we have yet to be told about the new photographs that we have yet to discuss tonight, we're kind of dragging our feet as they come up with better resolution images.
		Does what we're seeing now and what you have said, Doctor, justify a manned trip to the moon?
		I'm on the moon.
		I'm on Mars.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry.
		I can only hope that one does happen still in my lifetime.
		Of course, with my conclusion, I feel the case is now compelling for a manned trip specifically to the Sidonia area because a robotic mission just isn't going to be able to anticipate what obstacles it might need to overcome in order to really find out what's here at the site.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, for either one of you, if we had a man at the site now on Mars, what would he do?
		How would he be able to analyze whether or not we're dealing with a natural object or a not natural object?
		Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me add a little bit of contradiction to something that Tom said a couple of minutes ago.
		He said a natural carved feature or an unnaturally carved feature.
		Tom is also very interested, as we all are, in the essence of good scientific prediction.
		And I want to do a little bit of predicting tonight.
		Ten years ago, when I wrote my first edition to Monuments, The Monuments of Mars, A City on the Edge of Forever, I looked at the available data, and I looked at, in particular, Dr. Carlato's really important independent enhancements of the NASA data at that point.
		And I also looked at his work and with that of his colleague in the so-called fractal analysis.
		This fractal technique is very important as part of this discussion tonight because it was applied in Desert Storm by the DOD and by the company that Mark used to work for to basically try to find Saddam Hussein's tanks in a desert.
		And the way it works is that you ask the computer, you give it some lengths of things and let it look at the landscape and it notes all the features that on the natural landscape are what are called self-similar.
		Meteorology and wind erosion and even geology, internal processes, apparently tend to produce things on landscapes that are very similar to each other going down in scale.
		And when you plunk down an artificial object in the middle of a natural landscape, it sticks out to the computer like the proverbial sore thumb because it has a different scale.
		And so it was that comparison technique that allowed Mark to go to the Viking imagery, apply these set of algorithms used in Desert Storm, and to come up with some amazing new information that we never had before.
		That the face on Mars was the most non-fractal, meaning the most non-self-similar, looking like the rest of the mesas down there, of anything that he looked at.
		And how many thousand square miles did he look at, Tom?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall, so it was thousands, all right?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Thousands of square miles.
		Now, based on that piece of information, which told us that whatever the face was made of, it probably was not a carved Mount Rushmore piece of rock.
		I on page, I'm going to go to the book now, all right, on page, well actually it's a figure illustration.
		It is figure 23 in Monuments of Mars, 4th edition.
		And I said this as far back as 92, and I said it something very similar back as far as 87.
		I said that the mechanism of producing the marked by symmetry of the features, the eye, mouth, and hair, was probably due to sophisticated placement of shadow casting artificial pyramidal substructures on an underlying mesa, the apparent means of achieving the overall facial resemblance at all lighting and viewing angles.
		Now, what that means is, when we look now at Mark's exquisite work on this global surveyor image, the thing that strikes me is the extraordinary degree of rectilinearity of right-angle stuff and pyramidal, step-pyramidal looking things on the face on Mars.
		And the best resolution, if you take the image that we have on our website and you download it to Photoshop or one other imaging program, and then you simply zoom in, you will see an amazing symmetry of features on the east-west axis and north-south axis.
		There is so much rectilinearity, meaning right angles, right-angle geometry.
		And it's vertical.
		It's above and below the surface.
		The confirmation that the face appearance is produced by artificial substructures laid out in a pattern, an architectural pattern, to give from space, from perhaps the surface of Tom's other planet, the appearance of a facial impression, of a work of art, is a stunning tour de force of engineering.
		So our hypothetical astronauts, if I was planning the mission, would basically be looking for doorways and ways to get into the face on Mars because it is headquarters.
		It is a massive artificial structure, and we can see rents and tears and rifts in that, and that's what causes some of the albedo features because we apparently are looking into the inner guts and substructure of parts that have been eroded away and broken away by either meteor impact and or chemical erosion, oxygen, oxidation, and or wind abrasion, sandblasting from its incredibly ancient age.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		This is a very important point, Richard.
		While we have you, Dr. Van Flandren, does your very strong quote and assessment of the face depend in any way on your hypothesis regarding what would have been the parent planet to Mars?
		In other words, if we eliminate that hypothesis altogether, do your words still stand regarding the face?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes, they do.
		In fact, that's omitted from that probability calculation completely.
		As I mentioned, the additional factors that come from the exploded planet hypothesis include the evidence that the face is on the equator, that it's correctly oriented, that it can be viewed meaningfully from the other planet.
		These things are also very unlikely to occur by chance and are of an a priori nature.
		And they would add a couple more factors of 10 to the improbability of this all happening by chance.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		So we're at the 10 or 100 billion to one level?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		My God.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You know, it's very important, and I'm very glad Tom is able to do this.
		This is not linked to the specific exploded planet theory.
		Artificial structures on Mars can be there, placed by someone, regardless of where they came from.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's why I asked the question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I thought it important to separate them and be sure that the numbers we were talking about were not dependent on that theory, and obviously they are not.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But what is really amazing is that we have this wonderful piece of fractal data, and now we have a, from the ground-up enhancement by Mark, which confirms the presence of these incredible numbers of artificial substructures placed around this Mesa that give us this exquisite three-dimensional artistic impression.
		And one of the things that I am hoping we can get out of Mark in the next week or two is a movie from dawn to dusk, which will be the synthesized in the computer, 3D modeling, then lit in the computer from sunrise to sunset.
		Because if we get that movie, there's another part of monuments of my book where I make the prediction that what we will see is the most extraordinary tour de force of evolutionary change.
		From the low sun angle eastern horizon shot of sunrise to the low sun angle western shot of sunset.
		The face will evolve before our eyes, a consequence of the specific placement of these substructures to communicate the big message of Sidonia, which has something to do with us.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Of course it does.
		Gentlemen, hold on for a moment.
		Dr. Tom Van Flandren, an astronomer who has said some very, very strong words, and Richard C. Hoagland are my guests?
		Do you understand the implications this has for everything that we thought we believed?
		I'm Mark Bell.
		This is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified		Coast to Coast AM.
		Thank you.
		Thank you.
		From the Kingdom of My, this is Coast to Coast A.M. with Art Bell.
		First time callers may reach Art at area code 702-727-1222.
		702-727-1222.
		Here again is Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I repeat, do you understand the significance of what you're hearing this morning?
		The new combined photographs of the face on Mars have caused astronomer Tom Van Flandren, Dr. Van Flandren, to say, quote, in my considered opinion, there is no longer room for reasonable doubts of the artificial origin of the face mesa.
		And I have never concluded no room for reasonable doubt about anything in my 35-year scientific career.
		Dr. Thomas Van Clandrick.
		We'll get right back to him.
		1004-587134.
		If you're in Alaska, Hawaii, or Canada, call area code 918-687-0404.
		And of course, they're on the internet at www.americangoldrose.com.
		Well, all right, back now to Dr. Tom Van Flandren and Richard C. Hoagland.
		And Dr. Van Flandren, I would like to, if I can, just sort of finish up with you because my temptation is to want to ask you to give us definitive comment on the new photographs that are just now being resolved that we got from Mars today.
		Now, I know, unfortunately, it would not be very scientific to do so at this time.
		Is that correct?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yes, right.
		I can't really comment as a scientist until I've analyzed the data and have a considered basis for my opinions.
		I can, as a human being, though, just say, wow.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, Richard, of course, is not so constrained, and he's talking about lawn furniture.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, not literally, please.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I know, I know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Now, let's tell people where that reference came from.
		When Tom and I and many others participated in an early press conference in the late 80s at the National Press Club, we've tried to bring this to the attention of the San Franciscan, the national press, people on Capitol Hill, the White House.
		I mean, we have really gone the extra mile to get this data, and it is the American people who really should pat themselves on the back because without their insistence that we get these images, they would not be hearing us tonight saying what we are saying.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Isn't that a fact?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		As part of that process, when we appeared for the first time at the press club, Dr. Malin, who at that time was the principal investigator on the Mars Observer camera, the duplicate of which is flying on the mission in Mars tonight, Mars Surveyor, after our press conference came out with a very crack comment, which went something like this.
		He says, well, I won't believe there's anybody down there unless I can see the lawn furniture.
		So I am posting tonight on the website on Enterprise Mission, I sent it over to Keith, and I hope he's listening, a close-up of something that if it's not lawn furniture, it's the next best thing to it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, these are of the new images.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		New images, yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And Tom does not have to comment, but he can look and enjoy like the rest of us.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Dr. Van Flandren, the first night we had the raw images of the face on Mars, what were your thoughts then?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A week ago when we had those first blurry non-images.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		My very first thoughts were disappointment in the quality of the images.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		I did not appreciate how raw raw images meant.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		42 shades of gray is pretty raw.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And you were, I suppose, five at least including, oh, God, it's nothing but rocks.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Actually, I try not to jump to any conclusions, even internally.
		My first reaction was disappointment at the quality, and once I realized that indeed the image had lots of quality, it just needed proper image processing and contrast tuning.
		Then my second reaction was, well, gee, that Mesa doesn't look like the object that we saw 20 years ago.
		Are we sure we got the right object?
		Questions like that.
		And gradually I began to realize there was a real problem with the perspective, as I described earlier.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I hope the American press has listened carefully to what you have said this morning so that the real story might be told and the picture of the cat box might stop being circulated and they might pick up on what we now know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Doctor, I really, really want to thank you for being on board this morning.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		My pleasure.
		I just add as a footnote that you don't, although we have, Richard and I and Mark Carlato and others have these pictures on our sites for the convenience of, for example, your audience, you can go to the NASA JPL websites and get the original images.
		You can see that we at least haven't introduced any of these things we've been talking about.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well said, Doctor.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And again, I thank you for being here.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Art, And have a good evening.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good evening, Doctor.
		And incredible words from Dr. Tom Van Flandren.
		You may conclude what you wish from them.
		In a moment, we are going to be joined by a geologist, Ron Nix.
		In a moment, we are going to be talking about the new photographs.
		The photographs that have just been literally taken during the evening hours and are just now beginning to get to us.
		So stand by for that.
		Well, now I've seen it all.
		You all know I've been raving about the amazing Snappy video snapshot from Play Incorporated.
		And many of you are already using Snappy to get incredible pictures into your PC will look.
		I've got some great news.
		The scientists at Play have invented a new version of Snappy.
		It's called 3.0 Deluxe.
		It's got some breakthrough new features as well as a graphic studio full of professional software programs for painting, retouching, adding amazing special effects to your video pictures.
		As a matter of fact, this new Snappy gives you the same stunning still pictures from any camcorder, VCR, or TV, plus, now the ability to capture moving video clips.
		It even lets you add audio greetings and narration to your video pictures.
		And now, you get all the software you need to make greeting cards, business presentations, calendars, school reports, even sending your pictures over the internet with a click of a single button.
		It is incredible.
		If you own a PC, you simply must have a Snappy.
		You can get your Snappy deluxe today at any computer store for just $139.95.
		And if you already own a Snappy, call Play for upgrade details at 1-888-888-PLAY, P-L-A-Y.
		See Snappy for yourself and discover the company behind this amazing technology.
		They're on the web now at www.play.com.
		That's P-L-A-Y.com.
		Well, all right.
		Now for a moment back to Richard C. Hoagland.
		In a very short while, we'll be joined, and I have him on the line now, by Ron Nix, who is a geologist.
		We are now going to discuss the new images, the ones that NASA took during the day yesterday.
		And we are just now beginning to guess.
		Richard, you're back on the air again.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me say a couple things before we go to Ron.
		Sure.
		There's a lot more in that first image that Tom and I have discussed and that Dr. Caroato is now looking at and that we have been examining, including a discovery I made a couple days ago, which I'd hope to have ready to put up on the web tonight.
		And because of the new images and how astonishingly good the raw data was compared to last week, I decided to forego that and focus on the new stuff.
		But we have discovered, I have discovered a ruined tetrahedral pyramid between the face on Mars and the DNM pyramid at the bottom of that strip.
		And in the next day or so, I will put up a really extraordinarily good enhanced version of that, as well as the geometry, because it is literally exactly at 19.5 degrees to the center line between the DNM and the face itself.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, we'll look forward to that.
		In the meantime, Richard, last week, everybody knows the face was imaged.
		Now let's move forward, fast forward, to today.
		What exactly did NASA image today?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, today they were attempting to take, Malin was attempting to take, a strip roughly two miles wide and about 14 miles long across the center of the city complex, the so-called pyramid complex.
		And they succeeded, except it apparently is about two miles to the west of where they were aiming.
		They were supposedly going to basically go across the city square, which is this little collection of four objects the size of the Giza Pyramid, located in the center of this complex with very massive structures.
		And for some reason, unlike the targeting of the face last week, which was right on the money, they got about two miles to the west of the center of the city, and they imaged a strip down across a massive collection of pyramids, ruins that look like they've fallen in, and down into the desert southwest of the face, across a couple of mounds, and then out across a mesa to the extreme southwest.
		When that came in this evening, which was posted on the JPL website, it was taken this morning.
		It took them all day to downlink it to the earth and, I guess, look at it.
		And they put it up on the web tonight just before 7 o'clock Pacific time.
		Immediately, we downloaded it, and we were, A, pretty impressed with the quality.
		I did a histogram, a quick histogram, to look at the gray scales compared to the original image.
		And the original image last week, as you probably remember, had about 42 shades of gray.
		Well, this one has over 100.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Actually, I should say you can look at the raw strip image, the one that I was bitching about so much last week, and you can look at the one they have taken yesterday now, and you can actually see data in the raw image.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's a whole different world than last week's photograph.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's pretty comparable to a posting I put up tonight under the heading, Honey, I Shrunk the Face, which is a response to Dr. Malin's response to why we only got 1024 pixels on the original image.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And in that, I have a comparison.
		I found an original 7813 Viking shot of the face on Mars, the whole area, from Dr. Malin's website posted in 1995.
		I was able to pull that up and put it side by side with his Mars Surveyor camera shot.
		And when you look at these two raw images side by side, there's nothing in the Sidonia shot from last week, and you can see beautiful features in the Viking shot from 20 years ago.
		Well, the shot tonight across the city is much more comparable to the 20-year-old quality of Viking than the Mars surveyor shot Earlier this week.
		So we're seeing real things.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		May I ask a question?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Anything?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		With regard to the one taken last week, after we all raised howl about the quality, Dr. Malin finally came back and said, well, it was cloudy, it was hazy, and that accounts for why the Raw Strip was seemingly absolutely black.
		Do weather conditions change?
		I mean, after all, the picture we took yesterday now, the one we're about to talk about, is quite clear.
		And do weather conditions change that quickly on Mars, Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, yes, you can have dust storms, you can have clouds.
		The problem with clouds is that they produce a bright, hazy picture, not a dark picture.
		And the other thing I point out in my recent posting of this evening is that the detectors, the actual camera elements in his wondrous camera, go from the green, about 5,000 angstroms, down to 9,000 angstroms, which is in the infrared.
		And infrared light cuts through haze.
		So if anything, we should have gotten a clearer image than Viking 20 years ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So then what are you saying?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are you saying his explanation is bogus?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Look, I have said from the beginning that we need documentation from the get-go, from Mars to Earth, of exactly how we get these frames.
		NASA used to provide truckloads, arm loads, ocean liner loads full of documentation.
		On this mission and on these particular images of Sidonia, we have had to pull, like pulling teeth out of porcupines, to get the minimal documentation of what's going on.
		And obviously, we're not going to be satisfied until we get a full understanding of what happened to reduce the resolution of the images taken last week.
		And again, by the way, we're not looking at the best possible specs of this camera tonight.
		The images that Malin has given us of the city are literally only half the resolution in one direction, one quarter in both directions.
		In other words, they're 400% smaller in terms of resolution than they could have been if he had used the full 2,048 pixel width of his camera.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, I want to understand that, Richard.
		The explanation that people have given me is that he was afraid he was going to miss the sight, and so he used half the resolution to get a wider swath of geography in the frame.
		Now, is that right or not?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not right, because the width is determined by the altitude of the spacecraft above Mars.
		It's a fixed-focus camera.
		It has a little less than a half a degree field of view.
		It's basically a long focal length telescope.
		About half a degree is the width of the full moon as seen from Earth.
		So that's the width of the image.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So then why use a lower resolution?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		There's no reasonable explanation.
		The city of Pyramid Complex is 30 times the surface area of the face alone.
		Last week, they nailed the face, both in the middle of the strip and almost exactly in the middle of the width of the strip.
		Tonight, for some reason, they missed the center by the width of the strip.
		They're well within the confines of the city area, but the length goes from the desert north down across the city to the desert to the south.
		If they had shortened their length or used compression in the camera, which is lossless, 1.8 times, they could have given us a much higher resolution, four times the resolution spatially, of these same objects, and then we would have seen the lawn furniture.
		For some reason, Dr. Malin chose not to.
		But despite that, we're seeing pretty astonishing, bizarre, wondrous geometric things.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And we're about to get Ron Nix to comment on that.
		Just one very quick thing.
		Did you know that Bill Clinton today went to NASA?
		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And I want to talk about that probably at the top of the hour because I think that factors into the politics of what's going to happen in the next few days or next few weeks.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Not a coincidence.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I don't think it's a coincidence.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		In fact, I can prove it's not a coincidence, and we'll do that after the top of the hour.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		In the meantime, geologist Ron Nix is here.
		Ron, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Hello, Lord.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I take it that you have had a first blush look at the barely enhanced raw data of the brand new photographs of what's known as the city area, correct?
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What do you conclude?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What do you see?
unidentified		Well, they're pretty stunning.
		They're just as I had anticipated, which is sort of what Dr. Van Flantern had said earlier, that it's nice if you can sort of predict ahead of time what it is you might find.
		And sure enough, you find these same rectilinear patterns in places where it's difficult to explain them.
		They're there.
		There are a couple of interesting, they look like craters, but they're hexagonal.
		I don't know how you get a hexagonal crater.
		Again, like you said, it's a first blush evaluation of that image.
		But there are also craters that look round.
		So there's some things that are just absolutely fascinating to me geologic-wise.
		When all of the frustration over the photo came down, or the image came down, of the face, I didn't let that bother me too much.
		The first thing I wanted to do was go see, well, what can this camera do?
		And it had taken some earlier images that I did look at on there on the NASA photo journal.
		There are some fascinating things up there that are difficult to explain naturally.
		Again, it's the geometry of the things that you see on the sides of hills, things that look like spires that are actually casting very long shadows that are in the same direction and with the same orientation you'd expect based on sun angle and that sort of thing.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Telephone poles on Mars.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's actually my understanding that all the previous pictures, and I asked Richard about this earlier, were taken at a resolution of 2048.
unidentified		And they're excellent.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All of them.
		And only now the two photographs we have of Sidonia have been done at 1024.
		Has Dr. Malin reasonably explained this on his website.
		That's for either one of you.
unidentified		No.
unidentified		Not in my opinion.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		In terms of his response earlier in the week to why the picture is only 1024, I posted my response, which is a somewhat technical, point-by-point evaluation based on data that we got from RAN, based on data I got from some other sources, based on the known characteristics of the camera, based on the orbit navigation.
		And the bottom line is I think Dr. Malin has some things to answer for because his explanation does not hold water.
		And certainly not for what we got tonight.
unidentified		Can I interject something?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		If the explanation is valid, I don't have any reason to believe that it isn't, except I do have a question.
unidentified		If he knew that he was going to do this this way, and he knows very precisely, based on his explanation, what the situation is, why did he tell us that ahead of time so we wouldn't have been surprised with the image?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, actually, he didn't mention a word about it until Richard caught it.
		That's right.
		And then the next day, there was a response to it.
		In fact, it's been kind of a, gee, we discovered this, and then Malin's website suddenly reflects an answer or an attempt to answer it the next day.
		Ron, we're down on time.
		One quick question before the top of the hour.
		You are a geologist.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Does your work as a geologist, are you able, in other words, to transfer what you do reasonably as you observe photographs of Mars, Earth work, geography on Earth?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are you able to transfer that expertise to what you see on Mars?
unidentified		Short answer, yes.
		A little bit qualified.
		You have to do the best you can because conditions are very different on Mars.
		Excuse me.
		So there could be processes that we're familiar with here that may manifest themselves in different ways on Mars just because it's a different place.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But short answer is yes.
		Everybody stand by.
		We're at the top of the hour.
		This is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified		The Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified		And Masters, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, everybody.
		This is Art Bell.
		And what one week ago looked very much like a crash and burn scenario for the face on Mars, tonight is 180 degrees from that.
		I wonder if that'll make the mainstream press.
		Anyway, you know the truth.
		Jack sends the following facts, Art Hooray.
		We did it.
		It took a number of open-minded scientists, a talk show host, and a great number of inquiring activist listeners.
		And this person is exactly correct.
		In a moment, we'll go back to Richard C. Hovland and geologist Ron Nix.
		When the IRS takes on a taxpayer...
		That's 1-800-562-6438.
		Absolutely fresh flowers.
		All right, back now to Richard C. Hoagland and geologist Ron Nix.
		Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, all right, let me make a couple of announcements here at the top of this hour.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		In Southern California, for those folks that want to actually get up close and personal to this data, which is the images from a week ago, the face and the DNM and these remarkable things in between, the images from tonight of the city, and God knows what they're going to give us by next week, nine days from now, on the 23rd.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What will they be imaging then?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, we don't know yet.
		Stan McDaniel is calling for an image of the cliff, which I think is kind of boring.
		I would like to see the fort.
		If we do the geometry right, and they put the strip down across the fort, you'll get the pyramid to the south of the fort.
		You'll get the, there's a kind of a wall-like structure.
		You'll get a couple, three of the very important mounds.
		And then you'll go across a feature that I call the quarry, which was pointed out to me by a photo analyst for the National Reconnaissance Office, which is this ultra-top secret, we're not even supposed to mention its name office that does satellite reconnaissance of the Soviet Union for the United States.
		I was on a talk show, I think it's Jay Barber's show in Denver one night.
		This guy called me up and he said, do you realize there's a quarry down there?
		And lo and behold, it turns out to be the second brightest non-fractal hit that Mark got on the entire landscape.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, could I add a layman's question?
		Sure.
		That would be, if they built something as large as the face and the other objects you discussed, as there is at Giza, would there not have to be a quarry?
		In other words, the material had to come from someplace?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It depends on the kind of material.
		And all I know is that he, as an expert, looked down and saw this stuff.
		And, you know, I've had a couple of geologists, not run, but some other geologists look at it and say, it sure doesn't look like anything else on Mars.
		It looks like two excavated quarry pits, like, you know, people botbacking dump trucks up and moving sand in a huge way.
		We will not know unless we get high-res images.
		But the point is, if we get a strip down across the fort and that part of the city, we would get all of that in one fell swoop, and that would be my bet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There are a lot of people, Richard, in the audience who have written to me and have said, look, why not go back and, on the third attempt, re-image the face?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What is the argument against that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The same lighting.
		And you can't control the angle.
		In other words, because they're not wanting to make any burns of the rockets on this craft because they have to have it last two years, the real mapping doesn't begin until next year, you know.
		They're literally leaving this thing in the parking orbit, and they're just taking photographs at the opportunity when it flies over the Sidonia region.
		That means they either have to look left or right, but the odds of flying right over something without burning the engines is very small, which means it would be the same lighting to this phase every nine days.
		It comes back over at about 10 o'clock in the morning.
		So we would get the same lighting, but at another weird angle.
		Now, if we were lucky, we would get it maybe going down the eastern side, but I don't think the orbits are going to do that for us.
		I think we're walking our way to the west because we were much closer to the city this time than we were to the face.
		So, in terms of orbital geometry, it's really useful to spend that third orbit on the city.
		Now, the surprise is that there is so much important information here that in the next few days, when we make the proper noise that we're going to make, and your audience does what I know they will do, we may be able to cajole NASA into taking more images during the remaining science-phasing orbits, which is between the end of May, after we come out from behind the sun, and September when they begin aerobraking again.
		That would be what I would call for, is that there'd be enough honest guys in NASA now that would look at this and say, holy cow, and they would allocate some more orbits to re-photographing things at a different lighting angle, which, of course, will change over several months.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, has there, as of yet, been any official comment from NASA on now the first and now the second photographs?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, this was what Tom was upset about.
		There has not been official comment, but there has been unofficial official comment.
		In other words, Mike Malin, Arden Alby, and Mike Carr, who were all officially attached to the project, spoke to Time and Newsweek and the wire services and CNN, and basically that's where Newsweeks take that it's all a Tempest and a teapot came from.
		They were not supposed to, as part of the agreement, the gentleman's agreement that McDaniel and Carlotto and the others thought they had with Carl Bilker, make any comment.
		They were just supposed to put this data out there and let everyone just look at it.
		But they kind of didn't do that.
		So, yes, there's been unofficial official comment.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Very quickly, we mentioned Bill Clinton, who went to NASA yesterday.
		And is that just a coincidence, in your opinion?
		Why would our President suddenly go to NASA?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is an important political calculation.
		I'm beginning to think tonight that we are...
		I'm going to sound like Steve Bassett here.
		I think we may be en route to disclosure.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You do?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's quite a change for you.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Because I'm looking at a raw picture of Mars showing lawn furniture, and I think that there is not an accident that we're seeing this.
		I think that the strategy is for NASA to be dragged kicking and screaming to examine this.
		And at some point, you're going to see the president announcing, well, this is so interesting.
		I guess we're just going to have to get some money and send some men to Mars.
		Now, when he was giving his speech at Johnson this afternoon, ostensibly it was on the International Space Station.
		It was on John Glenn's upcoming flight.
		But did you notice in his offhand remarks, he talked about them sending him to Mars?
		We are going to reverse Bill Clinton, David Oates and I, and in the next couple days, or a few days, we may have some interesting insights into what was going through the president's mind.
		Speaking of David Oates, on my birthday, which is the 25th of this month, which is two days after the final April orbits over Sidonia and photographs are taken, David and I will be at the Del Mar Hilton in Del Mar, California, which is in northern San Diego.
		That's a 6 p.m. event.
		It's a social hour then, a 7 p.m. program.
		I'm going to be showing the enhancements of these images and some pretty amazing things up close and personal.
		If people want to call for information as to how to get tickets, they can call our 800 number, which is 888-338-8581.
unidentified		That's 888-338-8581.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's actually the Art Bell Chat Club there, isn't it?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		That's the Art Bell Chat Club.
		And there are some very dedicated people, and they have lucked out because of all the chat clubs in the world, Art, they're the ones that are going to get to see this extraordinary cutting-edge breakthrough data that has impelled Tom Van Feiner to now say it's a billion to one against it being random.
		It's got to be artificial.
		They're going to get to see it first the night of April 25th, my birthday at 7 p.m. at the Del Mar Hilton.
		Now, if you call the 800 number, you can also get the Monuments of Mars, in which I make specific predictions about the substructures on the face and a number of other things about Sidonia that now apparently are being confirmed by these pictures.
		And that number is 888-338-8581.
		And yes, I will sign these books.
		This is an historic moment.
		And even though I'm probably taking my life in my hands, I will sign the books.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You have a lot of enemies, Richard.
		When I have you on the air, I get a lot of response from people that is very vitriolic.
		I mean, it's just absolutely vitriolic.
		You have a lot of people who detest you.
		Why do you think that is?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Maybe the truth is too strong to take at this point in our history.
		And I have been advocating the truth, no matter where it leads.
		I have been positioning myself to follow the Yellow Brick Road wherever it goes.
		And tonight, it is wound up with some amazing new real images from Sidonia that apparently are confirming what we suspected 15 years ago when I started down this road.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Last week, people were saying, your career is over.
		You better be looking for a new job.
		This week, it'll be interesting to see what they say based on what Dr. Van Flanrenren said, which is very unambiguous, a billion to one.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I've got NBC and UPN coming out tomorrow.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And I'm going to be calling my friends in the media and gently pointing them to the website so they can see some of these astonishing images.
		I'm going to be pointing them toward Ron Nix and Jim Birkland and other honest geologists who know rectilinear features when they see them.
		And speaking of Ron, maybe we ought to get him back in the conversation.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Ron.
		You have seen the early photographs.
		Now, first of all, Ron, have you gone and taken a look at the new face pictures?
unidentified		Dr. Carlado's enhancements.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
unidentified		Yes, it's excellent.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And so your conclusion is much like that of Dr. Van Flanders.
unidentified		Oh, absolutely.
		I mean, he described it very well.
		And you have to also realize when you first look at that, if you haven't lived with these things for a long time, it doesn't look like a heck of a lot.
		And you're trying to twist your head around trying to figure out exactly what it is you're looking at.
		But just as he said, you look at it, and you will see the pupil and the eyes, and the curvature in the mouth, and the brow, the eye socket.
		You will see that.
		It's all there.
		And just as plain as can be, the nostrils.
		It's stunning.
		It really is.
		Dr. Carlado did an incredible job of producing that image.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, now we have new news.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Art, I have new news.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Scotty Rowland has got the surveyor image of the city, and I kind of wryly title this Lawn Furniture.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Anyone?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		There is the enhancement on the web from Enterprise of the raw data showing the most peculiar object.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And I would love to have a geologist other than Ron look at this and tell me that's a rock.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, I'm dialing now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I hope I can get to my own website before my listeners wipe it out.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But you're saying very crude enhancement.
		This is nowhere near what we're going to finally get.
		But there is all kinds of lattice work and reflections off bright polished metallic surfaces and highly geometric straight lines.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What is it you think we're seeing?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I haven't a clue.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It just doesn't belong down on Mars.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't belong on Mars.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's too geometric.
		Remember, Carl said it, you know, 10, 15, 20 years ago.
		Intelligent life on Earth first manifests itself in the geometric regularity of its construction.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If you abstract the problem, if you're not looking for the, you know, the golden arches or the statue of liberty, if you simply look at a planet and look for regular geometry, which nature does not produce except in very limited specific circumstances, that is your criteria.
		That is your rule of thumb.
		And tonight, in this image strip across the city, as Ron can attest, there is overwhelming regular geometry that just don't belong down there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		I'm on the site.
		Where on the site is it?
		Is it on the Enterprise Mission site?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The Enterprise Mission site is the first new thing.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It says lawn furniture, anyone, with a smile.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We are tipping our hat to the good doctor tonight.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		I'm looking for that now.
		And maybe I've run into a cash problem here.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I can first post below the Enterprise shuttle.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, what I've got.
		Let's see.
		You clear your memory.
		Apparently so.
		And I'll try and do that.
		But if you can, Ron, are you able to see it?
unidentified		I can't be at my computer when I'm on this phone, and the only way I can do it is with a wireless phone, and that doesn't work when I'm talking with you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What he'll do is in the next commercial break, he'll go run and look quick.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I see.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Ron, why don't you talk about the rectilinearity?
		Because the thing that struck me now about the city image tonight is that we're looking at things that are heavily mantled with a lot of sand dunes.
		But underneath the sand, there is this wondrous pattern that reminds me of aerial archaeology over the sands of Egypt, where you have ancient structures buried, and the only way you find them is with aerial reconnaissance.
unidentified		Well, this, as I recall, it's in the lower portion of that image.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The long strip tonight.
unidentified		Of the long strip, yes.
		That you begin to get these clear patterns.
		And interestingly enough, these patterns, though not the same, are similar because they're so geometric and so regular, as I had seen in other images taken by this camera before the face and all that when I was disillusioned with what I first saw at the face and went to look and see what the camera could actually do.
		Similar types of patterns are visible in these other images.
		And they are not easily explained.
		They're called sand dunes and windblown types of patterns.
		But I've seen sand dunes and arcan dunes and the various orientations that you get of these marvelous ripples across the terrain.
		But you don't get them in narrow strips of hundreds of yards.
		And then something 15 degrees or 20 degrees off of that, showing a series of dunes off in that direction.
		The wind doesn't, to my knowledge, blow quite like that.
		It's a much more general feature, a general phenomenon.
		So you get these unusual patterns like that on more than just the image that came down today, though it's on the one that came down today or that I looked at this evening.
		They're directional.
		They do have, I wouldn't go so far yet to say that they're totally rectilinear because I've seen patterns in natural things that are pretty stunning.
		In fact, they even got some on the Mars images of the polar caps where you get these terrific looking polygons and what have you, like you see in mud cracks and dried up lake beds and what have you.
		So you get patterns like that too, and you've got to be careful not to confuse the two.
		So nevertheless, we do have these patterns there.
		There are rectilinear things, these square types of patterns on the sides of some of the hills that appear to have depth to them.
		Like it would be if you put up a bunch of little walls on the checkerboard, you know, same sort of thing.
		And you'd look down into it.
		It would look like a waffle when you look down into it.
		There are things like that in these images.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What you would refer to, Richard, as lawn furniture?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, that was, you know, a comment that Dr. Mailer had made.
		The thing I've got up on the site is an obviously very technological, very geometric.
		It's very complicated.
		It's got layers.
		It's got, you know, it's got the posts.
		It's got things casting shadows.
		It's 3D.
		It's sticking up above the surface.
		It's kind of half buried, half not buried.
		And it's just a very primitive enhancement.
		But even on that, you can clearly see it don't belong down there.
		And it's got too many straight lines at too many sharp angles to be just a rock.
		And then it's got this polished reflection on the right-hand side, looking for all the world like a kind of a broken J-56 jet engine that belongs in an old 747.
		It's much bigger than that.
		I would estimate this thing probably is on the order of several hundred feet in size with very complex internal and external geometry.
		And it just leapt out at me even in the raw image as I was scanning down.
		And I said, tonight, if they don't give us an enhancement, I'll put that up ourselves because it's the most blatant feature of things that should not be down there, and they are.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, should we not at some point expect from some NASA source a confirmation of what we are discussing tonight and what Dr. Van Flandren has said?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Surely, this program tonight and what the good doctor has said and now Ron next has got to stand as something that has got to be responded to in some way by somebody in some official capacity.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, that's an interesting question because given some of the other surrounds of what happened today, as you know, we have been running Redshift on symbolic patterns from the ancient Egyptian calendar.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And we have several of our colleagues now who, thank goodness, are doing this on their own, and I don't have to do it myself.
		And one of them, Mike Barra, called me this afternoon and he said, A, are you aware that Clinton is speaking at Johnson?
		And B, are you aware that Orion is exactly at 33 degrees as he's starting his speech?
		And I was not aware of either.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you really think we are on the precipice of disclosure?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me finish the thought.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		So tonight, what Mike did was he ran the numbers in Redshift for Orion and Sirius.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm afraid the conclusion is going to have to hold until after the bottom of the hour.
unidentified		It's what in radio we call a hook.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		This is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified		Coast to Coast AM
		Coast to Coast AM Coast to Coast AM Coast to Coast AM If you have a fact for Art Bell in the Kingdom of Time, send it to us at Area Coast 702-727-8495.
		702-727-8495.
		Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
		It's coast to coast AM with Art Bell.
		Now, here again, New Fox.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, everybody.
		Great to be here.
		A watershed program, to be sure.
		Richard Hoagland and Ron Nix are here, and they'll be back in a moment.
		The loading on the website is so fierce that the odds of your being able to get the new photograph right now are pretty slim.
		I've been trying for about the last 10 minutes without luck.
		It's simply swamped.
		So please be patient.
		If you don't get it now, come back later.
		The market just moved above 9,100.com.
		Well, all right, back now to Richard C. Hoagland and Ron Nix.
		Gentlemen, you're both back on the air.
		Take it in the direction you would like to go.
		I think you want to finish up, Richard.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I think Ron has something, you know.
		I'm in the process of repairing another enhancement of our thing.
		Much better.
		Much better.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're a thing.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Nothing on Mars in the city.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The thing.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The thing on Mars.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A thing on Mars.
		What is the thing?
		In other words, what leads you to believe the thing is not natural?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Ron, you now have a chance to take a look at it.
unidentified		Oh, ever so briefly, just on the browser.
		And, yeah.
		I don't know what to think about it.
		There's a lot of things I see there.
		I don't know for sure if all of the lines and stuff that I'm seeing on there are just artifacts of the image.
		There is a feature there, though, that looks like, how can I describe this?
		If you took an S and made a nice flat S out of it, and then another S and crossed it, like you made a cross that was kind of like windmill blades, kind of, there are some bright areas and shading that gives you some of these unusual shapes.
		Things in geology, when you have things crossing one another, like faults or something like that, there needs to be an offset.
		Faults don't make X's on the terrain, sort of thing.
		So that's another type of anomaly, anomalous things that I would look for in some of these features that I see.
		Natural things just don't cross like that.
		They'll come up to a line and then there'll be an offset like with faults and then the fault will continue on.
		But you don't get faults that make X's really.
		So that sort of explanation goes out.
		I've only looked at this image about 30 seconds, but it's just these images are full of these sorts of things that take a lot of study and a lot of looking at.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Everybody needs to understand the definitive portion of the program was done earlier with Dr. Van Flandren because we've had now a week of enhancement and analysis.
		And so the definitive portion was done earlier.
		And what you're hearing now is comment on the fly with regard to images that we are just beginning to get from the raw data that arrived literally hours ago.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'm about to send this next enhanced version, and it is astonishing.
		The signal-to-noise is now so much better.
		Let me save this, and I'll give it over to Keith, and we'll have it up in a few minutes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		I don't know if the poor websites can handle it or not.
		They're really going into overload.
unidentified		They are.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, based on the first portion of the program, do you feel vindicated?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I think we're on the way to vindication.
		I certainly think it's astonishing that I could make predictions about artificial structures on a face on Mars 10 years ago and have Tom Van Planner tonight quote billion-to-one odds that what we're looking at can be anything but artificial structures making a face on Mars.
		And, you know, that is vindication.
		But to me, the real vindication is going to be when we actually get a commitment from the president to go and find out what's down there.
		I mean, you heard art and art of Tom very artfully describing his model for what might have happened three million years ago in terms of the exploded planet hypothesis.
		I have tried to restrain myself from laying out what I call the soap opera because there's too many things that we don't know yet that would not allow us to make a really scientific estimate as to what really happened and who was really down there and who really left all this stuff.
		The neat part is we don't have to speculate.
unidentified		We can go.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Remember when McDaniel was on your show maybe a week and a half ago, two weeks ago?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And he said that if we got these images because of the limitations of the various problems of remote sensing, that we really wouldn't be able to tell whether they were artificial unless we had a manned mission.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that was kind of trying to telegraph something.
		It's very possible that McDaniel's sudden change of heart, which all of us have noticed over his position on NASA several years ago, came about in a meeting in Washington where maybe there was a slight nod that A, yes, there's something down there, and B, this is what it will mean, and C, we're going to have to go back with a manned mission.
		And if you play your cards right, all the things that you have wanted may in fact happen.
		Total speculation.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Based on all of that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		can you answer this?
		What would we have to do, hardware-wise, to go to Mars and, obviously, to return?
		What would have to be done?
		What size of program would we be getting ourselves in for?
		How much money?
		How long?
		All that sort of stuff?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, one of the things years ago when the Reagan and Bush administrations were in power, particularly when President Bush was elected and he picked Dan Quayle as his running mate, struck me, which allowed me to look at Dan Quayle very differently than anybody else, because I think Dan Quayle is a pretty bright guy.
		Oh, so do I. And the reason I knew that Dan Quayle was a bright guy is, A, he became new chair of the National Space Council, which President Bush had resurrected from the oblivion to which Johnson had consigned it to almost 30 years before.
		And that space council, among other things, took testimony for a wide variety of experts.
		And those experts, in fact, told us and told the Quayle people that it was possible to go to Mars not for the $400 billion that NASA was quoting in those years, but for about $8 billion.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		$8 billion.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Quayle went to people at Los Alamos, which is not very far away from me right here in New Mexico, and the Lawrence Berkeley Labs.
		And those people put together a manned mission that would basically be what would be called a sprint mission.
		And instead of spending billions and billions and billions, hundreds of billions, they said that it was very possible that you could actually go to Mars for, in essence, less than $10 billion, constant dollars, in the late 1980s.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Go in what?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Ah.
		Well, rockets.
		But what they were discussing were inflatable vehicles.
		In other words, instead of building hardware that was, you know, upper stages of rockets and things like that, they were proposing creation of polymer expandable vehicles that would be inflated in space and then would be polymerized with compounds where you'd form rigid structures for the entire mission to attach engines and all that.
		In a very few hours in space, you basically bring the stuff up in rockets, fold it up, and you inflate it and it becomes all nice and rigid.
		It doesn't have to be aerodynamic, it doesn't have to be streamlined because you're in space.
		And then you re-tank it from the shuttle technology, the external tank, which carries an awful lot of hydrogen into space and oxygen that is wasted because it just re-enters the atmosphere.
		And they found a way, technically, to basically cut the cost of the manned mission to Mars from half a trillion dollars down to about $10 billion.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is it realistic?
unidentified		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I mean, the folks that designed this are the same folks that are designing your nuclear weapons.
		So, I mean, we're not talking technical slouches.
		He went to the best national laboratories on the planet, and they were the ones, it was Dr. Wood and his crew, that came up with this rather remarkable sprint mission.
		Now, what it would require, of course, would be the political will to do it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, Bill Clinton, in the middle of his present political troubles, is searching wildly for some sort of legacy for his presidency.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Why did he talk this afternoon in his address at Johnson about the space station?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Suddenly, out of the blue, he talked about sending himself to Mars.
unidentified		Out of the blue.
unidentified		Can I just interject a thought that has nothing to do with geology?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There might be a lot of public support for that, by the way.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Ron, go right ahead.
unidentified		He was also at Los Alamos not too long ago, if you'll recall.
		And this is non-geologic, just an opinion.
		But there's a lot of folks who are on your show who talk about technology from elsewhere.
		Sure.
		And the fact that we may very well be aware of some of it.
		So if you ask the question like, how much or how long, the problem is assuming what hardware.
		And I think Richard is addressing assuming the hardware that we've heard about.
		What hardware haven't we heard about, if any?
		Okay?
		So that's a possibility.
		That's just a thought, that it may not be as difficult as we may think.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, of course, that would require a lot more in terms of revelation.
unidentified		Oh, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But assuming the hardware that Richard talked about that we apparently do have, Richard, how long would it take us to get to Mars?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, it would take most of a year.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I mean, the unmanned missions we send take from seven to nine months.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can a man spend a year in space?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, remember, if we're building a space station in Earth orbit, ironically, that space station does not care where it lives.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If you were to attach sufficient rocket engines and a nuclear rocket, which was developed over at NASA Lewis, where I have been asked to brief three times, and some of my sources have made very strong intimations that there in fact is headquartered at NASA Lewis, up in Cleveland, a kind of a secret quasi-official effort to get men to Mars.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		My God, the bulb is going on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're suggesting the space station could go to Mars.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It could go to Mars.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All you need to do is put the right rockets on it, and it doesn't care where it lives.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And the re-entry vehicle that they were extolling this afternoon, the new hypersonic re-entry vehicle to take astronauts safely back to Earth if there should be an emergency, those would make perfect entry vehicles to the surface of Mars.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And then you would be able to leave the surface of Mars?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, what you would do is be, if you were doing it really quickly, if you had some real urgency, such as there were folks down there at one time, there's technology, there's stuff, there's libraries, there's knowledge, you might send them on a one-way basing mission to live off the land until you develop the rockets to bring them home.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I'm not sure you could garner the political support for that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But remember, there are all kinds of studies at JPL that indicate now that with current technology, you can make rocket fuel, you can make oxygen to breathe, you can produce water to drink, you can make foodstuffs.
		In other words, you'd basically be setting up a long-term colony, and you would send the rockets to Bring them home later, and they could be nuclear rockets, they could be chemical rockets.
		There's lots of different ways.
		We are 30-plus years mature in the space program now.
		And there was a program way back before Apollo, which was seriously considered for a while, and then Kennedy apparently put the tribosh on it.
		It was called the Pilgrim Project.
		And the idea was to send a Mercury capsule on a one-way mission to the moon to land an astronaut and to keep him in supplies until the Apollo program develops a technology to go and bring him home.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Ron, we've been a little neglectful of you here.
		And unfortunately, we're asking you to do the impossible, and that is to analyze something on the fly.
		It's really not fair.
		So going back to the phase on Mars and Dr. Van Flandren's very concrete statement, would you suggest to the audience that you are in agreement with him?
		I mean, he's talking about a billion to one.
unidentified		Yes.
		And I'll tell you what Dr. Van Flanren's statement did for me.
		If you recall when I was on last talk, and we were talking about Pathfinder and some of the things at Twin Peaks and all that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		And you asked me how confident I was.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
unidentified		And I said, oh, you know, I gave you 90%, something like that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		Well, Dr. Van Plantern, with that comment, has essentially pushed me right to the same thing with regard to some of those things I saw or had described in the Twin Peaks area.
		I just don't believe there's any doubt about it.
		It might be hard to believe, but I don't believe there's any doubt about it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What do you think your colleagues will say?
unidentified		Well, I've heard everything from silence, a lot of that, yeah, to agreement.
unidentified		I work with other geologists, and they're involved in looking at these things, too.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Jim Berkelund certainly agrees with you.
		We interviewed him the other night.
		Yes.
		And I'm wondering, is this now, I mean, here it is on my program in the middle of the night, is this going to spread to the rest of the scientific community?
		And is it going to end up in some sort of consensus?
		And then, of course, we can move toward Richard's manned Mars mission?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You know, I think we are being moved toward our manned Mars mission.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		When I noticed this remarkable coincidence, and let me tell you how coincidental it was, at the same time that Bill Clinton was giving this address at NASA today at Johnson, which, of course, would be the headquarters for a manned mission to Mars.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The same center which two years ago announced the rock, remember the rock with the microbes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That came out of Johnson, not JPL.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's true.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		He had all the hype of brass of NASA with him today.
		And he went through a lot of little ceremonies and met a lot of people and astronauts, and it was all on C-SPAN, and I recorded the whole darn thing.
		The most remarkable coincidence of all was that as he was doing this, Orion again was at 33, the Delft Stars.
		Simultaneously, around the planet over at JPL at Goldstone, the Mars image we're talking about tonight, the strip of the city, was being downlinked to JPL.
		And then several hours later, when Orion reached 33 degrees precisely over the JPL horizon, that's when NASA chose to put the image on their websites.
		We may be on a program track of disclosure.
		And is Mr. Bassett listening?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I imagine Mr. Bassett is listening, and Mr. Bassett was talking about disclosure heavily, oh, I don't know, a month or two ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And at that time, you were very dubious.
unidentified		Very dubious.
unidentified		We now have data.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We now have new data.
		Remember, I am data-driven.
		I am a very empirical person.
		I will go wherever the yellow brick road leads.
		We are now looking at stunning things on the face on Mars.
		We're looking at extraordinary data of the city, things that any geologist who's worth a salt like Ron will look down on and say, damn if I can explain those naturally.
		And the more this percolates through the scientific community, and remember the web is worldwide.
		This data now is out there, and there's one more path coming up.
		This is the way politically you would do it if, in fact, you wanted to be dragged, meaning you, NASA, into admitting, looking at, and say, oh my God, look what's down there, boys and girls.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, it is an oh my God at this point.
		There's no question about it, Richard.
		But a lot of people blame you for the initial bad raw data because you demanded it on my program from NASA and you got what you demanded.
		And then, of course, we had the photograph that was circulated nationwide that I called the cat box that ended up in a lot of people saying nothing but a pile of rocks.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me make one small correction.
		Yes, I demanded, as did Dr. McDaniel.
		Remember, in McDaniel's report, he calls vigorously for raw data.
		So please don't try to pin that totally on me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm just saying what the press sum has said.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, but let me make a very important point.
		We asked for raw data.
		We did not ask for crappy enhancements of raw data.
		It was the crappy enhancements that Newsweek took one look at and Dan Rather took one look at and threw up their hands about.
		If the raw data had remained raw, John Holloman and Ted Koppel and all the others would have screwed up their eyebrows and looked squinty and turned upside down and said, well, I can't see anything.
		But it would have remained an open question until Carolado came out with his stunning enhancements.
		What NASA did was basically break the agreement.
		They didn't just put raw data out there so we could track a paper trail.
		They put crappy enhancements to basically try to politically co-opt the issue.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, but that doesn't sound like an agency that wants disclosure.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But maybe there's a war going on within the agency and within the administration and within the government.
		Since when do governments ever act in a monolithic fashion?
		Remember all the sniping and the assassination of various People politically, the Reagan administration.
		Remember Reagan writing the horrible book about Nancy?
		In other words, if there really is anything going on big time, it will never be monolithic.
		There will be internal infights and political sidestepping and trying to get favor and high ground and advantage.
		And ultimately, it will be presented to the public as if everybody agrees, but the war that's going on inside will leave a lot of bloody trails along a lot of bloody corridors.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		We're headed toward the top of the hour.
		And Ron, even though we didn't get anything definitive because you shouldn't be giving anything definitive right now other than your comments on the face, and that certainly is of great value.
		Yep.
		I want to thank you for being with us.
		I'm going to hold Richard over and have him answer audience questions for about an hour.
		But I really want to thank you for being here.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you, Aura.
unidentified		I appreciate your calling.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And good night, Ron.
unidentified		Good night.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Ron, I've got a new version of that object, the lawn chair, up on the web if Keith is as usual as excellent self.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Take a look.
		All right, very good.
		All that means is the website is going to go into a total breakdown for a while here.
		Even I have given up.
		I tried for a while to get at Richard, and it's just absolutely swamped up there, as you can imagine.
		So I think that we've laid all this out pretty reasonably without being able to have new enhancements of the new raw data.
		So I'd like to come back and do an hour of open lines with you.
		How about that?
unidentified		Absolutely.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Coming up next, Richard Hoagland with your opportunity to speak to him.
		I'm Art Bell.
		This is Coast to Coast AF.
unidentified		It's the sun.
		Coast to Coast.
		To talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye.
		From east of the Rockies, dial 1-800-825-5033.
		West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
		1-800-618-8255.
		First-time callers may rechart at Area Code 702-727-1222.
		And you may call out on the wildcard line at Area Code 702-727-1295.
		To rechart from outside the U.S., first dial your access number to the USA.
		Then 800-893-0903.
		This is Coast to Coast AM from the Kingdom of Nigh with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, everybody.
		It is programs just like this one that you don't want to miss.
		And yet I know a lot of you work during the day, the eyelids begin to get heavy and they close and you...
		Doesn't happen with real talk, because as you get sleepy, you simply put your finger on the record button and it records the rest of the talk program for you, mine or anybody else's.
		You see, it's an AM-FM radio, and a very good one, I might add, at that, with a quarter-speed tape deck built in.
		That means on the supplied 110-minute tape, that instead of getting the normal 55-minutes record time on one side, you now get almost four hours on each side.
		Now, that's how it works, and it works very well indeed.
		Actually, you know, I've been using mine now with the same tape again and again, I think, for two years.
		That tells you how reliable it is.
		By the way, it is newly reworked with more sensitivity on AM and FM.
		The quarter speed tape deck has been reworked.
		It has a sleep timer.
		It's got a built-in microphone.
		It's got a headphone jack.
		It operates on AC or it runs on batteries.
		And you can buy it in other places.
		But why would you?
		We've got a better deal.
		It's $149.95.
		But in our case, we include shipping and handling, very non-trivial, and one free, very high-quality 110-minute tape.
		Nobody else does that.
		So if you want to buy it elsewhere, go ahead.
		If you want the best deal on Real Talk, call Bob Crane in the morning at 7.30 a.m. at 1-800-522-8863.
		Once again, 1-800-522-8863.
		Ask for Real Talk.
		As your car.
		That's 1-800-627-8800.
		And check out their webpage at www.jacobselectronics.com.
		All right, two quick notes.
		One is I have my studio cams turned off.
		And I am doing that to conserve bandwidth since everybody is rushing to the website to see the photograph.
		So the webcam, the studio cam is off tonight.
		Plus, my back is out with a vengeance, and I saw no point in subjecting you to pictures of a person in pain.
		This hour, we are going to concentrate on you and Richard C. Hoagland.
		Richard, let me read a facts that I just received and see if you can answer it.
		Art, please ask Richard if he's seen the hexagon.
		It looks at first glance like a crater at the base of a large hill just to the west of his, in quotes, lawn chair.
		It looks on closer inspection to be a hexagonally shaped wall erected at the top of a small hill.
		This is the most significant and intriguing feature that I found on the new images so far, Bill, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I've seen it and I concur.
		And the so-called hill is actually one of the mounds that Dr. McDaniel was talking about, part of the geometric analysis of these things that are arrayed in this stunning pattern that Horace Crater has calculated.
		Can only fit into this geometry like one in 250 quadrillion times or some god-awful number like that.
		It looks like it's a very eroded steep pyramid, and just in front of it is this very regular hexagonal feature on the top of like a pedestal.
		It's almost like a raised cylinder that is much shorter than it is wide.
		In other words, we are now looking at the details of the pictures that we've been analyzing for 20 years.
		And we're seeing ancient, incredible erosion, but we're also seeing patterns that really shouldn't exist on a natural landscape.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If I were to ask you what I asked Dr. Van Flandren about your guess, and that's all I guess it can be, with regard to the age of these artifacts, Richard, what would you say?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		There are two processes that are destroying things on Mars.
		One is wind erosion, you know, sandblasting.
		Actually, it's more like talcum powder blasting now because of the very thin Martian atmosphere.
		And if you throw talcum powder even to 300 miles an hour, which the winds can get up to on Mars, it takes a very long time for little tiny flecks of talcum powder-sized dust to erode, to mechanically abrade a structure, particularly if the structure is metallic, metal.
		The other possibility is literal chemical erosion, and the primary agent there is water and oxygen.
		Mars is covered with red stuff.
		It has been my contention, and again, all this is laid out in pretty exquisite detail in terms of scenarios in the monuments of Mars.
		Mars is covered with red stuff.
		That red stuff is primarily now we know from the Pathfinder data, oxidized iron.
		The question that if Ron was with us, he would obviously concur in is, in order to get vast amounts of powdered oxidized iron flung around the planet covering everything, you need to have a source of free oxygen to oxidize the iron.
		Where does the free oxygen come from?
		Well, mostly oxygen is so reactive that it binds itself to things and it does not release itself very easily.
		So on Earth, we know only one source of copious free oxygen, namely life.
		Everything we know about Mars now must be recontexted against the possibility that Mars once had an atmosphere like the Earth, it once had a biosphere like the Earth's, it once had living organisms, photosynthetic plants or their equivalent that produced free oxygen.
		Then a catastrophe overwhelmed the planet, and the oxygen rapidly disappeared into the soil, oxidizing everything in sight, corroding structures in a relatively geologically brief period of time.
		And so what I will say is, looking at this landscape now in detail, I concur with Tom that it's probably on the order of anywhere between half a million to a few million years old.
		That's how ancient the stuff is I think we're looking at.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm getting a lot of email.
		I'm getting a lot of faxes.
		They're just pouring in.
		And I must say the tone of them has begun to change significantly, Richard.
		Apparently, people are now beginning to grasp what we have told them tonight.
		And the tone, believe me, is very different.
		Wildcard line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
unidentified		Hello.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
		Hello.
		Art.
		This is Brad and Paul.
unidentified		Brad.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Dave.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's been a long time.
		Yeah, really.
		He's one of our kind of Tesla tinkerers.
		Brad Perry is one of the few people that actually understand Nikola Tesla and has made some of his gadgets work.
unidentified		Well, a few.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I have got several thousand questions.
		But the first one is, I know it's too bad that Ron's left because there's something that I wanted to ask about.
		There's a kick in that thing now because the equator has moved and the face is north now.
		And the kinds of questions I've got is, there seems to be a mathematical relationship here between where it is now and where it was.
unidentified		That's right.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		And that's kind of frightening because that indicates that there just may have been a, well, what to call it, but a mechanical reason for it to be set at that angle.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Brad, you are brilliant.
		All right.
		Are you following what he's saying?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I think so.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Tom and I have this wonderful little debate going.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Was the face on Mars in Sidonia ever at the equator, like Tom believes it was?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And was it straight up and down, north, south, etc.?
unidentified		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And we now know, because of our 20 years of work, more or less, that the Sidonia site in the north latitude at 41 degrees is not accidental.
		There's an exquisite relationship between where this complex is on Mars and the so-called hyperdimensional tetrahedral mathematical model and the siting of sacred sites here on Earth is this interrelationship, like a spider web inextricably connecting all these points.
		So how do you wind up with a planet, which used to be a satellite of a bigger planet that blew up, where the complex was at the equator, and now it just accidentally, because it was kicked by debris from the exploding planet, it winds up in a new polar location that's exactly tetrahedrally locked in with the mega-mathematics of the whole complex.
		And Brad Perry has put his finger on the key wonderful enigma, which is it can't have happened by accident.
		The planet had to have been rearranged in terms of its axial tilt to give us this message and allow us to figure it all out.
		And if that doesn't stagger one with the potential for engineering and physics and hyperdimensional interconnections.
		I don't know what will.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Brad, anything else?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's a whole bunch of other questions.
unidentified		But mainly, am I seeing this correctly?
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		You say that there's a hyper-dimensional connection between the way it is setting now and the way that it sat originally.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, if look, Tom is presuming that the only significant place that this object could ever be, these objects, you know, this complex, was at the equator.
		I don't exactly buy that.
		I mean, I think it's incredibly significant where it is now.
		But let's assume that Tom was right, and there is evidence to indicate that the Martian polar tilt has been reoriented.
		What I find remarkable is that it starts out in a significant place.
		It ends up in a significant place.
		Well, you can't do that just by hitting the planet and having it tip over.
		In other words, where it wound up, somebody wanted it to wind up, which means either during the event that blew up the world that it orbited, somebody gently tilted it at just the right amount to leave a message, or someone came along later with this hyperdimensional physics and technology and said, oh, those guys down there who are refugees from this whole thing are going to want to figure out how they got there, so we'll tilt Mars so they can figure it out.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, this begins to go a little far from me.
		I'm not the kind of hyperdimensional guy you would wish me to be.
		I'm sure.
		I found, though, that Dr. Van Flandren's assessment, aside from his theory regarding the exploding planet, was rock solid.
		And I think that is the news that comes from this night, that there's no question about it.
		The man hangs his career on it and says, this is not natural.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, the two are not intimately connected.
		Artificial structures on Mars do not presuppose that Van Flandern's exploding planet hypothesis has to be correct.
		They are not intimately connected.
		However, if one looks at other evidence from a wide variety of other sources, including the new discovery in the last couple of weeks of water on Titan, that fits into Van Flandern's hypothesis of a world that blew up and the funny chemistry from Pathfinder.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Indeed, but with regard to the public, Richard, little steps, small steps.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But you know I don't like taking little steps.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		East of the Rocky.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're on the air with Richard C. Big Step Hoagland.
unidentified		Good morning, Richard.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		Big football call.
		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you, Art.
unidentified		This is Duane from Duluth, Minnesota.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		And I just want to ask Richard, how big is that International Space Station?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, Bill Clinton was saying it's the size of a football field.
		And that includes, of course, the solar panels.
		But remember, once you've got the modular design down, it's built to be expanded.
		If you don't think that if Bill Clinton were to stand in the well of the House of Representatives to a joint session of Congress and put these pictures up on a screen behind him and say, boys and girls, we've got to go to Mars and find out who they were, you don't think he would have the money to expand the space station with a few more modular elements, put some nuclear rocket engines on it, and send it to Mars?
		I bet he would.
unidentified		And just one more question.
unidentified		How many people, I heard you say one, could go up there, but if they were on Mars, they wouldn't just send one person, right?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, no.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I was referring to a very ancient project at the beginning of our space program called the Pilgrim Project, where in order to beat the Russians, there was consideration given for a little while to sending one astronaut, Circa John Glenn's era, to the moon in a Mercury space capsule with a retrorocket, landing the vehicle softly and having the astronaut live off the land with cargo vehicles supplying supplies.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You said the moon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you mean Mars?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, I meant the moon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You meant the moon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This was the Pilgrim Project back before Apollo.
		The mission to Mars could be, how should we say, made practical if you were to take the space station as it is being designed and basically reconfigure it somewhat so you would send it to Mars.
		It doesn't care where it lives.
		It's already designed.
		It's already going to be lofted into orbit.
		It's already going to have its own power.
		All it would need would be appropriate nuclear rocket engines and a source of fuel, and it could go to Mars and take a crew of astronauts to explore Sidonia.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And the President actually, earlier in the day, suggested that he might go to Mars.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's what he said.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I would like to see a poll of the American public regarding how much agreement there would be with that proposition, maybe more than you would imagine.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's what he said.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hogland.
unidentified		Yes, yes, yes.
		Los Angeles, California, folks.
		How are you doing, Mr. Bell?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Fine.
unidentified		And Richard, it's really nice to hear your voice.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you.
unidentified		I have a couple of quick comments.
unidentified		In other words, it's an answer to you, Mr. Bell, and a question to Richard.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		The answer to your surprise, Clinton going to NASA, I think he's listening to Art Bell show.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's one of them.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Maybe.
unidentified		And the other answer to your, Mr. Bell, is the first man when he went to Mars, when they put him on Mars, how would he feel like?
		No new taxes, no bills, and no return ticket.
		That's true.
		Anyway, I do have a question to Richard, if I may, Richard.
		Sure.
		By the way, we're not hearing anything on TV.
		That's a comment.
		That's not the question, but that's a comment that just came to me, and I talked to you, Art, I think, whether it was last night or before last night.
		Surprisingly, you don't hear nothing on TV, which is, I mean, this is, folks, I'm thrilled, I'm excited.
		If this is true, this is the biggest event in the humankind.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I was thinking earlier tonight, and I don't want you to get embarrassed, Art, but I must say this, all right?
		If this was happening and we didn't have the Art Bell Show, we would be up a creek without a paddle.
		And stepping back one step further, if we didn't have the Art Bell show, I strongly and firmly believe we would not be having this conversation tonight because we would not be having these pictures tonight.
unidentified		I do agree.
unidentified		I do agree with you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I wonder about this all the time, whether I am here for a specific reason.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, that there are a few accidents.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, you can look at that in the largest metaphysical sense or in a very limited sense.
		But I think it has to do, Art, with your integrity.
		You, too, have followed the Yellow Brick Road.
		And your success commercially and in terms of affiliates and in terms of the audience listening to us right now is directly proportional to how much you respect the American people and how much you yourself want to know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I do want to know.
unidentified		Can I say something, sir?
		I'm not going to say this.
		I'm going to say this deep to my heart.
		Both of you are icons, and I do respect what Richard is doing.
		Honestly, I do.
		He's doing something for the humankind, okay?
		And Mr. Bell, likewise to you, and without it, I know, probably wouldn't have seen these pictures, okay?
		We all know that.
		I'm sure they have pressure.
		It's not that they felt like, okay, let's do it.
		There is pressure, and it's going to go on.
		Eventually, it's going to come out.
		But eventually they decided, okay, let's start somewhere.
		Can I ask a question to Richard, if I may?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Very quickly.
unidentified		Okay, I will definitely.
		Richard, out of all the respect to you, I was going to ask you, is there, I do deeply in my heart, I do believe that there are other things probably discovered.
		I'm sure they're not just concentrated on one spot.
		You mean on Mars?
		On Mars, I'm talking, exactly.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We have begun a survey of the pictures that Dr. Malin has put into the planetary photojournal at JPL.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Ron and I, and we are finding some pretty astonishing things that now that we've got a kind of a benchmark of Sidonia, now that we know what architecture looks like, in the coming days and weeks we're going to be publishing on the web and in other places some assessment of other things that Malin has taken pictures of that, frankly, I don't think are accidental.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Other areas on Earth.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		have very artificial looking arcology type structures which Ron and I have been scratching our heads over because if you found them on earth I mean he was talking about We've got to take a break here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We'll be right back from the high desert.
		This is Coast to Coast AM, a watershed program.
		Stay right there.
unidentified		I've been dreaming of some cream.
		Then I come to you.
		I I see them through.
		I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
		I see skies of glim and clouds white, the bright blessed day, dark day good night.
		Can I think to myself?
		What a wonderful world.
		The colors of the rainbow.
		The colors of the rainbow.
		To talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of My, from East of the Rockies, dial 1.
		800-825-5033.
		1-800-825-5033.
		West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
		1-800-618-8255.
		1-800-618-8255.
		Now again, here's Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once again, here I am.
		Good morning.
		RU27, you've got nothing to lose but the fat.
		All right, back now to Richard C. Hoagland and your questions.
		One of them, Richard, that I'm getting from a number of people who are sending me email is, there are people who are seeing buildings.
		I repeat, buildings in the new photograph.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		I'm looking at it myself.
		On the lower right-hand corner, all right.
		In fact, the whole matrix is, this is a vast arcology.
		Remember, when Mars was inhabited, if this model is correct, the atmosphere was not conducive to supporting life.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I've got people, let me read it to you.
		It says, you can see straight lines and shadows.
		Also, what appear to be doorways.
		I repeat, doorways and several buildings.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You agree?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		I'm looking at them.
		I mean, look, I am literally, I process things very fast to get it up tonight, and I haven't had a chance to really study it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And the more I'm looking, the more I'm boggling myself.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This is a very historic night, Mr. Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		A very historic night.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And I couldn't imagine sharing it with a nicer guy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's nice of you.
		Thank you.
		First time caller line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		How you doing?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm doing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where are you, sir?
unidentified		This is Michael.
unidentified		I'm calling from Mesa, Arizona.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Mesa, all right.
unidentified		First off, Art, I sympathize with you on your back.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		Whatsoever, and I sit on my butt a lot.
		Yep.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Richard.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		I've been hearing.
unidentified		Where do you get to hear the theory that Mars was a moon?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, this comes from Dr. Van Flandern and his 25 years of looking at a lot of data in the solar system and coming to the conclusion that most of the anomalies That are out there, like comets and meteors and weird asymmetries of impacts on planets that we know can be accommodated,
		can be explained if there was at one time in the ancient history of the solar system a couple of other planets, and that semi-periodically going back hundreds of millions of years, for some reason, these guys blew up.
		And the last blow-up of a relatively minor member of this event was about 3.2 million years ago.
		And as he developed his model and his theory, he began to look at Mars and realized that Mars' current elliptical orbit, remember, Mars is probably the planet in the inner solar system that goes around the Sun in the most egg-shaped orbit of any of the planets that are closest to the Sun.
		If you put the numbers in his equations, it turns out that that egg-shaped orbit would result automatically if Mars had been a satellite orbiting a big guy, a big planet.
		And that planet blew up, leaving Mars to basically wander around the Sun by its lonesome.
		It would not have escaped from the Sun, but its own orbital motion would have created a very eccentric orbit that is exactly the shape and size of the orbits of the current Mars we have.
		There's a whole bunch of other stuff that correlates.
		It's looking more and more like he may be right.
		Now, it doesn't have to be that he's right for the stuff we're seeing on Mars tonight, the artificial things that are unmistakably in this one picture that we've just put up on the web, to be real.
		The guys who did it could have come from other places.
		I originally proposed 15 years ago they came from outside the solar system.
		They could also have come from Earth.
		They could be us in an earlier epoch, long before we thought we invented technology.
		But the model that Tom is proposing, I am more and more intrigued with.
		And the neat part is we're all going to find out.
		We're going to be in this together.
		This is the grandest adventure.
		It begins tonight at 3.42 Mountain Time a.m. north of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
		And where it's going to stop, the human race is going to change substantively for the better because of what we're seeing and discussing on these screens tonight.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It will not be an easy change, Richard.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There are going to be bumps in the road.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And for others, it will be an overwhelmingly welcome change.
		Because, frankly, we're in a rut.
		The human race is in a rut.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know what?
		I agree with that.
		There was a time when America, and I guess it could apply to the world, but when America had goals and had direction.
		And for quite a while now, we have not.
		And I think we've suffered because of it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		My late friend Jerry O'Neill, who I worked with at Princeton, and who was the founder of the so-called space colony concept, was looking for a name for his ideas one day.
		And we were kicking around some stuff in his study at Princeton.
		And I said, you know, Jerry, this is the high frontier.
		And I meant high not only in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense.
		You know, it's like face the final frontier.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But it's something big enough to measure us against and to demand the best of everyone.
		This could be an astonishingly important turning point tonight because now we have the gas in the car to get up off our duff and go and do something again.
		And we haven't had that since John Kennedy laid out a vision of going to the moon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That would be my memory as well.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wildcard line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where are you?
unidentified		This is Scott.
unidentified		I'm in the Santa Monica Mountains, and I hear you on KO Geo out of San Diego.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		I have two questions and one comment.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Richard, what about the two moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos?
unidentified		Are there any unusual characteristics of those two satellites?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold it, one at a time.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, they are very unusual.
		They're little chunks of rock.
		They're about 10 or 15 miles across.
		They're pitch black.
		They apparently are carbonaceous chondritic asteroid type material.
		They are in essentially almost perfectly circular orbits, perfectly coplanar within a half a degree or a tenth of a degree of the equator of Mars.
		And every explanation that I've ever seen in the astronomy text to explain them falls short.
		My proposal, which was, it's again in monuments, in the monuments of Mars, is that the moons of Mars were brought in to provide the resources for the colonies we see down on Mars, including Sidonia, by the guys who tried to live on the planet.
		And if you want to convolve that into the Van Flandren model, it works beautifully.
		If you don't, you don't have to.
		The point is that in any model, the moons of Mars are not there by nature.
		They were placed there by the guys that built the stuff we're seeing tonight.
unidentified		Is it possible that one of the moons is hollow?
		Yes.
		In fact, it's not possible.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		When the Russians sent their Phobos missions in 1980, 89, in one of their close passes, they got some good gravitational data, and they plugged that into the size and density of the moon.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And it turned out that in order to account for the current gravity deviation of their spacecraft, Phobos, the inner moon, had to be about one-third hollow.
unidentified		Cos possibly occur in nature?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Say again?
unidentified		Could that possibly occur in nature?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, because it would have to be as porous as a sponge, and that just can't happen.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But if someone had mined it and hollows out and sent the good stuff down to Mars for living material, that would explain both features.
unidentified		Could our own moon be a captured satellite, Earth's moon?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's a much more complicated subject, and we're going to do a whole show or two on the moon and some things we have found and the Prospector mission and all that in the coming weeks.
unidentified		Okay.
		Remember the Library of Alexandria?
		Of course.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't remember it, but I've heard about it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Not quite that old, guys.
unidentified		There has been some information that possibly the name of that planet that exploded is MALDEC, M-A-L-D-E.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have run across that before.
unidentified		Okay, you've heard that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		All right.
		Thank you very much, Caller.
		In the interest of time, East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
		Hi.
		Yes.
unidentified		Hello, Richard and Art.
unidentified		This is Vince in Chicago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Vince.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Vince.
unidentified		I'd really like to congratulate you both because of the great work you've been doing.
unidentified		It's really exciting charging forward here with the truth and all the great listeners that have probably made this possible.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it is true.
		From the very beginning, we have moved NASA and they have responded to us at every juncture.
		So there's no question about that.
unidentified		Keep up the good work.
unidentified		Richard, I really hope to see you on Ped Coppel's Nightline program explaining all this to the American public.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, that may actually happen.
		But before you see me there, you're going to see me in San Diego because I am going to do an Art Bell chat club on my birthday on the 25th with David Oates.
		And let me give that number again for information because if you want to see these photographs and you want to see what we're able to do with them in the next couple of weeks, those folks in Southern California are going to have a chance to really get up close and personal.
		So that number is 888-338-8581.
		That's 1-800, I'm sorry, 1-888-338-8581.
		And you can also get the Monuments of Mars at that number.
		And for people that order it through the number, I will sign it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I would assume that by the time you are displaying photographs in San Diego, you will have had lots of time to pour over all this new data.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, Don.
		Good morning to both of you.
		And my name is Suleiman.
		I'm calling from Richmond, California, listening to you through KSFO.
		And it's interesting, just as you started to have listeners on, they started to jam the station up here.
		I wanted to communicate a story to both of you since you are both now torch bearers of the truth for mankind in regards to the Mars scenario.
		In 1976, I was involved in a plethora of astral projections and also the UFO phenomenon.
		Since five years old, I had been contacted from that period forward.
		And I had a situation where, through astral projection, I had had this opportunity to see the planet Mars.
		And as I approached Mars and through this astral projection, I was allowed to float or fly above its surface.
		And I ended up in a canyon area that was large like the Grand Canyon.
		And it was, as I continued my traveling over this surface, it was a reddish color, I came up on the bottom side.
		And as I came up, to the left of me was this giant pyramid.
		It was a kind of beige reddish color.
		And to the right, there were about four or five buildings of which three or four had been dilapidated.
		And I could see in the areas that had been dilapidated, there were books, there were artifacts, there were glasses, there were various other things that were basically there.
		Now, I communicated this story with the MUFON organization in Los Angeles, and I had also faxed information to you, Richard Hoagland, about five or six months ago, and also recently to the Art Bell Show.
		And two years ago, I had faxed this information to Ted Coppel and Diane Sawyers, and I didn't basically get a response, but they are in the process now of taking pictures of that area.
		And in 1976, I was shown two frames.
		One was frame 52, and the other was frame 352 that would show this particular scenario.
		So I wanted to pass this information on to you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, thank you.
		I know, Richard, that you sort of shy away from this sort of thing and from ufology in general, and you have for years.
		However, what he described does sound an awful lot like what you suggest you're finding now on Mars.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If we can establish, that goes back to Tom, you know, prediction.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If we can establish a record that he had this dream before we got these pictures, I would be very interested.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, we've all received millions of taxes.
		Whether we could go back and pull that out or not, I don't know.
		First time caller line, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
		Hi.
		Mr. Bell and Mr. Hoagland, what a night.
		Yes, sir.
		This is fascinating.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Oh, it's just the beginning.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		It's just the beginning.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand what you're saying.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		You know, you mentioned The Wizard of Oz.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And the Yellow Brick Road.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		One of my favorite movies.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		You know, The Yellow Brick Road.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We are not in Kansas anymore.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		It was an allegory, of course.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		I'm sure you're aware of that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The Yellow Brick Road led to a kingdom.
		It led to a palace.
		Where there was a man there who purported to be a god.
		The wizard.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		The wizard of Oz.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Behind the curtain.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, behind the curtain.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And when the curtain was pulled back, when he was unveiled, as you might say, he was exposed to be a fake, a charlatan.
thomas charles van flandern ▲ ● ▼		He wasn't a god at all.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Little bitty guy, yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's something to think about in the coming days.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, wait, before you go?
		What was that an appeal?
		Young up.
		That was an allegory, I think, Richard, and I think that was a slam.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't think it was directed at us.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I wonder.
		I wonder.
		I wonder if the little guy is at NASA or in Albuquerque.
		I'm not sure who he was directing it towards.
		Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
unidentified		Hello.
		Good morning, Art and Richard.
		Richard, I'm a bit psychic, and I'd like to fax you something.
		Can I get a fax number?
		And then I have a question about Orion 33.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure, give out your fax number.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good idea, Richard.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Oh, thank you, Art.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Area code 505 771-0820.
unidentified		08 what?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		20.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's ARIA code 505-771-0820.
unidentified		Okay, and is it L-A-N-D or L-U-N-D?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, it used to be L-U-N-D a long time ago.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's now L-A-N-D.
unidentified		A Norwegian, huh?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, Swede.
unidentified		Okay, hey, I have a question, and I wonder if I could listen to that because you're off in this market over here.
		With this Orion 33, it seems that Clinton is always giving these speeches timed with that.
		And it's reminiscent to me of some of the stuff the Nazis were into in their occultism.
		My question is, do you have any idea or any speculation as to who gurus Clinton into giving the speeches at those times?
		And do you suspect that he's beholden to one of these black brotherhoods?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That is a very complex subject.
		Someday, Art and I are going to do a show on symbolism, and we've unearthed a lot of data behind this pattern now, and it is not a trivial subject, and I don't want to deal with it superficially.
		So with your permission, I will defer that to where we can actually document some very interesting things we have discovered.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Someday we'll have a giant fight about that.
		I'm looking forward to it.
		It's in my plans.
		East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		This is Anthony in Kansas City.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Hi.
		Richard, I heard just last week on another show that the founder of JPL, Jack Parsons, is considered the successor to Aleister Crowley.
		That's correct.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's part of the historical documentation we are going to be providing.
unidentified		Any further comment on this?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, Mr. Crowley was into some very interesting occult things, and I just find this a very important part of the record that has not been widely known, and we intend to make it known.
unidentified		Does Werner Floan Brown figure into that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		There's a very important book by a gal named Linda Hunt, who used to be the head of the investigative unit, executive producer at CNN, who I am in the process of getting hold of.
		And by the time we're ready to do this particular program, I will have some information from Ms. Hunt that I think will be very important as part of the whole puzzle.
unidentified		I look forward to that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Colin.
unidentified		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
		West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland, and we're almost out of time.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi, where are you, sir?
unidentified		My name is Dane.
unidentified		I'm calling from Anchorage, Alaska.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Listen to you on KENI.
unidentified		Of course.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Not a lot of time here, so fire away.
unidentified		Okay.
		I've been listening to everything you guys just say tonight, and it's just inspiring.
		I've been a listener for about a year now, and there's really some deep stuff going on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		It's only going to get deeper.
		Yes, it is.
		It's a wake-up call for everybody now.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And isn't it extraordinary?
unidentified		Yes, it is.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Isn't it about time?
		You know, I've been looking at this picture, and the more I look at it, guys, the more astonished I am.
		This one picture we have up on the web.
		There is amazing structure and buildings here.
		They're absolutely right.
		There is absolutely wondrous things down there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anything quick, Colin?
unidentified		One thing I want to say, I had listened to the speech Clinton had gave about race relations, and it just coincides with, to me, what everything that's been going on tonight, you know, it's time to go to petty stuff that's going on around here.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You know, I'm really glad you brought that up because if you imagine, and this, of course, puts together Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, if you imagine that if this really is pursued and we get a measure of the human species against what's out there, we will discover, we'll really finally, it will hit home how closely and intimately related we all are, one to each other, regardless of what we look like.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I believe that too.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And that can be perhaps the biggest gift of all as we enter the 21st century, because we need a comparison with which to compare ourselves against the infinite.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I couldn't agree more, and it really is a perfect note to end this on, Richard.
		Obviously, we're going to have updates from you as you begin to discern this new data from the pictures just taken last night.
		It's been a whale of a program, and I want to thank you.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, my friend, thank you for providing the appropriate forum where Americans can have a voice at last.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So it is not goodbye, but until next time, which I expect to be rather shortly.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good night.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Say good night, America.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good night, America.
		That's it, folks.
		Thank you very much, Richard.
		Thank all of you who participated.
		Those of you who did not get to the website to see what's up there, the astounding photographs that are up there, you'll make it during the day.
		I'm one of those who actually did not make it.
		So that's it from the high desert this night.
		And I want to say, Freddie, wherever you are, good night, my friend.
		Good night all.

▲