Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 14, 1998 - Art Bell

02:43:27

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And it's all right, and it's coming home, they gotta get right back to where we started
	from.
	Nothing is good, nothing is wrong, they gotta get right back to where we started from.
	Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nine. Send it to him 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, here again is Art.
	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 Flanderen, Dr. Van Flanderen, talking 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 coming 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 cousin.
	And Freddy 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, uh, fly to different points on the Earth.
	And we played what we called Magic Carpet.
	And Freddy was very, very close to me.
	And, uh, my first cousin.
	News that Freddy 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 $2,000,000 Long Island mansion, the New York Post reported today.
	He was 48 years old.
	Lens cameras 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 Setucket.
	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, Jim Evans, wrote a book.
	Lenz and hundreds of devout followers drew attention to Lenz 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.
	I've been talking to my family all day.
	And to the, um, uh, coroner.
	And to the homicide detectives that are reading between the lines and talking to the homicide detective.
	There is a lot of information they were not going to, uh, not about to give to me.
	They knew I was a member of the family as an adult.
	We both went our separate ways and cut ourselves.
	Our cousin is dead at just 48 years of age.
	Alright, in a moment, we are going to turn our attention to something absolutely astounding.
	When the IRS takes on a taxpayer, it spends 85% of the time, that's true, to lose but the pain.
	Alright, now to the mountains of New Mexico, Uh, where Richard C. Hoagland resides.
	Richard, at one time, an advisor to Napier Hunter Cronkite.
	And, uh, the winner of the Angstrom Science Award.
	Here we are.
	Good morning.
	And, uh, let us also now bring Tom Van Flanderen, Dr. Van Flanderen, an astronomer.
	Uh, Tom, are you there?
	Yes, I am.
	Good morning.
	Uh, good morning to you.
	Uh, Richard is Earth-shaking or Mars-rattling, I'm not sure how to put it.
	It's echoing across the solar system tonight.
	Yeah.
	The images now are, we've got new images and we're going to delete them.
	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?
	Because Tom and I are old friends.
	He's been on the cutting edge, you know, hanging out, you know, ten over the edge of the board for almost as long as I have.
	Sure.
	And he has come to some very independent and very important conclusions, based particularly on Dr. Mark Carlotto's independent imaging analysis and enhancements of what's on the website.
	And for everyone that 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. Carlotto prepared, the orthographically rectified, from the ground up, enhanced version of the face on Mars from the MGS for Cydonia image taken last Sunday morning.
	How new is the Carlotto imaging, Richard?
	It's about 24 hours old.
	Now bear in mind, everybody, when this first came in, I said it looked like a cat box to me.
	Uh, just a massive 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.
	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 they're 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.
	Mars makeover, dated from Newsweek, April 20th, 1998.
	New NASA pictures.
	When NASA released the first pictures of the region of Mars called Cydonia, 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... ...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... ...NASA took the first new picture of the face in two decades.
	The 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.
	Ten times smaller than Viking satellites.
	Quote, it looks like a perfectly natural eroded object, said Arden Albee, Project Scientist for Surveyor.
	Of course, any fantasy... 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 Cydonia their hobby, weren't as lurid.
	Quote, I don't think the question of artificiality can be resolved with this picture, says Mark Carlotto, an image processing expert who has analyzed the face.
	The picture probably couldn't have quieted believers and Martians no matter what it showed.
	Quote, you underestimate these people, says Dennis Stacy, co-publisher of The Anomalist, the journal of the paranormal.
	They have books and talk shows pending.
	But most agreed that the real triumph was getting NASA to exceed the public demand to 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.
	The first realization after looking at the raw images was that something had to be wrong, because all you could see A couple of rocks placed 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 thought, we 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 there, and only the east side, the side we couldn't see, was in bright sunlight.
	The side we could see was entirely in darkness than before, and certainly eliminated the trick of light and shadow effect, if everything significant that we could see is in shadow.
	So we had to, uh... and uh... we had to allow for the fact that there was a considerable projection distortion this time, that wasn't there before, just because of our low viewing angle.
	Well, additionally, I believe that Dr. Malin, with the cloudy conditions at the moment of the photograph, he admitted to that somewhere down the line.
	Is that correct, Doctor?
	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.
	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.
	So you virtually end up with a three-dimensional image?
	Yes, that's right.
	And in fact, on Dr. Carlotto'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.
	Okay, Doctor, what do you conclude from it?
	Well, just describing what we see first, and then I'll tell you the bottom line.
	Sure.
	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 of a very regular height all the way around.
	Sort of like the objects that rise from the flatness of Giza.
	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 the 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 trough separating it from the enclosure, is this facelike object.
	The facelike object has a well So, between the old Viking photos and the new photos, we have symmetrical shapes?
	Yes, that's right.
	visible uh... just the bare corner of the right eye socket can be seen peeking
	out from behind the low part of the nose bridge so between the
	old viking photos and the new photos we have
	symmetrical uh... shapes
	uh... yes they do match up very well once one gets the perspective
	and uh...
	especially if you were to do it mark carlotto did and correct
	uh... they've been the different parallax then there's an almost perfect match.
	All right, and if I may stop you for one moment, Richard, where may that corrected enhanced photograph be viewed?
	Okay, if you go to your website, www.artbell.com, or the Enterprise Mission website, www.enterprisemission.com, or one word, lowercase.
	Right.
	It is the first item at the top of the homepage.
	There is a subset image of the two views side by side.
	Dr. Carlotto'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 a kind of a full display graphic with Tom's great quote at the top.
	And below that are direct links to Dr. Carlotto'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.
	All right.
	And below that is Van Flandern's also commentary.
	All right.
	Hold it right there.
	So, all you computer people, be on your way.
	Go take a look.
	it's new it's revolutionary and we'll talk about it in a moment
	it's new it's revolutionary and we'll talk about it in a Oh, she's a bad, she's a bad, she's a bad, bad girl
	She's a bad, she's a bad, she's a bad, she's a bad, bad girl
	From the Kingdom of Nye, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell
	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.
	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 Costa Costa AM with Art Bell.
	Now again, here's Art.
	From Nelson in Santa Ana, I think he puts it pretty well.
	High 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.
	5-5.
	Alright, 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 Flanderen, gentlemen, welcome back.
	Hi there.
	Hi.
	And, Doctor, 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 Flanderen.
	Your words, doctor?
	Yes, that's correct.
	That's an extremely strong statement.
	And so, a direct challenge to you, my God, You have 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.
	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.
	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 arguing endlessly over things like, does it look like a face or doesn't it?
	That's what's going to 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 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 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, 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.
	But the right eye socket, Doctor, was one major feature of the Viking photograph, correct?
	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.
	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, 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.
	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?
	Well, that's a very good question.
	We'll 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 the...
	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 Doctor, can you actually put numbers to it yet?
	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.
	So are we talking about tens of thousands to one that this object is not a natural occurrence?
	Well, you multiply the probabilities of several things that are less than one in a thousand chance.
	Yes, sir.
	And we are down to one in a billion or less.
	Excuse me?
	Did you say one in a billion?
	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.
	One in a billion.
	And in addition to all those features, we have the extreme symmetry of the enclosure, the right angles, and we have a cap 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?
	practically halfway around the outside enclosure of the desert sand
	i'm going to ask you what is it no doubt an impossible question but i i must ask
	it and that is uh... is there any way to even roughly
	guests at the age of these objects of the uh... of the of the face
	uh... is there any way to guess at the age
	yes um...
	we'd 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.
	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 the 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 this annoyed looking face and something significant happened on this planet 3 million years ago.
	Before that we have only primate fossils.
	To sum up, a one in a billion chance that the face is anything else but a face.
	In other words, you're declaring it, with all your professionalism, to be not a natural object.
	Put there by some intelligent beings.
	Do you have any guesses?
	I know it's a terrible thing to ask, but it's an obvious question.
	Well, the visual impression of a human face rather than an alien face is what is very striking.
	We're right down to the fine detail now of human faces.
	So it's humanoid, yet it's very ancient.
	Is it 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.
	That's right.
	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 toward the parent.
	And this event 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... Well, who knows?
	To be seen from the parent planet.
	That's why they're looking up instead of...
	Instead of something that they could see from the surface, which they can't.
	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, Krafft Ehricke, 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.
	Krafft Ehricke 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 downed buildings and all that.
	Makes sense.
	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.
	Alright, 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?
	I think that depends on who's paying for it.
	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, they, I say they, whatever parent planet, put that face up there.
	Well, one of the One of the executive lines of thought I was going to complete related to that because perhaps 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.
	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 three million years ago.
	They couldn't have breathed our atmosphere or lived in our biosphere without protective
	environmental suits.
	But it's a space-bearing 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.
	Dr. Van Flanders, have you ever seen the ancient pictographs here on Earth of beings in helmets?
	No.
	Yes, I have.
	Just a thought.
	Yes.
	Alright, 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 Flanderen, Richard Hoagland, both of you, please hold on.
	All right.
	Ladies and gentlemen, consider what you have just heard.
	Dr. Van Flanderen 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.
	Welcome to the World of Tanks!
	World of Tanks!
	to talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nigh 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.
	1-800-618-8255.
	Now again, here's Art Bell.
	Once again, here I am.
	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.
	Once again, here I am.
	My guests are astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flanderen and Richard C. Hoagland of the Enterprise
	The new Mars photographs, the Cydonia 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, We've talked about the face on Mars.
	Dr. Carlotto 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 Flanderen 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 Flanderen.
	That is as strong a statement as you can make or get.
	And it's funny, I just got a fax 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 Flandern 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 Flanderen, and clicking on the link, which will take you to the Enterprise site, you can see the new photographs of the face.
	The Colorado images of the face.
	And Dr. Van Flanderen 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 Flanderen 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.
	Alright, back now to Dr. Tom Van Flanderen, who is an astronomer, and Richard C. Hoagland, Who is... What are you, Richard?
	An advocate, I guess?
	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, you know, 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.
	A billion to one.
	Dr. Van Vlaanderen, 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?
	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 of the original viking photos was an after the fact find and there was we could
	argue endlessly about whether or not there was any significance to it but having the
	face hypothesis going into this image with ten times the resolution and then finding
	uniquely facial details in just the right place, size, shape and orientation that's
	That's a...
	It'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 in the mountain.
	to take a profile though that is just basically...
	You only need a single curved line to make a profile.
	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 Cydonia 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.
	It's actually carved in rock in three dimensions.
	There's nothing like that anywhere else in the solar system, except on Mount Rushmore.
	Doctor, 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 the mountain and we wanted to make a face on Mars Could we do it?
	It's about a mile and a half across It's a huge structure.
	It's a 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.
	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?
	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 I 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 you will see all kinds of things that you have never seen
	before in lunar or planetary images.
	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 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 Cydonia 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 Let's find out what's here at the site.
	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?
	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, you know, do a little bit of predicting tonight.
	Ten years ago, when I wrote my first edition of Monuments, Monuments of Mars, a City on the Edge of Forever, I looked at the available data, and I looked at, in particular, Dr. Carlotto'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 the 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.
	Sure.
	And so it was that comparison technique that allowed Mark to go to the Viking imagery, apply the 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.
	In how many thousand square miles did he look at, Tom?
	I don't recall several.
	It was thousands, alright?
	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, on page, well actually it's a figure illustration, alright?
	It is figure 23, in Monuments of Mars, 4th edition.
	And I said this as far back as 92, and I said 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, you know, 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 rifts 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 you know chemical erosion oxygen you know oxidation and or All right, this is a very important point, Richard.
	While we have you, Dr. Van Flanderen, 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?
	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.
	It's very important, and I'm very glad Tom is able to do this.
	chance and are of a non-priori nature.
	And they would add a couple more factors of 10 to the improbability of this all happening
	by chance.
	So we're at the 10 or 100 billion to what level?
	Yes.
	Thank God.
	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.
	Well, that's why I asked the question.
	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.
	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 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 Cydonia, which has something to do with us.
	All right.
	Of course it does.
	Gentlemen, hold on for a moment.
	Dr. Tom Van Flanderen, 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 Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	From the Kingdom of Nye, this is Coast to Coast AM.
	With Art Bell.
	From the Kingdom of Nye, this is Coast to Coast AM.
	With Art Bell.
	First time crawlers may reach art at area code 702-727-1222.
	702-727-1222.
	Now, here again is art.
	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 Flanderen,
	Dr. Van Flanderen, to say, quote, In my considered opinion, there is no longer room for
	reasonable doubt of the artificial origin of the face mason.
	And I have never concluded no room for reasonable doubt about anything in my 35-year scientific career.
	Dr. Thomas Van Flanderen.
	We'll get right back to him.
	104-587-134.
	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.
	Alright, back now to Dr. Tom Van Flanderen and Richard C. Hoagland.
	And Dr. Van Flanderen, I would like to, if I can, just sort of finish up with you because I am, 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?
	Yes, right.
	I can't really comment as a scientist until I've analyzed the data and have a I consider it a basis for my opinions.
	I can, as a human being, though, just say, wow.
	Well, Richard, of course, is not so constrained and he's talking about lawn furniture.
	Well, not literally, please.
	I know, I know.
	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.
	I mean, we've tried to bring this to the attention of the signer community, 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.
	Isn't that a fact?
	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.
	All right, these are of the new images.
	New images, yes.
	Tom does not have to comment, but he can look and enjoy like the rest of us.
	Dr. Van Flanderen, the first night we had the raw images of the face on Mars, what were your thoughts then?
	A week ago, when we had those first blurry non-images.
	My very first thoughts were disappointment in the quality of the images.
	I did not appreciate how raw images meant.
	42 Shades of Grey is pretty raw.
	And you were, I suppose, privately concluding, oh God, it's nothing but rocks.
	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 makes it doesn't look like the object that we 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.
	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, Doctor, I really, really want to thank you for being on board this morning.
	My pleasure.
	I just want to add as a footnote that Richard and I and Mark Carlotto and others have these pictures on our sites for the convenience of, for example, your audience.
	You can go to the NASA JPL website and get the original images.
	You can see that we at least haven't introduced any of these things we've been talking about.
	Well said, Doctor, and again, I thank you for being here.
	Thank you very much, Art, and have a good evening.
	Good evening, Doctor, and incredible words from Dr. Tom Van Flanderen.
	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 graphics 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 dot 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 Let me say a couple things before we go to Ron.
	Sure.
	yesterday and uh... we are just now beginning to get
	uh... richard you're back on the air again
	uh... let me take a look at the for your own show on there's a lot more in that first image
	that tom and i have discussed and that doctor carlisle is now looking at
	and that we have been examining including a discovery i made a couple days ago which i 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 on the stuff
	But we have discovered, I've 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.
	Alright, we'll look forward to that.
	In the meantime, Richard, last week, everybody knows the face was image.
	Now let's move forward, fast forward, to today.
	What exactly did NASA image today?
	Well, today they were attempting to take, Malin was attempting to take, a strip roughly 2 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 2 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 of 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 this 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.
	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, it's a whole different world than last week's photograph.
	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.
	Yes.
	And in that, I have a comparison.
	I found an original 7813 Viking shot of the face on Mars, the whole area, Uh, from Dr. Malen'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 Cydonia 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.
	May I ask a question?
	Anything.
	With regard to the one taken last week, after we all raised hell 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?
	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.
	So then what are you saying?
	Are you saying his explanation is bogus?
	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.
	Right.
	NASA used to provide truckloads, armloads, ocean liner loads full of documentation.
	On this mission, and on these particular images of Cydonia, 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.
	They're 400% smaller in terms of resolution than they could have been If he had used the full 2048 pixel width of his camera for some reason.
	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 site, and so he used half the resolution to get a wider swath of geography in the frame.
	Is that right or not?
	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.
	Okay.
	About half a degree is the width of the full moon as seen from Earth.
	So that's the width of the image.
	So then why use a lower resolution?
	There's no reasonable explanation.
	the city of pyramid complex thirty
	times the surface area
	of the face along last week they nailed the face both in the middle of the
	strip and almost exactly in the middle of the uh... with the
	district tonight
	for some reason they missed the center by the width of the strip
	there were there 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 that they had shortened their
	length or use compression in the camera, which is lossless, 1.8
	times.
	Just one very quick thing.
	Did you know that Bill Clinton today went to NASA?
	resolution spatially
	of the same objects and then we will receive a lot of furniture
	for some reason doctor mailers chose not to
	but despite that we're seeing pretty astonishing bizarre
	wondrous geometric things and we're about to get ron next to come out of
	that just one very quickly and did you know that bill clinton today went to
	nasa 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
	Not a coincidence.
	I don't think it's a coincidence.
	In fact, I can prove it's not a coincidence, and we'll do that at the top of the hour.
	All right.
	In the meantime, geologist Ron Nix is here.
	Ron, welcome to the program.
	Hello, Art.
	Thank you.
	I take it that you have had a first blush look at the barely enhanced raw data of what's known as the City Area, correct?
	Yes.
	What do you conclude?
	What do you see?
	Well, they're pretty stunning.
	Just as I had anticipated, which is sort of what Dr. Van Flandern 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.
	There's some things that are just absolutely fascinating to me, geologic-wise.
	When all 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 expect based on sun angle and that sort of thing.
	Like telephone poles on Mars.
	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.
	And they're excellent.
	All of them.
	And only now the two photographs we have of Cydonia have been done at 1024.
	Has Dr. Malin reasonably explained this on his website?
	That's for either one of you.
	No.
	Not in my opinion.
	In terms of his response earlier in the week, why the picture's 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.
	Can I interject something?
	Yes.
	If the explanation is valid, I don't have any reason to believe that it isn't, except I do have a question.
	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 didn't he tell us that ahead of time so we wouldn't have been surprised with the image?
	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.
	Yes.
	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, are you able to transfer that expertise to what you see on Mars?
	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.
	All right.
	But short answer is yes.
	Everybody stand by.
	We're at the top of the hour.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	And mastery.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with 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 fax, 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, 6438.
	That's 1-800-562-6438.
	six four three that's one eight hundred five six to
	six four three eight absolutely fresh flowers all right back down to richard sealed one and uh... geologist
	ron nix Richard?
	Yeah, let me make a couple of announcements here at the top of this hour.
	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 faith, 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, What will they be imaging then?
	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've called the quarry, Which was pointed out to me by a photoanalyst 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.
	Right.
	I was on a talk show, I think it's Jay Barber's show in Denver one night, and 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.
	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?
	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 bought backing 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.
	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?
	What is the argument against that?
	The same lighting.
	Uh, 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, you know, have it last two years, the real mapping doesn't begin until next year, you know.
	Right.
	They're literally leaving this thing in the parking orbit, and they're just taking photographs at the opportunity when it flies over the Cydonia region.
	Right.
	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, because it's phased every nine days.
	It comes back over at about ten 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.
	Okay.
	So, in terms of orbital geometry, it's really useful to spend that third orbit on the city.
	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 error-breaking again.
	That would be what I would call for, is that there be enough honest guys in NASA now They 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.
	Richard, has there as of yet been any official comment from NASA on now the first and now the second photographs?
	Well, this is what Tom was upset about.
	There has not been official comment, but there has been unofficial official comment.
	In other words, Mike Malin, Arden Albee, and Mike Carr, who are all officially attached to the project, spoke to Time and Newsweek and the wire services and CNN, and basically that's where Newsweek's take that it's all, you know, a tempest in a teapot came from.
	They were not supposed to as part of the agreement.
	All right.
	Very quickly, we mentioned Bill Clinton, who went to NASA yesterday, and is that just a coincidence in your opinion?
	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.
	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?
	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.
	You do?
	Oh, that's quite a change for you.
	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 We're 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.
	Yes.
	It was on John Glenn's upcoming flight.
	Yes.
	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 Sedonia and photographs are taken, David and I will be at the Del Mar Hilton in Del Mar, California, which is in northern San Diego.
	Right.
	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.
	888-338-8581.
	That's 888-338-8581.
	That's actually the Art Bell Chat Club there, isn't it?
	That's right.
	That's the Art Bell Chat Club.
	And they're some very dedicated people, and they 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 Fuyen 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 Cydonia 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 book.
	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?
	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 has wound up with some amazing new real images from Cydonia.
	that apparently are confirming what we suspected fifteen years ago
	when i started out this road 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 they based on what uh... dr van flanders said which is
	very unambiguous a billion to one well i've got a bc i've got a m i'm sorry nbc and u p n
	coming up tomorrow and i'm going to be calling my friends in the media and
	gently pointed into the 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.
	Yes, Ron.
	You have seen the early photographs.
	First of all, Ron, have you gone and taken a look at the new face pictures?
	Dr. Carlo's enhancements?
	That's right.
	Absolutely.
	He described it very well.
	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.
	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 in the eye and the curvature of the mouth.
	The brow, the eye socket, you'll see that.
	It's all there.
	And just as plain as can be the nostrils.
	It's stunning.
	It really is.
	Dr. Carlotto did an incredible job of producing that image.
	All right.
	Now we've got news.
	Art, I have new news.
	Yes, sir?
	Scotty Roland has got the surveyor image of the city.
	And I kind of wryly title this, Lawn Furniture, anyone?
	Really?
	There is the enhancement on the web.
	From Enterprise, of the raw data, showing the most peculiar object.
	And I would love to have a geologist, other than Ron, look at this and tell me that's a rock.
	Alright, I'm dialing now.
	I hope I can get to my own website before my listeners wipe it out.
	But you're saying that... It's a 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.
	What is it you think we're seeing?
	I don't have a clue.
	It just doesn't belong down on Mars.
	It doesn't belong on Mars?
	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.
	Yes, sir.
	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.
	All right.
	I'm on the site.
	Where on the site is it?
	Is it on the Enterprise Mission site?
	The Enterprise Mission site.
	It's the first new thing that says lawn furniture, anyone, with a smile.
	Okay.
	We are tipping our hat to the good doctor tonight.
	All right.
	I'm looking for that now.
	And maybe I've run into a cash problem here.
	It's the first post below the Enterprise shuttle.
	Yeah.
	What I've got... Let's see.
	You declare your memory.
	Apparently so.
	And I'll try and do that.
	But if you can... Ron, are you able to see it?
	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.
	Alright.
	What he'll do is in the next commercial break he'll go run and look quick.
	Right.
	I see.
	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.
	Well, this, as I recall, it's in the lower portion of that image.
	The long strip tonight?
	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 of 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 wind-blown types of patterns, but I've seen sand dunes and bar-con 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, 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 that I looked at this evening.
	They're directional.
	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, I even got some of the Mars images of the polar caps where you get these terrific looking polygons and what have you, like you do, 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.
	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 look down into it, it would look like a waffle when you look
	down into it.
	There are things like that in these images.
	What you would refer to, Richard, as lawn furniture?
	Well, that was a comment that Dr. Mailer would make.
	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 post, 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 J56 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 images 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.
	Well, should we not at some point expect from some NASA source a confirmation of what we are discussing tonight, and what Dr. Van Flanderen has said?
	Surely this program tonight, and what the good doctor has said, and now Ron next, 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.
	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 Barrett, 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.
	So you really think we are on the precipice of disclosure?
	Let me finish the thought.
	So tonight, what Mike did was he ran the numbers in redshift for Orion and Sirius.
	I'm afraid the conclusion is going to have to hold until after the bottom of the hour.
	It's what in radio we call a hook.
	I'm Art Bell.
	this is coast to coast a m the
	the the
	the the world of the world's most important
	senator who is a very close 702-727-8499. 702-727-8499. Please limit your faxes to one
	or two pages.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Now, here again is Art.
	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.
	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.
	I think Ron has something, you know.
	I'm in the process of repairing another enhancement of our thing.
	Much better.
	Much better.
	Your thing?
	The thing on Mars.
	In the city.
	What's... The thing on Mars.
	The thing on Mars.
	What is the thing?
	In other words, what It leads you to believe the thing is not natural.
	Okay, Ron, you now have a chance to take a look at it.
	Oh, ever so briefly, just on the browser.
	I don't know what to think about it.
	There are 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.
	Right.
	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 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.
	These images are full of these sorts of things that take a lot of study and a lot of looking at.
	Everybody needs to understand the definitive portion of the program was done earlier with Dr. Van Flanderen 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.
	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.
	I don't know if the poor websites can handle it or not.
	They're really going into overload.
	Richard, based on the first portion of the program, do you feel vindicated?
	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 ten 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 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!
	We can go!
	Remember when McDaniel was on your show, maybe a week and a half ago, two weeks ago?
	And he said that if we got these images because of the limitations of, you know, 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.
	Yes, sir.
	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, you know, over his position on NASA several years ago, It 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.
	That's total speculation.
	All right.
	Based on all of that, Richard, 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.
	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, that struck me.
	Which allowed me to look at Dan Quayle very differently than anybody else, because I think Dan Quayle's 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 from a wide variety of experts.
	And those experts, in fact, told us I told the Quail 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.
	$8 billion?
	Quail 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.
	Go in what?
	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?
	Yes.
	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, you know, 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, you know, 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 ten billion.
	Is it realistic?
	Yes!
	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.
	Well, Bill Clinton, in the middle of his present political troubles, is searching wildly for some sort of legacy For his presidency.
	Why did he talk this afternoon in his address at Johnson about the space station?
	Suddenly, out of the blue, he talked about sending himself to Mars.
	Out of the blue!
	Can I just interject a thought that has nothing to do with geology?
	There might be a lot of public support for that, by the way.
	Yes, Ron, go right ahead.
	He was also to Los Alamos not too long ago, if you recall.
	And this is non-geologic, just an opinion.
	But there's a lot of folks who are on your show, Art, 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?
	So that's a possibility.
	That's just a thought.
	It may not be as difficult as we may think.
	Well, of course, that would require a lot more in terms of revelation.
	Oh, yes.
	But assuming the hardware that Richard talked about that we apparently do have, Richard, how long would it take us to get to Mars?
	Well, it would take most of a year.
	I mean, the unmanned missions we send take from seven to nine months.
	Can a man spend a year in space?
	Well, remember, if we're building a space station in Earth's orbit, ironically, that space station does not care where it lives.
	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.
	My God, the bulb is going on.
	You're suggesting the space station could go to Mars.
	It could go to Mars.
	Wow.
	All you need to do is put the right rockets on it and it doesn't care where it lives.
	Wow.
	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?
	Yes, sir.
	Those would make perfect entry vehicles to the surface of Mars.
	And then you would be able to leave the surface of Mars?
	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.
	Yes, sir.
	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.
	Oh, I'm not sure you could garner the political support for that.
	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 foodstuff.
	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 kibosh 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 developed the technology to go and bring him home.
	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 Flanderen'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.
	And I'll tell you what Dr. Van Plannern'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.
	Yes.
	And you asked me how confident I was.
	That's right.
	And I said, oh, you know, I'll give you 90%, something like that.
	Sure.
	Well, Dr. Van Plannern 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.
	What do you think your colleagues will say?
	Well, I've heard everything from silence to agreement.
	I work with other geologists and they're involved in looking at these things too.
	And Jim Birkeland 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 Uh, Mars mission.
	You know, Art, I think we are being moved toward our manned Mars mission.
	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, the same center which two years ago announced The Rock, remember The Rock?
	Sure.
	That came out of Johnson, not JPL.
	That's true.
	He had all the hype of brass at NASA with him today.
	Alright?
	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 belt 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?
	Well, I imagine Mr. Bassett is listening, and Mr. Bassett was talking about disclosure heavily, I don't know, a month or two ago, and at that time, you were very dubious.
	Very dubious.
	Well, I didn't have data.
	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 his 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 past 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.
	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 have 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.
	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.
	Well, I'm just saying what the press sometimes said.
	Well, but let me make a very important point.
	We asked for raw data.
	We did not ask for crappy enhancements of raw data.
	All right?
	It was the crappy enhancements that Newsweek took one look at, and Dan Rather took one look at, and threw up their hands about it.
	It's a pile of rocks, yeah.
	If the raw data had remained raw, John Holliman 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 Carlisle 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-op the issue.
	Well, but that doesn't sound like an agency that wants disclosure.
	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 in the Reagan administration?
	Remember Regan 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.
	Alright, 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.
	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.
	Well, thank you.
	I appreciate your calling.
	And good night, Ron.
	Good night.
	I've got a new version of that object, the lawn chair, up on the web, as Keith is his usual excellent self.
	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.
	uh... even i have given up i tried for a while to get a richard is just
	absolutely swamped up there as you can imagine i think that we've laid all this out pretty reasonably
	uh... without being able to have new enhancements of the the new raw data so
	i'd like to come back into an hour of open lines How about that?
	Absolutely.
	All right.
	Coming up next, Richard Hoagland with your opportunity to speak to him.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AFL.
	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.
	1-800-618-8255.
	First-time callers may reach out at area code 702-727-1222.
	And you may call out on the wildcard line at area code 702-727-1222.
	To reach out from outside the US, first dial your access number to the USA.
	Then, 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM, from the Kingdom of My, with 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... Then you wake up the next morning and you go, geez, I fell asleep right in the middle of the most interesting part.
	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.
	at 1-800-522-8863. Once again, 1-800-522-8863. Ask for Real Talk. As you are. That's 1-800-627-8800.
	And check out their webpage at www.jacobselectronics.com.
	Alright, uh, 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, uh, the webcam, the studio cam is off tonight.
	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 fax 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've found on the new images so far,
	built in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
	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.
	If I were to ask you what I asked Dr. Van Flanderen 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?
	There are two processes that are destroying things on Mars.
	One is wind erosion, you know, sand blasting.
	Actually, it's more like talcum powder blasting now because of the very thin Martian atmosphere.
	And if you throw talcum powder even at 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, you know, 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, it once had living organisms, photosynthetic plants, or their equivalent, that produce 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.
	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.
	Uh, apparently people are now beginning to grasp what we have told them tonight.
	And the tone, believe me, is very different.
	Uh, wildcard line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Uh, Art, this is, uh, Brad in polo.
	Brad!
	Hi, Dick.
	It's been a long time.
	Yeah, really.
	Uh, yeah.
	He is 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.
	Well, a few.
	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.
	That's right.
	And that's kind of frightening because that indicates that there just may have been a well Let's call it but a mechanical reason for it to be set at that angle.
	Oh, Brad, you are brilliant, all right?
	Are you following what he's saying?
	Yes, I think so.
	Okay.
	Tom and I have this wonderful little, you know, debate going.
	Was the face on Mars in Cydonia ever at the equator like Tom believes it was?
	Right.
	And was it straight up and down, north, south, etc.?
	Right.
	And we now know.
	Because of our 20 years of work, or more or less, that the Cydonia 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 sighting 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 hyper-dimensional interconnections, I don't know what will.
	Brad, anything else?
	Well, there's a whole bunch of other questions.
	But mainly, am I seeing this correctly?
	You say that there's a hyper-dimensional connection between the way it is sitting now and the way that it sat originally.
	Well, 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.
	Alright?
	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 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.
	All right.
	This begins to go a little far for me.
	I'm not the kind of hyper-dimensional guy you would wish me to be, I'm sure.
	I found, though, that Dr. Van Flanderen'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.
	Well, again, the two are not intimately connected.
	Yeah.
	Artificial structures on Mars do not presuppose that Ben Flannan'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.
	Oh, yes.
	That fits into Van Flandern's hypothesis of a world that blew up, and the funny chemistry from Pathfinder.
	Indeed, but with regard to the public, Richard, little steps, small steps.
	But you know I don't like taking little steps.
	I know.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Big Step Hoagland.
	Good morning, Richard.
	Big foot, we'll call it.
	Thank you, thank you, Art.
	This is Duane from Duluth, Minnesota.
	Yes, sir.
	And I just want to ask, Richard, how big is that International Space Station?
	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, you know, 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 the screen behind him and say, Boys and girls, we gotta 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.
	And just one more question.
	How many people, I heard you say one, could go up there, but If they're on Mars, they wouldn't just send one person, right?
	No, no, no.
	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 retro rocket, landing the vehicle softly And having the astronaut live off the land with cargo vehicles supplying supplies.
	Now, you said the moon.
	Did you mean Mars?
	No, I meant the moon.
	You meant the moon.
	All right.
	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 Cydonia.
	And the President actually, earlier in the day, suggested that he might go to Mars?
	That's what he said.
	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.
	That's what he said!
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Yes, Los Angeles, California, folks.
	How you doing, Mr. Bell?
	Fine.
	And Richard, it's really nice to hear your voice.
	Well, thank you.
	I have a couple of quick comments.
	In other words, it's an answer to you, Mr. Bell, and a question to Richard.
	Sure.
	The answer to your surprise Clinton going to NASA, I think he's listening to our Bell Show.
	That's one of them.
	Maybe.
	And the other answer to you, Mr. Bell, is the first man, when he went to Mars, when they put on Mars, how would he feel like?
	No new taxes, no bills, and no return ticket.
	Well, 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 where 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 history of humankind.
	I was thinking earlier tonight, and I don't want you to get embarrassed Art, but I must say this.
	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.
	I do agree.
	I do agree with you.
	I wonder about this all the time, whether I am here for a specific reason.
	In other words, that there are few accidents.
	Well, you can look at that in the largest metaphysical sense or in a very limited sense.
	I think it has to do 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.
	Well, I do want to know.
	Can I say something?
	Yes, sir.
	I'm not going to say this.
	To my heart.
	Both of you are icons, and I do respect what Richard is doing.
	Honestly, I do.
	He's doing something for humankind.
	And Mr. Bell, likewise to you.
	And without it, I know, probably wouldn't have seen these pictures.
	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.
	So, but eventually they decided, okay, let's start somewhere.
	Can I ask a question to Richard, if I may?
	Very quickly, yes.
	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.
	We have begun a survey of the pictures that Dr. Malin has put into the Planetary Photo Journal at JPL.
	Right.
	Ron and I. And we are finding some pretty astonishing things.
	That now that we've got a kind of benchmark of Cydonia, now that we know what architecture looks like, in the coming days and weeks we're going to be publishing on the web and, you know, in other places, some assessment of other things that Malin has taken pictures of that, frankly, I don't think you're accidental.
	Other areas on Mars, not Cydonia.
	Other areas that 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 them on the board.
	It would make sense, Richard, that there would be other areas that would have been affected by a civilization.
	We've got to take a break here.
	We'll be right back.
	From the high desert, this is Coast to Coast AM, a watershed program.
	Stay right there.
	I've seen streams of green, red and blue too.
	I've seen them bloom for me and you.
	And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
	I see skies of blue, and clouds of white.
	Oh, I think...
	The bright blessed day, the dark plagued night.
	And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
	The Colors of the Rainbow The Colors of the Rainbow
	The Colors of the Rainbow To talk with Art Bell
	in the kingdom of night 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 Once again, here I am, good morning
	Are you seven? You've got nothing to lose but the fat alright uh... back now to richard c hogan and your
	questions what 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 photographs.
	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.
	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.
	Yep.
	No question.
	You agree?
	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.
	I know.
	And the more I'm looking, the more I'm boggling myself.
	This is a very historic night, Mr. Bell.
	Yes, sir?
	A very historic night.
	All right.
	I couldn't imagine sharing it with a nicer guy.
	Oh, that's nice of you.
	Thank you.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hello.
	Oh!
	How you doing?
	I'm doing.
	Where are you, sir?
	Uh, this is Michael, I'm calling from Mesa, Arizona.
	Yes, Mesa, all right.
	Uh, first off, Art, I sympathize with you on your back.
	Thank you.
	I'm a truck driver and I sit on my butt a lot.
	Yep.
	Okay, Richard.
	Yes, sir.
	The, uh, I've been hearing, where do you get to the theory that Mars was a moon?
	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 It's a 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 equation, 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 epic 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 AM.
	North of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
	And where it's going to stop, the human race is going to change substantially for the better because of what we're seeing and discussing on these screens tonight.
	It will not be an easy change, Richard.
	There are going to be bumps in the road.
	And for others, it will be an overwhelmingly welcome change.
	Because frankly, we're in a rut.
	Alright?
	The human race is in a rut.
	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.
	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.
	Sure.
	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.
	That would be my memory as well.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	Hello.
	Where are you?
	This is Scott.
	I'm in the Santa Monica Mountains and I hear you on KOGO out of San Diego.
	Yes, sir.
	I have two questions and one comment.
	All right.
	Richard, what about the two moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos?
	Are there any unusual characteristics of those two satellites?
	Well, they are.
	Hold it, one at a time.
	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, again in 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 Cydonia, by the guys who tried to live on the planet.
	And if you want to convolve that into the Van Flandern 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.
	Is it possible that one of the moons is hollow?
	Yes.
	In fact, it's not possible.
	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, and it turned out that in order to account for the current gravity No, I don't think so.
	I don't think so.
	Phobos, the inner moon, had to be about one third hollow.
	Could that possibly occur in nature?
	Say again?
	Could that possibly occur in nature?
	No, because it would have to be as porous as a sponge, and that just can't happen.
	But if someone had mined it, and hollowed it out and sent the good stuff down to Mars,
	for living material, that would explain both features.
	Could our own moon be a captured satellite?
	Earth's moon?
	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.
	Okay.
	Remember the Library of Alexandria?
	Of course.
	Well, I don't remember it, but I've heard about it.
	Not quite that old, guys.
	There has been some information that possibly the name of that planet that exploded is Maldek.
	M-A-L-D-E.
	I have run across that before.
	I'd really like to congratulate you both because of the great work you've been doing.
	in the interest of time east of the Rockies you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Yes, hello Richard and Art.
	This is Vince in Chicago.
	Hi Vince.
	Good morning Vince.
	I'd really like to congratulate you both because of the great work you've been doing.
	It's really exciting charging forward here with the truth and all the great listeners
	that have probably made this possible.
	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.
	Keep up the good work, Richard.
	I really hope to see you on Ted Koppel's Nightline program, explaining all this to the American public.
	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 Arkville Chat Club on my birthday on the 25th with David Oates.
	And let me give that number again for your information.
	Because if you want to see these photographs and you want to see what we're going to be 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.
	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.
	Okay.
	I would assume that by the time you are displaying photographs in San Diego, you will have had lots of time to pore over all this new data.
	Absolutely.
	All right.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hi.
	How you doing?
	Good morning to both of you.
	My name is Suleiman.
	I'm calling from Richmond, California, listening to you through KSFO.
	It's interesting, just as you started to have listeners on, they started a jam station up here.
	I wanted to communicate a story to both of you, since you are both now torture bearers of the truth for mankind, in regards to the Mars Scenario.
	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.
	I had a situation where, through astral projection, I 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 a 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 Koppel and Diane Sawyer.
	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.
	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.
	If we can establish, and this goes back to Tom, you know, prediction?
	If we can establish a record that he had this dream before we got these pictures, I would be very interested.
	All right.
	Well, we've all received millions of faxes.
	Whether we could go back and pull that out or not, I don't know.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Mr. Bell and Mr. Hoagland, what a night.
	Yes, sir.
	This is fascinating.
	Oh, it's just the beginning.
	Just the beginning.
	I understand what you're saying.
	You know, you mentioned The Wizard of Oz.
	Yes.
	And The Yellow Brick Road.
	One of my favorite movies.
	You know, The Yellow Brick Road.
	We are not in Kansas anymore.
	The other was an allegory, of course.
	I'm sure you were of that.
	The Yellow Brick Road led to a kingdom.
	It led to a palace.
	There was a man there who purported to be a god.
	The Wizard.
	The Wizard of Oz.
	Behind the curtain.
	Yes, behind the curtain.
	And when the curtain was pulled back, when he was unveiled, as you might say, he was exposed To be a fake, a charlatan.
	He wasn't a god at all.
	Little bitty guy, yeah.
	That's something to think about in the coming days.
	Thank you very much.
	Wait, before you go, what was that?
	That was an allegory, Richard, and I think that was a slam.
	Well, I don't think it was directed at us.
	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 toward.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hello.
	Good morning, 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.
	Sure, give out your fax number.
	Good idea, Richard.
	Oh, thank you, Art.
	Area code 505.
	Okay.
	0820.
	08 what?
	20.
	That's error code 505-771-0820.
	Okay, and is it L-A-N-D or L-U-N-D?
	Well, it used to be L-U-N-D a long time ago.
	It's now L-A-N-D.
	Norwegian, huh?
	No swede.
	Okay, I have a question, and I wonder if I could listen to it because you're off in this market over here.
	With this Orion 33, it seems that Clinton 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?
	That is a very complex subject.
	Some night, 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.
	Right.
	Some night, 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.
	Hi.
	This is Anthony in Kansas City.
	Yes, sir.
	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.
	That's part of the historical documentation we are going to be providing.
	Any further comment on this?
	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.
	Does Werner von Braun figure into that?
	Uh, 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 this hunt that I think will be very important as part of the whole puzzle.
	I look forward to that.
	All right, Colin.
	Thank you.
	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.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Where are you, sir?
	My name is Dan.
	I'm calling from Anchorage, Alaska.
	All right.
	Listen to you on KENI.
	Of course.
	Not a lot of time here, so fire away.
	Okay.
	I've been listening to everything you guys have been saying tonight, and it's just awe-inspiring.
	I've been a listener for about a year now, and there's really some deep stuff going on.
	Yes, sir.
	And it's only going to get deeper.
	Yes, it is.
	It's a wake-up call for everybody now.
	And isn't it extraordinary?
	Yes, it is.
	Isn't it about time?
	You know, I keep looking at this picture, and the more I look at it, guys, the more astonished I am.
	There's 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.
	Anything quick, Collin?
	One thing I want to say, I had listened to the speech Clint had gave about race relations, and it just coincides with, to me, with everything that's been going on tonight.
	You know, it's time for them to go to petty stuff that's going on around here.
	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 hit home how closely and intimately related we all are One to each other, regardless of what we look like.
	Yeah, I believe that too.
	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.
	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.
	Well, my friend, thank you for providing the appropriate forum where Americans can have a voice at last.
	So it is not goodbye, but until next time, which I expect to be rather shortly.
	Okay.
	Good night.
	Say good night, America.
	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, Freddy, wherever you are, goodnight my friend.
	Goodnight all.
	I don't know.

▲