Art Bell

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 30, 1998 - Art Bell

02:42:31

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Death Threats, EQ Pegasi Hoax, Weather Control & Hoagland vs Stephens

Participants

Main voices

01:05:35

richard c hoagland

36:39

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, it began this way.
		Contrary to what many have said, it did certainly not begin on this program.
		The BBC on October 29th published an article entitled Puzzle Over Alien Discovery.
		The scientific world is buzzing with the suggestion that signals from aliens living in another star system may have been picked up by a part-time astronomer.
		Other astronomers are scrambling to confirm or deny them.
		Remember, this is from the BBC directly.
		It could either be the most important discovery ever made or more likely a case of mistaken identity or an elaborate hoax underlying the word elaborate.
		The part-time astronomer who discovered the signals posted the data on the internet but would not reveal his identity.
		He's been using a small radio telescope belonging to his firm to scan the sky for intelligent signals on October 22nd.
		And on the following night, he reported detecting signals from the EQ Pegasi star system, which is 22 light years away.
		The signals were not the type that occurred naturally.
		The data has been distributed to several astronomers and observatories.
		However, astronomers at the Godrell Bank Observatory in England say it is all a case of mistaken identity and so forth and so on.
		So that was the initial blast that lit up everybody's, I guess, microphones and broadcasters.
		And obviously, when you get something like this from a respected organization like the BBC, it gets your attention.
		And that is, I guess, where it begins.
		Here is Richard C. Hoagland, one-time advisor to NASA, Walter Cronkite's advisor, and winner of the Angstrom Science Award.
		Richard, are you there?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Good evening, Art.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I am.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And you are at home in New Mexico?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I am at home on a windy mountaintop about 7,000 feet.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This is definitely the high desert.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		The person that this all was attributed to very shortly thereafter, following this BBC story, was a man named Paul Dore in Great Britain.
		And we have Paul Dorr in Great Britain with us tonight.
		Paul, are you there?
unidentified		Yeah, I'm here.
unidentified		It's pronounced Dorray, though.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Dorray?
unidentified		Yeah, Thoray.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Doray.
		Okay, I'm sorry.
		Most Americans would say Dorr, D-O-R-E, but it's Doré.
		Okay, very good, Paul.
		First of all, I'm very honored that you have finally decided to come on the program.
		At one previous time, I did extend the invitation to you.
		Actually, you said you wanted to come on, and I wrote you email back and said, yes, by all means.
		And then you wrote me back and said, no, I've decided not to.
		And then have since appeared on several other programs.
		Is that roughly accurate?
unidentified		Yeah, that's actually good.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		I'm curious, Paul, why, this is just my question before we get into anything else.
		Why did you initially wish to come on a program and then decline and go on other programs?
unidentified		Well, I initially went on the law release show before your show, and no mention has ever been made of that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And also sightings.
unidentified		And also sightings subsequently, but I went on the law release show and stated I was not the hoax, et cetera.
		And I'd been contacted by Michael Thoreau at Boulderland, who sent a mail message off to your show, but no one ever stated it was not me at that time.
		So I changed my mind.
		I thought, well, I'm going to get stitched up here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Stitched up?
		That's British for clobbered, I guess, or somehow attacked.
		Is that what you thought?
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't do that, Paul.
		I don't attack people.
		I don't do that.
		That's not my style of talk radio at all.
		However, I do want to get to the bottom as best we can of all of this.
		And you and I know Richard have not really had very many words together.
		In fact, I think you had not spoken ever until earlier today when Richard tells me that somehow you got his number and called him at home.
		Is that correct?
unidentified		That's correct.
unidentified		But if not for once I tried him, I've tried all means, and he's never once tried to contact me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Dorey, that is flatly and incontestably not true.
		I had a friend of mine for 30 years in London attempt to get hold of you personally.
		Her name is Andromeda, Andromeda Williams.
		She sent you email.
		You emailed her back.
		I have your response, which I would like to read, because it is very curious.
		It is very inconsistent in terms of your actions subsequent to what you told my friend.
		And I just think you'll ought to hear, you know, from the get-go that things are not as they are being portrayed.
		You said to her, Dear Andromeda, thank you for your offer.
		I will not be taking this up as I am growing tired of the whole affair.
		This is on the 17th of November of this year.
		I have no wish to perpetrate this hoax, perpetuate rather.
		My only wish was to find out who used my name and who used my CV to start this whole thing, since it caused me a great deal of harassment, which I do not find amusing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you write that, Paul?
unidentified		Yes, I did.
unidentified		That's still the case.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Then why are you on the show tonight?
unidentified		Because that particular incident, I was asked to do a tape-recorded interview, which is not the same as live.
		You can take that away and manipulate it like every single thing you've done so far.
		So, however, back up.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's back way up, actually, Richard.
		Hold on a second.
		Now, Paul, would you acknowledge that Richard Hoagland certainly did not start this hoax?
		And in several messages, you did seem to intimate that Richard was part of this hoax.
		And the BBC there in your country broke this story.
		It did not break here.
		It broke there.
unidentified		The BBC reported the story that they'd listed from the internet.
		There's a Dr. David Whitehouse, who also has not replied to a single email of mine.
		So I'm not too enamored with him either.
		But the well, I mean, that's how they broke the hoax.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, all I'm saying is that the BBC is the first media, mass media, that broke the story.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know, there may have been something on the internet, but as far as mass media is concerned, it began with the BBC right there in your country.
unidentified		They were reporting what they'd found on the internet, yes, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And of course, the BBC is very well respected worldwide, not just in Great Britain, but here as well.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And so a story by the BBC gets everybody's attention, of course.
unidentified		Yes, the BBC also removed my name from the story once I complained.
		Unlike Enterprise Mission, there's no way you can contact them.
		So there's no way I can say that at all.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's not true.
		It reads in the BBC story, it says the part-time astronomer, you, of course, who discovered the signals, which you claim was a hoax and somebody used your name.
		Anyway, the BBC says that you posted the data on the internet, but would not reveal his identity.
		Now, that implies that they should have said something like, wishes to remain anonymous or something like that, but would not reveal his identity is the way it reads.
unidentified		Yeah, the BBC also put a second story with my name and what was believed at the time to be my employer, which has got totally wrong because I hadn't updated my CV.
		Slightly unfortunate there.
		So I got them to remove that.
		I said, look, I'm not involved with this.
		But the editor of that story then subsequently appeared a week later on the Law Release Show and said, his only regret was using my name.
		So none of this gets reported on Enterprise Mission.
		They just report what they want, which is to distort all the facts.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, even if you are the innocent victim of a hoax, surely you can understand that when a news organization the size of the BBC breaks a story like this, it's going to cause a lot of attention.
unidentified		Yes.
		Is that my fault?
		Well, I'm not.
		I have no idea.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		May I say something?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you may.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		When I got into this, it was specifically because you and I had a conversation a night or two after you came back.
		And you asked me, I think it was in the early evening, what I thought of this BBC story.
		And because of my background at NASA and the Hayden Planetarium and with Cronkite and all that, and the fact that I have more than a passing acquaintance with astronomy and SETI and Frank Drake and I have known each other for years, et cetera, et cetera, I said, this is pretty interesting.
		Why don't we, if you want to do something, why don't we do something from my perspective?
		And you said, okay.
		And that night, Friday night, the 29th, I think, was it the 29th or 28th of October, was the first time that I was brought into this by Art Bell.
		And all I did was a show which basically put down some numbers and did some speculation about the fact that the signal was not ostensibly at 1420, but at 1450-53, I think, and did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and speculated, freely admitting that we did so, that maybe it wasn't an interstellar steady signal in the classic sense, but might be coming from a probe heading in this direction.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The next I heard of my involvement in the story was an email exchange between Peter Gersten, who's a lawyer who's the head of cause, and Mr. Doray, where Paul Doray, out of the blue, accuses me of being, quote, the hoaxer of the EQ Pegasi story.
		At which point my radar goes into full mode and I think, oh, this is interesting.
		What's the plot behind the story here?
		Why is someone in the UK who I have never met, never seen, never spoken to, who has not heard the Art Bell show, why is he taking out after Enterprise when we are only commenting on a BBC story?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Paul, why don't you pick it up at that point?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you virtually accuse him early on of being the hoaxer?
unidentified		I was asked who you believe could be behind this hoax, and I said, yes, Richard Hogan could be behind it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That sounds quite awesome.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Isn't that a bit cheeky?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, do you suppose that's a good idea?
unidentified		Hang on, if that's cheeky, it's no more cheekier than taking my name and going on Art Bell Show and saying you've got evidence that I'm the hoaxer.
unidentified		Now, I want to see that evidence because you stated that and said, sue me if he wants.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's the evidence.
		That is a fact.
		Richard said that.
		But let's try this, Paul, today, right now.
		Do you still...
		Do you believe that Richard today is the hoaxer?
unidentified		I believe he's eyeballs in it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, you did make a definitive statement about Paul being the hoaxer and said if he would like, let him sue me.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, I'll lay out what the evidence.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We all know what the evidence is.
unidentified		A lot of this has been based on...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		John, let's get to that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What a lot of this has been based on innuendo and finger-pointing.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If you go to Mr. Dory's website, you will see a litany of people that are, quote, supposed to have done this, hoaxes.
unidentified		By the way, where's the evidence?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Dory, none of it is true.
unidentified		You have the proof.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You have simple accusation.
		The only piece of hard, electronic, fingerprint-type evidence comes from you.
		You posted on the GeoCities website on a newsgroup, apparently, forging their codes some kind of message which was traced back to your UK website.
unidentified		Web address.
unidentified		All right, let's say that's a good question.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Hold on.
unidentified		All right, hold on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let's let Paul respond to that.
		Now, Paul, you did, in fact, make a posting that I heard you say on another show.
		You intentionally misled people.
unidentified		It's actually referenced from your website.
		I made the posting saying, I can't remember what it said, it was very short.
		And I put the return address as one the hoaxer had used because I knew that would kind of say piss him off.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So, in other words, you forged the return address to, you're saying, try to flush out the hoaxer?
unidentified		Yes, exactly.
		And that is evidently coming from my email address because you can trace it in the header.
		Now, all the original ones trace to shell.p3.net as stated on my website.
		That particular one traces to my fixed IP address.
		And you know damn well that that is true because underneath someone did the same thing to you, I believe.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Listen, on the internet, anybody can be anybody.
unidentified		Exactly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		As we want.
unidentified		That is not proof.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, but you are acknowledging that you did forge one header in an attempt.
unidentified		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Now, let me ask this question.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You know, if there's a major bank robbery in town, about four or five million dollars or pounds has been stolen, does someone who is not involved immediately rush to the bank and stuff banknotes in their pocket and then I'll be able to get the best I've had my resume.
unidentified		ripped off by the likes of yourselves and to As Ronald Reagan said, there you go again.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul, let me jump in here again.
		I believe that you went on another radio show and named another individual as the hoaxer.
		Yes.
		Is that not correct?
unidentified		No, that's correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That name was not Richard Hoagland, was it?
unidentified		No, that's correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you now believe that to be true?
unidentified		Yes, I still believe that to be true.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You still believe it to be true.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So now, either Richard is or is not the hoaxer.
unidentified		Right.
		Well, I've got a question for Richard.
		Has he ever had any contact?
		Have you ever had any contact with Terry Team Rogers?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I've read his website.
unidentified		Yeah, but have you ever had any contact with him?
unidentified		Have you ever sent him an email or not?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I don't normally send email because I want to be private.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I want to have part of my life private, and I am very selective who I email and who I talk to.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you email him, Rogers?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		Okay, so why has Terry T. Rogers got an email on his website which states, that is why I said December the 7th.
unidentified		Now, who could that be?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I have not followed Mr. Rogers' website.
		In fact, I understand now his website has disappeared.
		What does that have to do with weeks earlier, you telling Peter Gerston in print that you thought I was somehow behind this, which is ludicrous.
unidentified		Absolutely ludicrous.
unidentified		Well, answer the question.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		How can you go around making accusations with absolutely zero evidence?
unidentified		No, I'm saying.
		Oh, I've got the evidence.
		I've got the website and the page and I've got it on my computer and it says that is why I said December the 7th.
		Now, who would say that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, no, this is called circumstantial mudslinging.
		We have approach tying you to part of this.
		There is no direct evidence of anyone else, Mr. Dory, except yourself.
		And you claim that you made it up to the hoax.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They read whatever.
unidentified		They read.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There is.
		All right.
		That's where we'll pick it up when we come back.
		We're now at the bottom of the hour.
		Paul Dore in Great Britain and Richard C. Hoagland in Albuquerque, New Mexico are my guests.
		Most of you anyway, know what this is all about.
		The Pegasus hoax.
		Question mark.
		Exclamation point.
		Underlined.
		I don't know.
		I'm our belt.
		This is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified		Coast to Coast AM
		To talk with Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye from outside the U.S., first dial your access number to the USA, then 800-893-0903.
		If you're a first-time caller, call ART at 702-727-1222.
		From east of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
		West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and 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 A.M. from the Kingdom of Nye.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is Paul Dore from the United Kingdom.
		Either perpetrator or victim of the Pegasus hoax is my guest.
		Richard Hoagland is my guest as well.
		We'll get back to them in a moment.
		All right.
		I want to say something as we go back to my guests.
		We're going to probably run over into A.M. Stevens' time, and so I want to notify the audience and everybody involved.
		Obviously, this is going to go a little longer.
		I have been the victim of hoaxes, quite a few hoaxes lately.
		Somebody out there decided to write nasty, nasty messages about the Filipino culture, about the Afro-American culture, about gays, about Mexicans, and posted these under my name in various cultural groups, a very dangerous thing to have done.
		I've turned the whole thing over to the FBI, and they're working on that now.
		But it is true that somebody can be the victim of a hoax, or in this case, a very dangerous hoax, because obviously with the vitriolic things that were said supposedly under my name, you could get somebody killed that way.
		There's no question about it.
		So I've turned all that over to the FBI.
		And so from that point of view, I understand, Paul, that things could be done in your Name with your resume and with some limited knowledge of who you were, and that perhaps you could be acknowledged as not being the hoaxer.
		I understand that you can be the victim of that kind of thing.
		Richard, would you care to comment on that?
		Because certainly it's true.
		It's happened to me.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's happened to me.
		And the difference is that you and I have responded very differently than Paul Dore.
		We have not flailed out and accused everybody on the planet of being behind something that we describe as despicable, a hoax, a terrible whatever against the halls of science.
		And what bothered me from the beginning was not the events.
		I mean, the events are intriguing and mysterious, and they led us to some pretty fascinating information, which we'll get to an update later on this evening.
		What bothered me was that here was someone on the other side of the Atlantic who I'd never met, who had no way of knowing anything about me, who was attacking me to an attorney who is an email correspondent out of the gun, out of sight, out of the gate.
		He simply flailed out and accused us at Enterprise of somehow being behind us.
unidentified		All right, Chris.
unidentified		Well, can I answer that?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you may.
unidentified		I accused you of being behind it because when I turned down the offer of a taped conversation with Andromeda Williams, within hours, a story appeared on your website linking me to O.J. Simpson.
unidentified		This occurred before.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This occurred before, sir.
unidentified		Okay, Paul, let me jump in again.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul, you said initially that Richard Hogan never tried to contact you, but now you say that indeed Andromeda did try to contact you on behalf of Richard Hogan.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is that correct?
unidentified		Yeah, it wasn't obvious.
		It was on behalf of Richard Hogan.
		He never said I'm trying to contact you on behalf of Richard Hogan.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That is not true.
		Shall I read the emails I sent to you?
		Shall I read the emails I sent to you?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard, hold it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let him say what he wants to say.
unidentified		You're going to read Richard Hogan and Art Bell for subsequent play on the Art Bell show.
		And like I said, there's no way I'm going to do a taped interview because everything gets distorted.
		I've seen it.
		Can I just go back to the OJ Simpson story?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me finish, okay?
unidentified		No, let me finish.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		There was a show of New Yorker many years ago.
		It's a cartoon written by one of their eloquent cartoonists, which depicts two dogs sitting in front of a computer terminal.
		One dog says to the other, go on, type something.
		On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
		The problem with the internet, the problem with this entire discussion this evening is it's soap opera.
		It's virtual reality soap opera.
unidentified		You have been pointing fingers from the other side of Atlanta.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You have been pointing fingers from the other side of Atlantic to anybody here in the States.
		And likewise, we have been looking at you.
		And we have been very suspicious because this story did start in the United Kingdom.
		May I finish this?
		May I finish?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, but go ahead, Richard.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The point of having a face-to-face meeting with someone that I have known for 30 years was I wanted to cut the virtual part out of this reality.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I wanted a real face-to-face meeting with a real guy who could look in a friend's eyes and tell her what he felt was really going on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard, as long as I use this.
		Paul and Richard, Paul and Richard, hold on a second.
		Richard, do you have email proving that Andromeda contacted Paul in behalf of you?
		And now I hear my name as well.
		I hadn't heard that before.
		But is that what happened?
		What is the...
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll have to dig it out.
		I didn't print that one out tonight.
		I didn't think we'd be going back that far in ancient history.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it is important.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have his response.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is important because Paul said that you never tried to get hold of him.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He said that on several shows.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is wrong.
		This is an error.
		It may take me till the next break to find it.
		Can I find it?
		It's here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, all right.
		So you do have it.
		Say something.
		Yes, you may, Paul.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Trying to get hold of me via a second person is not trying to get hold of me.
		Everyone else has been able to contact me directly.
		And you stated on the Art Bell show.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold on to the show.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, let him finish.
unidentified		You stated on the Art Bell show that I was running from you, and I put it to you that it was the other way around because I appeared on three radio shows of which you were offered to attend, and you turned it down when you heard I was on there.
unidentified		How do you answer that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't think it's true.
unidentified		It's true.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Look, Mike, I am sitting here looking at this fact or this email where you say you did not want to be involved.
		In fact, at the end of it, you say, P.S., give my regards to RCH and Art Bill.
		I think this is all an attempt to discredit them.
unidentified		Yeah, it's quite possible.
unidentified		No, but now you've gone from accumulating me of being the host.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, now that is interesting, Paul.
unidentified		Someone informed me that you were to appear on the Mike Jarmas show.
		And I sent them an email, says, I hear you've got Richard Hogeron.
		I hope you don't put up for any nonsense.
		And they said, well, would you like to appear as well?
		And I said, yes.
		They then phoned you to tell you I was on the show and you turned them down.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, because I'm not interested in a pissing contest.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I'm trying to get at the truth of what I know.
unidentified		Why do you then subsequently go on the Art Bell show and say that I'm running from you?
unidentified		That's hardly running from you.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It was not subsequent, sir.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Again, you have your time frames on the show.
unidentified		I do not.
unidentified		I have it perfectly, and I've got the real audio archive data and I still puppy that on my website where I appear on the Mike Jones show and you turn it down.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		May I call you Paul first of all?
unidentified		May I call you Paul?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you said yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I didn't hear the answer.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		How do we know you're Paul Dore?
unidentified		If you're a voice on a phone because...
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me finish the question.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		How do we know?
unidentified		How do you know I'm Paul Dore?
		Yeah.
		Because I know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Have any of your friends appeared on radio or television?
		Have they given any interviews?
		Do they say they know you, your children, your wife?
unidentified		None of them have to say.
		I'm not Paul Dore now.
		That's a good one, isn't it?
		The problem is, I am actually in contact on the internet at this very moment with other people, so they know it's me.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, they don't know it's you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, hold it, everybody.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We both, I think all of us acknowledged that anybody can seemingly be anybody on the internet.
unidentified		Yes, but you can trace down email addresses to the IP address of the originator.
		Now, in my case, the IP address traces to a fixed IP address of Web Computing Demon Co.
		UK.
		Now, unbeknown to Richard, Web Computing is a limited company which I am the director of.
		So, anyone who wants can go to companies house in the UK, look at Web Computing, and they will see it's owned by Paul Doray.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So, Paul, you are the director of an internet provider in Great Britain?
unidentified		No, no, I'm a director of a limited company which I contract through.
		And you have to register it, and you have to be a director of a registered company.
		And it's registered in my name, Paul Doray.
		And the name is Web Computing.
		My website is called Web Computing.
		I've been with them for Feman Internet for about four years now.
		And I will give Feeman permission to say that it is my website.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's see if I can try something here.
		Paul, do you acknowledge that Richard Hoagland might not be the hoaxer?
unidentified		Oh, yeah, of course I do.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You acknowledge that now?
unidentified		Yes, but I...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That he may be, could be a victim of this hoax.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		My whole point is that when we're dealing in this electronic virtual reality nonsense, nobody can be sure of anything anymore unless you sit down face to face.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, right.
		I think, Paul, one second, that Richard's contention was, although he did say at one point that he was certain that you were the hoaxer and that you should sue him if that's untrue.
		So both of you have made definitive statements that you have now backed away from.
		Richard says, well, maybe you're not the hoaxer.
		And Paul, you're now saying Richard may not be the hoaxer.
unidentified		Yeah, no, he's the hoaxer, but I believe he's been in contact with the hoaxer.
		As I stated, the hoaxer, as I've said, who the hoaxer was, has got an email on his website which says, that is why I stated December the 7th.
		Now, Richard has not answered.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand the question.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Is this what you're reporting?
unidentified		There's only one person.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, no, does he...
unidentified		There's only one person.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Who are we talking about, Paul?
unidentified		Terry T. Rogers.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Terry T. Who is Terry T. Rogers?
unidentified		Well, you know who he is because you said you visited his website.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But 20 million people don't.
unidentified		Who is this?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Actually, there's a Terry T. Rogers that you've mentioned, and then there's also a Kent Steadman, who you named as a hoaxer on another radio program.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you've named three people, Richard Hoe.
unidentified		No, I didn't name Kent Steadman as a hoaxer.
		I said he had evidence on his site where the same story was released back in, I can't remember the exact date, but it's in May.
		There was a signal received by a British astronomer from Sigma Say, you know, remarkable resemblance.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you did not say on the sightings radio show that you thought Kent Stebman was a hoaxer?
unidentified		No.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you say that you thought Terry T. Rogers was a hoaxer?
unidentified		I very likely did, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You did?
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And then you, at some point, and I caught this a moment ago, you also said that you thought this was being done to set up Richard Hoagland and Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is that correct?
unidentified		That was one of the potential possibles.
		Because Richard Hoagland still to this day has got on his website stuff which says I'm compared to A.J. Simpson.
		And he's saying, just because I want to pursue the truth, that it compares with O.J. Simpson.
		Well, what if you compare him with?
		Saddam Hussein?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Richard, what evidence do you have, specific evidence, that Paul Doray, if that's who we have on the phone now, is the hoaxer?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is a case of circumstantial errors from beginning to end.
		And, of course, it's a cat chasing this tale because it's going nowhere.
		The real story is out there on the landscape, and we're arguing among ourselves as to who did what, to whom, when, in fact, whoever is really doing something is getting away, quote, scot-free.
		But let me try to give a little clarity here.
		The only hard evidence we have, electronic evidence, of anyone forging material in Mr. Dore's name to that site, to that GeoCity site, is traceable back to Paul Dorey, and he is admitted.
unidentified		I've never forgotten to that site.
		Never to the original site.
		I never forced anything to that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		My point is, in comparing it to a bank robbery, this has either got to be one of the dumbest things you ever do if you want to stay uninvolved to throw yourself into the middle by faking IP codes and naming that.
unidentified		stay uninvolved when you've got on your website stuff that compares me with OJ Simpson, you've got stuff that...
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The point is, as a reporter, as a reporter, the metaphor, the analogy, the comparison between someone in this country who's very famous and claims he didn't do something, and yet we don't see any visible evidence that he's trying to find out who did, and the Paul Dor Dore who's making the same claims and pointing fingers at everybody else is pretty apt.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul, it is true that the only evidence, hard evidence we have of anybody who faked an email address, and there may be many people who did, is the one instance of your forging that email address.
unidentified		Well, that's right, because I use my own email address unlike others.
		Now, can I go on to another thing?
		I'd like to ask Richard, given that you're now saying it is a hoax, you agree it's a hoax?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not a hoax.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul, let me, hold it, hold it, everybody.
		Paul, let's try and imagine this might be true, that somebody wanted this story out for whatever reason, and it may not have Been you.
		They may have picked on you as they picked on me and decided that you were a good candidate to launch all of this.
		And you'll remember, it didn't stop with you, Paul.
		There were people in Japan, there were people in Australia.
unidentified		That was proven to be his identity was stolen as well, the Japanese.
unidentified		Yeah, and Australia, and I think Australians have said no, it's not true.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And Mr. Dory, may I remind you that on that GeoCities website, for some bizarre reason, my initials suddenly appeared without my permission.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's true.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		My identity was taken.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's true.
		They erased the site, Paul, as I'm sure you're aware, and the only thing left were the initials R-C-H, Richard C. Hogand.
		You're aware of that?
unidentified		I was aware of that, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So it may well be that somebody did not only get you, Paul, but they got Richard.
unidentified		Richard's saying it's not a hoax.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But they got Richard as well.
unidentified		Yeah, but it's not a hoax, Richard says.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think what Richard might be trying to say is that even if you did not do this, somebody did it for a specific reason, and that's why he has continued to follow the story.
unidentified		Okay, can I ask Richard then, what signal did he use to determine that the landing would be December the 7th?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, we had an inside source in the Pentagon who told us it was going to be December 7th, which has been posted on our website.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And I want to make one other point.
unidentified		Well, hold on.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You've posted a calculated point.
unidentified		You've got calculations every time.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Every time we have used the name Paul Dore in our website, in our writings, in our publications, we have put it in quotes.
unidentified		No, you haven't.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we have.
unidentified		You've put it in quotes subsequent to a certain date, but prior to that, you've got on your website, Paul Dore used to hopefully, you've got on your website, there's a message from Paul Dore without quotes.
unidentified		I suggest you update it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's in terms of the IP codes, remember?
unidentified		No.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Infamous IP codes?
unidentified		In O My God.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he's referring to the one message that you do admit you forged Paul.
unidentified		No, it's not.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think he is.
unidentified		He might be, but yeah, he very likely is.
		But there's other places where it appears without quotes, quite blatantly without quotes.
		In the first message, "Oh my God," it says my name without quotes.
		And it goes on to say that it was...
		What's the date of that?
		Why are you interrupting me?
		Because you don't know his question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He's just asking you what is the date of that?
unidentified		The date of...
		It was the first one that was caught on the website.
		But it was calculated on there from the frequency that the landing would be December the 7th.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We switched subjects.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We're talking about your name and now we're into calculations.
unidentified		Yeah, but it's the whole story.
		You've got to answer.
		You make these calculations.
		You've got to be able to explain them.
		It's scientific, you know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, what does this have to do with you?
unidentified		Because it's not.
		If you're not involved at Paul, why should I care to you?
		Paul, you're not involved in this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We can only hear one person at a time.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Why should you care?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		There used to be a saying by one of yours.
unidentified		He couldn't call Shakespeare involved.
unidentified		He doesn't answer the question.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		William Shakespeare?
unidentified		I'll answer the question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, no, Richard, I think it is fair to ask.
		You know, he should care, and I would care.
		If I was the victim of a hoax that I have been, I care very much.
		And so I can understand that if he really didn't do this, of course he would care.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, but he's not.
		No, we're talking two different things.
		He's not concerned about the use of his name.
		He's talking now about a calculation.
		How do I know about a calculation?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is a switch of subjects, yes.
unidentified		No, the calculation appears directly underneath my name.
		It says the signal received by Paul Doray as on substitutes of frequency.
		We've got this frequency, Peru Shift speed, et cetera.
		And the landing date will be December the 7th based on those calculations.
		Now, I'm asking, quite legitimately, because it's so scientific, Mr. Hoveland, how does he calculate it?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, okay.
		I see, Richard.
		So he simply is asking how you calculate it.
unidentified		And the other question is, I'd like to know how far away Jupiter is in miles.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And why is this relevant?
unidentified		I asked.
		Well, it's relevant.
		It's on the page.
		This is where you'll calculate the landing page.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You're using this informational technique.
		It's changing the subject.
		Why are you changing the subject?
unidentified		I'm not changing the subject.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's on the website.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's not relevant to the use of your name.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gentlemen.
unidentified		No, you can't answer the question.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		How is it relevant to the use of your name?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let's pick up on that point when we get back.
unidentified		Okay, thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You bet.
		We're at the top of the hour, and we will be back to continue this.
		Paul Dore in Great Britain is my guest, as well as Richard C. Hoagland in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
		So we'll all take a good deep breath and come back after the news and see if we can make sense out of this.
unidentified		I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast A.M. Take your place on the strength of
		the end.
		From the Kingdom of Nive, this is Coast to Coast A.M. 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 you may fax ART at Area Code 702-727-8499.
		Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
		Now again, here's Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul Dore is here from Great Britain, and so is Richard C. Hoagland.
		And we are talking about the Pegasus hoax, and we'll get right back to it.
		All right, Let's try and somehow lower the rhetoric.
		Both of you are back on the air again, and I want to say this.
		I'm a real neophyte when it comes to the internet.
		I've been learning over the last few years, but I'm still a neophyte.
		If I need help with something, like trying to trace something or something like that, I turn to Keith Roland, who is my webmaster, and he helps me.
		I'm a neophyte.
		Paul, I'm telling you right now, Richard, Richard, when it comes to email and things about the net, no offense, Richard, but Richard is a complete dummy compared to me.
		And I'm a dummy.
		I'm a neophyte.
		So Richard Hoagland would not have the expertise to fake anything, Paul.
		You, on the other hand, and I'm not saying you have faked anything other than the one thing you have admitted to.
unidentified		I don't know how to fake.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You do have, though, Paul, you do have the expertise to do this kind of thing.
unidentified		Unfortunately, I wouldn't know how to fake something so it appeared to originate in the USA and terminate in the USA from the UK.
		I know how to fake a header so that it's still obvious it comes from the UK, which is what I did.
		But I wouldn't know how to make it look like it appeared that it came from the UK.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, all I'm suggesting, Paul, is that you know an awful lot more about all of this than I do, and certainly than Richard.
unidentified		Yeah, that's true.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I'd like to say something.
		Earlier in the evening, we were discussing emails back and forth to London, and my friend Andromeda, by the way, there's an incredible irony here, which we all kind of should step back and lighten up and think about.
		This all started, you know, between Mr. Doré and myself over a horse, Pegasus, the flying horse of classic Grecian mythology.
		Pegasus was ridden by an individual in Grecian mythology named Perseus to rescue a fair damsel named Andromeda from the Gorgon, from the Medusa.
		I find it exquisitely ironic that after 30 years of knowing Andromeda, and that's her God-given name christened at birth, that my friend Andromeda should become the attempted go-between between me, Enterprise, and Mr. Doreen to the bottom of the mystery.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Interesting but irrelevant.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Somewhat irrelevant.
unidentified		Just to connect.
unidentified		You said it's irrelevant your story on the signal and how you calculated that December the 7th was the landing.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me get to that.
unidentified		Don't explain.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me get to my point.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have now found the emails.
unidentified		I want an answer.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have found the emails I was asking.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, all right, all right.
		Paul, let me give you the answer.
		It's simple.
		If the signal was as in the forged documents on that frequency and shifting down, which would be a blue shift, meaning an object was coming toward us, then my layman's interpretation of what Richard did was to calculate its arrival time based on its speed, based on the blue shift as the frequency drifted downward.
		Is that correct, Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Totally.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But it's totally irrelevant to who Paul Dory is.
unidentified		It's not irrelevant because the same story is on the same page.
unidentified		You can get the speed from the shifting frequency, but you've got to know how far away it is to know when it's going to land.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but this is something that it's elemental physics, and anybody would come up with the same conclusion, I think.
unidentified		They wouldn't get the date, though, because you've got too many unknowns.
unidentified		You know the changing frequency, so you can get velocity, but you've got to know where, how far away.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Can we have a little order in this conversation?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, the order will come if not everybody talks at once.
unidentified		I thought Richard was quite scientific, so I thought he should enjoy explaining how the changing frequency, you've got to know the distance.
		The thing is, on the same website where he's got my receipt for the signal, my claim receipt of the signal, it states when the following email has proof of it from Dr. Jim Warwick.
		Now, if you read the email, it's not proof.
		It's in fact saying it is not possible because if the probe is over 10 billion miles away, which is the same thing.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, what does this have to do with the data?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What does this have to do with the theft of your name?
unidentified		Because you then go on to plaster your website with my name with messages that you've decoded to show it's December the 7th using my name.
		It doesn't matter whether you put quotes around it or not.
		It's my name you're using.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So it's relevant.
unidentified		You cannot explain how you calculated from just the changing frequency because you can't because it is not true.
		It's false.
		It's lies.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Paul, I don't.
		Paul, I just told Richard what he said was irrelevant.
		I think what you're saying is irrelevant too.
		Now, look, both of you.
unidentified		On the same page, he quotes Nathan Keyes of the sun.
		There is no Nathan Keyes.
		And then he goes on to quote that he's got that there's a press conference to be held and it's the International Astronomy and Breeze Astromical Association.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		And they've not been mentioned anywhere else.
unidentified		But how does he get that info?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, where did you get that name?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That was from the EQPEG website.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The GeoCities website.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So he was reprinting what was on the GeoCities website.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And through Andromeda, I actually had her trolling the streets of London, finding this press conference before it was supposed to take place, discovering that it was not going to take place, that none of the principles, either at the center or at the newspaper, existed.
		And we went on your show in a series of nightly updates spanning almost two weeks and reported almost hourly the changes in the story.
		You went to the things that were true and the things that were not true.
unidentified		You went on the show.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And you also updated our material on the web.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, hold on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Paul.
unidentified		You went on the show and said that you've had all your contacts in the UK looking for me.
		But by then, Michael Thoreau of Boulderland had actually found me a week earlier and sent an email to our show saying that he's found Paul's all right and so on and so on.
		But no response.
		You still didn't.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You still have the 11th of November.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I have an email here from here.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		On the 11th of November, I have an email here from Andromeda saying that she has gone to your site because I turned to someone that I knew.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Remember, in the virtual reality world, we have to kind of daisy chain through people that we know, that we trust.
unidentified		Okay, okay.
unidentified		Go ahead.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		She responded back after looking at your site that you had linked your site, Paul Dore's site, to Enterprise under the name Hoax Land.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Now, this was the second strike against you, Mr. Dory, because again, you're just flinging mud on the wall.
unidentified		Okay, Paul, did you mud on the wall?
unidentified		Did you do that?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you do that, Paul?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you link to a site calling it Hoax Land?
unidentified		Yes, I did because it's plastered with stuff on the hoax, and it's got my name plastered all over it.
		So I feel I've got the right to defend myself.
		And it's too bad if he doesn't like the name Hoax Land because all the data on his site is a hoax.
		It's bogus.
		It's not a science.
		He can't answer how he calculated the landing date.
		Changing the few.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		On the 14th, I have an email from Andromeda.
unidentified		Do you can answer it?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have just emailed Paul Dorr or Paul Dore simply saying that you have asked me to represent him and would he consider an interview face-to-face if possible.
		So now we wait.
		Now, you claimed a few moments ago that you never knew that she was representing me.
unidentified		I have an email to her.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		She emailed to you representing Richard C. Hoagland.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, no, that is true.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And she is true.
unidentified		And it says you will take recorded interview for subsequent play.
		And I've told you, I do not want you manipulating any more data because you just take data and turn it to your advantage.
		So how do you calculate the landing?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's get to that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, how did you calculate what the landing date would be, please?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		On your show and on our website, I have said over and over again, since last June, we had a contact in the Pentagon who tried to get me to pay attention to an ostensible E.T landing somewhere on the west coast.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Eventually, by the fall, the date came out as December the 7th.
unidentified		By the signal, Paul.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I put these two pieces of separate data together, a possible signal dopplering down, blue-shifted, as artfully said a moment ago, and an inside source claiming a possible landing, and that's how we arrived at the date.
unidentified		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Were you able, Richard, through only the blue-shift calculations to determine what the landing date would be, or did you require that second piece of information to put it all together?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What we had over the subsequent week, Art, was three more data points.
		We had the signal from Japan.
		We had the signal from Guernsey.
unidentified		Oaks.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Guernsey.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Please stolen.
unidentified		Japanese signal.
unidentified		The Japanese person had his identity stolen the same way.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Dory, you're incredibly rude.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, hold on, folks.
unidentified		Well, as rude as you, you're rude.
		You're the one who's got my name on your website.
		You're the one who's claiming all these things in my name.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And you're the one all over the world claiming that I'm responsible for, quote, a hoax with zero evidence.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, I think, yeah, but last hour, look, look, listen to me, both of you.
		You both admitted.
		Richard, you said it may be that Paul Doré did not perpetrate this hoax.
		And Paul Doré has said, yes, it's possible that Richard Hoagland did not perpetrate this hoax.
		And you guys have been at each other's throats ever since.
		Now that you've both admitted that you might not have been the originators of this hoax, let's stop and think for a minute.
		Not who might have done it, because we don't know.
		So many names have been thrown into the hat.
		We have no idea who perpetrated this hoax right now.
		Why, Paul, do you think this was done by whoever did it?
unidentified		Well, I don't think it was done.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		I think it was done because certain people need publicity and they need good stories to put on their website.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you're coming back to Richard?
unidentified		Am I?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you're saying?
unidentified		I was saying because certain people need publicity and they need good stories to put on their website, so it makes a good story.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, the GeoCities.
unidentified		Really, is that what you like?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul, are you referring to the GeoCities website or Richard Hoagland's?
unidentified		Well, certain people.
		I'm not saying anyone in particular.
		I'd like to ask why Richard Hoagland asked David Oates to reverse speech me on a radio show that I was on that he refused to turn up on.
		And then the subsequent results of that was this bloody famous hoax I said.
		Now, he didn't print that, of course, because that would not be very good, would it?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You lost me, too.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure what you said, Paul.
unidentified		Richard Hopeland, I was on a radio station, and he asked David Oates to reverse speech me while I was on there without my knowledge, which he subsequently did, but told me, and then replayed it, and it says, this bloody famous hoax.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have not spoken to David John Oates since mid-October, early October.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That is true.
		Literally.
		is true.
unidentified		What he refers to speaks to me and...
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You are claiming that I had him do it, sir.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, I can tell you, Paul, that is not true.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		David Oates and Richard Hogan have not spoken, as he pointed out, since about October.
unidentified		Okay, what I was reverse speech at his request I was true or not.
unidentified		I don't know.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You're again, sir, throwing spaghetti on the wall.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Did you make it a practice of going around trying to blackball people and attack them and accuse them without any evidence?
unidentified		No, but you do.
		You've got it on your site.
		You're accusing me.
		You've got my name on there, etc.
		And you've got zero evidence.
		Zero.
		You can't say how you calculated the landing.
		You've got a message on there that purports to come from me that you've decoded.
		But you convenely forget to say that my wife's name is Helen.
		Helen of Troy.
		But how do I know that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You won't let me meet you.
		You won't meet with my representatives.
		How do we know you have a wife at all?
unidentified		Why do I have to meet for a second party?
		Why don't you give me your email address and correspond like every other person has?
		Because you've got something to hide.
		You won't give me your email address.
		I'm put to you.
		I've got other Questions for you, I will put them on my website.
		If you don't answer them, then you incriminate yourself.
		That's fair, isn't it?
		No, why?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I don't have to do anything you tell me to do.
unidentified		Of course, you don't.
unidentified		But you're incriminating yourself because you refuse to contact me directly, you refuse to correspond with me.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		So I'm you're going around in circles.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I can't.
unidentified		How do I know that Andromeda Williams is genuine?
unidentified		Because I've had loads of fake email addresses and fake people, et cetera, trying to contact me.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And since you wouldn't want to meet her and she's a rather nice person to meet in a public place, I will know that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, at least it is true, Paul, that this Andromeda on behalf of Richard and apparently even myself, my nephews, I guess, did contact you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And I thought you had said that nobody on Richard had never attempted to contact you.
unidentified		Oh, yeah, I'm now aware that Andromeda Williams is true because she said she was the sister-in-law of Alan Boyle, and I emailed Alan Boyle to check that, and he confirmed that.
		But, interestingly, Alan Boyle's name was used in the hoax as well.
		Andromeda's linked with Pegasus, and there's lots of, I can put as much coincidental evidence together as Richard has seen as done, pointing the other way.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I know, but maybe both of you are doing what somebody else wants you to do, and that is rip at each other's throats.
unidentified		Yes, yes, but I certainly did not start the thing.
		I sit here quietly, and I start getting weird emails, and then I go and eventually get pointed to Richard's site, and I'll find my name all over it.
		I find these ridiculous, ridiculous stories about myself, and he refuses to remove my name.
		And I've requested via Peter Gerston that he do so, and he does not do it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's public knowledge that your name, you know, the BBC, as you pointed out earlier, used your name initially, and then your name was all over that GeoCities website.
		I don't think that Richard Hoagland hoaxed that, Paul.
		I really don't.
		He doesn't have the savvy or the talent to do something like that.
unidentified		Or, no, I don't believe he hoaxed it.
		I do not believe that.
		Well, Paul, let me tell you.
		I love his question about why he says he has one.
		Let me tell you Rogers.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, hold on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, go ahead.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I don't think you hoaxed it either.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Progress.
unidentified		That's a start, isn't it?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me tell you what I think is going on here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I think that both of us are wasting our time with you guys arguing like this, and somebody else is behind this.
		That's what I believe.
		I don't know who.
		I'd like to know why.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, one of the clues, I think, was contained in the person who posted the last post on the GeoCity site before it went down, and the National Security Agency insignia appeared, and then my name appeared.
unidentified		My own signature.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The ostensible Paul Doré, I mean, there's no other way to refer to this individual than by the nom de plume that everyone now knows, and we will separate the real from the fictional, hopefully.
		This individual posted a rather remarkable message, which we went and spent a lot of time decoding, which named specifically certain intelligence agencies, both in Britain and here.
		May I please finish?
		It is my contention, it was my contention then, it is my contention tonight that therein lies the source of this so-called hoax, which in fact, I have said from the beginning, is a wake-up call.
		Now, on one of the space agency's websites here in the United States, Paul, NASA site, the NASA SETI site at NASA Ames, Seth Shostak has put my name and my credentials and my theory that this so-called hoax was in fact an elaborate wake-up call by some person or persons in the intelligence communities on both sides of the Atlantic to alert us to a bigger problem, a bigger situation.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold it right there, and when we come back, Paul will respond.
		Now, I really think we're on the right track now.
		I too believe that it's probable that neither one of these gentlemen perpetrated the hoax.
		Somebody else did, and I think they had a specific reason for it.
		It just was not, it was not a little present, a pre-Christmas present for us.
		There was a reason why this was done.
		It was too elaborate.
		It was worldwide, and there was a reason.
unidentified		The End
		Listen to the wind blow Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
		Wash the sun rise.
		If you have a fax for Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nigh, send it to him at area code 702-727-8499.
		702-727-8499.
		Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
		Now, here again is Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, everybody.
		Paul Zoray and Great Britain and Richard Hoagland are here for the first time together on the radio.
		We're going to try and make some segment of this in the final segment coming up.
		All right, here we go again.
		Here is what I would like to suggest to the both of you, gentlemen.
		You both have finally acknowledged that perhaps the other is not the hoaxer.
		If you were to combine your efforts with what you, Paul Doré, know and what you, Richard Hoagland, know, it might be possible to find out who, in fact, did hoax this and why.
unidentified		I think that's what I've always wanted to know: is why it's been hoaxed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that's what Richard took off on, Paul.
		I think that Richard saw something larger behind this.
		Now, it's, you know, Paul, it's really hard to separate a name from something.
		It's like after all this terrible stuff was written under my name, it gets passed around and passed around and passed around, and your name gets attached to it no matter what you do.
unidentified		Yeah, you can do investigation, though, but when you go and decode a message that's allegedly come from me, and it's got my wife's name in it, it conveniently forgets to put my wife, the fact that my wife's name is called Helen, and then come up with some cock and bull story about Trojan horse of...
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Doré, if you're not the, quote, hoaxer, all right, and we will assume for the sake of argument that you're not, and that I...
unidentified		So there we're going, I'm quite willing to go to my website and contact you with the market.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Then the next question, of course, is why did someone pick on you?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that is.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What is it about your identity, your family, your wife's name?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Was it perhaps that you had the preference?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Richard, let him answer that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's a very good question.
unidentified		Go ahead, Paul.
unidentified		You obviously haven't been to my website and read the stuff on my website.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, Paul, why do you think you were the target of the hoax?
unidentified		Because I used to play in the internet.
		Well, I still do play in the Internet Gaming Zone, and I use a handle of UK Blaster.
		Now, the hoaxer uses Blaster, the Blaster, through the Blaster, all over the place.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
unidentified		More than coincidence, if you ask me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
		So in other words, somebody picked up, you used a handle in internet gaming, and somebody used that handle as part of the hoax.
		Well, then, wouldn't that probably point toward somebody that you've had dealings with when you were using that handle?
unidentified		Quite possible.
unidentified		Oh, my guess is...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There's no question about it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Believe me, Richard does not do gaming on the internet.
unidentified		The only problem I've got is the person that did the hoax.
unidentified		If you look at their other stuff, is they haven't got the know-how and the storytelling ability that Richard's got.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I think Richard picked up on this after it happened, Paul.
		And I think that if you and Richard got together and compared your information and got some assistance, we could really find out who did do this and more importantly, why they did it.
		The place where I tend to agree with Richard, Paul, is that this was done for more than just a simple joke.
		This was done for a larger reason.
		Do you think that's possible?
unidentified		No.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You don't?
unidentified		No.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You think this was just a nasty joke?
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll tell you, if it was, somebody went to an awful lot of trouble with printouts of signals and all the rest of it that we all saw on the internet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It was awfully elaborate, and it went from country to country.
unidentified		Yeah, it's quite crude, though, because if it was being done with a lot of trouble, they forgot the fact that...
		If it was done from the UK, then the messages that were sent, one, would have spellings which are using UK spellings, and two would have dates which are day, day, month, month, year, year, which they didn't.
		They were all in American style.
		So that's a giveaway straight away.
		So it's crude.
		I could have done a better job myself.
		Let's get back to some interesting speculation.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If, as you contend, this was not done for some larger, more intriguing purpose, having to do with geopolitics or the agencies or whatever, but was a simple hoax.
		What was the point?
		Who benefited and how?
unidentified		Who benefited?
unidentified		The only people that I can think of that's benefited from this hoax is yourself because you go to conference.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You're getting into dangerous territory again.
unidentified		Well, you know, you ask the question, who benefited?
unidentified		I haven't benefited.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Who has benefited?
unidentified		It costs me money.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If we're talking fame, you know, I worked with Walter Cronkite.
		I have an angstrom.
		I've been on Art Bell Show more often than almost any other guest.
		I really need this like a third whatever.
		Well, it costs us at enterprise a great deal of money because all of the throughput on our website is free.
		Everybody who downloads all this data, all these images, all these graphics, everything, they do it at our expense.
		This has cost us a great deal of money.
		We have not benefited in any discernible way other than finding.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul, in what way do you see he's benefited from this?
unidentified		Because you've been a conference, $200 ahead, talking about the hoax and things around EQ Pegasus.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, the hoax.
unidentified		That's benefiting.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But, Paul, the hoax is a big deal.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In fact, if you look at the people who are listing the top 10 ufology events of the year 1998, this Pegasus hoax is right up there.
unidentified		So it takes a lot, doesn't it, really?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I guess.
		Anyway, here's what I see.
		You both have backed off from earlier statements.
		I would like to know who perpetrated this hoax, and I want to know why.
		The difference between you two seems to be Paul, you think it was done just for a lark or just for fun, and Richard seems to think there's more to it.
unidentified		There is another difference.
		The other difference is I'm quite prepared to put questions, et cetera, on my website and have an open debate.
		Richard's not.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that you two should establish some line of communication to compare notes and find out if we can get to the bottom of this and find out who really did do it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, are you willing to establish...
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me start with a couple of points.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, what would you look into?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		First of all, back to why they chose Paul Dore's name, or Paul Dorr.
		Doors and Helen and horses and Pegasus are all involved in the Grecian myth of Pegasus and Andromeda and the Medusa and the Gorgon.
		The other curious coincidence, which bothered me from the beginning, from the first night that we talked about the numbers, the frequencies, if you take the standard study frequency, the so-called water hole where everyone's going to be listening, we think, 1420, and you subtract it from the ostensible frequency from the ostensible Mr. Door on the ostensible website of 1453, you get precisely 33 megahertz.
		And the 33 is a number that has come up over and over again in our search into this NASA Masonic pattern.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well that's where we're going in some other show.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Exactly, but that's why I got really intrigued because it became pretty obvious early on that this was not just one guy pulling a hoax even when we found there was no press conference, that this was part of a larger, more elaborate scheme for purposes unknown at that point.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I do tend to agree that there is some other reason behind this other than somebody just having fun with you.
unidentified		Well, okay, but the person that did the hoax previously hoaxed the rainbow documents, I've been told.
unidentified		Now, what purpose did they do that?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Rainbow documents.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with them.
unidentified		I'm not familiar with them either.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But then why reference them?
unidentified		How do you know?
unidentified		Well, why reference them?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, I want to know how do you know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		First of all, what are the rainbow documents?
unidentified		I don't know, but I've been informed that the hoaxer actually hoaxed the rainbow documents.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you know what those are, Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I haven't a clue.
unidentified		No, no, have I, but you can ask the same question.
		What purpose for that?
		But the thing is, all these numbers, et cetera, differences in frequency, 33 megahertz, et cetera, now they all fit.
		They're quite convenient, aren't they?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		And I'm not sure.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure.
unidentified		The hoaxer obviously went to trouble to get all these frequencies, et cetera, and get the numbers conveniently to fit.
unidentified		I agree.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The hoaxer went to a great deal of trouble.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's what I'm trying to say.
unidentified		Yeah, unfortunately, the hoaxer's illiterate.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It seems, well, in one sense, perhaps.
		But, gosh, there's an awful lot that went into this.
		It had to be, it was quite complex.
unidentified		Oh, it's crude.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And they had to research quite a bit about you.
unidentified		Well, they didn't.
		No, they didn't.
		All they did was list my resume and picked information out of that, which they got wrong because I hadn't been updated.
		And they picked information from the front page of my website to get my wife's name.
		That's all they did.
		That's all the research they did.
		Everything else was based around that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, when I said there was more to it, I mean they obviously knew what frequency would be a likely frequency.
		They knew, no doubt, of the original SETI signal that was received and then declared to be a satellite.
		They had to know quite a bit to set this up the way they did.
unidentified		That's right.
unidentified		And there's not that many people around who actually had that information.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Mr. During, forgetting the one thing, the reason that I got into this as hot and heavy as we have brought Enterprise and all our other colleagues like Mike Berra and several others into this is because over previous months we have been given a heads up by an intelligence source in the United States.
unidentified		Yeah, you have to know your source is I could say that I've got a source.
unidentified		It doesn't mean a thing.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Are you accusing me of not telling the truth?
unidentified		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Dory, I think this conversation is over.
unidentified		Why?
unidentified		You can't deface me.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I think this conversation is finished.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you both, at one time or another, have accused each other of not telling the truth.
		You both, at one time or another, have accused each other of being the hoaxer.
		All of those things are true, aren't they?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And I thought we'd resolved that about 10 minutes ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's how I would like to leave it.
		Paul, we're trying to reach some kind of conclusion here.
		Since you admit he might not be the hoaxer, and I don't think he's the hoaxer, I know Richard, and he just couldn't do it.
		Wouldn't do it.
		I don't know the knowledge to do it.
		So I don't think Richard's the hoaxer.
		I don't know whether you are.
		I take you at your word that you're not.
		But the hoax did it did occur.
		The hoax did happen.
		And our major interest now should be two things.
		One, finding out who did do it.
		And two, finding out why they did it.
		And if they succeed in having you two at each other's throats, the noise level is going to be so high that we're never going to find out what really happened.
		And the only way I can see that we can is if you two cooperate to some degree in trying to find out who did this and why.
unidentified		Yeah, I'm willing to cooperate.
unidentified		So Rich, to give me his email address and I'll send him everything else God.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a good offer.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me think about it.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, why would you not want to be in receipt of everything he's got?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that'll at least be.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not a matter of wanting to be in receipt.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's a matter of giving out my private email.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, we don't have to give it out on the air.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		He can fax me.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		He can send it to Enterprise, to Keith, and he'll forward it to me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why don't we use Keith Rowland?
unidentified		Tony Kevin's going to be able to.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why don't we use Keith Rowland as a go-between?
		Paul, if Richard can certainly send his email address.
		In fact, Keith Rowland knows it.
		Keith Rowland can send you the email address if it's okay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Keith is too burdened.
		He's running two ships simultaneously.
		Let's make Mike Berra the Lunar Anomalies email, the go-between.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, it doesn't matter who does it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't want to do it on the air.
unidentified		I want an email address for Richard if I can send it direct.
unidentified		I don't want to go through second path.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, that's fair enough.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's fair enough.
unidentified		I've sent emails to Mike Barra, and I've had no response from them.
unidentified		Lunar Anomalies email address.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Richard, can we do that then?
		This is a harmless exchange of what information he has and what you have, and put together, maybe we'll get an answer.
		So I see no harm in that.
unidentified		That's my word.
		would not divulge his email address to anyone if he so requested.
		That's what I...
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have your email.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I will send you an email and we'll establish a direct communication.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There you go.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There you go.
unidentified		And would he do something about my name across his website as well, please?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Your name is in quotes.
		Everyone now knows that you claim you're not the hoaxer.
		We have put in elaborate detail the story as it unfolded about your coming out and claiming you had been vilified and it had been taken against your will and all that.
		This has become, it's like Kleenex.
		I mean, you know, I hate to say that, but my name is also somewhat of a public commodity in some quarters.
unidentified		Yeah, yours for choice.
unidentified		Mine all.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		But you're still in the game.
		Mr. Dory, you keep insisting you don't want to be involved.
		And frankly, when we get back to who benefits, you have been on more talk radio on this subject than I have.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't get paid.
		Neither do I. That's right.
		Both of you don't get paid.
unidentified		Right.
		I don't get paid, but I don't go to conferences talking about the issue.
		I don't get paid.
		We have in this country something called the First Amendment.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Which you don't have in Britain.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul, to be fair, it is not a surprise that Richard Hoagland, he has done many, many conferences over the years, would have the Pegasus hoax as the subject of one of the conferences.
		That's logical.
		It's one of the top ten stories of the year.
unidentified		But I'm just saying, you've got nothing to lose, he has.
		I've got lots to lose.
		I've lost two days' work through all this.
		don't get sleep and all I want to know is who did it Two days, he said.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Two days.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This has been going on since October, and you lost two days' work.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Look, I don't want this to degenerate in the last moments back to where it was.
		What I want to see is an exchange of information and two people or more following a trail so we can really get to the bottom of this.
		And as long as you two guys are at each other's throats, we're not going to get to the bottom of it.
unidentified		No, that's all I ask is that my name get removed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Probably, Paul, your name is never going to be, as you wished it, removed from connection with this whole thing.
unidentified		Well, granted, he's not going to remove my name, but to put such details of the fact that my wife's name's Helen into the story, that the cars, etc., that were seen can't be in the UK, you know, all these truthful things as well.
unidentified		And I just ask that he sends me his own email address so I can respond directly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, all right.
		Richard has agreed to do that.
		He has your email address.
		We will establish direct contact between the two of you, and then at some point when we find something, we'll have you both back on the air again and air it.
		How's that?
unidentified		Yeah, sounds good.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I'm not quite sure if Paul is not involved, how he can really help.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What I'll tell you is that Richard's involved.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold it, Richard.
		He's willing to send you information that he has that you haven't yet seen.
		Look at the information and then judge.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I'm willing to look.
unidentified		Yeah, if I'm not involved, I am involved because my name was used.
		And since my name was used, I've tracked down this hoaxer, as you state in your O.J. Simpson page.
		I've tracked down this hoaxer, and I'm going to pursue this until I find out who did it and why.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm all for that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Whoever did this, as far as I'm concerned, a coward and ought to be burned at the stake and then tortured after that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, you see, I have a different point of view, Paul, and that's another reason I'm a little bit intrigued.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Because I think whoever did this is a national, if not an international, hero.
unidentified		Well, it gave us a heads up.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It gave us a heads up.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		There's a bigger set of anomalies going on right now in terms of these radar signatures.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but General is another story, and this goes to your disagreement.
		And again, Paul thinks this is a simple hoax.
		Richard thinks this is a complicated hoax, meaning much more.
		Live with that disagreement.
		Let's have the exchange and find out if we can make some progress.
		Paul has information you don't have.
		You have information Paul doesn't have.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Provided he will look at it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He's going to look at it.
unidentified		I've looked at everything I've had since the first day.
		I've looked at every single email.
		I've responded to every single email I've received.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		So we have now established direct communication between the two of you.
		Let's leave it at that for now.
		And we'll come back on the air when we get somewhere.
		How's that?
unidentified		That's fine.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Done deal.
		Thank you both.
		Stand by.
		I very much appreciate, of course, having Paul Dore on from Great Britain.
		And I think we made some progress.
		At least we pulled these two gentlemen back from each other's throats.
		Now, believe it or not, this was the, in some ways, the most trivial part of the program that is ahead.
		There is some very, very, very serious stuff going on.
		And I'm not sure how we're going to approach it, but we are.
		I'm Art Bell.
		This is Coast to Coast AM.
		All right.
		I'm going to begin the segment with Richard.
		Now, as you know, Richard Hoagland, over the past, God, I don't know, has it been a month or two, has been documenting what he believes to be weather control occurrences with radar photographs.
		This is part of what Ann Stevens, Mr. Stevens, is going to be talking about.
		But I have something that I want to bring up, and I'm going to let the audience be the judge of what we're into here.
		In passing, and possibly not at all connected with any of this, is the fact that a man named Speaking Wind, a Native American, who was on my program literally just days ago and talked extensively about HAARP, about weather control, about the whole thing, had a massive heart attack and is now dead within days of doing the program.
		That much you may have found out if you were listening last night on the program.
		Now, Richard has been pursuing these radar images of what would appear to be some sort of weather control.
		Now, I'm not an expert on radar, but on his site, you will see multiple images, most of them near military bases, of weather patterns that are illuminating what appears to be an attempt at weather control, or in fact, weather control.
		And I think we're into something very dangerous here, and I'm going to read something in a moment from somebody that I've had on the air before who I am not going to identify for obvious reasons.
		But Richard, would you characterize this person without identifying this person, please?
		Would you characterize the person?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This is a very serious individual, a technical individual who has great expertise in the area of what I've termed hyperdimensional physics and the extensions of Maxwell's original work.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		He had a background in the black ops area.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A very heavily credentialed person.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Heavily credentialed, very serious, not a frivolous person, not a fight of fancy person, not a paranoid person.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I agree with that completely.
		That's my personal assessment to the audience.
		We're not going to give this person's name for obvious reasons.
		I'm going to read you part of what he sent to Richard, leaving a couple of details that would identify this person out.
		And you can make up your own mind about what it all means.
		Richard, I'm not, obviously, for obvious reasons, I'm not going to read this entire thing, but I'm going to read enough so the audience understands what we're up against here.
		All right, here we go.
		This was a response to Richard from this person that we both respect, this credentialed person.
		Richard had written to this credentialed person with respect to the radar images that are on the EnterpriseMission.com site.
		Dear Richard, agree with much of what you have said, but it doesn't change things for me at all.
		As you know, I have a question of the, in quotes, aliens and that whole scene.
		Very little changed, except the physics got better.
		In my view, we ourselves created a problem, so the critters remain rather insane, in quotes, like a waking nightmare.
		Precisely what they are, no longer any concern of mine, as that too has been overridden by events.
		Now listen very closely.
		It's this simple.
		If I wish to live for even 48 hours, I cannot go into that or other things.
		He's referring now to this weather control business.
		Let me repeat that.
		If I wish to live for even 48 hours, I can't go into that or the other things or go high profile publicly.
		I won't do anyone any good winding up dead very abruptly.
		Bluntly, in my estimation, my life expectancy right now, even only May, if certain others here in the rogue U.S. groups have their way.
		Maybe sooner.
		That's it.
		Nothing anyone can do to prevent or affect that.
		As an old soldier of I omitted an age here a few days ago, I accept the event.
		It doesn't change what I have to try to do in what little time I have left, time for me to do the garden.
		Most everyone else may not be very far behind anyway.
		Nothing you or I or anyone else can.
		All the TV shows and radio talk shows and such cannot change.
		I'd give it a 75% probability, no higher, but would not argue that 50% of indices, aliens, plots, plans, maneuvering, politics, Quintinistas, rogues, UFO, reciprocity, etc., have any further effect on any of this.
		It's really simple.
		It's in place and counting down.
		And the initial preparation period has already begun.
		At this point, there are only two players in the game, and the U.S. is not either one of them.
		Nothing the entire United States can do can change anything at this point, period.
		And that's where I'm going to stop.
		There is scared out of his mind.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It is his view that if you were to proceed to reach out to except for the characterization of scared out of his mind, I think that it's more of a measured, and this individual has decided not to waste it on this effort.
		But he's making a reasoned judgment.
		Now, he also, in this same note, warned that I may in fact incur a similar fate.
		I had a discussion earlier about this.
		This is why the previous two hours have been somewhat of a sideshow, because regardless of whether Paul Doray was or was not behind this whole thing, events have now rapidly escalated to where we have discovered real data.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I do understand that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And a possible real threat of concern to everyone.
		And there are people who may have died and may be about to die if they step forward.
		And that's what we should focus on tonight.
unidentified		Yep.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I completely agree with you.
		And it is because of my respect and understanding of the credentials of the individual who wrote this that, you know, I wouldn't say that I'm scared out of my wits.
		I have thought about it really hard, and I'm sure that after reading this response, Richard, you've gone down a lot of roads in your career, Richard.
		Some of them have been crooked roads with dead ends, and some have been very productive roads.
		The danger here is that you may be going down a productive road that could get you killed.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We have discussed this at various benchmarks in this long and twisted investigation that we have shared.
		And I have told you again and again, and I will tell the country tonight, that my firm belief is that truth must out and that high visibility is the best protection.
		The people that we're up against, the so-called rogue threat of concern to everyone.
		And there are people who may have died and may be about to die if they step forward, and that's what we should focus on tonight.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yep, I completely agree with you, and it is because of my respect and understanding of the credentials of the individual who wrote this that, you know, I wouldn't say that I'm scared out of my wits.
		I thought about it really hard, and I'm sure that after reading this response, you thought about it too, Richard.
		You know, you've gone down a lot of roads in your career, Richard.
		Some of them have been crooked roads with dead ends, and some have been very productive roads.
		The danger here is that you may be going down a productive road that could get you killed.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We have discussed this at various benchmarks in this long and twisted investigation that we have shared.
		And I have told you again and again, and I will tell the country tonight, that my firm belief is the truth must out and that high visibility is the best protection.
		The people that we're up against, the so-called rogue agencies that this individual refers to, they are not madmen.
		They are not emotional idiots.
		They are not out for revenge.
		They are out to keep secrets because they believe they have the God-given authority to decide what happens to all the rest of us.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But this very, very reasoned, very credentialed individual is absolutely convinced that they wouldn't hesitate two seconds to take him out, and they sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to take you or me out.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that this individual is coming to this from a different perspective.
		Remember, he has spent his career on the inside.
		He has spent his career in the shadows.
		He has spent his career in the halls of power.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that is what validates it all the more.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		From that perspective, he does not approach this like you and I do, and I do basically because of my network years with Walter, in that I really believe in the power of the American people and the power of the First Amendment.
		And I believe that the only reason that we have made the progress we have made is because we have shared freely even those things at the cutting edge of some people accuse us of speculating wildly about.
		The fact is that if I were to turn up dead tomorrow morning, there would be one remarkable hurrah that we, in fact, were correct.
		Clinton's problems began with the death of Vince Foster.
		Bodies tend to focus.
		Remember, I can count among my friends Ted Koppel, Walter, you, obviously, and many others that I would hope would not stand by and simply, you know, wipe a tear and put a rose on my grave.
		The fact is that exposure and the light makes the cockroaches go away.
		And that's my philosophy, and I will live by that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And or.
		All right.
		There's been a series of exchanges between yourself and a man named Stevens.
		Robert A.M. Robert A.M. Stevens.
		Well, I guess not directly exchanged, but on websites and on programs and various programs and so forth and so on.
		Who is this Robert A.M. Stevens?
		He says he is a NASA contractor, says he is part of the NASA Shuttle Documentation Program.
		And I would like to bring him on the air if I could.
		Let's see if I've got the right line here.
		Is that you, Robert?
unidentified		Yes, sir.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Would you please, at the onset, give us sort of a brief bio of yourself?
		You're a NASA contractor.
		How long have you been doing that?
		What do you do?
unidentified		Yeah, I started in 1980, and not only in documentation, then also with the NASA Fine Art Program.
		And most of what I do is a lot of CAD drawings and modifications on the orbiter, the parts that go onto the shuttle in flight and in static.
		And then we do a lot of work.
		You submit work for NASA and then they spread it out.
		They seed it out to the vendors for modification or failure or things that they want to implement into the STS program.
		And then we also, on the other side, I've done the painting and documentation when I applied to the Smithsonian NASA art program.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And how long have you been doing all this?
unidentified		I started in 1980.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		1980.
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		I like the comment on what you read.
		And I think you both concur.
		I've only been in this about two months.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But based on everything that I've read of, say, I think he's referring to the radar signature business.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you're talking about, Rob?
unidentified		No, no, I'm talking about his being exposed to the online UFO culture when I was issued my first report on the Montana UFO.
unidentified		If I had to take just the 200 or so mails that I've gotten, no matter how strange or no matter how lucid, and then what you've read to me or read on the air tonight from your credentialed individual, I would have to concur 100%, whomever that is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Concur?
		I concur 100%.
		In what sense?
unidentified		I agree.
unidentified		100%.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You agree with what?
unidentified		Everything that you've read.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so in other words, what you're saying, Robert, is that you believe this individual has every reason to fear as he appears to fear, and he appears to be forecasting something that is going to occur virtually soon enough to everybody.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And that takes us back to this weather control business.
unidentified		Well, even before we got into that, if you took everything that you read from this credentialed individual, and if he is who he says he is, and he has presented that to you and Richard and so forth, I concur over a period of, say, 10 years Navy and 20 years NASA or so.
		And I'm saying this from the standpoint, I've never been involved with this.
		I've never.
		So I'm saying this from the standpoint of involvement, not through intent.
		Whereas like, for instance, Richard, through intent, he's interested in this particular field, so that's by intent.
		For me, my intent had nothing to do with this.
		So it was by involvement, by association.
		I would have to say that what you have read there, regardless of who the individual is, but let's say that that's a legitimate individual, based on what he has presented and based on performance and based on just from the civilian standpoint, just what I've gotten in 201 emails, I would have to then assess that information, taking people for what they are, and I'd have to agree 100%.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I am very confused.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What are we talking about?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I am too.
unidentified		I'm not confused at all.
unidentified		I'm responding precisely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, then help us both out.
unidentified		I'm responding precisely what you just read on air.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, what I read on air, so that we can have it in the context that we all understand, is Richard approached this individual for professional help on these weather anomalies that we've been observing, including the turret peak business and all the rest of it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The response that I read, in part, it was only...
unidentified		You read about as far as an enigmatic thing happening having to do with the intruders or so forth, having to do with something, an element that's happening that we're not totally have a handle on.
unidentified		I concur 100%.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you are, again, let me say, this individual was responding to Richard's request for scientific testimony and backing and cooperation of what he's been posting on his website with respect to weather modification.
		And that's what this individual was responding to, basically saying, look, I've had it.
		I've had a long life.
		And if I go public on this, I'll be dead within 48 hours.
		That's what it is.
unidentified		You have to go back and take everything you just read in its entirety.
		That was just one part of it.
		We can address that.
		That was just one part of it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But not exactly an insignificant part of it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, as I said earlier.
unidentified		I didn't say that.
		I didn't say it was insignificant.
		I said that in part and in whole, everything you read, concur, sign off on.
		Absolutely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		We'll have to hold it right there.
		We're at the bottom of the hour.
		And again, all I can tell my audience is, those who trust me in my word, that the individual has been on my program before, is a credentialed individual, and didn't say what he said in this response lightly.
		Not lightly at all.
		Anyway, we'll be right back.
		And things said by Mr. Stevens.
		And I think there was some contact with Peter Gerston, who is UFO's, the ufology community's only attorney that I'm aware of.
		And then Mr. Stevens wrote something that Peter Gerston published, and I thought it was quite literate, and I changed my opinion.
unidentified		So.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Stevens, have I incorrectly characterized some of your early communications?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They were kind of vitriolic.
unidentified		In fact, to put it in language to where the 25 million listeners can understand, I was crude, I was juvenile, I was truculent, and I was mean after Peter wanted to sue me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I wouldn't have said all that, but all right.
unidentified		I'm going to read what you did.
		I've got a 50 of those things.
		And I want to say something about Richard Hoagland.
		Richard Hoagland has never, ever, ever hurt me, has never written a bad email to me.
		He has never bad-mouthed me.
		He has never ever criticized me.
		He has never, in any way, shape, or form, ever done anything outside the norm of being an absolute professional.
		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Having said that, let me read what you did write to, at least in part what you wrote to Peter Gerson, then was published in the cause newsletter.
		You wrote, I am not in this UFO culture.
		And it frankly leaves me not only empty, but deeply angered and hurt at the slander, hate, falsehoods, lies, allegory, alludings, general overall dementia regarding the real issues that are confronting our nation, its people, the world, concerning the visitors, intruders, and the inexplicable events happening to us.
		I can say categorically that in the plethora of lies on nearly 1,200 UFO sites, there is not one shred of organized truth.
		The truth will never be divulged under this protocol, never.
		If any of you were attacked as you have attacked NASA or some of the other agencies, would you tell the attacker anything?
		The answer is no.
		A case in point on one site, the Enterprise mission, I believe, presents to the public by a Dr. Richard Hoagland, he's not a doctor actually, and hosted by a Mike Berra, states over and over that NASA plots and executes all unmanned and manned spaceflights by Masonic symbols and astrological signs, among many other lies.
		There is a pathological lie, intent to do harm with Melis.
		NASA plots all unmanned and manned spaceflights by the following.
		One, algebraic formulas within the field of orbital mechanics.
		Two, locator trajectories based on target intent.
		Nothing more, nothing less.
		Spaceflight is not subject to mumbo-jumbo.
		On still another matter, hosted and posted on these and other sites like Orbit, Raven, Elfrad, and Flash Radar, these liars have excerpted my postings and emails with phone numbers and contacts therein and gone on to say that 20-year-old proven historical events of radar rings in and around select locations are somehow some kind of grand deal
		to kill us all by NASA and DOD.
		Those, these, rather, are lies.
		Then they go on to state that I am some NASA source and NASA is somehow scared of something.
		NASA nor I are afraid of nothing, or we're not afraid of anything.
		I am not a source.
		I am Robert A.M. Stevens, and my phone number and email address is on the bottom of this mail.
		This is as clear and honest as it can be.
		It is not subject to further assessment.
		And that, I'm not going to read the rest of it, but that, I think, clearly states your position, and I thought it was quite literate and very different than the earlier vitriolic kind of stuff that you had been throwing around.
		And so it obviously does coincide to some degree with what we were talking about when we began the segment with Richard with regard to the radar.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And so I don't know where we want to begin here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I am, you know, tonight's a night for me to be rather confused.
		And I'm not normally confused.
		I can normally follow you.
unidentified		I'm sorry.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, you can't hear Richard?
unidentified		No, I couldn't hear him very well.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Can you hear me now?
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I was saying I am somewhat confused because in other shows, Prince Jeffrey's sightings on the Laura Lee Show, all over the Internet, in some of the material that has been sent to me by people who you've corresponded with who, frankly, the things you have called me, the names you have called me, the assertions you have made about.
unidentified		Are you referring to Turkey Cogan?
unidentified		May I please?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let him finish.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You have accused me and Enterprise and Mike Berra of faking data on the Enterprise site, of tasting radar images from the Unisys people and creating a hoax.
		You have flatly, unabashedly asserted that.
		And now tonight you come on like a pussycat.
unidentified		And frankly, John, I don't believe a word about it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I don't believe a word of it.
unidentified		Okay, Richard, I'm telling you, you're a liar as far as your data.
unidentified		Your personal reference to me, you're probably a very, very sincere individual.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you're saying that he's, Robert, that he's lying about the data?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Uh-huh.
unidentified		Ask me why.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, why?
unidentified		Because he puts on NEX-RAD imagery, but he does not put on, NEXTRAD means Next Generation.
		They're having all kinds of trouble with it.
		But he does not, or any of the sites mentioned, put on the original 20 years of radar data.
		Their 20-year-old radar data that's been in place since 1954, say, it shows no rings.
		But NEXTRAD does.
		And NEXTRAD's in trouble.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And you're saying that NEXRAD is just simply faulty, and that's why we're seeing these rings.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
unidentified		It's horribly faulty.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The exchange.
unidentified		And Richard is probably going to want to get a hold of these folks because some of the points he does bring up is extremely valid.
unidentified		It's just wrong data.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, here's what I don't understand, and I'm confused, and Richard is confused as well.
		I read you this letter from this individual who validates everything in terms of this being absolutely real to the degree that if he goes public with it, he's going to get killed.
		He won't live another 48 hours.
unidentified		Fine, there's no question.
		But we're talking two different subjects.
		No, next week, we're talking about threat radar.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, we're not.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Stevens, we are not.
unidentified		We're talking what you just read, and we're talking what's on the sites in question.
unidentified		Well, maybe you want that as well.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Perhaps the only disagreement here is that Richard has gone after NASA.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		you're not disagreeing apparently with the weather control part you're saying nasa i'm not i'm not You're saying NASA is not the one doing it.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		Categorically, I'm getting confused because I can say whatever I want because I don't work for NASA.
		I've never worked for NASA and I never will work for NASA as a civil servant.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		But I want to be clear again.
		You're not arguing that weather control is going on.
		You seem to be arguing that NASA is not the one doing it.
		Is that correct?
unidentified		Yes, I'm saying that, and I want to make it direct so that Richard understands this is not an attack against Richard Hoagland as a person, as an individual, as a researcher.
		It's an attack against his data.
		And when you called me a week and a half ago, Art, and I appreciate very much what you've given us this venue, this is an attack against data.
		I have 200 questions here for Richard Hoagland of data that he presents on his website that I don't even want to debate him on.
		I want to ask for clarification because I'm saying it's categorically flawed.
		And I don't see where that's being applied.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, in your public postings, you call them lies.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		They're lies.
unidentified		They're lies.
unidentified		Error.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, one at a time.
unidentified		There's a difference between the two.
		Go ahead, Richard.
		I'm sorry.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		There is a difference semantically and grammatically between being in error and perpetrating an absolute knowledgeable falsehood, telling a lie.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Agreed.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You have accused us at Enterprise of deliberately faking data, of lying.
unidentified		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Not being in error.
unidentified		I'm saying it lying.
		You're a liar.
		You're a pathologic liar when you have the mental power to do otherwise.
		Obviously.
		I mean, look at your record.
		You're obviously an extremely intelligent man.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Art, are you confused?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Good.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Am I?
unidentified		Well, both of you gentlemen, then.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I really am confused Because it seems to me that if the bottom line to all this is that weather control is going on and the people who are doing it wouldn't stop at killing somebody to.
unidentified		Mine, they can kill me.
		I got my address.
		They can kill me.
		I say it's going on.
		I concur with your man with your big secret credentials.
		So then the only argument that weather credentials.
		I'm saying that weather control is going on categorically.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
unidentified		And I'm also saying there's a lot of other issues that need to be addressed.
		It needs to be addressed seriously.
		And I do not believe in keeping information.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Mr. Stevens, let's ask you this.
		Maybe this will help clarify things.
		What evidence do you see that causes you to conclude that weather control is in fact underway?
unidentified		I think that there are categorical things in higher Earth space that have to do with the tropopause that I have problems with, and I can't get to a clear answer on it.
		And NOA doesn't know.
		And you go through your chains of command as best that you possibly can in emails and government servers, and you get to a dead end.
		If you're interested, some of this stuff I've been interested in, most of it, no.
		And it's just by association.
		So you respond, you go, well, now wait a minute.
		Now, wait a minute.
		You're telling me this.
		And you go to try to make a follow-up on it, and you reach a closed door.
		And the whole focus is on the National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of Intruder Assessment.
		And I've got problems with both those outfits, and I've had problems with it.
		It has nothing to do with UFOs.
		But I think this whole enigma, this is what I say.
		I think Peter Gerston, and I think Richard Hoagland, and Art Bell is a mediator to, say, 25 million Americans, I think every one of you people are absolutely seriously looking for the data.
		I really seriously do.
		I think the way it's gone about.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's called the pathological liar.
		I'm going to agree.
		On the one hand, you're saying Richard, along with myself and others, is a serious researcher.
		I'm not a researcher.
		I'm a talk show.
		Richard is a researcher.
		And you're saying he's a serious, honest researcher.
		And you said that five minutes after calling him a pathological liar.
unidentified		I will qualify that very shortly.
		Do you want me to qualify it now?
		I think you ought to.
		Do you want me to qualify it now?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		And Richard, also, keep in mind, this is a question of your data.
		I had no way want to assault you.
		You have never done anything to me whatsoever.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you've said that, sir.
unidentified		All right.
		Now, when you tell other PhDs, you're not a PhD, I'm sorry.
		I could call you worse things, and you could call me worse things, and forgive me for alluding that you're a doctor.
		And some of the emails that have come to me, they call you Dr. Hoagland.
		So that's how I responded, that you have a PhD, and I'm sorry.
		Forgive me for that.
		But anyway, that has nothing to do with your mind.
		You've got a lot of doubt out there.
		When you make a categorical statement, Richard, to somebody like, say, a Dr. Sauter, a Richard Sauter, who used to work for you, or a Joe Pill, when you tell them that the government is going to drop nuclear bombs on Washington, D.C., and I'm reading from Dr. Sauter's mail, and then he's supposed to move out of Washington, D.C., okay, because he's going to get killed, obviously, because the government's going to nuke itself.
		That is difficult then to turn around and take that very same individual, Richard C. Holgland, and go to the Enterprise Mission and look at, say, some 19.5 or whatever.
		And your data may be, in fact, correct.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Stevens.
unidentified		It is very hard to make that leap when, in fact, Washington, D.C. did not get bombed by the presence.
		And did not have to work on both sides.
		That's my data.
		That's my model.
		And I would say that a statement like that is happening.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Stevens, what are you talking about?
unidentified		Dr. Sauter said that he had a very big indifference with you.
		I'll come back to him.
		Joe Gill, Hawaii.
		You wanted him, when he was working with Enterprise Mission, you wanted him to leave Hawaii because an asteroid was going to destroy.
		Joe Gill, has he ever wanted to?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Listen, this is getting very confusing.
unidentified		Mr. Stephen, he's asked me to qualify pathologics.
unidentified		I've qualified it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, you haven't.
unidentified		Yes, I have.
		I say he's a pathologic liar for telling some doctor to move out of Washington, D.C. because it's going to get nuked.
		That's a bunch of baloney.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, do you know what he's talking about?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Not really.
unidentified		Do you want me to send you the emails?
		I have them right here.
		From a Dr. Richard Sauter.
		I don't know who this man is.
		I've never heard of him before.
		Or the same of the joke of Joseph Gill in Hawaii.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I know of Richard Sauter.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		He has worked on underground bases.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right, I've had a lot of work.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I have employed him as an archivist.
		He spent a lot of time, months and months, in the National Archives doing a lot of varied background research on a number of projects for us, which was supposed to be private under a confidentiality agreement.
		What is this individual doing, sending you email?
		And again, how do we know it's the real Mr. Saunder?
		No one knows you're a dog.
unidentified		Pardon me?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		In other words, Mr. Saunders.
unidentified		No, no, no, no.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We have representation at email value.
unidentified		He called me.
		He called me.
		I traced his phone call to his house.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You traced his phone call.
unidentified		I had Netscape, but the header put the little phone number thingy on the top there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		I don't see the mystery here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We're not going anywhere very fast.
unidentified		We're going real fast.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		My grandmother used to say this is kind of like a three-legged race with a calf.
unidentified		No, it's not.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, then we're going to have to get down.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I really, we're arguing about ridiculous.
unidentified		No, we're not.
		We're making serious charges here.
		I'm making serious charges.
		No, you're not.
		Seriously, that Washington D.C. is going to get bombed by its own government.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know about that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I've certainly never read anything.
unidentified		Mark, you're the moderator.
unidentified		Then you play Devil's Advocate.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm playing that, and I've never heard anything of the sort from Richard.
unidentified		Would you like me to send you the emails?
		I've already sent them to you, and I sent them to Peter Gersman.
		I sent them to Michael Thoreau.
		I sent them to Jeff France.
		I sent them in Cece.
		Every single one I send out, I send out, unless it's absolutely confidential, then I don't do that.
		But if it's people, then I send them out.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, look.
unidentified		I've sent them to you.
		I've sent everything I'm running my big mouth about.
		I have sent you with the people with original email.
		I've either put it priority or low or colored it, whatever, so you'd see it because I know and you just get blasted with the past.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I know all the hallmarks of more spaghetti on the wall disinformation.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What agency do you work for, Mr. Stevens?
unidentified		I'm sorry, what?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What agency do you work for?
unidentified		I don't work for any agency.
		I've never worked for civil service.
		Well, that's kind of mine.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You are supposed to be a shuttle documentarian, a contractor to NASA, right?
unidentified		Uh-huh.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That means NASA pays you.
unidentified		No, NASA does not pay me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They don't?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		No, they get your money.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		When you work for NASA, who pays you?
unidentified		The various vendors that I do work for.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Who pays you?
unidentified		No, that's your own contract work or whatever you've got.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Who pays you?
unidentified		Oh, from one minute, it might be McDonnell Douglas.
		It might be Fairchild Republic.
		It might be Boeing Aerospace.
		It might be TRW.
		It might be Hercules Powder.
		It might be Lockheed Martin.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you're not a direct NASA contractor.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You have worked for contractors to NASA.
unidentified		All contractors fall under the NASA umbrella because they're the parent organization.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But they are not paying you directly, rather, as you put it, McDonnell Douglas or whoever you are.
unidentified		Exactly.
		They couldn't do that because I'm not civil service.
		I'm a contractor.
		I'm a NASA contractor.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		But I think that we began with something very, very important that I still think is very, very important.
		And we've gone in some circles that I don't clearly.
		We haven't.
unidentified		I've answered everything directly.
		I've answered everything directly.
		I concur with your introduction, which I think is profound to whoever that individual is.
		I've given full endorsement to Richard Hoagland and his intent.
		I say that you're not going to be able to do it.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And call me a battle.
unidentified		I'm a liar.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This is a crazy evening.
unidentified		I mean, I've not had Richard Hoagland since I listened to Kafka.
unidentified		Richard made that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't want this to turn into an invitation for a hitting thing.
		We're going to terminate this interview right now, and we're going to move on to other things.
		This was ridiculous.
		Absolutely ridiculous.
unidentified		This is Coast to Coast A.M. Or call Earth on the Wild Card Line at area code 702-727-1295.
unidentified		This is Coast to Coast A.M. from the Kingdom of Nive.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is indeed, and I'm Art Bell.
		Good morning, everybody.
		This last hour was very confusing for me.
		I have never heard anybody called a serious, honest researcher in one breath and a pathological liar in the next.
		Never.
		The whole hour was just beyond all comprehension for me.
		The man came on saying, yes, he agrees the weather control is going on, doesn't disagree with one word of that or what I read from a very credentialed source.
		Yes, unnamed, but very credentialed, somebody I've had on the air numerous times, agrees that it's going on and then says the evidence of it is an absolute lie.
		The whole hour was just utterly and completely confusing to me.
		We'll try and make some sense of this, if possible, in a moment.
		But I'm not going to continue.
		I'm certainly not going to continue as we were.
		So we'll be right back.
		With all due respect to Mr. A.M. Stevens, let me get his name right.
		Robert A.M. Stevens, the man you heard in the last hour who says he is a NASA Shuttle Documentation Program contractor.
		I have never in my life in talk radio, and that includes the previous two hours, I have never heard such a mixed up, indecipherable collection of contrary opinions and statements in my entire life.
		It's just, it astounded me.
		You heard what I heard, and at the beginning of the program, I said that Mr. Stevens had written a lot of vitriolic, horrible stuff.
		And he admitted that.
		In fact, he even went way beyond that.
		And then I read you a statement that he had sent to Peter Gersten at CAS, which I thought was coherent and would challenge Richard in specific areas of spaceflight, orbital mechanics, and so forth.
		And we got this mixed-up, indecipherable presentation.
		So the A.M. Stevens that showed up, Robert A.M. Stevens that showed up on the show here, was obviously the earlier Mr. Stevens rather than the latter.
		So I gave him airtime, but I'm not going any further with that.
		There's no point in doing that.
		We do have other very important information for you this morning.
		And so now, once again, back to Richard Hoagland.
		Richard, are you there?
		I'm here.
		Okay.
		I've never heard anything like that in my life.
		That was the damnedest thing I ever heard.
		You are a serious researcher.
		He bought into the weather modification stuff, but said that the proof of it was a lie, and then you're a serious researcher, and you're a pathological liar, and on and on it went.
		I've never heard.
		I've been in radio a lot of years, and I don't think I've ever heard anything as disconnected as that last hour.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What I found disturbing from the beginning in this was that this all dates back to Mr. Stevens, coincident with the beginning of the whole EQ Pegasi mystery.
		He shows up on the radar suddenly with a purported UFO story out of Montana, contacts Peter Gerston, who then engages in a beginning series of colloquies.
		And for the first several weeks, apparently, he was vitriolically attacking Peter like he was attacking me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he was taunting Peter to sue him and all kinds of things.
		It was terrible.
		It was vitriolic and childish.
		He said it himself.
		But then he wrote this at least articulate piece to Peter Gerston, and Peter forwarded that piece to me and said, you know, maybe you ought to consider having this fellow on with Richard.
		And I read it, and all of a sudden I hear something that seems fairly articulate.
		And so I called him and I had him on, and none of it went to anything that was in here.
		It was all sort of nonsense.
		I just, I give up on that one.
		So let's move away from that.
		And I can only hope Peter Christian was listening tonight.
		That's all I can say.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The reason this is important is because it points up the whole enigma around the last two months and what we have been led to in terms of hard physics and hard data, which is this bizarre weather radar anomaly nationwide.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And the reaction of the individual that we read at the top of the.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that was another thing.
		I mean, here we comes on saying, oh, you're absolutely right.
		Weather control is going on, but the evidence you presented of it is a lie.
		So, look, I give up.
		Let's move on.
		We've got Michael.
		Is it Michael Barra?
		Is that Michael Barra?
		Who's been very patiently waiting on the line, and I would like to bring him on right now.
		So let me do that.
		Michael, are you there?
unidentified		Yeah, I'm here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Michael.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Have you been listening to all this?
unidentified		Yeah, I have, and I have several thoughts.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Michael, before you get to that.
unidentified		No, no, no.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'd really love to hear what you're talking about.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but I would like to give Michael a proper setup.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, who is Michael Barra?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Michael Barra is an engineer.
		He is a colleague, former colleague of Ken Johnson Sr.'s at Boeing in Seattle, now in some godforsaken place in the Midwest, I guess.
		He has been following our work for several years.
		He knows how to bring analytical skills.
		He also is a very good communicator and writes a damn fine piece, I must say.
		And over the last several months, he and I have been collaborating on a series of investigative updates on the website, on Enterprise, probing into the whole EQPEG affair, the so-called NASA Masonic pattern, and all the ancillary material that comes attached, including people like Mr. Stevens.
		He has formed some interesting assessments of this process, some of the distant wilds of the Midwest, and that's what I think you might be wanting to share with us now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where in the distant wilds of the Midwest are you, Michael?
unidentified		Well, I'd really rather not say it's the upper Midwest.
unidentified		It's just a matter of privacy and respect for other members of my family.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's all.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's fine.
		First, let us now retreat.
		This last hour was one of the most mysterious hours of radio that I think I've done in my life.
		What did you get out of that?
unidentified		Well, I think unfortunately the first thing I got was why did I pick up the phone tonight when Arbell called me?
		That's the first thing.
		I think that, unfortunately, it's kind of what I expected.
		I don't know if you have the entire article that he wrote that you took those excerpts from, but I have the entire thing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I just read a portion of it.
unidentified		About half of it, I think.
		I think it really jumps back and forth between sanity and almost what I would describe as insanity.
		There's a number of things in there that are really bizarre.
		And I kind of was beginning to come to the conclusion from reading and reviewing what was on there that this was somebody who I think we should feel sorry for.
		I think he's got some problems.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I had him on at the behest of Peter Gerston, and frankly, I did think that compared to his earlier writings, that one at least was somewhat coherent, and I understand why Peter passed it on to me, but my God, oh, my dad, I've never heard anything like.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, I really want to drop it.
unidentified		Well, you know, if there's a theme to what's gone on tonight, I think it should be that email is not reality.
		And both of the first two guests who wanted to debate Richard, and, you know, Richard, if you want a good debate, I could debate you.
		I think they both were very dependent and very focused on emails.
		And the other data, what we try to present is stuff that people can go check for themselves.
		And I think, unfortunately, some of these guys are making their assessments just based on things that they read here and there on the Internet and not checking them out.
		And that's how you end up with situations like tonight.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I guess.
unidentified		Well, a couple other things.
		I wrote or co-wrote several of the pieces that were commented on by Paul DeRay and also some of the things that have been commented on by Mr. Stevens in some of his posts.
		And I wanted to clear a couple of things up.
		One of them is that he mentioned a piece called Oh My God, which is actually Oh My God, They Killed Soho, that I wrote with Richard.
		And he mentioned that his name was not in quotes in that piece.
		And that was published or put on the web, I think, November 2nd or November 3rd, back when we all were under the possibility or the impression that Paul DeRay was a real person.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Correct, yes.
unidentified		And everything after that should have quotes around it, as if we're not sure if this person really exists.
		So I would like to let him know that that's the reason.
		And I'm not going to change it because the piece is that old, and I think it should stay out of the historical record.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		You can't go through the record.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Understand that.
unidentified		Right.
		And I think that that's important.
		And also, Richard, I'd like to tell you that I think I could help you set up a separate email account where you could email back and forth with Paul and not have to give up your personal.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, I've had some cautions from the technical people now that Art has divulged to the country that I'm an Internet techno-non-mot or whatever.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, Richard, I wanted to prove a point.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It's fine.
		It's fine, okay?
		Believe me, my tongue is firmly in my cheek.
		There are people who have emailed me this wonderful new tool.
		And you see why I didn't want it, folks?
		Yeah.
		And have cautioned me not to basically weave me into the plot and make me the bad guy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right, as a tool.
		As just suggested, there can be a separate account set up.
		It doesn't matter.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, communication.
unidentified		The other thing, too, is we've got to keep in mind that there are tools on the Internet and tools that the government has that everybody knows about where they basically can find out anything about you.
		Anything you've ever typed on the web can be taken and spliced into anything else.
		So none of us are really all that secure in our identities on the web, as Art, I guess you know.
		We've been talked about.
		You have to remember that these are nothing but text files on web pages.
		That's right.
		You take an email and you cut and paste it, and you've just simply got a text file on a web page.
		And also the issue with who is it, Terry Rogers.
		Only a few people at this point have his email address.
		He emails them and what I suspect is actually happening there is that one of the people that Richard was corresponding with passed on or forwarded his email and that's what ended up on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well actually even more than that happened because earlier in the day, strangely, Richard's number is not public at all.
		And Paul Doray actually called Richard from Great Britain to New Mexico earlier in the day.
		And I think if I understand correctly, Richard, you said, asked him, how'd you get my number?
unidentified		That's correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And he wouldn't reveal that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And you said, well, then I'll talk to you tonight on Art Bell quick.
unidentified		That's right.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I mean, look, there has got to be some civility.
		Somebody has to say no.
		They really have to.
		Your privacy has been assaulted.
		Mine has been assaulted.
		I have somehow, for some reason, wanted to keep a private life, what semblance I have left.
		I have been accused of hiding, of running, of being a pathological liar just because people can't sit down to the computer and send me a no.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But don't forget, also a serious researcher.
unidentified		Oh, sorry, yes, I forgot that.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This electronic instant satisfaction, instant gratification, is going to be the death of a lot of us because, again, there's no accountability.
		And what I was trying to bring with the Doré part of this early on, mid-November, was a little sanity and let me have a real body in a real room with real people and let's have a normal human-level discussion.
		And the fact that he rebuffed that and claimed he did not want to be involved and then has been involved all over the planet on places and stations that have five people and a chihuahua listening.
unidentified		Well, you know, and I also would like to comment.
		I mean, he did send two emails to my public email address, and he accused us of faking everything, which is, whenever I hear this, it really makes me laugh because, I mean, we don't have time to fake anything, and we don't have to.
		I mean, there's so many things, so many projects we'd like to work on that we don't have time for that that is really silly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, Michael, didn't it bother you a little, Michael, that he said he agreed with every word of what I read at the opening of the segment, that he agreed that weather control was going on, but that Richard was a pathological liar with regard to the evidence that he put on the website.
unidentified		Well, yeah, but I just want to say, first of all, I'm talking about Paul DeRay there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I see.
unidentified		And, you know, he accused us of baking everything, which also Mr. Stevens did.
unidentified		And then he also explained it to us.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Well, Michael and R, there is one commonality that makes me suspicious, and I will raise the C word.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I find it remarkably similar that we have two gentlemen from opposite sides of the ocean, one in the wilds of Montana and one in the wilds of the United Kingdom, both of who claim they have not been involved in this and were dragged in against their will, and who have appeared on every place except Donahue and Geraldo to talk about this subject.
unidentified		Well, the other interesting thing, too, is especially in the case of Mr. Stevens, his proclamations are so nonsensical, they're so bad, they're so easily destroyed that you really wonder who is setting up these straw men for us to knock over, and it may be the whole purpose really just to get us to waste our time doing this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Perhaps.
		Michael, I want to go back now to this whole business about December 7th, which was early on in this whole Pegasus business.
		And this now begins to touch on the subject of reverse speech.
		There wasn't anything else right now for reasons that I don't want to go into right now and will at some future point, if I must, be glad to.
		But there was a reversal done, and I don't know how you want to pick this up, Michael, but maybe you want to describe the original reversal that David Oates did that he then claimed was misinterpreted by Richard Hoagland and used to claim there'd be some sort of alien landing or something or another.
		Should we talk about that or the reversals done on Paul Dorr?
		Or where do you want to begin?
unidentified		Well, there's actually one reversal before that which came at a really significant time that I want to start with.
unidentified		I think we can get to the December 7th one quickly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's fine.
unidentified		The first one, I remember, I guess it was back in April when Malin Space Science Systems was releasing the Sidonia pictures.
		They had just released the space picture and they were, I think it was on the 14th, going to release the second image of the city area.
		And it was, I think it was a Tuesday, and I was working around the house, and I had been out jogging, and I came back, and I sat down, and I put on NASA Select, and I saw President Clinton at Houston with John Glenn and a bunch of other people.
		And I hadn't known he was going to be there.
		I called up Richard and I asked him if he was watching this, and he said, yeah.
		And we were talking about what he was doing there on the day they were going to release.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You mean the president?
unidentified		The president.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The president.
		All right, listen, hold it right there.
		If this has to develop, then we're at the bottom of the hour.
		I think a lot of people are going to be very shocked at what lies directly ahead.
		And we're going to get as much of it out as we can.
		And as many of you in the audience know, for, I don't know, it goes back a couple of years.
		I had David John Oates on.
		And we finally came to a show about Ed Dames.
		And I had actually requested, I had asked David Oates to reverse Ed Dames.
		And I didn't care what he came up with.
		All I said is, David, please don't use metaphors in your reverse speech.
		Please don't use metaphors.
		Not because I think metaphors are invalid necessarily, but because I think that a larger listening audience does not understand metaphors.
		People who have studied reverse speech or students of reverse speech have some understanding of metaphors, but the larger audience does not.
		And frankly, they're very interpretive.
		You know, something like the quick brown fox cracked the rock.
		Well, then you will explain what that means.
		And it's very interpretive and very difficult for an audience to grasp.
		So we began the show, and he began to do reversals on Ed Dames, and they were all metaphors.
		And so we did that for half an hour, and at the bottom of the hour, I went to David privately and I said, what are you doing, David?
		Remember, I said, good, what I wanted was clear reversals on Ed Dames.
		And that's what you promised me you'd do.
		He said, yeah, yeah, I know.
		I'm sorry.
		We'll do clear reversals.
		So we went back on the air again, and I'll be damned if here it comes again.
		Nothing but metaphors.
		And we came to another break.
unidentified		And I said, David, what are you doing?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And he said, all right, we'll straighten it out.
		And we go back into the show, and here come the metaphors again.
		And that was the beginning of the schism with David Oates.
		And yes, I was disturbed by it.
		David Oates has now framed this as a freedom of speech issue.
		He's saying Art Bell wanted to edit me, Art Bell wanted to silence me, Art Bell wanted to muzzle me about Ed Dames, and nothing could be further from the truth.
		I'm the one who asked him to reverse Ed Dames in the first place, and all I asked him to do was come up with clear, understandable reversals, not metaphors, not interpretive metaphors, but clear reversals.
		And obviously, he was not going to do that.
		Then he began making postings on the internet, just very vitriolic postings attacking me.
		And I thought, well, okay, I'll let him do that.
		I'll just keep my mouth shut.
		And I did.
		For months and months and months, I kept my mouth shut.
		And the attacks came again and again and again.
		Then he began doing reversals on me and playing them on other shows.
		Just unbelievable stuff.
		Even the president saying, I need Art Bell or something.
		So crazy stuff like this.
		And he attacked me on other radio programs.
		Still, I Kept my silence.
		I don't like getting in these vitriolic exchanges with people.
		I just don't like it.
		So it had nothing to do with restricting anybody's freedom of speech.
		I was the one who asked him to reverse head names.
		I simply wanted for the audience clear reversals.
		You know, that's a programming kind of decision because it's very, very difficult for an audience to interpret or to accept the interpretation of somebody on metaphors.
		It's something for a reverse speech classroom, not for the air.
		And that's exactly what I told David.
		And he has now turned around and tried to make the case that I muzzled him.
		I didn't want the truth out about Ed Dames.
		And it could not be further from the truth.
		But that's the way he's chosen to frame it.
		And he's been coming after me for a long time now.
		And I've just kept my mouth shut and tried to think, well, maybe it'll go away.
		Maybe there'll be a period of time that will pass and this will stop.
		Well, it didn't stop.
		And to this very day, it has not stopped.
		He's put a couple of statements up on the internet about wanting to solve this problem.
		But along with that comes a continuing series of vitriolic messages that he will, I even called him on a couple of them on the phone.
		Face to face.
		I like talking to people face to face, man to man.
		And I've called him on a couple of these, and I've said, David, what are you doing?
		Why are you doing this?
		And he'd say things like, oh, well, this was a message that I wrote that it was only supposed to get out internally, but somehow it got out on the internet.
		I'm sorry, I'm retracting it, and so forth and so on.
		And it's just been one attack after another.
		Then David decided he was going to get his own radio program.
		And in doing so, he began to collide with my webmaster, Keith Rowland, who had been doing the web page.
		And Keith said, look, if you're going to get your own radio show and you're going to try to compete with Bell, then it's going to be a conflict of interest for me and I'm going to have to transfer to another webmaster.
		And so David Oates then began attacking Keith Rowland.
		Then David Oates began attacking Richard Hoagland, who had been a very best friend of his.
		As you know, the two of them had been very close.
		And then the attacks began on Richard Hoagland.
		And so that's kind of where things are today, frankly.
		Richard, is all of that about accurate?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Unfortunately, yes.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Unfortunately.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Let me say something about David.
		David, I think, is a lost soul.
		I think that he and Mr. Stevens and Mr. Doray and others out there are involved in something much bigger than they've understood.
		I think that what this thing is doing, this secret set of groups that are manipulating all of us and planning something pretty nasty, they are in a last-minute attempt to get us not to look at the real stuff, the hard data, to follow the trail that my friend doesn't want to follow because something very nasty will happen if he does.
		That this force has involved all these other people for all their other agendas, and David is one of the victims for his own failings and his, frankly, very short-term interests.
		He has foregone what started him on his journey, which was a search for the truth.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That is in itself a very strong allegation, and I think at this point, before the segment's over, we need to back it up.
		So, Michael Barray, you're here.
		What can you tell us about what you know about reversals from David Oates?
unidentified		Well, what I can tell you is that starting with President Clinton's visit to Houston back in April, on the day that they released the Sidonia images, and he was unaccounted for for a couple of hours, David found some reversals from Dan Golden, who made a speech just prior to introducing the President.
		And in those, there was a mention of something going down in December.
		Now, I don't remember the exact reversal.
		It's no longer on David's website.
		At least it was not the last time I checked.
		I don't think that one is there.
		But it used to be there, and a lot of us have it.
		And I think I've got it somewhere in my hard drive.
		This was the hint that something might go on in December.
		Now, what happened after that was that Richard got a call from an intelligence source that he cited here before.
		And unnamed sources, I mean, everything on CNN practically has unnamed sources.
		So everybody has them.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		If it weren't for unnamed sources, the whole Monica Lewinsky thing would have collapsed years ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		A year ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Asked, not drudge, right.
unidentified		And he got a series of phone calls and eventually was given the information that there would be this landing on December the 7th.
		And so that was kind of interesting.
		There was a couple of pieces there.
		Then during the attacks on Iraq back in not Iraq, but yeah, it was actually Iraq and Sudan, I think, in August where we did some bombing, because of the fact that these events all fit in with this alignment,
		this celestial alignment pattern that Richard has started looking at and that I started helping him with and that other people like David Jenks and some other websites have done, because it all fit this pattern, you know, I guess Richard decided it would be interesting to reverse some of these stuff from the press conferences.
		And he reversed William Cohen.
		And in that, the Oates found a reversal that said, bring in NASA with December 7th.
		So again, there was this reversal speech pattern that pointed to the 7th of December.
		So this is actually the third point now, two of them that would be reversals that were pointing to this particular date.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And at this point, I was still in conversation with David.
		In fact, I went out to visit him in the latter part of the summer, and I was so Excited because he had just found this reversal on Cohen, and I revealed to him for the first time in person in his living room that I had had a source who, prior to this, had pinpointed the 7th of December.
		So I said, Look, look at all your December reversals.
		He said he was getting them from other people, other clients that he works with.
		He didn't quite understand the gestalt.
		I said, we've got to focus on this.
		Something big is going to go down.
		It may not be what they're telling us, but it's something.
		Pay attention.
unidentified		So now there's some debate as to what this reversal actually says.
		David continues to insist that it's bring in NASA with December's, with the S on the end of the word, December 7th.
		And so does the host of another national radio talk show that I emailed and argued with about it.
		But I listened to it, and I clearly did not hear any S on December, implying that we were talking about a date, December the 7th, and not just something seven somethings in December.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Which, by the way, is a 19.5 Egyptian ritual calendar date within the NASA pattern that we have been attempting to decode for about two years.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		So there's another reason for focusing on that as a date.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But the important thing that I want to get to before the end of this segment is, are we getting from David complete reversals, or are we getting reversals that have been cut, clipped, added to, or otherwise altered?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		After October, unfortunately, the latter appears to be the case.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What evidence do we have of that?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Michael?
unidentified		Well, in the course of the same sentence or the same speech, the same phrases that Cohen brought out at this press conference, there were some other reversals that were found by another researcher.
unidentified		One of them was Plan Evil Weather, which is one of the tips about what we eventually figured out about December the 7th.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I recall that, yes.
unidentified		And there were a few others in there, and these were found by another researcher who sent them to Oates, who then played them on his Saturday Night Radio show.
		As I began, you know, I listened to some of David's appearances with other guests on this other show, and they were really attacking Richard, really attacking Enterprise, and really distorting everything that had been presented both in print and on your show, Art, in order to make their case.
		And I really got infuriated, and I asked for time on the air to respond, and I was basically turned down.
		So the claim that was put back there that we've been offered the chances to go on this other show is not correct at all.
		But anyway, in the course of that, I begin to think, well, there's this other guy out here.
		Maybe I should get in touch with him because I'm not really trusting what I'm hearing from David anymore.
		So when Paul Doerr made an appearance on this program back on December the 8th, I emailed this other researcher and asked him.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We can use his name.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He's John Snella.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He's a reverse speech hobbyist enthusiast.
unidentified		Right, right.
		And I emailed him and asked him, you know, would he do some reversals on Doerr?
		Because I didn't buy Mr. Door.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, go over the same, you know, what reversals were there.
unidentified		No, actually go over material that David seemed to have no interest in going over.
unidentified		Just declared that Paul Doerr was authentic in every way, shape, and form and was a victim of this whole thing, which he may still be.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Without presenting one reversal.
unidentified		Well, you need to present one.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		In other words, if you're going to fry Ed Dames, you might as well try to do the same thing with all the other people that are part of a, quote, controversy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And what was absent from David's efforts from October on was any effort using his technology, which is a valid technology, to get to the truth.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		An absence of evidence, an absence of inquiry.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But again, this is very specific, and I want specifics.
unidentified		Okay, well, I'm going to get to the specifics here.
unidentified		Actually, John is the person to tell you the specifics.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		John, what else?
		We have evidence on a website.
		Is that correct?
unidentified		Okay.
		He found a reversal that implicated, at least implied, that Paul Dore had something to do with what had been going on.
		I asked him to send that to David because we said let's test him.
		Let's see if he's really hearing the same things we're hearing or what's going on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, and the reversal said, we can't use the F word, but it said what?
unidentified		It said Mr. Bell, I believe it said Mr. Bell in this order.
		Mr. Bell, it's December, or the one it is, December.
		And I am the other bleeping fib.
		F-ing fib.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I am the other effing fib.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So this, John Panella, sent this to David Oates.
unidentified		Right.
		Now, the interesting thing about John is that we discussed bringing NASA with December 7 and his other reversal, and he and I hear these things exactly the same.
		So I felt like I was working with somebody who definitely was on top of the technology.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		We might have noticed this.
		I have not talked to Mr. Padella.
		I have been simply emailed copies of these things.
		I have not communicated directly with Mr. Panella.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Here's what I want to understand.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		These reversals were sent to David Ose?
unidentified		Yeah, they were sent to David, and he played them, I believe, a week ago Saturday night on his show.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		And he described them.
		He rephrased them in a way that, in other words, he always puts the text with it.
		What he said they said was, I didn't think, anywhere close to what the reversal appeared to say.
		And he did play a version that clipped a portion of the reversal out.
		Oh.
		Now, it clipped it out.
		And I think that John, at this point, is the best person to bring on now to discuss that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I would like to.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		John Pinella is not available.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But I know the reversal is on a website.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So what portion was clipped out?
unidentified		Well, there was a portion of it.
unidentified		It was sort of twisted around so that it appeared that what Dorr was saying was that he was near this other bleeping fib, implying sort of that this thing had been around to him, that it happened to him as opposed to the actual reversal that John found, which implicated an internal dialogue that said, you know, I am this fib.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now that is very serious.
		That's very serious.
		And if reverse speech is a valid technology, and I lean toward thinking that it is after having done many interviews, it's possible to take, let's say, two hours of Paul Doré or two hours of President Clinton or, I believe, two hours of nearly anybody and come up with selected reversals that reveal an agenda on the part of the person collecting the reversals.
		And what you're saying, apparently, is that you believe that's what David Oates is doing.
unidentified		Yeah, and I'm not speaking for John on this.
		I think John should speak for himself.
		But what I'm saying is I think David, my impression is that Mr. Oates got it in his head that Paul Dore was innocent, and I think that's what he subconsciously, that's the way he chose to interpret what he heard.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You've got to admit, it's an intriguing name for an ISP Earthlink, particularly on this program.
		All right, another person who has been a more recent victim of attacks by David John Oates would be my webmaster, and I think most of you know him, Keith Rowland.
		He's been my webmaster now for, I don't know, years.
		Keith, are you there?
		Keith.
unidentified		Yes, I'm there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		There you are.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How long have you been my webmaster?
unidentified		I'm not real good with time, but I imagine it's been probably four years now or more.
unidentified		Four years or more.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		At least that's been a while.
		Yep.
		All right.
		Hold on just one sec.
		Let me do one other thing here.
		And let me be sure I've got just you on the line.
		Okay.
		Let's see.
		Where are you?
		Keith, are you there?
unidentified		No, I still hear you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, okay, good.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I wanted to give you an opportunity, I guess, after all this time, and there's been a lot of water under London Bridge, to say what you know about all of this.
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, I really hate to pile on, but David is leaving us no choice in the matter.
		I think Richard will attest to that during the early days of the squirmish that was going on, Richard and I worked many hours on the phone with you and David trying to smooth things over, and it just never would happen because Richard and I both know that all you were asking for was David to stop saying mistruths about you and to kind of lay low for a while, and he would just refuse to do so.
		And I've got to give you credit for holding back and not going public with any of this for quite a while, and I pretty much was trying to do the same.
		I was trying to stay out of it, trying to patch things up.
		I mean, we all did want to get along, but David kept doing things that was preventing that from happening.
		And more recently, due to the numerous events that have occurred over the last month or so with you having to take a vacation for a little while, coming back, David getting a show, blah, blah, blah.
		As you had explained, a couple weeks before David was going to go on the air with his own show, we had discussed the possibility that if he's on the same time you are, there'd be conflict of interest and he should find somebody to do a website for his program.
		And so once he finally decided he was going to do the program, once we found out you were coming back, then we had about a week before David was going to go on to find somebody to transfer the website to.
		I spent several days doing so.
		He spent several days looking for somebody.
		We finally got somebody.
		I worked for two days with the new provider in getting the website moved over as smooth as possible.
		And I got email accounts transferred over there.
		All the website material I personally transferred to the new website, so on and so on.
		The new Internet provider was more than welcome my help and it got it transferred over.
		Matter of fact, the website had been up a couple days prior to Airtime, which is programmed.
		Then about a couple, two, three weeks later, I'm getting emails from people jumping on me on my case about how I abandoned David and pulled a plug on his website.
		And that's not necessarily a proper characterization of what happened.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, not the truth.
unidentified		Not the truth.
		Insofar that even a few days ago, I got an email from a lady who had placed an order with David for some products and complained bitterly about how because of my actions, she wasn't going to get her Christmas presents for her family this year because somebody at the David Jono's office had told her that because I had basically abandoned David or pulled the plug or took down his website,
		that they lost her order.
		Keep in mind, this is like six weeks after the fact now.
		And so I felt very perturbed that David and his office staff are blaming me six weeks after the fact of problems they're having over there with their new internet provider.
		And so I called them today and I talked to Jeff and I said, why are you saying these things about the situation and where are you getting your information from?
		And he tells me, well, this is what I'm hearing.
		This is what I've heard from the new Internet provider.
		And I said, well, this is interesting because we had a very amicable relationship.
		Things transferred over smoothly.
		I got no feedback from the new provider of any problems whatsoever.
		So I called the new Internet provider and says, why are you saying these things to the David John Oates people about how I was very mean and dropped the ball and didn't give you everything you needed and was incooperative in setting up transferring the website?
		And they're going, oh, we didn't say that.
		Oh, we don't think you did anything wrong.
		Oh, everything was fine with you as far as we're concerned.
		And I said, well, David's telling you, or telling me and telling his customers and everybody he's in contact with that I'm a bad guy here and caused you guys all kinds of grief and trouble, and now you're telling me that's not true.
		So I don't know where's this stuff coming from.
		I'm getting dragged in the middle of it here.
		I bent over backwards to help make this transition very smooth and get the thing transferred over.
		If there's any problems six weeks after the fact, it's out of my hands at this point.
		And I don't like being portrayed as being a bad guy in this because David was given plenty of time.
		We transferred the website plenty of time.
		He Was up and operational by airtime on Monday.
		Who would have thunk he would have only been on for one night, and then I could have done and kept on doing his web page because he's really not in competition with you anymore.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But you know, you know, you know that for months and months, I don't even know how many months now, David has been attacking me on radio programs, on the internet, again and again and again and again, to the point where a couple of times I almost decided I was going to respond and I just kept my mouth shut.
unidentified		Yeah, that's true.
		He would make a posting and then recant and pull it down, and by then, of course, it's too late.
		Or he would make a comment on a radio program and then deny he ever said it until you go back and listen to it.
		And then he was, oh, well, yeah, I guess I did say that, so I'll have to go back on another night and correct myself.
		The problem is that's a favorite tactic of his, is to make a statement and leave it out there long enough to do its harm and come back and retract it.
		And this press release he posted on his website trying to extend an olive branch to us is full of all kinds of mistruths about the situation.
		So I don't see how he's helping the situation by trying to make amends here when he continues to not characterize the situation properly, the way I like to say it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, what began it all was the Dead Dame's reversals.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And I think you know that what I said about that is a correct characterization of the way it went.
unidentified		Yeah, you explained that to me very shortly after the night of that program, and so I sort of knew what was going on before all of this.
		And then it was like a month or so later, people started wondering about why David wasn't on the program, and you still left the door open.
		And you were telling people on the air, you know, when they would ask about him, well, you know, perhaps he'll be on soon.
		And you kind of didn't say anything.
		You didn't let people know that there was any problems behind the scenes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And privately, I was telling David, look, I don't know why you're attacking me, but if you want to mend things up, just keep your mouth shut for a while and don't attack me either on the Internet or on other radio programs, and things will be okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But he never did that.
unidentified		Well, he's treading on dangerous waters here because there's a lot of things that I'm sure he doesn't want to have said on the Internet about him.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm not going there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But thank you very much, Keith.
unidentified		Okay, see you later.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Appreciate it.
		Take care.
		That's Keith Roland, my webmaster.
		And now let me see if I can properly reconnect everybody.
		Let's see.
		Richard should be there.
		Richard?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		I am here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And if I'm doing this right, Mike Barrow should be here.
		Michael?
unidentified		I'm here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, good.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		All right, I want to jump in here for a minute.
unidentified		Yep, go ahead.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The reason any of this is important other than to you and me and David, just as people, and Keith, of course, is because in the last couple, three days, it has become clear that there is the disturbing possibility that for whatever reason, David Oates is altering the data important in a much larger frame.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		This Paul Doray business and who he is really, and who is Stevens really, and what is this all about.
		When a very good friend of mine thinks that if he goes public on your show, he has a life expectancy of less than a thunderstorm.
		There is a serious problem that serious people should try to address.
		And as I said to you this afternoon, I have been extraordinarily loyal to David.
		I feel very fondly toward him.
		But you cannot muck around with this data everyone's life could depend on telling the truth and telling it like it is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't doubt the validity of reverse speech.
		I think there truly is something to it.
		I would not have brought David on as many times as I did if I didn't.
		I think I pretty well made his public persona in the first place.
		And I guess I was a little disappointed that somebody like that would turn on me, but I'm even more disappointed at the possibility that what I regard as a valid scientific discipline, reverse speech, is being tampered with.
		And that is what you're saying, right?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's unfortunately where the evidence is trending.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And you need to talk to Pinella directly, and you need to listen to these reversals, and they need to compare what's on David's site with what's on Pinella's site.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		How do they, first of all, let's help people out there.
		Would you have the Pinella site address?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		It is linked in the new piece that Michael and I put up tonight called The Truth Is Out There and We Found It.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's your site?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's on Enterprisemission.com.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So if people go to Enterprisemission.com and there are two new postings on the main page.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		On the main page, and what should they look for?
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		What's the date tonight, Michael?
		Well, what day is it now?
		Do we do it the 30th when we put it on yesterday?
unidentified		30th bits the 31st.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		31st, okay.
		Okay.
		It's the second item down on the main page.
		Click on that, scan down to the reverse speech part, and there's a John Pinella link that takes you directly to John's site and the real audio comparisons of the forward and backward speech and the text, which is the normal format to do this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So in other words, they can compare what Pinella did in terms of reversals of the same material with what David Oates presented.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
unidentified		Yeah, he's got both there, what he sent, David, and how it came back out again.
		One other thing, too, I want to clear up is that I did go to Oates' website during the break here, and what I previously said, that the December 7th reversals were gone, both the Dam Golden reversal and the bring in NASA with December 7th are both back on the website.
		They were gone for a period of a couple of weeks, given the transition.
		I guess that's reasonable, but they're back up there now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I see.
		All right.
		So people can hear them.
		Good.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		See, what's important here is the integrity of the process.
		I don't mind if people call me names.
		In fact, so many people will call me names that maybe I've been a little less than sensitive to Mr. Dore, giving him every benefit of the doubt.
		Because if I were to react every time someone calls me a name or puts me on a site or mischaracterizes what I've said, I would do nothing but spend 95 hours a day focusing on that.
		And I refuse to do that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's true of almost every public person.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		Where I draw the line is where it impacts on the larger issues that concern 260 million Americans and 6 billion people on this planet.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		And the response to this data, this trend curve, this yellow brick road we have followed from Doray and Cullen and Planned Evil Weather to the radar to the anomalies to our friend's abrupt removal from the field because of fear for his life, if we're only that alone, we should take this very seriously.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I agree.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		The fact that we've got very good data, in the new piece tonight, the truth is out there and we think we found it.
		We have remarkable evidence that the meteor showers, which have been much hiked in the mainstream media, the Perseids and the Leonids and the Oranids and every meteor shower you can name suddenly is front row billing,
		have been used as a cover for a testing of something that is affecting the weather, which we believe is this project code named Project Sampson that came to us initially from the O-Traversal of Golden,
		and which appears to have been tested from the summer through the fall in piecemeal fashion all over this country, which as a side effect has had profound and disturbing and shattering effects on the weather, and if that's correct, has killed a lot of people inadvertently in tornadoes and floods, and even Mitch may have been affected by some inadvertent side effect of this technology.
		The fact that a key technical individual involved in our analysis apparently has been threatened to the point where he has to withdraw.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, threatened to the point where this man says, if I want to live for even 48 hours, I cannot go into that or other things.
		And, you know, that's very clear.
		I know this person, and this person is not given to statements like this at all, never has in his whole life, has been a pure person of science.
		And this is astounding that he would respond.
richard c hoagland ▲ ● ▼		That's a hard data point.
		The other thing which is interesting is the pattern of deception around this.
		We have been treated from the door and the shows and Mr. Stevens tonight and before to an extraordinary pattern of noise.
		You know, accusations, finger-pointing, mudslinging, you name it.
		It's worse than any campaign.
		The only thing I can comparably compare it to is what's going on in Washington.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Richard, I've been doing talk radio in this incarnation for 14, 15, going on 15 years.
		And I have never, ever heard an hour like the hour we did with Stevens tonight.
		I have never heard anything like that in my whole life.
unidentified		And we didn't get to the good stuff.
unidentified		You know, that's the bizarre thing, too, is that these guys are so easy to knock over.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you can't tell me he knocked himself over.
unidentified		Yeah, well, that's the point, I guess.
		It just doesn't add up except if you think, you know, somewhat conspiratorially that somebody is putting these clay pigeons in front of us for us to shoot out of the sky.
		And is it just a distraction?

▲