Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 26, 1998 - Art Bell

02:39:56

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard C. Hoagland - Weather and Planetary Changes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, a one-time advisor to NASA.
	Alien, as that may seem these days.
	A one-time advisor and I guess colleague of Walter Cronkite's.
	I saw a bit of Walter in the From Earth to the Moon series, which was very good.
	I enjoyed many of them.
	And an Angstrom Science Award winner from the mountains of New Mexico that were recently covered with a whole bunch of smoke.
	Here is Richard C. Hoagland.
	Richard.
	Good morning, Art.
	Good morning to you.
	Uh, how are you?
	Well, I'm fine and I'm sitting on a very high mountain with a clear sky and an incredible view of the The wind has shifted, so Mexico is no longer in our front door.
	Well, there sure are a lot of people having health problems elsewhere.
	Yeah, and you know, there's so much going on.
	We have a very complicated night, as you properly set up.
	I'm going to try to hit subjects ranging from your book, The Quickening.
	We haven't talked about that in a while, at least you and I haven't.
	To some politics in Washington, the Y2K problem.
	Obviously Mars Surveyor and some new discoveries and data going on behind the scenes in terms of the politics of acquiring new pictures.
	I want to talk this morning about the hyperdimensional physics model in the sense that it can tie a lot of very disparate things together.
	Everyone you've had on the show for the last several weeks has been talking about this particular detail or that particular detail.
	You know, every incredibly awful rash of Bizarre school shootings and student outbreaks of real violence that no one can seem to explain.
	Let me try to stop you right there for a second.
	Digest this, Richard.
	After your show on last week, which was devoted to children and the loss of self-preservation they're obviously experiencing, I've been doing much thinking.
	This is very short and simple.
	The thought occurred to me, this situation is very little different from the whales and dolphins beaching themselves.
	It would seem there could be a connection, and I sat here and I thought about that.
	Both are completely, apparently, inexplicable behaviors.
	One might be suggested to be a magnetic influence, but if that's what it is, then why not humans as well as whales and dolphins?
	The fact is very perceptive, because when you Whenever in science we encounter a fundamentally new pattern, if you look back historically, what we have discovered in hindsight, and it is typically, almost 100% of the time, noted by people outside the field, and particularly if the phenomenon goes across several different fields, that we have discovered something brand new.
	This just hit me right between the eyes.
	I sat and thought, yeah, why not?
	Both are equal mysteries seeming to cause inexplicable behavior.
	Well, by the end of the evening, I hope that we will have put enough data, new information on the table, in terms of this physics model that I and my colleagues at the Enterprise have been working on ever since the late 80s, about 10 years ago, when Errol Torren at Defense Mapping really showed us this stunning, specific geometry coded at Cydonia.
	We have been working, as you know and the audience knows well, on this alternative model of fundamental physics.
	And I know you have Mishu Kaku on, you know, many times.
	Mishu wrote a book called Hyperspace.
	That's right.
	And the remarkable part about the book is that he recounts, in great specificity, the historical legacy on which our hyperdimensional model is built.
	Now where Kaku and I differ is that The mainstream physicists have gone on to posit a multidimensional reality which is basically unobservable.
	The basic tenet of their model is that yes, there are other dimensions, but they're curled up in these infinitely tiny little volumes.
	That's right.
	You know, smaller than a quark.
	And you would need energies bigger than the proverbial Big Bang to get at them.
	Well, one thing though, remember there was this recent gamma ray burst, an explosion 12 billion light years out, equal to or just a little less than, they're not sure, our own Big Bang.
	Now, I had Dr. Kaku on and he said, you may have just witnessed The birth of what you could think of as a bubble, another universe, a bud off our plants.
	Well, that again is part of the mainstream model which everyone is operating on.
	But the main problem with this enormous event is it's all predicated on one crucial assumption.
	The distance.
	And as you know, the gamma-ray people have been observing these events, or more than 2,000 of them, Since the 60s, when we put up this first array of nuclear satellites to try to detect the clandestine Russian Soviet test that we thought might be going on in space, up to and including behind the moon, that's how paranoid we were.
	So we put up a system called Vela Hotel, shortened later to Vela, which contained, you know, rather primitive satellites built by TRW, which had basically gamma ray detectors in them.
	And the idea was that if you bang off a nuclear weapon in space, You don't get a visible fireball because there's no atmosphere.
	You don't get shockwave.
	You don't get heating, you know, if you're far enough away.
	But you will get gamma rays.
	And because of the nuclear reactions contained in the fundamental either fission or fusion weapons.
	And the idea was, okay, we put up a few satellites and if we find gamma rays coming, we can triangulate between a couple of satellites by time of flight delays in the gamma rays crossing one orbit and then another.
	And we can zero in on clandestine Soviet tests, if there were any.
	Well, they put up this array of satellites, and lo and behold, they get all kinds of gamma rays.
	Yup, and they thought, aha, secret testing.
	They thought, ah, the Russians are way ahead of us.
	They've got not only are they testing in space, but they have some incredible launch system that can get them there without us detecting them.
	Yes.
	It was a few months later that sober physicists prevailed and they realized that they had made a fundamental new discovery in the universe.
	I bet the CIA was having heart attacks.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yes, you can well imagine.
	NSA, CIA, all of them having heart attacks.
	Yep.
	This came out of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that Kennedy and Khrushchev signed in 1963.
	Anyway, the bottom line was that we ultimately realized that these were somehow astronomical phenomenon occurring far beyond the solar system.
	And that mystery as to what's causing these gamma-ray bursts has continued now for over 30 years, over an entire generation.
	Now what has been going on is a feverish effort as we get better and better telescope technology, CCDs, bigger mirrors, more sensitive instrumentation, ultimately Hubble, to try to pin down a burst with an optical object, something you can see, because one of the real mysteries was I have a question, I have a question, I have a question.
	Yes.
	telescope, there was nothing there. It was like a ghost in the universe. And yet the
	models that they were proposing basically had this stuff going on very far away from
	the solar system, far beyond the Milky Way galaxy, which meant they had to be incredibly
	energetic to do that. I have a question, I have a question, I have
	a question. Yes.
	If they didn't have a visual event to pick apart optically, then how do they use the
	normal redshift method of determining where the hell it came from?
	How do they know where it came from?
	Excellent question.
	And until recently, it was a mystery.
	Now, this kind of gets complicated on the radio to describe without pictures.
	Make it simple for me.
	How did they decide how far away it was?
	Well, eventually, they found a burst that they thought originated with an optical galaxy.
	And by taking the spectrum with telescopes, including Hubble, this is basically what was done with the December event.
	Okay.
	They got a redshift of the optical galaxy in which they thought the gamma-ray event had taken place.
	How did they know that it came from there?
	Well, they don't.
	How do they lean toward believing it came from there?
	Because you have a gamma-ray event.
	If they look with an optical telescope, Hubble in this case, you see a galaxy which appears disturbed.
	The light curve appears to match the light curve of the Gamma Ray event, like the tail end of the event.
	It's kind of like, you know, you hear a collision, you know, you're at the corner of Hollywood and Vine, you hear a terrible crunch of metal, and you swiftly turn around and you see two cars, you know, in an absolute mess.
	You didn't see the collision.
	But you can kind of retrace the steps that had to have led to that terrible pile of metal mess.
	All right.
	Now, have they done this repeatedly?
	That's science.
	In other words, have they looked and saw a gamma ray first?
	We've had one event a few years ago in the Magellanic Cloud that appeared to come from an object at that distance, which is about 160,000 to 180,000 light years away.
	And then we had a few months ago this event Uh, in December that Hubble appears to have pegged to a galaxy receding so fast, redshift corresponds to the canonical 12 billion light years, but it's kind of like a house of cards art.
	The energy, the huge, humongous amount of energy in the gamma ray event is presumed to be huge, Because it's presumed that the event took place in the galaxy.
	Yeah, but Richard, they didn't say we presume it was 12 billion light years away.
	No, because the model, the Big Bang model says if you get that redshift, it has to be due to distance of 12 billion light years.
	No.
	Well, they didn't say probably.
	They said 12 billion light years.
	No.
	Because everyone in the mainstream community, except people like Tom Van Flandern, assumed the Big Bang is correct.
	I happen not to.
	There's a guy who wrote a book called The Big Bang Never Happened, who you should have on your show.
	I'd love to.
	I'd love to.
	Yeah, his name is Eric.
	I've got his book downstairs on the break.
	I'll go down and find it.
	He is a very good theoretician.
	He's done a lot of work on presenting an alternative set of models for the Big Bang.
	He wrote a very comprehensive book built around the work of Hannes Alfvén, who is a countryman who won the Nobel Prize for Physics Many, many, many years ago.
	Okay, well nobody has explained to me sufficiently, Richard, how from something smaller than a quark we have all of this.
	There is no mental concept that I'm comfortable with yet that explains that.
	Do you have one?
	No, because I don't think a big thing happened.
	All right.
	Remember, we're dealing with observation, and observations in astronomy or any other science are subject to a theoretical interpretation.
	Often in history, in the history of science, we've seen that a model, a theoretical interpretation, goes along, goes along, goes along, as more and more information and data accumulate.
	The problem is that a lot of the data that's accumulated that basically tells us the Big Bang did not happen, that it's the wrong model, has been swept under the rug by a powerful political force called the mainstream community.
	It's kind of like the photographs of Cydonia in terms of the bulk of NASA.
	You have a few renegade scientists who say it's artificial down there.
	You have the bulk of the scientists, the planetary guys, saying, oh, come on, you guys are crazy.
	And since they command the media, the journals, et cetera, et cetera, politically, they hold their day at the moment.
	Now, ultimately, something's going to happen to where even the mainstream guys, the honest ones, have to say, whoa, this just does not fit.
	And that's when you have a revolution.
	That's when you have, in the words of our friend Steve Bassett, a paradigm shift.
	Well, in the astronomical world, in the world of cosmology, which is the description of big stuff, you know, the origins of galaxies, the shape of the universe, its origin, its destiny, how old it is, how long it's going to live, where it's going, is it fleeing away at the speed of light, at the outer edges of this bubble of reality, you have upcoming a paradigm shift where the resurgent rebels, who are claiming an alternative model of the universe, its origin and destination, Like Tom Van Flanders, are ultimately going to win, because the data really is there.
	It's just not being politically looked at.
	Well, they're not going to win an easy battle, because you say paradigm shift.
	When I hear paradigm shift, I begin thinking lost careers.
	I begin thinking discredited people, very important people.
	No, I think that's right on the money.
	And that's what's going to have to happen.
	easily.
	Who gave us the Planck curve and Planck's constant.
	He won a Nobel Prize for physics at the dawn of this century.
	He basically said that the only way in science a new idea takes hold is if all the old guys
	die off.
	Yeah, well.
	I'm paraphrasing slightly, but not much.
	No, I think that's right on the money.
	And that's what's going to have to happen.
	Let me go back to this big gamma ray thing.
	Because if, when you look at the, let's assume for a minute that the gamma ray event and
	galaxy in which Hubble said it happened are in fact one and the same.
	Okay.
	Then you take the 12 billion light years.
	Yes.
	Now the only way that number has arrived at is by reading the redshift from the spectrum... Yes.
	...gathered by Hubble technology.
	Yes, that's correct.
	Do you not believe that?
	If the redshift is wrong, if there's another explanation for the redshift, and it's not cosmological, it isn't because the galaxy is fleeing away At like two-thirds or nine-tenths the speed of light or whatever that number is, then the distance is wrong, the energy is wrong, and the magnitude of the event is wrong.
	In other words, the total interpretation depends crucially on that distance and that's hanging by one slender theoretical interpretation.
	Okay, well I'm not an astronomer.
	Richard.
	But Richard, don't you begin to conclude things close in and then extend them out?
	In other words, we look at, we know the distance to the moon.
	We know the distance to Mars and the other planets within our system.
	We know all that, right?
	Yep.
	Then we look at Alpha Centauri or a close system and we make conclusions there and we continue to extend this on out to come up eventually with this theory that we know how far we're looking back.
	And you say all that's wrong?
	Well, it's in gross danger of an extrapolation that isn't warranted by the data because it's assuming That in these immense distances of space and time, the laws of physics, as we think we understand them in the neighborhood, right in our own backyard, function.
	And Tom's model, and the hyperdimensional model, and a number of other models, say that on these vast scales of billions of light years, laws of gravity, laws of optics, laws of radiation, are not necessarily the same as you measure in a laboratory at Los Alamos, just up the street from me here.
	And in fact, I'm going to present some data tonight indicating that our fundamental knowledge of things like gravity isn't worth the powder and shot, as my dad used to say, to blow it away.
	There are measurements going on at four major research labs around the country reported in Science News in the last few months, which is a very prestigious It's a popular journal published in Washington on K Street.
	Yes.
	By, I believe, I forget who publishes it, you know, some institution that's... Is gravity a function of mass?
	Yes.
	But, there is a proportional constant that relates mass to acceleration of things falling from another object under the force of gravity.
	That proportionality constant, which is called G, which every high school physics class measures at some point, You know, when a kid enters a physics class in high school?
	Right.
	At some point, you duplicate what's called the Cavendish Experiment.
	All right, real quick now, because we're coming out of break.
	It basically measures this constant of gravity.
	Well, guess what, guys?
	In the last few months, the constant of gravity has changed by, in one measurement, 6%!
	What?
	Uh, the constant of gravity you mean on Earth?
	Oh, cool, cool place to break.
	Hold on right there.
	Excuse me, the constant of gravity has changed on Earth?
	This is one I've got to hear about.
	We'll be right back.
	This is a Coast to Coast AM.
	Rip KSTP.
	This is a Coast to Coast AM.
	Once again, here I am.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Kingdom of Nye from east of the Rockies dial 1-800-825-5033, 1-800-825-5033.
	West of the Rockies including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico, 1-800-618-8255, 1-800-618-8255.
	Now again, here's Art Bell.
	Once again, here I am. Good morning, everybody.
	Boy, oh boy, the constant of gravity has changed by 6% on Earth.
	That's the best thing that could happen.
	Some statement to go into a break with, huh?
	We'll find out.
	Alright, I just got the following from Laura in Half Moon Bay.
	Our local news, NBC I believe, stated tonight, 526.98 at 10 o'clock, that seals off of Half Moon Bay Coast Are now going into spasms.
	Wow.
	Now, how do you figure that one?
	The seals off Half Moon Bay Coast are going into spasms.
	Interesting news, huh?
	Whales, dolphins, seals.
	Richard, what do you mean that the constant of gravity has changed?
	First of all, Is the constant of gravity the amount of pull for the mass of an object?
	Is that what we talk about as a constant?
	Yeah, there's a very simple equation which every high school physics class is taught, which is that the force of gravity is proportional, meaning it's dependent upon the mass of an object times the mass of a second object.
	Divided by the square of the distance between them times a constant of proportionality.
	And this constant is supposed to be a fundamental constant, like the speed of light.
	Yes.
	And one of the things you're taught in physics class in high school is how to actually measure this constant of proportionality.
	Alright, so this isn't a theory, it's a well... No, this is an observational measurement.
	And what you do, typically, it's called either the Cavendish Experiment or the Eotvos Experiment, named after the, I believe, Czech physicist who first did this, you know, many, many, many decades ago, back in, well, almost 100 years ago.
	Okay, well, cutting to the chase here, you're saying it's changed now.
	It has changed.
	Now, I found it's not six percent, it's six-tenths of one percent.
	Six-tenths of one percent.
	And that's why you should always go back to your primary sources.
	I am holding in front of me An article in Science News dated 1995.
	Well, look, I know the Earth has slowed in its rotation.
	We're going to get into that.
	I've got a report on that by, I think, a tenth of a millisecond.
	Yep.
	And it's due to El Nino, they say.
	Well, that's what they're claiming.
	Yeah.
	But it's actually... So how could weather... No, no, no, no, no.
	The actual Earth's steam has speeded up a bit.
	What?
	That's what they were claiming tonight on CNN.
	Oh, speed it up, okay.
	We'll speed it up.
	I'm sorry.
	All right, fine.
	And they're claiming that El Nino is the cause.
	Well, that pales into insignificance compared to the 20 seconds we've lost in the last 27 years on the Earth's rotation.
	But we'll get to that.
	Let's get back to gravity for a second, all right?
	Sure.
	This is really important.
	The hyperdimensional model, and if you want me, I will give a one minute summary about how we got to this All right, I'm timing you.
	Begin now.
	Okay.
	When we tripped over the stuff at Cydonia, the thing that struck me was this geometric regularity.
	When Torin from Defense Mapping came on board this project in 88, he found by measuring the internal geometry of one of the objects, the DNM pyramid, that five-sided big guy down there, that there was a specific geometry.
	And then we both kind of checked each other's findings, and I calculated or measured that this geometry was Operative all over the complex.
	This is the geometry that Greenberg doesn't like me for.
	Okay, that mathematician in the University of Washington.
	And that, wonder of wonders, the geometry was not only specific, but it was specific in the literature.
	In other words, we were able to go to papers going back a hundred years to the work of people like Maxwell and Ampere and Kelvin and other physicists and mathematicians, and find this Cydonia geometry, the geometry of the monuments of Mars, replicated in the origins of the science of physics here on Earth.
	Time's up.
	All right.
	You see, there is a constant in-talk radio, and that is that Richard Hoagland cannot get through such an explanation in one minute.
	There is no way.
	Well, I actually almost did.
	The conclusion is that we were looking at the geometry of a physics.
	That somebody who's done this stuff on Mars, and I'm going to say very clearly tonight, emphatically, I want to get to the Mars stuff in a few minutes.
	Yep.
	There is stuff on Mars.
	And there are folks that are hiding that stuff from you because of the physics we are discussing and the implications of that physics, which has not arisen in polite circles of discussion, science or otherwise, for about a hundred years.
	Because what we discovered Was that this geometry, linked to this physics, was not brand new, it wasn't alien, it wasn't foreign, it wasn't, you know, hot off the presses.
	It was old!
	We, humans, had literally been walking down this path.
	Some of the giants of the founding of the science of physics a hundred years ago had begun the first baby steps down this path of hyper-dimensional reality.
	And Kaku covers this very elegantly in his book.
	He does.
	And then he makes the same mistake everybody else does.
	He says, ah, but they were wrong.
	And what the monuments say, and the data we're going to discuss later through the evening says is, no, those guys were right, and the current modern guys are wrong.
	Somewhere we took a wrong turn, Art.
	And that wrong turn has led us to a lot of disparate phenomena, a lot of different things happening now.
	That, you know, you have kind of causally connected in your book the quickening, which in fact can be traced elegantly to this underlying alternate view of reality called hyperdimensional or multidimensional physics that was started a hundred years ago and which predicts, among other things, that the constants that physicists work with, at least some of them, are not constant at all, like the speed of light, And the proportional constant of gravity.
	All right, how do you know it's changed six-tenths of a percent?
	Aha!
	I have in front of me this article, and let me read little snippets from it.
	All right?
	Please.
	Determining the values of fundamental physical constants has long served as a test of both physical theory and measurement technology.
	What are you reading from?
	I'm reading from Science News for 1995.
	Okay.
	I think it was mid-summer.
	Okay.
	Right?
	So this is three years old.
	Fine.
	Three-year-old, old, new news.
	Now, says this writer, experiments by three independent groups have produced values for the strength of the gravitational force, G, that disagree significantly with the currently accepted numbers and with each other.
	The teams involved in these experiments reported their results at last week's American Physical Society meeting held in Washington, D.C.
	This was in the summer of 95.
	Quote, each of these groups has done a careful job But G is an extremely hard number to nail down, said George T. Gillis of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
	And then it goes on and describes the work of Mark Fitzgerald and his co-workers at the Measurement Standards Laboratory in Lower Hutt, New Zealand.
	Then it goes on to discuss another group of physicists, led by Winfried Michalis, at the Physikalisch-Technikalisch-Bundestag in Brunsvlag, Germany.
	Good lord.
	And then a third group, Heinrich Mayer and his colleagues at the University of Wuppertal in Germany.
	Alright, let us cut to the chase if we can.
	How do we know it changed six degrees?
	Who measured it?
	No, it's six-tenths of a degree.
	I'm sorry, yeah, fine.
	Which is almost one percent.
	That's one part in a hundred.
	Alright, who?
	Each of these groups.
	The last group, Nicholas, measured a change of almost one percent.
	Six-tenths of one percent.
	Now, what's significant are Is that each of these laboratories is located at a different spot on the Earth's surface.
	Gotcha.
	Right?
	Yes.
	Now, constant things like the rotation of the Earth gives you a centrifugal force, so that if I'm standing at the equator, gravity will be less than if I'm standing at the pole.
	Yeah, I've got that.
	I have a question.
	Uh, Richard?
	The constant of gravity, then are we saying it is not a constant at all and never has been or was a constant and recently has become not at all constant, which... No, we're saying the former.
	It has never been a constant.
	It has never been a constant.
	It is only in the current models of physics that it's been assumed to be a constant.
	So their constant is wrong.
	Their constant is not constant.
	In other words, a lot of current physics is founded on the assumption that there are constants.
	The hyperdimensional model, which again is not original with Hoagland et al.
	It starts back with people like Maxwell and, you know, von Karman and... Okay, so you're using this then as support for hyperdimensional physics theory.
	Oh, yeah.
	Because the hyperdimensional model predicts that these so-called constants, in fact, are subject to change.
	Furthermore, the model details very accurately what will produce the changes and what the results of these changes should be.
	Richard, you mentioned Professor Greenberg of the University of Washington.
	Yep.
	And so I'm going to do this.
	He has been an antagonist of yours for a long time.
	He sends me email all the time.
	He wants your butt.
	He wants to debate you.
	Now, how do you respond to that?
	He's not real.
	What do you mean he's not?
	Greenberg is what I would call an obsessive-compulsive.
	He's a mathematician, a professor at the University of Washington.
	But you had a physicist on the other night.
	It turned out not to be a physicist.
	It turned out to be a psychiatrist.
	All right?
	Well, no, he... He didn't know the fine structure constant.
	He did not say he was a degreed physicist.
	He didn't know the fine structure constant.
	Right, I got you.
	Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you can think.
	All right.
	And Mr. Greenberg has become obsessive on this subject.
	To the extent that, I don't know what he's doing with his classwork, or the regular things he does, but he has pursued this subject doggedly, basically claiming that the geometry we've discovered at Cydonia is wrong, because statistically, he can demonstrate by pouring salt and pepper on a flat piece of paper, and taking a picture, and drawing lines, that you can get any kind of angles and geometry that you want if you're looking for them.
	Why doesn't that argument deserve some examination?
	Because he wants to exempt a class of objects of Cydonia which he says are interesting and which we were the first to cite.
	In other words, he's not being honest.
	He wants to carve up the territory so that he stacks the deck in his favor, which is not an honest intellectual argument and deserves no further discussion.
	Do we move on?
	Well, I guess.
	I just, I don't, I don't know enough to be able to make that blanket statement that you just made.
	Well look, if I am proposing a debate, Shouldn't a debate include everything on the table?
	Yes.
	I mean, I can't say, oh, I want to debate you and show you're wrong about this, this, and this.
	But this stuff over here that you've also discovered, I'm going to take off the board because, God, you might be right about that.
	And I can't dare talk about that.
	That's basically what his facts are.
	So his only area of disagreement with you is not hyperdimensional physics.
	It's Cydonia.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah.
	And he also claims I wasn't the first to propose Europa as an ocean, and, you know, I mean, this has become a political witch-hunt.
	And, you know, people like Terry Dickinson and Arthur Clarke and others, I mean, I really don't want to dignify this with any further discussion because he's not playing fair.
	Now, you know that I have stepped up to the plate with honest debates with men of integrity.
	You know, and... Do the wild thing at 702-727-1295.
	Ken Starr and the President.
	And I, you know, unlike Clinton, We should have said no.
	I'm saying no.
	Let's get on with seriousness.
	Yeah.
	Well, okay.
	Uh, but that, that does stand.
	I mean, uh, you're not even willing to devote like 15 minutes to it?
	It's not worthy of 15 minutes.
	It's not worthy of five.
	I've given it more time tonight than we have, you know, time for it.
	Well, he does, he does write very cogent, uh, albeit somewhat flaming, Boy, that's a contradiction in terms.
	Cogent flames.
	Science has no business of being flaming.
	They're cogent flames.
	I mean, they really are.
	They're intellectual flames, Richard.
	When you want to take half the pieces off the board and say, oh, we're not going to talk about those, and they're all down there in Cydonia, and we discovered them, that's not intellectually honest.
	Well, is hyperdimensional physics tied inextricably up with Cydonia?
	No, it stands on its own.
	I'm merely using that as an evidence of the doorway, the Martian doorway, that reacquainted us with this geometry.
	And the fact is that it's predictive.
	Where Dr. Greenberg really doesn't understand this is that we've gone light years past using that geometry to prove or disprove the reality of the monuments of Mars.
	We have gone on to observe astrophysical phenomenon and specific Changes in fundamental constants predicted by the hyperdimensional model that stems from that geometry that are light years now beyond Cydonia itself.
	So the Cydonia issue is almost passe.
	If Cydonia disappeared tomorrow, if Malin and company could somehow wave a wand and prove there's nothing down there... Well, they tried.
	It wouldn't make... They've tried and they have failed, as we'll get on later in the morning.
	It wouldn't make a darn bit of difference because the geometry is irrespective of Cydonia.
	It stands on its own, it has an historical database, broad and wide and deep, and it is predictive in terms of things we can observe in the universe around us, and that's some of the stuff I want to talk about tonight.
	But Richard, doesn't a mathematical argument on the other side of the Cydonia question, saying these things are not at all natural and here is the mathematical proof, doesn't that deserve examination?
	No, what he is saying is that if you find this geometry, He can prove with his mathematical tools that it can be just chance.
	Well, if he can prove that... The fact is that just because I prove a pattern could be due to chance doesn't make it due to chance.
	Well, everybody shoves around numbers, though.
	I remember before the last examination we had people on who said they would stake their reputations, Tom Van Flanderen was one, that these objects were not natural.
	Uh, we had people quoting odds of, uh, billions, uh, billions to one.
	And so, I just thought the other side deserves some examination, if there is a mathematical other side.
	Now, obviously, when you bring somebody on, if it turns into an ad hominem type attack, then it's easy to recognize for what it is.
	It's either a good scientific argument against what you're saying or not.
	Right?
	The problem with Greenberg is he's still stuck back at the water's edge.
	No, he is not acknowledging at all that, for instance, one of the key geometric numbers that comes out of this Cydonia work is 19.5.
	That number, that angle, is showing up over and over and over again in fields of inquiry light years from Cydonia.
	I don't necessarily disagree with that.
	So the fact that he can randomly generate that geometry is irrelevant to what that geometry can be used to predict.
	And the fact that that geometry predicts fundamental astrophysical phenomenon, which we now observe, such as major vorticular cyclonic activity at 19.5 latitude on planets ranging from Jupiter to Neptune, you know, peak latitude of sunspots.
	There are star spots.
	You know that other stars have sunspots?
	Oh, sure they do.
	Well, you say that now because of the benefit of 1990 science, but Many, many years ago, there were major debates in the astronomical community.
	Did other stars, like our sun, our star, have solar cycles, have stellar cycles?
	Did they have spots?
	And people like Wilson at Mount Wilson, and Bob Jastrow, and there's a gal whose name I forget at Harvard, have spent a lot of their careers measuring now with very subtle, powerful techniques, indirect techniques.
	The spottedness of other stars.
	Well, why not?
	I mean, wouldn't the basic physics involved in a star probably be the same?
	Well, that's what one would assume.
	Yeah.
	But since the origin of the sunspot cycle in our own star, the sun, is completely still mysterious.
	I mean, there are some models, but they're not complete.
	They can't predict it or, you know, every detail.
	And astronomers will basically acknowledge, solar astronomers, that Most of the fundamentals about the sun, starting with its energy source, are still very mysterious.
	The origin of the 11-year or 22-year sunspot cycle is basically without a cause.
	I mean, there are some models.
	Babcock and his winching down of the magnetic field of the sun due to the differential spinning of the sun.
	The sun spins at the equator in about 27 days and at the poles in about 33 days.
	So there is a presumption that this Kind of torques up the magnetic field of the sun, kind of like twisting a rope, and eventually that twisting of the rope will produce breaks in the field, and where the breaks occur, you'll have spots because it suppresses convection, which is the bubbling, the boiling of the solar surface and the transport of energy by physical convection from deep down in the sun to the level we can see, the so-called photosphere.
	Anyway, those are all models that kind of work, and they kind of don't work.
	So, when we can predict that the peak latitude corresponds to this geometry observed over and over again at Cydonia, that whoever did Cydonia was trying to tell us something powerful and fundamental and transcendental about reality, about the physics of reality.
	It turns out the physics of multi-dimensional reality.
	And then we find those same numbers in the work of Ampere and Maxwell and Kelvin.
	You know, Greenberg's argument that there's no such geometry in Cydonia that can't be explained by chance, That's kind of been left behind in the dust.
	Well... So it's an obsolete argument.
	I, you know, but I just think a few minutes of face-to-face with this guy... Well, but you want good radio.
	You want controversy, Art.
	I'm not in the controversy with the radio.
	I want knowledge.
	Look, Richard, a lot of times good radio is balanced radio.
	Alright?
	Sometimes it is, and... Well, but this isn't Republicans and Democrats.
	This is people who are willing to play fair.
	The fact that Greenberg wants to exempt off the board Fundamental things at Sedonia, whose geometry he agrees with but he doesn't want to give us the credit for it, tells me he's playing dirty pool.
	And of course, because we have said so much about him, you're going to be forced now to bring him on and make his argument.
	That's fine.
	I just am not going to dignify the man who I don't think is a scientist.
	I think he is on a political witch-hunt, and I am not going to dignify him.
	But I mean, is that not obvious rather quickly in any debate, whether it's really a witch-hunt or whether somebody's coming at you intellectually, honestly, like Edgar Mitchell, for example?
	I would rather discuss the substance of the physics.
	Can we do that?
	Oh, we can do that.
	Hold on, Richard.
	Gravity is changing.
	Gravity is changing.
	All right.
	Hold tight.
	From the high desert, this is Coast to Coast AM.
	The test flight, okay, except Autoland, very rough.
	Solution, Autoland not installed on this aircraft.
	Problem, the autopilot doesn't.
	Signed off.
	It does now.
	Problem.
	Something loose in cockpit.
	Solution.
	Something tightened in cockpit.
	Problem.
	Evidence of hydraulic leak on right main landing gear.
	Solution.
	Evidence removed.
	Evidence removed.
	Problem.
	DME volume unbelievably loud.
	Solution.
	Volume set to more believable level.
	DME.
	I wonder what that is.
	DME volume level unbelievably loud.
	Solution.
	Volume set to more believable level.
	Problem.
	Dead bugs on windshield.
	Solution.
	Live bugs on order.
	Problem.
	Autopilot in attitude hold mode produces 200 FPM descent.
	That'd be feet per minute, I guess, huh?
	Autopilot... problem again.
	Autopilot in an attitude hold mode produces a 200 FPM descent.
	Solution.
	Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
	That's a good point.
	Problem.
	IFF inoperative.
	Solution.
	IFF inoperative in off mode.
	Problem.
	Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
	Solution.
	That's what they're there for.
	And finally, problem.
	Number three engine missing.
	Solution.
	Engine found on right wing after brief search.
	I thought you would enjoy some of those.
	Anyone who flies would, uh, first time call or line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Oh, hi, Art.
	Hello.
	This is Open Lines, right?
	Yeah.
	Anything goes?
	Anything goes.
	Uh, except no kicking, scratching, or gouging.
	I understand that.
	Yeah.
	Okay, uh, I've got, uh, a challenge for you.
	Now, I know you're not one to run away from a fight.
	I'm not.
	I know you're not.
	Well there's a man who teaches in Crete, Nebraska.
	Crete?
	He's a college professor.
	Yes.
	His name is Richard Carell.
	Yeah.
	And he wrote a book called Resurrecting the Third Reich.
	And it's about a subject that you have avoided on your program for a long time.
	What's that?
	That subject is the New World Order.
	The New World, I don't avoid it.
	Well, if you want to reach him, just called uh... richard to relative are are going to help
	you Do not!
	Do not!
	Okay.
	Okay, in other words, he's got a listed number or something.
	Yes, he does.
	And his book is called Resurrecting the Third Reich.
	It's an excellent book.
	He's a true intellectual.
	He's a very fine gentleman.
	Well, I mean, the Third Reich, that obviously refers to the Nazis and... Well, yes, but the title is Resurrecting the Third Reich.
	I understand, but the Third Reich as a New World Order didn't exactly fare so well, did it?
	No, it did not.
	First time around.
	So why would anybody imagine it would work second time?
	Well, this is a very interesting man, and I think your listeners... Well, I'm not against it.
	I'm just making some arguments here.
	Or another one is, that I normally make, the United Nations It's about the most inefficient, ridiculous little organization that barely, usually can't control little tiny third world nations at all.
	Much less take control of the world.
	Look, I've got to go, but I'm glad to interview him.
	Send me some info on him and we'll talk.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is CBC.
	Good morning everybody.
	Richard C. Hoagland is here.
	And, uh, we're gonna talk of many things tonight, including what's going on down in Mexico and Central America, because there are significant things happening there.
	So we'll get to that in a moment.
	We've been told what happened 50 years ago, but what's happened since?
	The Roswell incident?
	Only the beginning.
	In UFOs, 50 years of denial.
	It's a new documentary from Quick Fox Productions.
	You'll trace the history of government UFO investigations from 1947 to present.
	There are interviews with Colonel Philip J. Corso.
	And I'm on the track, by the way, of doing another one with him.
	Command Sergeant Major Robert O'Dean and Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell.
	This documentary takes a fast-paced, no-nonsense look at the 50-year trail of government contradictions, denials, and disinformation.
	The award-winning documentary features segments on Area 51, Majestic 12, theological implications involved in E.T.
	contact, And you can get it now.
	$19.95 plus $4.95 shipping and handling.
	It is a limited time offer to order your copy call 1-888-434-4836.
	I'll give that again.
	8 8 4 3 4 4 8 3 6 I'll give that again You can visit their website at www.ufo50.com
	Once again that number 1-888-434-4836.
	You can call it right now.
	Once again, I think this is very interesting.
	It's from Laura Lee at Half Moon Bay.
	Aren't our local news, NBC I believe, stated tonight at 10 o'clock that seals off of Half Moon Bay Coast are going into spasms?
	Interesting news, huh?
	And then somebody wrote earlier, and I just can't get this off my mind.
	Dear Art, after your show last week, which was devoted to children and the loss of self-preservation, what I call the law of self-preservation, they are obviously experiencing, I have been doing some thinking.
	This is Nancy in Boulder, Colorado.
	And she says, the thought occurred to me, That the situation is very little different from the whales and dolphins beaching themselves.
	And when you think about that a little bit, is it not interesting, totally inexplicable behavior on the part of all these mammals?
	We are a mammal, right?
	Whatever it is causing this aberrant behavior, the suicidal tendencies among whales and or dolphins, And apparent suicidal tendencies among some people.
	I just, I can't get rid of that thought in my mind.
	It's very provocative.
	And so is Richard Hoagland.
	And here he is once again.
	Richard.
	Hi there.
	We're going to test your sense of humor here.
	I want to read you something.
	It just loosely relates to Cydonia perhaps, okay?
	Okay.
	It is not from Professor Greenberg.
	Ah, it reads as follows.
	German scientists dug 50 meters underground, and they discovered small pieces of copper.
	After studying them for a long time, Germany announced that the ancient Germans, 25,000 years ago, had a nationwide telephone network.
	Naturally, the British government was not that easily impressed.
	They ordered their own scientists to dig deep, even deeper.
	They went down 100 meters.
	They found small pieces of glass.
	And soon, they announced the ancient Brits, 35,000 years ago, already had a nationwide fiber network.
	American scientists, not to be outdone and outraged, dug 200 meters underground.
	But, they found absolutely nothing.
	They concluded that the ancient Americans, 55,000 years ago, had used cellular phones.
	Bwah, bwah, bwah, bwah, bwah.
	Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
	Ah.
	This is the danger of theory outstripping observation.
	Yeah.
	Now, let's get back to this lab data because we have, you know,
	three major labs with a fourth that has not weighed in yet, Los Alamos,
	which is just up the street from me.
	On a clear night, I can see the lights of Los Alamos.
	Think they could hit you with a laser?
	Probably.
	You hear that, guys?
	Now I know why.
	Anyway, I want to get rid of the higher desert, huh?
	Anyway...
	They were supposed to conduct their own gravity experiment, and this was back in 95.
	We're talking about the constant of gravity.
	For those of you who joined us after midnight, Richard is saying the constant of gravity has changed six-tenths of one percent, which ain't constant at all.
	No!
	I mean, six-tenths of one percent, if anybody knows anything about physics, is a humongous change!
	I mean, that's like, well, think of it, you know, in terms of a bank account, That means that mysteriously, you know, you think you got a hundred bucks in there and you go in one day and, you know, when you take into account all the factors, you know, the ATM card, you know, the fact that your wife may be taking money out, the fact that you have to write checks and there's little surcharges on each check, you're missing a hefty chunk of change.
	Uh, and you can't account for it.
	Well, sometimes you can.
	There is, there is a constant, there is a constant of disappearing money.
	It's called a wife.
	Anyway, the point is that these experiments and something so incredibly fundamental, let me read you what Eric G. Adelberger of the University of Washington in Seattle said.
	He says, the fact that these three carefully performed experiments give different results, quote, is truly a scientific mystery.
	Each apparatus has its own idiosyncrasies, Gillis notes.
	The differences among these numbers probably can be explained by extraneous gravitational effects that weren't properly accounted for, but no such confounding factors have yet been identified.
	Well, that sounds like weaseling.
	It is.
	Now, let me tell you why this is interesting for the hyperdimensional model.
	Why?
	The hyperdimensional model says that gravity, to a first order, is dependent on latitude.
	That each latitude on a planet is going to give you a slightly different value.
	Makes sense.
	Because it's rotating and rotating frames in the universe experience different connections to higher dimensions than non-rotating frames.
	And the rate of rotation Now, this is not to be confused with centrifugal force and stuff like that.
	No, but you better be careful because it's beginning to get confusing.
	Okay.
	In other words, it will measure differently at different points on the planet, right?
	That's right.
	Okay.
	And the most interesting deviation was the one of the NOAA's group.
	Let me see where they were.
	They were in New Zealand, I believe.
	No, I'm sorry.
	They were in Brunswick, Germany, right?
	Um, that's the six tenths of one percent deviation.
	So you have from New Zealand in the south to Brunswick, Germany in the northern hemisphere
	and you have a major difference between two very careful, very well known groups of physicists
	who have world class distinction and have published papers and their colleagues kind
	of know they know what they're doing.
	Okay, so what does this mean?
	It means, for instance, the Olympics.
	Remember the Olympics a couple years ago in Georgia and Atlanta?
	Yes.
	Remember all the records that were broken?
	Yes.
	The jumping records and the hurdle records and the running records?
	I remember.
	If gravity is lower.
	See what I mean?
	Is this like having an NFL team that plays at 5,000 feet come down and play at sea level?
	Yep.
	Now, you start looking at sports records all over the world, and we notice a very interesting trend curve.
	Athletes are doing better.
	Now, everyone has assumed it's because they eat better, it's more scientific, you know, they're on the right regimen, there's a multi-million dollar industry in sports medicine, etc., etc., etc., right?
	Yes.
	Suppose there's another factor that we haven't taken into account.
	Well, I know the Russians threaten to shoot family members of athletes who don't perform.
	Well, suppose.
	Suppose gravity is changing as these experiments at major world laboratories attest.
	And that this change is in part responsible for some of these records.
	Now, I was going to do a paper on this and put it on the web just before the bombing in Atlanta.
	And then, of course, after that, nobody would, you know, care about records.
	They were all concerned about, you know, life and limb and safety and public safety and all that.
	My point is, if in laboratories on Earth we are now able to document irrefutable changes in something as fundamental as the constant of gravity, which has been assumed for all time, from the beginning of science, to be constant, as Newton ought, then what does that tell us about models of the universe Billions of light years away.
	Okay, so the argument says if they could be wrong about this, they could be wrong about that.
	Because there's a direct connection.
	Isn't that about it, though?
	Yeah.
	Alright, here's another example.
	There is a standard model which says that most of the universe out there now, we can't see.
	It exists, but you can't detect it.
	Okay.
	It's the so-called dark matter mystery.
	Right.
	Something like 90 to 99% of reality is supposed to be having some kind of gravitational effect, but it's invisible.
	It doesn't emit light, it doesn't emit x-rays, it doesn't emit gamma rays, infrared, it doesn't block things when it goes in front of them.
	It's invisible, but it's dark, and it's there, and it basically determines the shape of the Big Bang Universe.
	Okay.
	Which is a little bit like asking how many angels that you can't see can dance on the head of a pin that you can see.
	In other words, science has become, at some level, the reducto ad absurdum.
	It's beginning to present us with models of reality that really are not common sense at all.
	Because this whole idea of dark matter, Art, is based, again, on the constancy of gravity.
	We have galaxies, right?
	Galaxies rotate, right?
	Yes.
	Galaxies are made of billions and billions, as Carl used to say, of stars.
	Yes.
	Although he actually never said that, it turns out.
	Um, the Sun is one star orbited by nine little guys called planets, right?
	He did say that.
	I saw him say that on NOVA.
	Well, he said it in parody of himself.
	But in fact, in his own works, in his own books, in Demon Haunted World, he actually goes into a chapter about billions and billions, and he claims he never actually said it, but it was Johnny Carson parodying him that kind of put it into the lexicon, and he ultimately had to go along with his image.
	I see.
	Well, for whatever reason, he said it.
	He ultimately wound up saying it, yes.
	And he said it so well.
	I mean, I kind of miss Carl.
	He kind of stuck around for the fun.
	I know.
	It's going to get to be a lot of fun.
	Well, it's like you.
	You'll be appreciated later.
	Maybe in 500 years, there'll be a statue erected to Richard Hoagland, the discoverer of hyperdimensional physics.
	The misunderstood scientist of... The rediscoverer.
	Remember, it was Maxwell and Kelvin and those guys that really discovered it.
	So, dark matter.
	The way dark matter is proposed to exist, and this all has a point, we're going to get to the interesting point here, is that you observe distant galaxies, and you see a hundred billion stars orbiting, you know, a common center, and the model of gravity says that gravity decreases as the square of the distance.
	Sure.
	Meaning if I'm twice as far away from a given mass, gravity is one quarter as great, that kind of thing.
	This results in inner guys orbiting a lot faster than outer guys.
	Mercury goes around every 88 days around the Sun.
	Pluto takes 248 years.
	Right.
	And there's 4 billion miles between the two.
	Right.
	Right.
	Well, the model of gravity said that if you extrapolate that to galaxies of billions of stars, the inner star should go around very fast around the nucleus of the galaxy, the center of the galaxy, and the outer stars are very slowly.
	So then they put spectroscopes on these galaxies, they measure the rotation, and they find that it's like an LP record.
	The outer parts of the galaxy, Art, are rotating around in the same timeframe, like typically a quarter of a billion years, 250 million years, as the inner parts, which is impossible according to the standard idea of gravity.
	So this is when people like Virginia Trimble and some others came up with the idea that maybe you needed a mass of dark matter, like a sphere, a little thing, something, Invisible, but massive.
	Enclosing a galaxy, almost like a plastic ball, which would be massive and would kind of surround the visible galaxy and they could then model that the gravity interference of that sphere of dark matter, invisible stuff, could modify the rotation such that the outer parts of the galaxy rotate around in almost the same time as the inner parts.
	Alright, draw it together for us, Richard.
	I'm not exactly certain.
	Okay, if gravity's model is wrong, if gravity is not a constant, if it can change with time on Earth in laboratories, if it can change with latitude on a rotating Earth in the same time frame, in the same, you know, few months, if it can change with distance, then all our suppositions about missing matter in the universe based on a standard Newtonian gravity model, which is basically what they're using, is wrong.
	And the assumption of missing mass, of invisible stuff that doesn't emit light or anything else that can't be detected, which is like a ghost, only visible through its gravitational effect, goes away.
	Alright.
	In other words, we are totally dependent on our models of reality, and if our model, our assumption, our starting point, is wrong, then every extrapolation and every logical extension of that is wrong.
	Yes, I understand that.
	We have walked down the wrong path.
	Now we've got data.
	Could not be.
	May not be.
	Possibly not be.
	In other words, science has too many absolutes and not enough humility to say, maybe we don't know everything.
	And that's what Tom and I and many others are trying to say.
	To a whole series of problems in science now, starting with the ruins of Cydonia.
	Well, if you're saying that Redshift may not be a measurement of distance, which I believe is what you're saying.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Then how come all the time, when you talk to me about events that have occurred, you quote the program Redshift?
	It's just a commercial program, which happens to be useful in our immediate backyard.
	I understand, but it is nevertheless, is it not, based on Redshift?
	No, no, no, no, there's no connection.
	No connection?
	It's just a catchy name they chose.
	It has no connection to distant galaxy events.
	Okay, so in that, in that program, in that program, they don't use, uh, they don't give you measurements from here to there based on, on Redshift calculations.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	It is a commercial name using one of the almost icons of modern astronomy, which is the Redshift.
	Now, the Redshift exists whether it's due to recession, things fleeing, away from us, or it's due to some other cause.
	The redshift as an observable fact is a fact.
	It's the cause which is the question.
	It's the theoretical underpinning.
	It's the physics behind the redshift.
	All right.
	And the redshift as a phenomenon and the redshift as a commercial computer program are two totally separate things.
	Gotcha.
	Not connected.
	All right, gotcha.
	But anyway, the reason you're going through all of this to explain to us that redshift might not be what conventional science thinks it is, is to say what?
	That galaxy at 12 billion light years out may not be 12 billion light years out.
	Therefore, the gamma ray burst may not be as huge and humongous and energetic as everybody has been assuming.
	And in fact, it could be much, much, much, much closer, which would make it a pretty interesting event, but not a humongous event.
	So you can see how one assumption affects so much art.
	Well, how wrong could they be?
	Really, really wrong.
	Our look-back time, they say, is about 12 billion years.
	They may be moving on towards 15 billion years.
	Now see, one problem is that we have models for stellar evolution.
	You know, how a star is formed, How long it lives, how fast it burns its fuel, and how it dies.
	How wrong could they be?
	Well, there are disparities now between the age of the universe based on redshift, things fleeing away up to the speed of light, and the age of the universe based on objects in it burning fuel, like stars and galaxies of stars, because the galaxies of stars, based on their standard models, appear to be older than the universe based on the redshift.
	And it's kind of hard to imagine a universe where you have objects in it that are older than the universe itself.
	So you, it's the constant universe theory that it has always been here and always will be.
	Things are not fleeing from each other, they are just here.
	Which Fred Hoyle and others popularized as the so-called steady state model.
	Yeah.
	I think Bondi was another cosmologist.
	You know, according to, I think his name is Larson, Eric Larson, and the next break I will get that book, The Big Bang Never Happened, Alfvén and his colleague, the Swede who won the Nobel Prize in Physics for Plasma Physics, which is the fourth state of matter.
	You know, you have solids, liquids, and gases, and then you have a plasma, where you have the components of the gas, but they're kind of flung apart.
	You have electrons and nuclei, but they're not together.
	That's a plasma.
	Anyway, Alfvén won a Nobel Prize, and he constructed this whole elegant cosmology based on plasma physics, and basically he can explain, or his descendants, his colleagues, his progenitors in the field, can explain all of the aspects of the Big Bang by application of this other field of physics called plasma physics, and the bottom line there is that all of the observations which we think Richard, hold on, we'll be right back.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	billions of years ago, are created by the scattering of energy in the local galactic cluster,
	kind of like being on a dark, foggy night in London, and the fog is surrounding the street lights,
	so basically all you're measuring is the fog, you're not measuring...
	Richard, hold on, we'll be right back. I'm Art Bell, and this...
	...is Coast to Coast AM, stay right where you are.
	She's got Betty Davis eyes, she'll turn the music on You won't have to think twice
	The Talk Station, AM 1500 KSTP She's got Betty Davis eyes, she'll turn the music on
	You won't have to think twice The Talk Station, AM 1500 KSTP
	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.
	at 1-800-618-8255.
	First-time callers may reach out at Area Code 702-727-1222.
	And you may fax out at Area Code 702-727-8499.
	Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Alright, here we go, back to Richard C. Hoagland, and what I want to do is drag him back down to Earth for a moment.
	Alright, let's, for the sake of argument, because I don't want one here, Assume that they are wrong.
	That the redshift thing is wrong.
	That our theory of the, uh, how everything came to be and is, is wrong.
	Um, assume all of that.
	Assume hyperdimensional physics.
	And now tell me what the hell's going on in Mexico and Central America, where volcanoes are popping like crazy.
	The ground is 200 degrees centigrade in places.
	Volcanism is all over the place.
	It's causing fires.
	It's not being reported.
	The fires finally are being reported, but not one of the causes.
	What's going on?
	Okay, the short answer is, it's a hyperdimensional model coming true.
	The hyperdimensional model basically says that since the constants are not constants, then everything that we have assumed is dependent on standard models, standard equations, standard constants, has to be re-examined.
	And you start with the basic energy from the sun.
	The standard model, the one that's accepted, says the sun is basically a huge contained thermonuclear bomb, right?
	Right.
	That it's shining because deep in the interior, in the core, at about 20 million degrees, you have protons fusing, smashing into each other at high velocity, and turning into helium and various other elements, and that a small percentage of the mass defect in that process It works its way over about two million years, torturously from the center of the sun to the surface, and escapes and flies at the speed of light to the earth where we see it.
	And that that's been going on for billions and billions of years.
	Right?
	The hyperdimensional model says, ah, there's something really wrong with this picture.
	Starting with the basic assumption that the energy of the sun is thermonuclear.
	Right?
	Now, we go back to observation, data.
	For about the last 25 years, various physicists around the world, particularly at the Homestead Mine in South Dakota, I believe, have built large tanks of perchloroethylene, which is a kind of a cleaning fluid, and they have attempted to capture and measure neutrinos, little tiny atomic particles coming from the center of the Sun.
	These little atomic particles, named by Fermi a neutrino, which in Italian meant little neutral one, Uh, we're calculated as part of the standard physics models to be emitted by nuclear reactions.
	Whether it's an A-bomb, or an H-bomb, or a star, these reactions are in the lab, produce neutrinos, and the neutrinos are supposed to come from the sun, fly outward at the speed of light, literally not seeing the sun because they interact so infrequently, and infrequently interact with Earth's detectors, and by a set of calculations, scientists could predict back, or extrapolate back, to what was going on in the sun, even though they couldn't, quote, see it, right?
	When they conducted these experiments, they started, like, you know, 30 years ago, and they started with one particular set of reactions, and now the Russians and the Japanese have brought online other experiments, more sophisticated, that can measure the primary reactions.
	Well, the bottom line is that they're not measuring anywhere near the number of neutrinos that they would expect.
	If the sun is a shining thermonuclear bomb.
	In fact, the defect ranges from two-thirds to a hundred percent.
	So what's happening in Mexico, Richard?
	Okay.
	We can't get to Mexico right away.
	We've got to start with this solar model because it turns out the events on Earth, as you've been saying for many, many, many months, are linked to events on the sun.
	Every few days you will come up with a new solar event, right?
	Correct.
	Those connections are, in the hyperdimensional model, absolutely accurate.
	And they're based on the idea that if the Sun is not a thermonuclear furnace, if in fact its real energy supply is hyperdimensional, then you look at the equations and you say, okay, what fuels this burning center of the system, this gas ball which is incandescent?
	It turns out it is the rotation of the planets around the sun.
	Now that may sound absolutely silly, because the planets weigh nothing compared to the mass of the sun, right?
	Right.
	But, if you read any astronomy textbook, you'll see that the sun possesses, or the solar system actually,
	possesses a quantity called angular momentum, which is basically the momentum of rotation, or orbital revolution.
	Okay.
	And the sun contains 1% of the total angular momentum of the whole solar system.
	And the planets contain the other 99%.
	So even though the Sun appears to be very important, it's the planets in the hyperdimensional model that are driving the system.
	So what's happening in Mexico?
	Because the planets are changing configuration.
	Alright, this is now going to get very astrological very quickly.
	The planets, if you were to look down and you were to kind of hover in space above the solar system, the planets are all orbiting like a flat disk.
	Right.
	The inner ones are moving fast, the outer ones move slow.
	Got it.
	The big guys, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are controlling the show, basically.
	As they move around the Sun, their geometric configurations are constantly changing.
	These changes we can now match, change for change, with the rise and fall of the energy from the sun as measured by satellites in
	Earth orbit and satellites like SOHO.
	If this is true, then we should be able to observe geologic and volcanic and be able to match geologic and volcanic
	activity clearly with the sun cycles.
	And I don't reject that altogether, but I don't think that has been yet proven in aviation.
	Can you prove that?
	Remember you had a geologist, a geophysicist on when Montserrat was about to blow?
	Sure.
	And he mentioned a rather remarkable correlation that nobody has a theoretical, uh, foundation for.
	He said that increased earthquake activity and volcanic activity and El Nino, Curious and bizarre and anomalous meteorological activity and climatological activity appears to be correlated in a way that is currently unknown in terms of theory.
	Well, I've tracked for years earthquakes and the solar cycle, and I think I've found connections indeed between eruptions on the sun, magnetic storms, and earthquakes.
	I've been fooling with that for years, but I don't know of any Hard science that says it's true.
	Well, there is.
	And that's what we're correlating what's going to appear in the sequel to the Monuments of Mars, which is going to be called The Heritage of Mars.
	This is kind of a preview show tonight, because the numbers are there, the papers are there.
	It's a very time-consuming and laborious process to comb through thousands of scientific papers and find one here and one there that didn't get a lot of notoriety, a lot of attention, that basically was ignored.
	But in fact has data which is part of the bigger picture, the bigger model.
	There's another component of this we have to understand and that is that the hyperdimensional model predicts very firmly that there have to be at least one or two more planets out beyond Pluto which we have not yet found.
	You know that Dr. Van Flanern was participant in a study at the Naval Observatory when he was there.
	In an effort to find an extra-Plutonian planet.
	Planet X, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Richard, I want to understand something here before we move on.
	This is important.
	We're saying that the Sun cycles account for the activity in earthquakes, volcanism, ocean temperatures, that sort of thing.
	We're coupling it, right?
	Yeah, well it's... That's what we're trying to do here.
	There are short-term cycles and there are long-term cycles.
	There was a gentleman named Dewey.
	He was an economist.
	He was picked by Hoover in the 1930s to basically figure out why the American economy was going to hell in a handbasket.
	And eventually Dewey went on to found an institute associated with the University of Pittsburgh called the Foundation for the Study of Cycles.
	And his work, a tremendous body of work, Well, if you are suggesting there are cycles within cycles, then we do not have enough recorded history to prove it either way.
	They were at the University of...
	They were at Irvine, associated with the University of Southern California,
	and I think now they're back east, associated with Princeton.
	Well, if you are suggesting there are cycles within cycles, then we do not have enough recorded history to prove it
	either way.
	Well, not recorded history, but what Dewey and his colleagues were able to do
	is to go back and look at things like barbs, which are little lake moraines,
	little lappings at the edges of the shore, showing when you have freeze-thaw cycles in Siberian lakes,
	for instance, or levels of sedimentation on the banks of the Nile,
	or other geological indicators indicative of cyclic activity.
	Well, they do core sampling for that.
	That's another way of doing it, right?
	And what Dewey and his guys did was they looked at all kinds of cycles.
	And they found that the Earth is subjected in all different phenomena, ranging from geology, to meteorology, to living systems, to cyclic changes that appear to turn and be in phase or in counter-phase, but totally unrelated to the phenomena in question.
	In other words, you have migrations of lemming, right?
	And you have Bushels of wheat grown in Kansas.
	And what they found is that there was a correlation, and this is published in Dewey's classic book, which is so-called Cycles.
	You find wonderful graphic correlation of people who have, you know, graphs and tables, between things that you would in no way at all think are connected.
	So of course, the mainstream says this is just voodoo and you're just doing numerology.
	Yeah.
	Dewey and his guys said, and I've talked to the people at the Institute in, you know, over several years now, And what they said was that before he died, Dewey was coming to believe that there was some kind of ultimate underlying mechanism, which on the one hand would impel numbers of field mice, or the lemming migration, and on the other hand would, you know, explain migrations of things in the tropics, you know, bursts of growth in tropical rainforests,
	Or the pattern of flooding of the Nile going back thousands of years.
	And what he was able to do is to correlate these terrestrial cycles of all kinds of different phenomena with astronomical solar system cycles.
	And the model that now we can map that data set onto, which can explain in a theoretical fashion why these things might connect, is the hyperdimensional Energy Transfer Model from Unseen Dimensions.
	All right, suppose I... Put more energy into this dimension.
	Suppose I say, okay, fine to all of that.
	I want to know what it means.
	We all know the weather has taken a change for the worse.
	El Nino, whatever you want to call it.
	We've got it.
	It's bad.
	We don't even have a summer yet.
	We're being robbed here in the desert.
	I mean, it's totally bizarre.
	Earthquakes, lots and lots of volcanism.
	And ocean temperatures appear to be warming, which the meteorological guys will say is the cause of El Nino.
	Anyway, all of this, what's going to happen, Richard?
	Where are we?
	If you think you know what you're talking about with regard to the cycles and where all this is coming from, then what's going to happen?
	Okay.
	Where are we?
	The cycles of Dewey, and to some extent we have been looking at, have been modulated by the visible guys, the visible planets and their influence on the sun.
	And their invisible influence on the underlying geology and meteorology and biology of the Earth.
	Yeah, okay.
	If there are more planets than the nine that we know of, if there are, as our model calls for, two more out there?
	Yes.
	Then those are also moving in orbit around the Sun.
	Correct.
	Much more slowly.
	Right.
	Much.
	Than the inner gods.
	Right.
	Which means over very long periods of time, Measured in between thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of years.
	Those configurations, and remember, the more massive the planet and the farther away from the Sun in the angular momentum slash hyperdimensional model, the more influence that body will have on the events of the inner solar system.
	I must say I don't understand that, but okay.
	In other words, it seems to me the farther away the Uh, the less the influence.
	No, it's the greater, because you've got to look at the total angular momentum.
	Remember, the sun contains 1%, and the planet 99%, and most of that is in Jupiter, which is half a billion miles from the sun.
	Okay, um, okay.
	So you're just, you're just extending that much.
	Now, if the big guys invisible out there that we haven't discovered with Hubble, or IRIS, or the other spacecraft yet, but which are modeled in this hyperdimensional theory, exist, Then their long, long period orbits will produce cycles in the inner system which have very long periods.
	Okay.
	And those long periods you can look back historically, geologically, and in fact we see in some of the geological records evidence of very long period changes which are cyclic.
	Now if that's true, the model says we're coming up to a big peak in one of these long, long cycles And that's the reason that all of these phenomena appear to be heading through the roof with no sign of stopping sight, including earthquake activity, weird hyperdimensional weather, which is, you know, El Nino et al.
	I mean, do you know that velocities of hurricanes, wind velocities, have been steadily rising?
	Yes, I know.
	I mean, we're talking 200, 240 mile an hour winds.
	I know.
	Never before observed.
	I know.
	Well, the standard model says, oh, it's greenhouse gases.
	The hyperdimensional model says, no, there's more energy in the total system ducting from higher dimensions into three-dimensional reality, and this energy has to go someplace, and it's going to go into momentum of storms, into volcanic activity, etc., etc.
	Now, what's the test of the model?
	Remember the volcano that Jaime Musal was talking about over and over again Monday night?
	Repeatability.
	Papacatello, is that the name of it?
	That's correct, yes.
	All right.
	Would you like to guess the latitude of Abacatello?
	Um, 19.5.
	You got it?
	Of course.
	In other words, the model says that on any planet, the first indicator of unusual hyperdimensional changes will be at the first latitude predicted by the geometry, and that's 19.5.
	Which, by the way, and this of course is not what we normally do, but I'm going to do it anyway, in 1991, during that July eclipse, Where were all those UFOs seen?
	Uh, in Mexico.
	Above what?
	Uh, volcanoes.
	Above Mexico City?
	Above Mexico City and above volcanoes.
	And what's the latitude?
	I don't know, 19.5.
	You got it.
	Uh, what about... How do you move sound when we met at a conference?
	What about volcanoes in Italy and Sicily?
	Okay, there are higher order terms.
	In every, in every system you have a fundamental And then, like in music, you have hybrid terms.
	Oh, harmonics.
	Yeah, harmonics.
	Harmonics, exactly.
	The harmonics of the Earth system, this hyperdimensional grid system, which is basically a surface indicator of energy moving within the planet.
	Yes.
	Linked to other planets, linked to the Sun.
	I mean, you're looking, if you could see this in some kind of super 3D computer graphic, you'd see an incredible number of resonant waves beating between all of these bodies as they all orbit the central largest body, which is the Sun.
	And this wave pattern creates standing waves and nodes and harmonics and, you know, frequency divisions, multiplications, double and half and all that.
	It would be an incredible kaleidoscope of a 3D visible wave pattern.
	And on the Earth's surface, or in the Earth's interior, erupting on the surface, you have a similar kind of pattern, so you have higher level latitudes where activity is also going to go on, but it will lag the lower latitudes, because the 19.5 is the fundamental.
	So we're seeing major activity at 19.5 North and South.
	Now, someone the other night suggested that El Nino was caused by volcanism under the ocean, under the... I've heard that, yes.
	South Pacific.
	Yes.
	Well, there has been a huge volcanic field, an incredible eruption discovered by the underwater guys at Lamont Doherty and other, you know, deep-sea geophysical institutions.
	Guess where it lives?
	Where?
	19.5 South.
	Where?
	Around Easter Island.
	Around Easter Island.
	West of Easter Island.
	Which, of course, is where El Nino is strongest.
	Now, is there a direct physical connection?
	We don't have it updated yet.
	Yeah, I don't think so.
	I was about to say that.
	I don't think so.
	Strongly suggesting that there's some overarching everything modulating these various demonstrations in our environment, ranging from meteorology, to geophysics, to earthquakes, to volcanoes, To changing consciousness of the highest level organisms in this environment, namely us and whales and dolphins.
	Changing consciousness.
	Now that's interesting.
	All right.
	Hold on.
	We are at the top of the hour.
	My guest is Richard C. Foglund.
	And we're talking about why things are beginning to get strange down here.
	That really is what we're talking about.
	We'll be right back.
	To talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of Night, from east of the Rockies, Dial 1-800-825-5033.
	West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, 1-800-618-8255.
	First time callers may reach Art at area code 702.
	Alright, once again, Richard C. Hoagland.
	And you may call Art on the wildcard line at area code 702-727-1295.
	To reach Art from outside the U.S., first dial your access number to the USA, then 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM from the Kingdom of My with Art Beth.
	All right, once again, Richard C. Hoagland.
	Now, Richard, again, assuming all of this is true, and would you be willing to admit that your hyperdimensional
	concept is built on as much of a house of bricks as the
	conventional wisdom concept is going to be?
	Yeah, in other words, if part of it is wrong, then... Of course!
	But you see, every good theory has got to have checkpoints where you can test it.
	Sure.
	And we've got tons of checkpoints.
	That's why I'm dying to have a little peace and quiet to write the new book.
	Because you can't really do this even in four hours on the radio, because you can't put the documentation, you can't follow an argument, you know, we're just hitting the highlights here.
	Yeah, plus it's too hard for an audience to understand, but assuming that your set of theorems is correct, what does that mean is coming for us weather-wise, volcanology-wise, In every, you know, even human behavior.
	I mean, you mentioned it yourself.
	It could easily affect humans or mammals.
	Well, remember what I said about an hour ago.
	I said if you look down on the solar system, from above or up from below, and you see the planets twirling around in their planes, they're changing angles relative to each other and relative to the sun.
	Right.
	And that's astrology.
	Now, what is the central tenet of astrology, which everyone, including Sagan, poo-pooed and dismissed, and, oh, no, there's no way, there's no... I mean, the standard thing that Carl used to say was, the gravitational force of the obstetrician standing next to the mother is a thousand times greater than the force of gravity from Mars, right?
	The Gauquelin study, which was this husband-and-wife team of psychiatrists in France, measuring something like 80 A thousand subjects over several years.
	It's the classic astrology study of the last century, published a few years ago.
	It's well known.
	John Anthony West wrote a whole book called The Science of Astrology or something, built around the Gauquelin study.
	The Gauquelin study of astrology showed that basically all of the zodiacal stuff that people believe in, the horoscopes and all that, doesn't show up in any good data.
	What simply showed up were ascendants, meaning what is on the horizon when a kid is born, and what is at the nadir, and at the zenith, and at the other horizon, in other words, where things are setting.
	Yes.
	Those four points, and those four points only, appear to remain of a real astrology linked to a hyperdimensional model.
	And the neat part about the Ascendant is, it's the tangent.
	You know, when you look out into space, standing on the Earth, something rising on the horizon is at 90 degrees to the center of the Earth, right?
	Or to the surface of the Earth, to the observer.
	That is a tangent.
	Tangents show up all over Cydonia in this geometry that was laid out for us, and they show up over and over again in the hyperdimensional model.
	The tangent in the physics is when an object is either, well, it's basically when it's approaching another object at the highest rate of speed.
	Let's say I'm standing on a planet and it's rotating.
	Yes.
	Imagine you're sitting on, you know, there in Pahrump, and you're moving toward the east at, what, 600 miles an hour or something like that, right?
	And Mars rises on your horizon.
	At the instant Mars rises, you are approaching, on the rotating Earth, Mars at the fastest rate possible.
	And then as it rises further in the sky, that rate decreases with the cosine.
	In other words, when it gets to the zenith, there's no relative motion toward or away from Mars.
	It's all sideways.
	So, in the physics and in the astrology, there are correlates that make us strongly suspect that if we can model planetary activity, solar activity, stellar activity on cycles, Based on this changeable geometry of masses moving in three dimensions?
	Yes.
	Which is the hyperdimensional gating mechanism.
	The way information and energy come into this dimension.
	Remember how you kept talking with Kaku about the appearance of matter out of nothing?
	How do you get creation?
	Well, the hyperdimensional model is basically saying that energy is appearing.
	It's being created Continuously, on a cyclic basis, all over the place, and we just don't recognize it.
	Okay, I'm willing to concede this, Richard.
	So it gets back to consciousness.
	The question, my question, please, oh please, my question.
	It is simply, what do we have, if everything that you're saying is so, then what do we have to look forward to in terms of the cycle that we're in right now?
	Uh, I am sitting here with in my hand a piece of paper from the Electronic Telegraph, which is published out of England, as you know.
	I'm familiar with it, yes.
	Published Wednesday, March 27th.
	Sea levels rising as glaciers melt away faster than forecast.
	I have a copy of that.
	I have a copy, yes.
	You have a copy?
	Okay.
	In the second page, he says, the rate of warming is unprecedented in the last 600 years.
	This is a Professor Meyer.
	And the retreat of glaciers all over the world is probably unprecedented too.
	In other words, we are in a big cycle driven in this model by the unseen planet yet to be optically discovered in the outer, outer solar system.
	And because they move so slowly, the cycle is a long one.
	And the bottom line is that things are going to get a lot hairier before they get better.
	Okay, with what you think you know of these cycles, how much further are we going to continue in the present direction before we turn around?
	That's a good question and I don't have the numbers to answer it tonight.
	We're working on the numbers, alright?
	A lot of this has to do with finding predictable examples where we can model, you know, quantities and actually result, you know, get numbers that come out that correlate to what we're seeing.
	Right.
	And that's not easy because NASA's got some of this data and the strong suspicion is that NASA knows or some part of NASA knows this and is hiding those numbers and that evidence as well as images of artificial stuff.
	So it's very hard to get good trustworthy data.
	Let me give you an example.
	How many times have you had people come on your show and talk about the changing Schumann resonance?
	Greg Brayton.
	Many times.
	Many of them.
	I had a researcher who I paid, well Enterprise paid, an exorbitant amount of money working for six months through the National Bureau of Standards, the National Archives, a number of other laboratories trying to find absolute hard evidence of a changing human residence.
	Yes.
	Unable to find anything that would stand still.
	I understand.
	And that simply doesn't make sense and I'll tell you why.
	Go back to any standard physics text.
	Well, let's go to definition.
	The Schumann resonance is basically an echo around the Earth of radio waves.
	The Earth has a certain size.
	The speed of light has a certain value.
	When you send a radio wave into the sky and bounce off the ionosphere, it goes boing, boing, boing, boing, boing around the Earth.
	That's right.
	It goes around about seven times in one second.
	So the frequency is about seven hertz, seven or eight cycles per second.
	Right.
	There have been people, not only on your show, but many other venues, claiming that it's going up as high as 13.
	That's correct.
	Cycles per second.
	Well, I went and looked up the fundamental physics of what the Schumann Resonance was, so that that kind of change would be acceptable.
	And what I found was that it's dependent on two very fundamental things.
	The speed of the wave, meaning the speed of light, in this case the speed of radio waves, and the size of the Earth.
	Now, let's assume for a minute that the Earth has not changed size.
	If the human residence had changed as much as some people have claimed, that would mean that the speed of light had to have changed by a substantial fraction.
	The model can rule that out.
	I have papers in the literature by Michelson back in the 20s.
	Remember Michelson or Michelson-Morley?
	The guys who everyone claims now validated relativity and proved that the Earth was not moving through the ether, therefore you throw out the ether.
	The speed of light seemed to be constant, no matter which way you measured it.
	Forward, back, up, down, left, right.
	Right.
	They actually, one of them, Flingers Michelson, went on to measure two-way round-trip times for the speed of light at Mount Wilson, Southern California, and found significant changes, Art, in the speed of light.
	So, if you crank those changes into the model for the Schumann Resonance Change, it doesn't work.
	Even the maximum change, Either observed, or in the model, doesn't produce the changing Schumann resonance.
	So then I went and I looked at the other parameter, which is the magnetic field.
	Because you're not dealing with a mirror, but with a plasma, and the plasma exists in the Earth's magnetic field, the magnetic field turns out to be an unknown in the equation.
	If the field goes higher, the echo is delayed.
	If the field is lower, the echo is speeded up.
	It's the bounce of the radio waves.
	And the field of the Earth, as you know, is falling.
	Right?
	Like a streamlined anvil.
	You've had several people on, physicists and others, talking about the field strength falling.
	It's plummeted by a tremendous factor in the last 2,000 years.
	Even that cannot account for the Schumann resonance change.
	The field strength changing in the last 10, 20 years.
	This number, the simple Schumann resonance, which is the most available quantity you can measure, of a change in the Earth, so-called Earth changes,
	whether they're hyperdimensional or not, seems to be a very interestingly guarded confusion.
	I agree.
	I won't say secret, I'll say confusion, because I tried very hard to validate this,
	and what I'm getting is such a cacophony of differing answers
	that it makes me very suspicious.
	I've experienced the same thing.
	Alright, good.
	I'm glad we're at the same level.
	The other parameter which really tells me that we're onto something here is the Earth's rotation.
	You are advertising a clock, right?
	In fact, I heard you at the top of the show.
	It's a Zeitglock, yes.
	Yeah, the atomic clock set with Nash-Bura standards, et cetera, et cetera.
	That's correct.
	Loses or gains one second in a million years, right?
	Right.
	We have a big national atomic clock in Boulder.
	Right.
	Have you noticed that we keep adding leap seconds?
	That damn clock?
	Yes.
	We have a clock that's supposed to be constant, one second in a million years.
	We have added 20 seconds in the last 20 years.
	Is that non-linear?
	Very non-linear.
	I finally got Van Flandern, who was heavily involved with the NBS in its early days, and this atomic time measurement, and now GPS, to finally admit to me that this is caused by a secular change in the rotation of the planet itself.
	We have slowed down by 20 seconds in the last 20 years.
	Roughly.
	Physically.
	But again, how can you not... How can you be sure that it is not cyclic?
	Well, it probably is.
	On this long-term cyclic basis of the physics that I've been talking about.
	But 20 seconds, I mean, when you take into account the mass of the Earth and the rate that it's spinning, that amount of slowing is a prodigious, humongous, incredible amount of energy which should have gone somewhere.
	Vaporized a continent or something, alright?
	We're not talking trivial change.
	20 seconds on a planet the size of the Earth?
	Right.
	24 hour period?
	Right.
	That's a humongous amount of change!
	Sure.
	So, how is it happening?
	Well, it gets even more interesting.
	I have been able to correlate with papers in the literature, which will be published in the book, Sunspots, solar flares, all right?
	Yes.
	Sun activity on the sun?
	Yes.
	Which sudden, sharp decreases in the speed of the Earth's rotation by up to half a second.
	Just suddenly, within microseconds.
	The Earth is rotating and suddenly it's rotating at a rate which amounts to a half second longer in an entire day.
	So there has been an exchange of energy.
	Ah, but it's not energy In the sense that we know energy.
	No, it's your hyper-dimensional energy, right?
	Exactly, and that's where you get pretty exotic, and remember Arthur Clarke, any sufficiently advanced technology... Magic.
	...is indistinguishable from magic.
	Alright, I know, but what people really want to know, I mean, you covered it pretty quickly, you said things are going to get worse before they get better.
	Yep.
	How much worse, and for how long?
	We're talking probably a thousand, two thousand years.
	Of getting worse.
	At the present given rates of change, alright, the question now continues.
	At present rates of change, Richard, at what point would we reach, in your opinion, a cut-off where human life, fairly fragile in this environment, is no longer sustainable?
	Well, looking at the past, looking at the long record of life on Earth, we find all kinds of interesting stuff that's happened.
	We find extinction.
	Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
	We find migrations.
	Yep.
	Right?
	Yep.
	Life is not totally predictable, and models that claim that what's going on now is going to go on forever are frankly not science, they're wishful thinking.
	My intuition It's two components.
	The bad news is, things are definitely changing, not changing for the better.
	The good news is, if we figure this out, if we understand it, we can intervene.
	In other words, the bottom line here, Art, is that we have got to go from Type 0 to Type 1, and damn quickly.
	I know.
	I understand what it is you mean with that.
	Because we control these forces, and the model predicts how we can do it, and how much time we've got in this segment.
	Enough for me to ask you that question again.
	And the question is, at present rates of change, assuming that the curve continues for another, say, thousand years, at what point in between now and a thousand years from now will there be enough change that we will no longer be able to environmentally exist?
	Unknown at the moment.
	I do believe that the change is specific.
	It's not planetary.
	In other words, everything is not bad all over.
	There are regions.
	What this will force is migrations from those regions where conditions are not conducive to normal existence to regions which are more stable.
	That's part of the planetary grid.
	Alright, then let's get local.
	America has succeeded for a whole variety of reasons.
	One of which is the climate has been favorable for the central part of the country to produce immense amounts of food.
	And one can imagine there wouldn't have to be a lot of change before that changed.
	And the productive zone for food would move to Canada, or South America, or wherever it's headed.
	Right.
	But it wouldn't be here anymore, and that would be important for us.
	So, how about that kind of local question?
	Well, alright.
	Change is not uniform.
	In other words, if a certain region, let's say the breadbasket, can't grow wheat, there are other crops that could grow that would be, for instance, like a warmer climate, etc.
	etc.
	So, change... I mean, the CIA was predicting this just based on global warming models of CO2 20 or 30 years ago, that there would be global changes that would make major differences in certain regions.
	All we're saying is, yes, they were right, and maybe they had a little more insight into the fundamental drivers than were produced in those papers.
	It's not going to eradicate the human species.
	It's not going to obliterate, you know, civilization, because it will be slow enough it can be accommodated.
	What is the unpredictable part are the discontinuities, the sudden traumatic catastrophe, which the model says is working in the data.
	And so we got to get a much better handle on the model.
	To predict when such a catastrophe may, in fact, occur.
	The changes appear very rapid right now, Richard.
	Look at the fires in Mexico, due in a large degree to volcanic action and possibly magma underground.
	Smoke covering a good part of our country.
	These are pretty recent, pretty severe But they are consistent with data which is in the public record, I'm going to talk about right now, that has not generally been appreciated.
	Well, you might talk about it, but it'll have to be after the break, so hold on.
	All right, Richard C. Hoagland is here, and we're trying to determine, I think, if hyperdimensional physics is the operative theory, what it means we're in for, and how soon.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Well, alright. I'll be back.
	Back now to Richard C. Hoagland.
	And somebody just sent me a very interesting fax, and I'm going to test the theory.
	Richard, are you there?
	I'm here.
	Alright, somebody just sent me a fax, Richard, and it said that they've noticed that when I start bringing up bumper music, you answer much faster.
	You rush to the point.
	And so, the question is as follows.
	A question for Richard.
	What is in store for Mauna Loa on Hawaii?
	It's very near 19.5 degrees.
	The answer is... I would say take Mauna Loa fairly soon.
	Cool.
	I'm recommending to my friends in Hawaii that they think of the mainland or some other place.
	You know, we're talking years, we're not talking months, but... Move.
	Changes will get progressively more interesting.
	Alright, well that was really cool and it worked, but I don't have that much I like her.
	I got to see her in concert up in Vancouver.
	Yes.
	Incredible.
	Let me tell you what the bottom line on all this for me is.
	If I could only sit here like Ed Dames and provide doom, you know, I wouldn't be doing this show.
	The neat part is that with every physics comes a concomitant technology.
	Richard, if you thought that what you believed did mean doom, you would say it, wouldn't you?
	No!
	Why not?
	Because... I thought you were for openness and prudence.
	I'm for openness, but I'm for openness that provides, you know, realistic hope.
	There has never been a situation that we as a species have faced where, if you don't dig deep enough, Yeah, I know, but my question was a rather pure one.
	said if that's what you're, everything you believe told you was going to happen, you
	wouldn't tell it? Well, I wouldn't be telling it at this premature
	stage, alright? In other words, what I really need, what I should be doing is waiting, even
	my big mouth shut, until I write the book and it's all documented, people can see all
	the papers and look at the literature and look at the enormous historical database and
	can see the observations. I mean, we actually have lab experiments going on, some of which
	we have inspired, that are validating particular facets of this model in very exciting ways.
	Yeah, but you and I have been down some interesting roads before and you're arguing over on the
	other side of the coin now.
	You know, you and I have talked about, suppose everything we knew regarding our origins, even regarding God, regarding how we got here on Earth, all of it, if we suddenly found out that it was all wrong, I've argued, look, the people couldn't take it, you couldn't give them that kind of information, you've argued, oh yes, you could.
	Is that true?
	That's true.
	So, then, how can you in effect say that if you had hard information that said there was doom coming, you wouldn't come forth?
	Because we haven't done the necessary homework to make that flattest statement.
	What we have done is enough work to say that there is change coming.
	We can see some of it now.
	There is more change up ahead.
	That's the bad news.
	The good news is, we know how to ameliorate, how to impact that change, and that's why we need a lot more public attention on these matters, to force policy leaders and the black projects where some of this knowledge currently resides, to disclose how to use this physics to prevent some of the catastrophes that others think are inevitable.
	And that's a very important difference of what I'm saying with what others have said because I believe we can interact with this.
	We can become, in essence, a Type 1.
	Alright?
	And we can move constructively toward dealing with some of these planetary changes in ways that will save an awful lot of people and a lot of heartache and perhaps even civilization.
	But we gotta start right now.
	And let me tell you why I think we have a shot.
	Because I brought to you about a year ago a very important video, right?
	STS-80.
	Oh, yes.
	And you've seen it over and over again.
	Absolutely.
	On that video, which I showed at the University of Utah to my Mormon friends up there when I did a presentation on Mars last weekend.
	Right.
	I mean, it brings down the house.
	It stops people in their tracks.
	They look at this downlink live from the shuttle in December of 96.
	They see things, vehicles, spacecraft, moving in decidedly, absolutely, unequivocally, non-Newtonian fashion.
	No question.
	Not using rockets, using some kind of anti-gravity propulsion, and they say, holy cow, and the question obviously is, well, is it ours or theirs?
	And my answer is, it almost doesn't matter.
	At this point, it doesn't matter.
	Why doesn't it matter?
	Because regardless of whether it's ours or theirs, the fact that you have vehicles that can do this means it can be done.
	And the first thing the universe needs to demonstrate is that something can be done.
	Alright, I'm tempted to pull out bumper music for this.
	The question is, give me an example of what you imagine could be done To change where this cycle is going.
	What piece of science, practically applied, could we do here on Earth to change where this cycle is going?
	Yes.
	And if it is visible as these vehicles, you know, which I strongly suspect are ours, Black Project money.
	Maybe so.
	Okay.
	That means that somebody has built a technology that can control gravity.
	The only way they could do that is if they could build a technology which can control the flow of energy in this physics.
	Now, it's a relatively small step from controlling the flow of energy that changes G, alright, artificially, around a vehicle, to one that changes G artificially around a planet.
	That basically ducks the energy away from the habitable zones to places where no one is living.
	In other words, going from Type 0 to Type 1.
	Now, if we had to start from scratch, if we had to figure it out, build the tools to make the tools to make the tools to make the machines, there's no chance.
	But the fact is that because of the Cold War, we've had both sides pitted against each other, the best and the brightest, for 50 years.
	And I strongly believe that what we're seeing on these videos, SDS-80, SDS-48, etc., is a hyper-dimensional technology, ours in part, Which, if we scale it up, if we make it public, if we get the generals and the colonels and the, you know, the physicists working on these super black projects to come clean and fess up to what they're doing and what toys they've created in doing it, then we can have mainstream people apply that knowledge, which right sits in front of us.
	It's demonstrable.
	It works.
	They may not know how it works, but if you've got something that works, it's a short step to figure out how.
	The hardest part is making it work.
	And by having models that we built, even if we don't know totally how they work, or maybe we back-engineered alien technology.
	I mean, there is that story floating around, right?
	Sure.
	So, if we apply this to the planet on which we live and the solar system in which it resides, and we get a handle on these forces, this physics, which allows us to modulate gravity and make things go weightless and zip around, You know, at phenomenal speed on these videos, my thinking is the military, because their mandate, their mission is not to move planets, it's to move troops, wouldn't begin to conceive that this technology might have applicability to some of the problems that you discussed on your show.
	So then are you suggesting that we could, with that technology, or what it would produce, for example, control the weather, control volcanism, control, um, Uh, in fact, uh, gravity, uh, here on Earth, uh, by, in, in essence, this is going to simplify it, but by doing acupressure on Earth, is that, is that, uh... That's a very good metaphor.
	My God, Art Bell used a metaphor.
	It's a very good metaphor.
	Well, I'm trying to get people to understand what it is we're talking about here.
	It's an excellent metaphor, because, you know, in other words, energy is flowing, right?
	Yes.
	What you want to do is you want to, want to push the river just a little bit.
	When you build dikes and dams, you're not stopping nature.
	You're redirecting nature subtly.
	Correct.
	Oh yes, correct.
	So what we have here is leverage.
	We have leverage.
	If we understand this physics, we can use our leverage to redirect these forces so that the energy appears in places where it won't hurt anybody.
	It won't affect things.
	Control is perhaps too strong a term.
	Influence, I think, would be more appropriate.
	But the influence is light years beyond what we have now, which is basically tornado strike, people stand out, you know, and say, oh my God, what hit us?
	This kind of physics ultimately can take us from Type 0 to Type 1, and we've got to master it quickly, because this cycle is building.
	Or, it could be used by a Type 1 to extinguish a Type 0.
	Uh, meaning you don't give H-bombs to children?
	No, meaning that why have a war with saucers flying and flitting about and shooting at each other?
	If you have the ability to manipulate the basic proper energy properties of a planet, then you could take it over without ever firing a shot, at least not a shot that would be hurt or fell.
	Alright, you know, because we've discussed this, that when I see things shooting at other things on these videos, I am majorly suspicious that this is staged for our benefit.
	This is like a Hollywood, you know, special effect.
	It's not a real war.
	It's a fake war for political purposes.
	And that's a whole other show, alright?
	My main reason for saying that is that the things being shot at, if you look very carefully at your STS-80, those things clustered near the horizon, where the screen goes bright and then you see this particle beam enter one second later, moving at a thousand miles per second, which is consistent with STS-48, the guys being shot at don't Well, maybe that's because they don't need to.
	Exactly.
	Maybe it's because their reason, if we're dealing with aliens, others, ETs, their reason
	for being here has nothing to do with the paranoid suspicions of a planetary military
	that can only think in terms of us and them and friend and enemy.
	You can imagine all kinds of things.
	You can imagine that our military knows a manipulation of this sort is actually going on, and so we're shooting at it.
	Well, that's kind of like shooting your friends in the foot, because if we don't do something at a planetary scale,
	these forces are going to radically change our lives.
	Now, that means a lot of people are going to either move, or they're going to die.
	Yep.
	Are they going to have much worse conditions to live in, which means they'll eventually die?
	We don't have the luxury of saying, oh, who cares, there's a face on Mars.
	What I've been saying consistently for 15 years is that ultimately there is very practical benefit in finding out new things.
	I never imagined our 15 years ago when I started looking at the monuments of Mars, it would lead me to a discussion this evening about a physics which, if properly harnessed, can literally guide us into a 21st century where we can control the
	destiny of storms.
	We can ameliorate volcanoes.
	We can create, you know, environmental conditions where crops can flourish in ways that we can't
	even imagine now.
	And we can have democratizable energy sources that do not, you know, plunder the earth for
	oil or fossil fuels or coal or things like that.
	There are many who would suggest that these are the things that Tesla was pursuing.
	And they would be absolutely correct.
	And look what happened to Tesla.
	The problem is, short-term greed, J.P.
	Morgan et al., killed our early entry, not into hyper-dimensional physics, but hyper-dimensional technology.
	If you read Tesla, you know, he sounds an awful lot like me sometimes.
	Because, What he was building and proposing and extolling were the technologies based on a physics that was light years beyond the physics of his colleagues and his surroundings.
	All right.
	I guess I can go along with that, insofar as you have taken us.
	I don't know, though, how we make this breakthrough To getting this technology and manipulating this technology to save our own butts.
	I don't see how we do that.
	Well, there is some suspicion in my mind that HAARP is a clandestine effort.
	Maybe.
	With a major outlay of resources.
	To try this exact... To try exactly what we're talking about.
	Alright, well, whatever it is... Let me tell you why I think this, alright?
	Yeah?
	Where it is on the planet.
	It's at 60 North.
	60 is one of the tetrahedral hyperdimensional latitudes, just outside Anchorage, and it's almost exactly opposite the Giza Plateau, the Great Pyramid, etc.
	Right.
	That set of coincidences may, in fact, not be coincidental at all.
	Now, can we find out more?
	No, because the real data is buried in the classified archives of the Phillips Lab and the Naval Research Laboratory.
	In other words, we have so much secrecy.
	That it's about to do in major parts of this.
	And to give you one crystal clear example, your discussion last night, the 2YK problem.
	You know, there are reasons for believing that a lot of people knew for a long time that this was a problem.
	And yet nobody had the managerial guts to step forward and take charge and do a leadership thing and say, we gotta solve it.
	And today, you know, to show you how important your show is, Sarah McLendon, based on last night's show?
	Yes.
	Asked the President of the United States this afternoon, in the Rose Garden, the key YK2 question.
	It's Y2K, actually.
	Year 2000 question.
	About the computers.
	Well, good for Sarah.
	Took the opportunity, yes.
	Good old Sarah, alright?
	So, within six and a half hours, it had gone from the Art Bell Show to the President of the United States responding to the world press in a very interesting manner.
	And he said?
	Well, he said basically, God, I'm glad you asked this question.
	And then he carefully, politically danced around all the hard issues that North talked about last night.
	But basically, the bottom line was, ask us more questions.
	We're working on things.
	This is important.
	Now let me tell you why this is analogous to what we've been discussing.
	Let me give you one more thing to support it.
	I'm looking at the latest Reuters news tonight.
	You know what it says?
	No, I'm sorry, this is from AP on Reuters.
	It says, while the world struggles to avoid a year 2000 computer crash, a prominent technology consultant warns some Wall Street computers could go berserk Once the Dow Jones Industrial Averages crosses 10,000.
	Now, you know something?
	Nobody was talking about this stuff before that program last night.
	That's right.
	Nobody.
	And now here it is in the latest Reuters hourly news.
	Well, I happen to have exquisite information as to how Sarah got onto this question because of your show.
	I mean, there's no doubt in my mind.
	Unequivocally, without doubt, and I will provide you the documentation, It was your show that prompted Sarah to ask the President that question and his response.
	Good.
	So, you can have an effect, Darth.
	You are having an effect.
	This is kind of like the open university of the air.
	My own metaphor, my own analogy here is, because of national security, because of secrecy, because of computers, because of experts, because of the priesthood, this Y2K problem has been relatively unknown even in the last couple of years.
	Imagine if we'd been able to freely discuss this problem ten years ago.
	We would not be facing a problem in the next couple of years.
	Because there would have been time to deal with it.
	Now we have almost no time.
	Similarly, in terms of the geological and meteorological and environmental factors, including the consciousness part, which we really haven't gotten into.
	I know.
	If we can get rid of some of this infernal, nonsensical security and secrecy, which has no means to serve except to protect those who are still doing stuff they don't want the rest of us to know about.
	There is no enemy anymore.
	Really, come on.
	That technology, that knowledge, which is fundamentally revolutionary, it tosses oil and coal and nuclear in the ash can of history, which means, of course, it threatens a few mega-empires, economic and otherwise, That technology can be used to serve all of us and to guide us into a much more fruitful future where this planet is going to do pretty nasty things to us, not because it doesn't like us, but because it's the nature of the physics of the solar system in which we live.
	All right.
	This is from the Sunday Times.
	Western intelligence is now warning of possible nuclear meltdown in the former Soviet bloc as a result of the so-called Millennium Bug.
	This is expected to cripple computers worldwide at midnight of December 31st, 1999.
	Intelligence sources say.
	Some of the 65 Soviet-made civilian nuclear power plants scattered across the former Warsaw Pact countries could malfunction as their computers fall victim to the Y2K glitch that makes them interpret the 00 data as 1900 instead of 2000.
	Nuclear power plants, Richard.
	Yes.
	So what we obviously need to do is to make nuclear power plants obsolete.
	There are technologies.
	You know, our friends in the alternative energy community have been dealing with some of these, you know, the so-called beads.
	Remember the demonstration on Good Morning America?
	Yeah, but the way things are going, we probably have a hyper-dimensional power plant on Long Island.
	The year 2000 would come and it would blow up.
	Not if it was controlled by a computer that wasn't linked to this fundamental problem.
	It's not the power plants.
	It's not the energy production facilities that are a problem.
	It's the controlling computers.
	I know.
	Well, if something suddenly says, dump the coolant when it shouldn't, you've got a problem.
	You have a major problem.
	My point is we need democratizable energy.
	One of the things that people are going to confront in this coming crisis is centralized power is going to go offline.
	If there were portable hyperdimensional sources that were cheap enough for people to buy at Kmart, which there could be in the next couple years, then a lot of those problems could be ameliorated because what you need fundamentally is energy at any level to survive nicely in a major crisis.
	Well, that's for sure.
	All right, hold on.
	We're at the top of the hour.
	When we get back, we will open the phones.
	I promise.
	So we're moving all over the map this night.
	The hyper...
	Dimensional physics, Matt.
	But a lot of it makes sense.
	However, bear in mind, everybody, that like conventional wisdom, it builds upon itself.
	And if you find a hole in one place, the whole thing could still come tumbling down.
	I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.
	Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
	New Mexico, call Art at 1-800-618-8255 or call Art on the wildcard line at area code 702-727-1295.
	This is Coast to Coast AM from the Kingdom of Nye.
	All right, I have no way of knowing if this is true, but this is a very interesting fact.
	Richard, it reads, Dear Art, Sunday evening, a series of storms dropped 16 tornadoes near
	near my mother's home in K County, Oklahoma.
	Okay, not too unusual, right?
	But the kicker is, they were observed to be spinning clockwise.
	All storms in the northern hemisphere spin counterclockwise.
	Welcome to the, um, Coriolis effect.
	Is it C-O-R-I-O-L-I-S effect?
	Yep.
	Coriolis.
	Same with water swirling down the drain in the bathtub south of the equator.
	It goes the other way.
	Yep.
	Photos clearly show the tornado's direction of rotation and local radio stations here were buzzing about it.
	What could be going on?
	Welcome to the wacky world of hyperdimensional physics.
	Look, tornadoes are remarkable because they're kind of natural laboratories to test Some of this theory, and they're electrified.
	You know, people who have been in storm cellars and looked up through the, you know, the double doors in the Midwest?
	Sure.
	Into the interior of a tornado have reported the kind of, you know, the Dorothy, the Wizard of Oz syndrome.
	See a whole bunch of stuff swirling around, and they see this glow and lightning flashing between the walls of the tornado.
	Now, the standard idea is, you know, you're getting electrified air because things are moving rapidly past each other and you're getting friction and charges separating and stuff like that.
	The hyperdimensional model says, no, tornadoes are a little bit more interesting.
	And this is absolutely wonderful proof because under normal circumstances, nothing can spin backwards in the Northern Hemisphere.
	That's what I thought.
	So, let me give you an example that I wanted to bring up.
	Remember Apollo 13?
	Yes.
	Apollo 13 is my quintessence example of the hyperdimensional gravity model explaining a mystery that is still a mystery after 30 years.
	Remember when they went around the moon and they were forced to shut off everything to save power?
	Sure.
	And they were falling home.
	Correct.
	And I remember because I was sitting literally with Cronkite and Our staff at CBS, you know, biting my fingernails every inch of the way.
	Yes, and we all were recently reminded with... With that incredibly good movie, the Tom Hanks, you know... Well, I was going to say, From the Earth to the Moon.
	They didn't get as technical in that as I thought they should have, by the way.
	Did you see the series?
	You know, I actually saw the first one, and then something happened, and I forgot to tape it or look at it every Sunday, because, you know, life goes on very strange.
	Okay, well, they gave one segment to Apollo 13, but they were very light on the technical side of things.
	Okay, on the way home, remember, they've turned everything off, and they've got their trajectory lined up, so they're going to enter the ocean, or enter the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean.
	Right.
	Hopefully things will work, right?
	Right.
	They detected a mysterious Shallowing of the trajectory.
	Remember that?
	Yes.
	And they made a big deal in the original series, in the original movie, they made a big deal in the documentaries, Nova and etc.
	Yeah, they were saying, oh God, we're going to die.
	Because if the trajectory was too shallow, they would skip off the atmosphere if you lost the space and die of oxygen deprivation before you could go back.
	Right.
	So they had to do a couple of mid-course burns to put them back on the right trajectory, and they kept going shallow.
	Yep.
	Well, what does going shallow mean?
	If you look at it in terms of an Earth-Moon reference, it means the trajectory was moving farther from the center of the Earth, meaning the force of gravity, whatever this mysterious thing is, pulling that spacecraft home, was less It's been calculated by the computer models of gravity stored in the Houston computers.
	My question is, why was that particularly demonstrable in 13 versus any of the others?
	Any other mission, and this is where hyperdimensional physics has won a hell of an answer.
	Because that was the only mission, Art, manned or unmanned, where we turned off, because of the lack of electrical power, every rotating thing in the spacecraft.
	Remember, they powered down the IMU, the Central Measuring Unit, which has little spinning gyroscopes.
	Correct.
	Over that long distance, 200,000 miles, the hyperdimensional effect of little spinning gyros, which are spinning at tens of thousands of RPM, was enough, I believe, in this model to change that trajectory and change the force of gravity versus a spacecraft with things in it that spin.
	Well, that's a very interesting contention.
	We have a thousand of them.
	Physics is specific predictions based on numerical models.
	And that's why I can't wait to get, you know, there's a guy out in California who I met, I met his family at the University of Utah, who apparently is so upset with NASA only putting $50,000 into the Podglenkov experiment.
	Yes.
	The anti-gravity?
	Yes.
	He has put a million bucks of his own money into anti-gravity research.
	And we're supposed to have a conversation this coming week relating to the hyper-dimensional model.
	Should be very interesting.
	I will obviously let you guys know.
	All right.
	Let me get some calls in here, all right?
	Yep.
	All right.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	This is Tim from Phoenix.
	Hi, Tim.
	Yeah, I sent you a fax a couple of times.
	It was during the daytime when your show wasn't running.
	I don't know how it piles up.
	I'm sure you get millions.
	You have no idea.
	At any rate, I have sent in some Xeroxes from Carl Sagan's hardback version of his Cosmos series.
	Yes.
	Does that ring a bell?
	Uh, vaguely, yes, yes.
	Okay.
	Okay, what, what, what?
	Well, there's two photographs from the Mariner 9 mission from the early 70s, and I remember hearing something about, you know, pictures from Mariner that showed some anomalies of Mars, but I've never heard them referenced, and the only time that I'd ever actually seen them was in Carl Sagan's book.
	And he cryptically just includes them in the, uh, And the text without any further reference in the actual copy or in the actual TV series.
	And it shows two places outside of Cydonia.
	That have some anomalous markings.
	Uh, for instance, there's one from the Sarsis Plateau that shows, um, like a 30, uh, perfect 25 degree angle of, uh, what looks like, I don't know, it looks like a double, double line, no crossing zone marking from, uh, the highway.
	And also, uh, it's got, uh, three-sided pyramids from a part of Mars called Elysium.
	And I've never heard any follow-up.
	I don't know if these photographs are from Tucker Lay in a dusty old file.
	Nobody's All right, well, let's see if Richard can comment on it.
	Do you know about this, Richard?
	Yes, of course.
	And they were among the last pictures sent back from Mariner 9.
	They showed tetrahedral pyramids art in pretty good condition, located in a geometric pattern at a place on the other side of Mars from Cydonia called Elysium, photographed by Mariner 9, and then re-photographed by the Vikings.
	Uh, and those photographs were missing for many, many, many years, and they were discovered as part of DiPietro and Brandenburg and, uh, Carlotto's sweep through the archives a couple years ago.
	Um, you know that we have now seen stunning tetrahedral ruins of pyramids of Sedonia.
	Yes.
	And the night that we posted them, you know, you kind of did me a great favor and went ballistic and into all kinds of neat things.
	Yeah, that's what I can see.
	That's right, I saw it.
	Um, well, these are in better condition.
	So, the caller is absolutely right.
	There are tetrahedral pyramids on Mars.
	They're big.
	You know, there's a Sumerian word... Well, if this was in Sagan's book... Sagan's book, Cosmic Connection.
	Why would he put it in the book when his conclusion always has been that they, in his view, they were unnatural?
	Maybe that wasn't his view.
	Maybe that was a political position.
	See, this problem of secrecy.
	We are bedeviled by secrecy at every turn.
	There is a current issue of Astronomy Magazine, which is out there, just came out, which has a page on the current surveyor photographs of Cydonia.
	I know.
	Somebody sent it to me earlier.
	I read it, and it's a complete dismissal of the whole thing.
	Oh, my God.
	This is his letter.
	It's from Milt Hayes, Jr.
	He says, Dear Art, I'm attaching a copy of an article to Face at Cydonia from the July 98th issue of Astronomy, which you've perhaps already seen by now.
	If not, you will discover it is one of the worst hatchet jobs I have ever seen as a reader or a writer.
	As Richard is going to be on your show tonight, I really would enjoy hearing his commentary, family-suitable language, please, on this steaming pile of you-know-what.
	Anyway, he goes on and talks about how incredibly bad science journalism it is.
	And the problem we have is political.
	I am strongly of the opinion that Carl knew a lot more over the years than he was willing to admit to or say.
	And I documented in Monuments, you know, my book on this thing, some activities and Discussions and actions on his part that are at the very least questionable.
	On his deathbed practically in his last book, you know, Demon Haunted World.
	Yes.
	He kind of made right.
	He strongly urged photography of Cydonia and he said it's science.
	It's central to good science.
	It's testable.
	It's not UFOs.
	It's not things that go bump in the night.
	It's there or it's not.
	We can look at things, details at high resolution.
	And he urged Malin and the Russians and anybody else going to Mars with cameras to take good pictures.
	Which brings me, by the way, to a very important segue.
	JPL is having an open house this coming weekend.
	The 30th?
	31st?
	Are you going?
	I'm not going to be able to go, but there is a group which is kind of spun off of the activists who have been involved in this called the Americans for Open Planetary Research.
	And they are going to be gathering at the gates of JPL between 10 a.m.
	and 5 p.m.
	on Saturday and Sunday on the 30th and 31st of May.
	They need as much support as possible.
	They actually want a photo op at about 1 p.m.
	on Saturday afternoon.
	And they asked me if I would plug their rally to, A, thank NASA for the three photos of Cydonia we have, And to basically push them for as many more pictures between now and September as we can get to fulfill Dan Goldin's promise to John Holubin that he would continue taking pictures of Sedonia until everyone was satisfied.
	Well, everybody is not satisfied.
	There are some who would say Richard Hoagland never will be satisfied.
	But I'm not satisfied.
	So that's got to mean there are a lot of other people out there who also are not satisfied.
	So if he really said that, then they better keep going.
	Because the first picture of the face really sucked, as far as I was concerned.
	And that shaped world opinion.
	So I want more pictures.
	I mean, let's really settle it.
	Well, they're going to have this rally out in front of JPL during the open house, which is in Pasadena at 4800 Oak Grove Drive.
	I guess in the L.A.
	area you just show up between 10 a.m.
	and 5 p.m.
	on the 30th and 31st.
	Several well-known people who've led previous demonstrations will be there.
	There will be cameras.
	I'm going to be talking to Tammy Taylor at UPN to see if she can get a camera crew out there.
	And they're basically demanding that new photography be continued until we have enough data to
	make a scientific determination one way or the other. Now you know my sentiments. You know
	what we've been putting on the website.
	You know the quality of some of the imagery and the remarkable geometry that we're now seeing.
	We have some new stuff we're going to put up in the next few days using some of the
	more exotic tools that NASA itself has used and the DoD has used on satellite imagery.
	Richard, there's a lot of people, and I'm one of them, who would say, you know, they took all that photography, they did do the three strips, and considering the quality, not of the first, but of the second two strips they did, there's been remarkably little public comment By astronomers, by the insiders, no comment at all from NASA.
	In other words, there's been a crushing silence since we got this stuff.
	Kind of like the Y2K problem, would you say?
	Well, yeah, I mean, I guess you could use that analogy, sure.
	Well, until recently, we didn't hear much about it, did we?
	And then you do a show, and suddenly, because of Sarah, the president makes the first definitive statement Sure.
	...on this problem in his entire administration, to the highest levels.
	In other words, I am extremely suspicious, as is Tom Van Flanern and many others, that NASA's deafening silence, except for the kind of noise of Dr. Malin and a couple of others, is an indication of some very serious soul-searching within the agency.
	Because any reasonable observer looking now at these enhancements in the state, even the raw data, are seeing things down there that simply cannot be explained through natural geologic models.
	Yeah, but most of the public hasn't seen that, Richard.
	No, because most of the public is not on the web.
	Most of the public saw the cat box picture and that was it.
	Well, that is going to change.
	I mean, that's just a truth.
	In June, on June 27th, I'm going to do another plug here, alright?
	At the University of New Mexico, here in Albuquerque, in our own backyard, On the 27th and 28th of June, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific is holding its 110th annual meeting, and astronomers from around the world will be standing on Albuquerque.
	Astronomy Magazine, you know, which has written this horrible piece, this hatchet job, as Milt says, is holding their 25th anniversary celebration here in Albuquerque that same weekend.
	And Story Musgrave, by the way, is speaking on Friday night at Woodward Hall at the University.
	I know because we wanted to book Friday night and we couldn't because he'd already taken it.
	And that should be a hint that maybe you should get him on the show and ask him some interesting questions.
	Yeah, I've had calls into Story for a long time now.
	Okay.
	Well, on Saturday night, one night following Musgrave, we're going to hold a seven-hour conference featuring Tom Van Flandern, myself, and Ron Nix, And Ken Thea, our project artist, and some surprise guests.
	And we're going to go into the big picture model of A, what's down at Cydonia and how the current photography is exquisite confirmation of the model.
	And then we're going to get into Tom's model of Mars as a former satellite of the planet that blew up.
	Now, here is the connection with the previous discussions of this evening.
	Remember, if the physics is real, if the hyperdimensional model is real, And you take out a major member of the solar system?
	Yes.
	A, what made it blow up?
	The model says the hyperdimensional physics made it blow up, alright?
	That's where you get the energy to blow up whole planets, boys and girls.
	Number two, what happens when you blow to smithereens a major planet living in the outer solar system between Mars and Jupiter?
	Change the whole hyperdimensional model of the solar system.
	You create the potential for succeeding catastrophes in the inner solar system and cyclic events, some of which we are coming up on now.
	All right.
	Hold it right there.
	Bottom of the hour.
	We'll be right back.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Well this is Coast to Coast AM.
	From the kingdom of Nigh, 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.
	and New Mexico at 1-800-618-8255.
	First time callers may reach Art at area code 702-727-1222.
	And you may fax Art at area code 702-727-8499.
	Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	All right, Richard, I've got a question for you.
	If I sometimes seem impatient, it's like my questions are going at 45 and your answers are coming at 33 and a third, you know?
	But let me try this one out.
	Dear Richard, you seem to have encountered a dichotomy in your logic of hyperdimensional physics and its possible use to save the Earth.
	You depend on physics, a physics, that from what I can determine so far, you cannot produce a mathematical equation, uh, not, not, not even one, that I've heard you mention.
	It is a reasonable question, can you produce any mathematical, um, a set of numbers that prove hyperdimensional physics.
	It's a reasonable question.
	Well, prove is, you know, I mean, at what level is prove?
	One of the things I've learned in the last 15 years of this whole debate about, you know, the artifacts at Cydonia is that some people look at this stuff and they say, oh my God, there's stuff down there.
	I know.
	And other people look at it, and no matter what you show them, it's not, nope, can't see it.
	You know what, Richard?
	I don't think it's ever going to change.
	And I will cite as an example the island of Okinawa.
	Where they've, half the people are saying they've got definitive not natural objects a hundred feet down or about 80 feet down below the surface of the ocean.
	Yeah, Boris Said called me a couple days ago and said he has incredible video and he's coming back with the team that lit the abyss.
	I know.
	For Cameron.
	To get really good video of the whole damn structure.
	I know, but then there's another half of people that argue it's a bunch of baloney, it's not natural at all.
	Okay.
	And we can't even prove it right here on Earth, much less Mars.
	Let me then move to physics, which is numbers and not, you know, does it look like something.
	Yeah, okay.
	There is a field of physics called relativity, right?
	General and special relativity.
	You bet.
	There's a venerable history of experiments Predictions, observations, going back to Eddington and that famous eclipse in the early part of the century, and yet there is a whole body of physicists, some of them headquartered at the University of Colorado, who publish a journal called the Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics, who are absolutely and resolutely in the middle of the 20, well, the end of the 20th century, convinced that Einstein is wrong, that relativity is not physics, it is wishful thinking, or fantasy, or whatever.
	So, even in physics today, you have factions, you have separatists, you have rebels, you have people who do not agree on the numbers.
	Right.
	We have the equivalent of relativity in terms of the hyperdimensional model.
	Relativity's cornerstone, for most people, is E equals MC squared.
	Right.
	Right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	The equivalent simple mathematical description of the hyperdimensional model is the angular momentum equivalence.
	In other words, we have found that the energy coming from other dimensions into this dimension seems to be proportional to simple total angular momentum.
	And I have produced a graph where I've looked at numbers from all over the solar system, and I'm trying to extend it now beyond as we get data from Hubble and other instrumentation, that I can graph on this beautiful, you know, two-axis sheet of paper, We're showing a nice straight line plot between the momentum of an object and the amount of internal energy it manifests from hyper-dimensional physics.
	And it's pretty neat.
	It's pretty linear.
	It really seems to track.
	And I have been working on this for years, well, 10 years, since 88.
	In the next book and maybe sooner on the web, you know, if I get it in a form that I really like.
	And other people can critique it because I want to chop this around to people that know physics and other things.
	I will put this out there, because this is kind of the predictive model.
	That's why I can come on your show and talk about all of these disparate things that you have generally lumped into this book of yours, which is a pretty neat book, called The Quickening, that appear to be separate, are in fact linked by this unifying model to be tested and tested and tested.
	I'm not sitting here tonight saying, this is it, guys.
	I'm saying, maybe it could be it, and we need to look closer and harder.
	And for God's sake, let's get rid of this damn secrecy which is going to kill us!
	Well, uh... Let's talk for a second about this Type 0, Type 1 thing.
	The lead news item this hour is Pakistan has completed most preparations for testing a nuclear weapon.
	That's from U.S.
	intelligence.
	India, as you know, tested five a couple weeks ago.
	The fight between India and Pakistan along the disputed Kashmiri border
	continues with artillery and mortar fire.
	Now, I see a possible set up there. How about you?
	Yeah, yeah. Given the straight line, third world competitive model,
	I certainly don't like the idea of an Indian Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons and on air triggers.
	Now, let me give you the positive.
	I mean, they're actually fighting.
	They're exchanging artillery fire and mortar fire.
	You know, a lot of people think that this is going to destabilize the region.
	I have a feeling that it's going to make people grow up very quickly.
	Remember, when World War II ended, we were the only guys with a bomb.
	And the Soviet Union, you know, Be it via the Rosenbergs, or the new data now says that they basically got it other ways.
	Got their own bomb in a couple of years.
	However they got it, they got it.
	They got it.
	There was a time when people were arguing strongly for Pax Americana.
	That we the United States should use our nuclear monopoly to enforce a rigid peace worldwide.
	We didn't do it.
	In hindsight, it probably was a good thing we didn't do it.
	What happened is that we got a stalemate.
	And people who normally Went to war at the drop of an eyelash and killed 20 million people like Stalin?
	Yes.
	He paused because of the nuclear threat.
	I probably am in the minority when I say that I don't think it's a bad idea in the short term that both Pakistan and India have, quote, the bomb.
	Yeah, I've thought about that myself.
	Well, if India has it, then if India- Because it's so terrible and it's not so obviously easy to demonstrate how terrible that even madmen We're not talking terrorists now.
	Remember, these are two nations that have national interests.
	They're not like Saddam Hussein.
	Saddam Hussein's interests are deviant on the world stage.
	But Pakistan and India both have national interests.
	They are highly competitive.
	If they're both equal, even with nuclear technology, I believe it will stabilize the region and not destabilize it.
	I could be wrong.
	If this model is a constant, Richard, then yes.
	I too have thought that if India has the bomb, then if I were a Pakistani, I'd damn well get it.
	And then there will be this Cold War type standoff where everybody realizes it's suicidal.
	Maybe.
	We don't have enough examples yet, Richard, to conclude that... Yes, that is our one example.
	where we had a standoff with the Russians. Yes, that is our one example. Exactly. And
	mad, mad mutual assured destruction may not be a constant.
	Remember the ups and downs our relationship went through. Remember the, you know, we
	had, you know, Bermudas radar hits off the moon, were misread as missiles. Yep.
	We had a weird guy in the White House who, you know, put us on DEFCON 3 or 4 at one point.
	I'm talking about Richard Nixon at the end of his presidency.
	We had all kinds of possible traps that could have fallen into.
	We had Cuba.
	And we had Cuba.
	And we had people arguing about an invasion of Cuba, and we now know, a la McNamara, That they had tactical nukes and if we had gone in there would have been a holocaust.
	But we didn't.
	Wiser and saner heads prevailed because there was a sobering effect of having that kind of power.
	There is an interesting ironic karma to this.
	Alright?
	Remember what Oppenheimer said after the first nuclear test?
	He quoted from the Vedas.
	I have become death, the destroyer of worlds?
	Yes.
	From the Indian heritage?
	Yes.
	That part of the world, it's now ironic, at the close of this cycle, if that's what we're dealing with, as we approach the end of the century, and are approaching some penultimate climax in this long hyperdimensional trend curve we've talked about, these two nations, where the Vedas were written Where the idea of destroyer of worlds originated, mounted by the father of the American atomic bomb.
	We are looking at the specter of those two nations now, which really is one nation, just divided.
	Armed with that technology, and maybe that can bring a standoff peace.
	Maybe.
	Like it did in the Cold War between us and the Soviet Union.
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	The interesting wrinkle in this is that if we develop the hyperdimensional tools, That I believe the Black Projects have given us and kept secret?
	Yes.
	Remember what Tesla was talking about in one of his discussions?
	That his physics could produce force shields?
	Yes.
	That could be impenetrable to nuclear technology?
	I recall, yes.
	In other words, nothing stands still.
	And if you try to put a lid on information or keep it secret, when the rest of the world is moving on, you wind up with destabilization and bad things can happen.
	We need a free sharing of information so that both sides of the coin, the offensive and defensive aspects of these tools, can be brought to bear on the problems as needed.
	Geez, Richard, if secrecy is a determinative factor or openness in our future, we're doomed.
	I don't think so.
	What about your conversation in L.A.
	with Harry Brown?
	The Libertarians.
	Oh, yes.
	Well, isn't Harry Brown four score against secrecy?
	Absolutely.
	Well, you just joined the party, right?
	Correct.
	In other words, if we're looking for a handle on how to deal with this, how to get the Republicans and Democrats to look at this national security madness that we have, you know, gone through for the last 50 years, where the enemies have gone away.
	I mean, why did we not know about Pakistan and India?
	Because we have so much secrecy, the CIA is so compartmentalized that the guys that may have known didn't tell the guys that should have known.
	Actually, they had the satellite data showing what was going on in India, and the guys who were supposed to interpret it were asleep.
	Literally, asleep.
	Well, at that moment, but not for weeks prior, you know.
	Well, that's the story they had on APN.
	Anyway, listen, we're way short on time, and I've got people waiting who've been waiting.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Thank you, Art.
	Sure.
	Hi, this is Brad from Paulsbo.
	Yes, Brad.
	And Richard, I was wondering if you were willing to make a definitive statement about just exactly how the transforms from some of Maxwell's equations might plug into how we're being impinged on by what's coming in from the hyperdimensional fields.
	Well, if you look at the outer solar system, we've got four planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
	From the 60s on, they've all been found to be radiating more energy out into space than they're getting from the Sun.
	And when you eliminate, you know, other possibilities, like shrinkage from the original formation of the solar system, leftover heat from the formation, that kind of stuff, you're left with a real mystery.
	Neptune, for instance, is radiating more than three times more energy out Good question.
	from the sun. It has 1,400 mile per hour winds and it gets, you know, less than a few billionth
	as much energy from the sun as we do. Our maximum winds here on earth from the sun,
	driven by solar energy, are what? 200 miles an hour in some hurricanes now?
	Yeah. 1,400 mile an hour winds on Neptune. Where is the damn energy coming from? Good question.
	Larry King, another perceptive interviewer, Mr. Bell, asked Dr. Sagan that night when
	those first images of Neptune came in from Voyager 2 in August of 89.
	It's a good thing.
	And Dr. Sagan deftly changed the subject.
	He would not grapple with the obvious.
	Does that mean that Carl knew?
	Well, I can't prove it, but I suspect that a lot of folks, not a lot by global standards, but a lot by, you know, agency standards, No, a lot more than they're letting on.
	Because of the political and economic implications.
	Yeah, you're saying Sagan kept secrets.
	Yes!
	I will unequivocally say that Sagan kept secrets, yes.
	And in his closing days of his life, he began to open doors to some of those secrets.
	Like, for instance, the night he sat on Ted Koppel on Nightline.
	He talked about the ice on the moon as possible evidence of life.
	Give me a break!
	He wasn't talking about microbes.
	The only kind of life you could have on the moon with that water would be intelligent life, a la the stuff we presented at the National Press Club a couple, three years ago on the Apollo and Lunar Orbiter photographs.
	Again, veiled disclosure.
	Does that answer your question, Culler?
	Uh, well, the answer is part of it, but not all.
	For instance, Richard, isn't it true that many of the equations that address this problem are available in Maxwell?
	I mean, like, recently I've been perusing a treatise on electricity and magnetism by him.
	And there are, well, nine chapters from three to twelve It seemed to cover almost everything you've covered tonight.
	The short answer is yes.
	Now, for people who are not interested in reading equations or may not understand them, Maxwell also wrote an exquisite series of hyperdimensional poems, Mark.
	And I'm going to call my source and put them on the web because they are crystal clear tetrahedral hyperdimensional statements in very literate and metaphorical poetry.
	All right, um, East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hello.
	Hello, this is Lisa in Houston.
	Lisa, you're gonna have to yell at us, huh?
	Okay.
	That's better.
	All right, hi, I have a couple questions for you, Richard.
	Yes?
	First of all, the Hawaiian Islands, I know that they were formed,
	geologically speaking, by the hot spots, that nobody knows actually what the hot spots are.
	They come up from the outer mantle, and the current geological models don't really explain them
	yet.
	Right. Does that have anything to do with the latitude that they're on?
	Absolutely.
	Of course, 19.5.
	Right. Can you trace that back in the way that, you know, they were with the planets and when they started forming,
	and see how this cycle in a cyclic manner, how it's all...
	Yeah, she's asking basically if there's any proof in that when you look back geologically.
	Well, we have a number of hotspots and if you start to look at the plate tectonics model for how continents move around on the surface of the globe, it's kind of like putting a cigarette under a piece of paper and you move the paper over the lit cigarette.
	What will you get if you look down on the piece of paper?
	You'll get a series of burn marks that show you where the hotspot, where the cigarette is.
	Well, the Continental Drift model shows very nicely that these hotspots have had preferential longing for 19.5, for 30, and 45, and 60 degrees, which are part of the hyperdimensional model.
	All right.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	Where are you?
	I'm calling from Vancouver, British Columbia, Kansas.
	Okay, fire away.
	It's a pleasure to talk to you and Richard.
	Richard, I was wondering about your, you were talking about the lack of data, when you're talking about different spikes in what's happening relative to this Earth, where we're talking about geophysical, metaphysical, and relative data that's in our Earth's relationship to the world, or the universe, our solar system, as it's happening.
	It's my solar system primarily, yeah.
	Exactly, but if we look at pre-Sumerian times, if we look at the algorithm, let's say we
	take a sedimentary record that's left here on earth and we look at that as one spike
	in the graph, let's say of a highly complex algorithm that's interpreted through a CGI
	graph, right?
	Right.
	But we can look at, without knowing the data, we're talking about, you're talking about
	missing data packets to make a qualitative total representation of the hyperdimensional
	picture that we're perceiving at multiple levels at one time.
	Right.
	But if you look at pre-Sumerian times, like, let's say, let's say we look at the time
	of the year, let's say it's the year of the sun, right?
	pre-antediluvian times, there's an algorithm and natural nature that allows you to contract
	or to extract this kind of poetry that you're trying to collect and pose as a linear train
	of thought through your notes and your calculations.
	Yeah, it's basically a pattern match.
	Okay, but you can do it very qualitatively as a pattern match.
	I come from a school of thought where we buck the traditional system or academia and we scoff at it simply because I don't have any need to qualify this or make it quantitative through physics, a model or an equation to to justify what's going on.
	This sounds like a long argument and there's the end of the show bumper music coming on here, guys.
	Well, Richard, it's really truly an honor for two minds to meet and art your form.
	It was meant to be.
	And, you know, we're here to eternity.
	I'm sure we're recorded on the cosmic, you know, it's going to be out there forever.
	Well, it'll keep going anyway, if contact was right.
	I'm sure we made that contact.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	And Karen Richard, we are at the end of it here.
	Already?
	Already.
	So, very good.
	As always, I certainly appreciate your being here.
	And it will be until next time.
	The feeling is mutual, Art.
	Take care, Richard.
	You too.
	Good night.
	All right, that's it, folks.
	We are woefully and completely out of time.
	So thank you all.
	Something for you all to think about.
	Whether it's as the conventional scientists say, or as the unconventional says, and it could easily be that way.
	I'd be the last to deny that.
	For tonight, though, that's it.
	From the high desert, good night.

▲