All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 30, 1998 - Art Bell
02:42:29
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Death Threats, EQ Pegasi Hoax, Weather Control & Hoagland vs Stephens
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Alright, 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.
Underline 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 Jodrell 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, a one-time advisor to NASA, Walter Cronkite's advisor.
and winner of the Angstrom Science Award. Richard, are you there?
Good evening, Art. Yes, I am.
Good. And you are at home in New Mexico.
I am at home on a windy mountaintop about 7,000 feet. This is definitely the high desert.
All right. The person that this all was attributed to, very shortly thereafter,
following this BBC story, was a man named Paul Dorr in Great Britain.
And we have Paul Dore in Great Britain with us tonight.
Paul, are you there?
Yeah, I'm here.
It's pronounced Dore, right?
Dore?
Yeah, D.O.R.E.
D.O.R.E.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Most Americans would say D.O.R.E., but it's D.O.R.E.
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 an 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?
Yeah, that's accurate.
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?
Well, I initially went on the Laura Lee Show before your show.
And no mention has ever been made of that.
And also sightings.
And sightings subsequently, but I went on the Law Relief Show and stated I was not the host etc.
and I've been contacted by Michael Thoreau at Balderland 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 about when I'm going to get stitched up here.
Stitched up.
That's British for clobbered, I guess, or somehow attacked.
Is that what you thought?
Yeah.
No, I don't do that, Paul.
I don't.
I don't.
I'm glad to hear it.
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?
That's correct, but it's not for one to try.
I've tried all means and he's never once tried to contact me.
All right.
Now, Mr. Dorey, that is flatly and uncontestably 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 an 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 hear 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.
Did you write that part?
Yes, I did, and that's still the case.
Then why aren't you on the show tonight?
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.
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.
The BBC reported the story that they'd lifted from the internet, as had Dr David Whitehouse, who also has not replied to a single email of mine, so I'm not too enamoured with them either.
Well, I mean, that's how they broke the hoax.
Okay, all I'm saying is that the BBC is the first media, mass media, that broke the story.
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.
They were reporting what they'd found on the internet, yes.
Yes.
And of course the BBC is very well respected worldwide, not just in Great Britain, but here as well.
And so a story by the BBC gets everybody's attention, of course.
Yes, but 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, this is rubbish.
That is also not true.
It's true.
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.
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 that 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.
I see.
None of this gets reported on Enterprise Missing.
They just report what they want, which is to distort all the facts.
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.
Yes.
Is that my fault?
When I got into this, it was specifically because you and I had a conversation the 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, etc., etc., 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 SETI signal in the classic sense, but might be coming from a probe heading in this direction.
Correct.
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. Doré, where Paul Doré, out of the blue, accuses me of being quote the hoaxer of the EQ Pegasi story.
Mm-hmm.
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?
All right, Paul, why don't you pick it up at that point?
Did you virtually accuse him early on of being the hoaxer?
I was asked, who do you believe could be behind this hoax?
And I said, yes, Richard Hogan could be behind it.
That's quite odd.
Isn't that a bit cheeky?
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.
Now I want to see that evidence because you stated that and said sue me.
Let him sue me if he wants.
That is a fact.
Richard said that.
Let's try this, Paul, today.
Right now.
We're going to get right back to that.
Do you believe that Richard, today, is the hoaxer?
I believe he's got his eyeballs in it.
Richard, you did make a definitive statement about Paul being the hoaxer and said if he would like, let him sue me.
Yeah, well, you all know what the evidence is.
A lot of this has been based on... What's the evidence?
John, let's get to that.
What is... A lot of this has been based on innuendo and finger-pointing.
If you go to Mr. Dorey's website, you will see a litany of people that are, quote, supposed to have done this, hoaxed this.
By the way... That's all proof.
Where's your record?
Where's the whole proof?
None of it is true.
You have no proof.
You have simple accusations.
All right, that's not proof.
The only piece...
Of hard, electronic, fingerprint-type evidence comes from you!
You posted on the GeoCities website.
On a news group, apparently.
Forging their codes.
Some kind of message which was traced back to your, uh, UK, uh, website.
Web address.
Hold it, hold it.
Let's let Paul respond to that.
Now, Paul, you did in fact, uh, make a posting that I heard you say on another show, um, you intentionally misled people.
It's actually reference from your website, um, I made a posting saying... I can't remember what it said, it was very short.
Um, and I put the return address as the one the hoaxer had used, because I knew that would, uh, kind of piss him off.
So, in other words, you forged the return address to, uh, your saying, try to, um, flush out the hoaxer?
Yes, exactly.
Um, and that is evidently coming from my, uh, email address, uh, because you can trace it in the header.
Now, all the, 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.
Oh yes, listen on the internet, anybody can be anybody.
Exactly.
As we well know.
That is not proof.
Um, no, but you are acknowledging that you did forge one header in an attempt.
Yes.
Now, let me ask this question.
You know, if there's a major bank robbery in town and about four or five million dollars or pounds has been stolen, does someone who is not involved immediately rush to the bank and stuff bank notes in their pocket and then... Hang on.
What if I'm not involved?
I am involved because I've had my resume ripped off by the likes of yourselves Now, Mr. Dorey, there you go again.
As Ronald Reagan said, there you go again.
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?
That's correct.
That name was not Richard Hoagland, was it?
No, that's correct.
Do you now believe that to be true?
Yes, I still believe that to be true.
You still believe it to be true.
Um, either Richard is or is not the Hoaxer.
Right, well I've got a question for Richard.
Has he ever had any contact, um, is it, have you ever had any contact with a Terry T. Rogers?
Oh, I've read his website.
Yeah, but have you ever had any contact with him?
Have you ever sent him an email, or not?
I don't normally send emails, because I want to stay private.
Oh, yeah, I know that.
I want to have part of my life private, and I am very selective in who I email and who I talk to.
Did you email him, Richard?
No.
No.
Okay, so why has Terry C. Rogers got an email on his website which states, that is why I said December the 7th?
Now, who could that be?
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 Gersten, in print, that you thought I was somehow behind this?
Which is ludicrous!
Absolutely ludicrous!
Well, that's it.
Well, answer the question.
How can you go around making accusations with absolutely zero evidence, Mr. Gorey?
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?
Well, no, no.
This is called circumstantial mudslinging.
We have electronic codes tying you to part of this.
There is no direct evidence of anyone else, Mr. Dorey, except yourself.
And you claim that you made it up to... Oh, they read.
They read.
They read.
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 Dorey in Great Britain.
And Richard C. Hoagland in Albuquerque, New Mexico are my guests.
You, uh, most of you, anyway, know what this is all about.
The Pegasus Hoax, question mark, exclamation point, underlined.
I don't know.
I'm Art Bell.
This is 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...
the USA. Then 800-893-0903. If you're a first time caller, call Art at 702-727-1222. From
Then, 800-893-0903.
east of the Rockies, 1-800-823-727-1222.
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 AM from the Kingdom of Nye.
at area code 702-727-1295.
This is Coast to Coast AM from the Kingdom of Nye.
It is Paul Gore 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 Ames 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 Well, it's happened to me.
And the difference is that you and I have responded very differently than Paul Doré.
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. Well it's happened to me and the difference is
that you and I have responded very differently than Paul Doré. 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.
Bye.
And what bothered me from the beginning was not the events.
I mean, the events were 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 is attacking me to an attorney who is an email correspondence out of the gun, out of sight, out of the gate.
He simply flailed out and accused us at Enterprise of somehow being behind this.
Alright, well... Can I answer that?
Yes, you may.
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.
This occurred before, sir.
Okay, Paul, let me jump in again.
Paul, you said initially that Richard Hoagland never tried to contact you, but now you say that indeed Andromeda did try to contact you on behalf of Richard Hoagland.
Is that correct?
Yeah, it wasn't obvious it was on behalf of Richard Hoagland.
He never said, he never said, I'm trying to contact you on behalf of Richard Hogan.
That is not true!
Shall I read the e-mails that he sent to you?
Shall I read the e-mails that he sent to you?
Alright, Richard, hold it, let him say what he wants to say, then you can read the e-mails.
Subsequent play on the Art Bell Show.
And like I said, there's no way I'm going to do a tape interview because everything gets distorted.
I've seen it.
Can I just go back to the O.J.
Simpson story?
No sir, you may not.
Let me finish, okay?
There was a joke that appeared in the 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.
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?
Yes, but go ahead, Richard.
The point of having a face-to-face meeting with someone that I have known for 30 years...
Well, I wanted to cut the virtual part out of this reality.
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.
All right, 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?
Yes.
What is that?
Read that, please.
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.
I have his response.
It is important because Paul said that you never tried to get hold of him.
He said that on several shows.
Well, this is wrong.
This is an error.
It may take me until the next break to find it.
I will find it.
It's here.
Alright, so you do have it.
Yes, you may, Paul.
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... Mr. Dorey, your chances are no one more, aren't they?
Richard, let him finish.
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 round, 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.
How do you answer that?
Well, I don't think it's true!
It's true!
Look, Mike, I am sitting here looking at this fax or this email where you say you did not want to be involved.
In fact, in the end of it you say, P.S.
give my regards to RCH and Art Bell.
I think this is all an attempt to discredit them.
Yeah, it's quite possible.
No, but now you've gone from accusing me of being the host.
Okay, now that, that is interesting, Tom.
You were offered to go, you were, um, someone informed me that you were to appear on the Mike Jarma Show, and I sent them an email that says, I hear you've got Richard Hogan on, 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.
Richard?
Well, because I'm not interested subsequently get on the Art Bell show and say that I'm
running from you.
That's hardly running from you.
It was not subsequent, sir.
Again, you have your time frames.
I do not.
I have it personally and I've got the real audio archive data and I can and I shall publish
that on my website where I appear on the Mike Jones show and you turn it down.
And then may I call you Paul, first of all?
We can't go, Shan.
May I call you Paul?
Yes, you said yes.
I didn't hear the answer.
Yes.
How do we know you're Paul Doré?
You're a voice on a phone.
Because... No, no, no.
Let me ask a question.
How do we know?
How do you know I'm Paul Doré?
Yeah.
Because I... 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?
Let him answer.
I'm not Paul Doré now.
That's a good one, isn't it?
The problem is, I'm actually in contact on the internet at this very moment Um, with other people, so they know it's me.
No, they don't know it's you.
I know.
Hold it, everybody.
We both, I think all of us acknowledged that anybody can seemingly be anybody on the internet.
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, unbeknownst 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 up Web Computing and they will see it's owned by Paul Doray.
So Paul, you are the director of an internet provider in Great Britain?
No, no, I'm the director of a limited company which I contract through.
I see.
and that you have to register it and you have to be a director of a registered company and it's
registered in my name Paul Doré and the name is Web Computing my website is called Web Computing
I've been with them for been with Demon Internet for about four years now and I
I will give Demon permission to say that it is my website.
All right.
Let's see if I can try something here.
Paul, do you acknowledge that Richard Hoagland might not be the hoaxer?
Oh, yes, of course I do.
You acknowledge that now?
Yes.
And Richard, do you acknowledge that Paul Doré may not be the hoaxer as well?
That he may be, could be, Absolutely.
My whole point is that when we're dealing in this electronic virtual reality nonsense, nobody can be sure of anything anymore and we should sit down face to face.
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.
Um, 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, uh, Richard may not be the hoaxer.
Yeah, I'm not the hoaxer, but I, I believe he's, um, been in contact with the hoaxer, as I've 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 I don't understand the question.
Does he have an email from me?
Is this what you're reporting?
There's only one person.
There's this person.
Who are we talking about?
There's only one person.
Who are we talking about, Paul?
Terry T. Rogers.
Who is Terry T. Rogers?
Well, he knows who he is because he said he's website.
Yeah, but 20 million people don't.
Who is Terry T. Rogers?
And then there's also a Kent Stedman, who you named as a hoaxer on another radio program.
So you've named three people.
Richard Hovland... No, I didn't name Kent Stedman as a hoaxer.
I said he had evidence on his site where the same story was released back in... I can't remember exactly, but it's in May.
There was a signal received by a British astronomer from Cygnus A. Remarkable resemblance.
So you did not say on the Sightings Radio Show that you thought Kent Steadman was a hoaxer?
No.
Did you say that you thought Terry T. Rogers was a hoaxer?
I very likely did, yes.
You did?
Yes.
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, is that correct?
That was one of the potential possibles.
Because Richard Hogan, still to this day, has got on his website stuff which says I'm compared to A.J.
Simpson, and they're saying just because I want to pursue the truth, that it compares me to A.J.
Simpson.
Well, what does it compare him with?
Saddam Hussein?
Okay, Richard, what evidence do you have, specific evidence, that Paul Doré, if that's who we have on the phone now, is the hoaxer?
Well, this is a case of circumstantial errors from beginning to end.
And of course, it's a cat chasing its tail, 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 And Mr. Doré's name to that site, to that GeoCity site, is traceable back to Paul Doré, and he is admitted.
I've never falsified anything to that site.
Alright?
Never to the original site.
I've never falsified anything to that site.
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 mailing addresses.
How can you stay uninvolved when you've got on your website You've got stuff that compares me with O.J.
Simpson.
You've got stuff that... Sir, you're comparing apples and oranges.
The point is, as a reporter, as a reporter, may I go back?
This is on your website!
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 Dore, who's making the same claims and pointing fingers at everybody else, Yes, pretty apt!
Paul, it is true that the only 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.
That's right, because I use my own email address unlike others.
Now, can I go on to another thing?
Yes.
I'd love to ask Richard, Um, given that you're now saying it is a hoax, you agree it's a hoax?
No, it's not a hoax!
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.
Uh, 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 remember, it didn't stop with you, Paul.
There were people in...
He was stolen as well, the Japanese.
Yeah, and Australia, and I think... The Australians have said, no, it's not true.
Yeah, and Mr. Dory, may I remind you that on that Geocities website, for some bizarre reason, my initials suddenly appeared without my permission.
Yeah, that's true.
So in a sense, my identity was taken.
That's true.
They erased the site, Paul, as I'm sure you're aware, and the only thing left were the initials RCH, Richard C. Hogan.
You're aware of that?
Yeah, I was aware of that, yes.
So...
It may well be that somebody did not only get you, Paul, but they got Richard as well.
Richard's saying it's not a hoax.
But they got Richard as well.
Yeah, but it's not a hoax, Richard says.
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
Okay, um, can I ask Richard then, um, what signal did he use to determine that the landing would be December the 7th?
Okay, Richard?
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.
And I want to make one other point.
I want to make one other point.
You go calculations every time.
Paul, don't get cluttered in trivia.
Every time we have used the name Paul Doré in our website, in our writings, in our publications, we have put it in quotes.
No, you haven't.
Yes, we have.
You've put it in quotes subsequent to a certain date, but prior to that, you've got on your website, Paul Doré is the hoaxer.
You've got on your website, there's a message from Paul Doré without quotes.
I suggest you update it.
That's in terms of the IP codes, remember?
The infamous IP codes?
Oh my God.
Yeah, he's referring to the one message that you do admit you forged, Paul.
No, he's not.
Well, he likely is.
Yeah, he very likely is, but there's other places where it appears without quotes, quite blatantly without quotes.
And what's the date of that?
Oh my God, he says my name without quotes and it goes on to say that he was killed in
a plane crash.
And what's the date of that?
Hang on, it goes on to say that he was killed in a plane crash.
What's the date of that?
Why are you interrupting me because you don't like this question?
What's the date?
He's just asking you what is the date of that?
The date of, I don't know the exact date.
It was the first one that was put on the website, but it was calculated on there from the frequency that the landing would be December the 7th.
Now, how do you explain that?
Which subject?
We're talking about your name and our intercalculations.
Yeah, but you, you, 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.
Well, what does this have to do with you?
Because if you're not involved, Paul, why do you care?
Paul, if you're not involved in the story... We can only hear one person at a time.
Why should you care?
In other words, there used to be a saying by one of your customers... It does not answer the question.
William Shakespeare has answered the question.
No, Richard, I think it is fair to ask.
He should care, and I would care.
If I was the victim of a hoax, and 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.
Yeah, 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.
Well, how do I know that a calculation?
It is a switch of subjects, yes.
No, the calculation appears directly underneath my name.
It says the signal received by Paul Doré is on such and such a frequency.
We've got this frequency, blue shifted, etc.
And the landing date will be December the 7th based on those calculators.
Now I'm asking, quite legitimately, because it's so scientific, Mr. Hovland,
How does he calculate it?
Oh, okay.
I see, Richard.
So he simply wants... is asking how you calculated this.
And the other question is, I'd like to know how far away Jupiter is in miles.
And why is this relevant?
Yeah, relevant.
I understand.
Well, the relevance is on the page.
This is called the binding slant.
This is a classic disinformational technique.
It's changing the subject.
Why are you changing the subject?
How is it relevant to the use of your name?
Alright, let's pick up on that point when we get back.
Okay, thank you.
You bet.
We're at the top of the hour and we will be back to continue with this.
Paul Doré 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.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Close to Ghost AM.
This is a video of me playing the game.
I'm not a pro, but I'm trying to show you how to play this game.
From the Kingdom of Nigh, this is Close to Ghost AM with Art Bell.
From east of the Rockies, call Art at 1-800-825-5033.
West of the Rockies, including Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, at 1-800-618-8255.
First-time callers may reach Art at area code 702-727-1222.
Colorado and New Mexico at 1-800-618-8255.
First-time callers may reach out at Area Code 702-727-1222.
And you may fax out at Area Code 702-727-8499.
Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
Now again, here's Art.
Paul Doré is here from Great Britain, and so is Richard C. Hoagland, and we are talking about the Pegasus folks, 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 Rowland, who is my webmaster, and he helps me.
I'm a neophyte.
I'm telling you right now, Richard, when it comes to email and things about the net, no offense Richard, but Richard is a complete dummy compared to me.
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.
I don't know how to fake.
You do have, though, Paul, you do have the expertise to do this.
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 still obviously comes from the UK, which is what I did.
But I wouldn't know how to make it look like it appears from the UK.
All I'm suggesting, Paul, is that you know an awful lot more about all of this than I do, and certainly than Richard.
Yeah, that's true.
Let me 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 You should step back and lighten up and think about it.
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. Doré.
Interesting, Richard.
Interesting, but irrelevant.
Somewhat irrelevant.
You said it's irrelevant, your story on the signal and how you calculated the December 7th landing.
Well, let me get to my point.
I have now found the emails.
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?
Totally, but it's totally irrelevant to who Paul Dory is.
It's totally irrelevant because the same story is on the same page.
You can get the speed from the shift in frequency, but you've got to know how far away it is to know when it's going to land.
And anybody would come up with the same conclusion, I think.
They won't get the date, though, because you've got too many unknowns.
You know, the fifth changing frequency, so you can get velocity.
But you've got to know where, how far away... Can we have a little order in this conversation?
Well, the order will come as not everybody talks at once.
I thought Richard was quite scientific, so I thought we should enjoy explaining how the changing frequency, and you've got to know the distance, The thing is, on the same website where he's got my receipt of the signal, my claim receipt of the signal, it states, when it's following email, as proof of it, from Dr. Jim Warrick.
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 dated... Sorry, what does it have to do with your stolen identity?
Sorry?
What does this have to do with the theft of your name?
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.
So, it is relevant.
And 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.
Okay, Paul, I just told Richard what he said was irrelevant.
I think what you're saying is irrelevant, too.
Now look, both of you... 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...
There's a press conference to be held and it's the International Astronomical Union and British Astronomical Association and they've not been mentioned anywhere else.
So how did you get that info?
Richard, where did you get that name?
That was from the EQPEG website.
Okay.
So he was reprinting what was on the GeoCities website.
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 on the show and said that you... And we also updated our material on the web.
Richard, hold on.
Go ahead, Bob.
You went on the show and said that you had all your contacts in the UK looking for me.
But by then, Michael Thoreau of Balderlands had actually found me a week earlier and sent an email to our show saying that he's found Paul Doré and...
And so on and so on, but no response.
You still didn't.
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.
Remember, in the virtual reality world, we have to kind of daisy chain through people that we know, that we trust.
She responded back after looking at your site that you had linked your site, Paul Doré's site, to Enterprise, under the name Hoaxland.
Now this was the second strike against you, Mr. Doré, because again, You're just flinging mud on the wall.
OK, Paul, did you do that?
Did you do that, Paul?
Did you link to a site calling it Hoaxland?
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 Hoaxland, because all the data on his site is a hoax.
It's bogus.
It's not science.
He can't answer how he calculated the landing date, and he's still refusing to.
On the 14th, I have an email from Andromeda.
You do not answer it.
I have just emailed 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.
I have an email saying that she emailed you representing Richard C. Hoagland.
Yes, no, that is true.
And you turned it down.
And it says you would take recorded interviews for subsequent play, and I 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 date?
Alright, let's get to that.
Richard, how did you calculate what the landing date would be, please?
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 ET landing somewhere on the West Coast.
Eventually, by the fall, the date came out as December the 7th.
I put these two pieces of separate data together.
A possible signal dopplering down, blueshifted as Art Artfully said a moment ago, and an inside source claiming a possible landing, and that's how we arrived at the date.
Alright, were you able, Richard, through only the blueshift calculations to determine what the landing date would be, or did you require that second piece of information to put it all together?
What we had over the subsequent week, Art, was three more data points.
We have the signal from Japan.
We have the signal from Guernsey.
We With zero evidence!
Alright, 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?
Why do I think it was done?
Yes, sir?
I think it was done because certain people need publicity and they need good stories to put on their website.
So you're coming back to Richard?
Am I?
Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that certain people need publicity and they need good stories to put on their website so it makes a good story.
Are you referring to the GeoCities website or Richard Hogan's?
Well, certain people.
I'm not saying anyone in particular.
I'd like to ask why Richard Hogan asked David Oates to reverse speech me on a radio show that I was on.
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?
You lost me, too.
I'm not sure what you said, Paul.
Richard Hoagland, I was on the radio station, and he asked David Oates to reverse speech me while I was on there, without my knowledge.
Uh, which he subsequently did, but told me, and then replayed him, it says, this bloody famous hoax.
Now, you never think... No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I have not spoken to David John Oates since mid-October, early October.
That is true.
Literally.
That is true.
Well, he reversed speech to me and... No, no, you're claiming that I had him do it, sir.
No, I can tell you, Paul, that is not true.
David Oates and Richard Hoagland have not spoken, as he pointed out, since about October.
Okay, when I was reversed speech that he's requested, what do I have to do with it?
Whether that's true or not, I don't know.
You're again, sir, throwing spaghetti on the wall.
Did you make it a practice of going around trying to blackball people and attack them and accuse them without any evidence?
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 completely forget to say that My wife's name is Helen.
Helen of Troy.
But how do I know that?
I don't think you're very impressed.
You won't let me meet you.
You won't meet with my representatives.
How do we know you have a wife at all?
Why do I have to meet through 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?
I don't have to do anything you tell me to do.
Well, of course you don't.
But you're incriminating yourself because you refuse to contact me directly.
You refuse to correspond with me.
So I... You're going around in circles.
Yeah, I kind of agree.
How do I know that Andromeda Williams is genuine?
Because I've had loads of fake Well, at least it is true, Paul, that this Andromeda, on behalf of Richard, and apparently even myself, my name used, I guess, did contact you, and I thought you had said that nobody on... Richard had never attempted to contact you.
Well, at least it is true, Paul, that this Andromeda on behalf of Richard and apparently
even myself, my name is, I guess, did contact you and I thought you had said that nobody
on Richard had never attempted to contact you.
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, um...
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.
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 find my name all over it, I find these ridiculous, ridiculous Uh, stories about myself, and he refuses to remove my name, and I've requested by Peter Gersten that he do so, and he does not do it.
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.
I don't believe he hoaxed it.
I do not believe that.
I'd like him to answer the question about why he says he had no contact with Terry T. Rogers.
Hold on, hold on.
Richard, go ahead.
I don't think you hoaxed it either.
Okay.
Progress.
That's a stall.
Now let me tell you what I think is going on here.
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.
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, my own signature.
That is correct.
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 spent a lot of time decoding, which names specifically certain intelligence agencies, both in Britain and here.
May I please finish?
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's 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.
All right, all right.
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 a...
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.
And listen to the wind blow.
Watch the sun rise.
Watch the sun rise.
If you have a fax for Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nine, send it to him at area.org.
702-727-8499.
Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
This is Prost Across AM with Art Bell.
702-727-8499.
Please limit your faxes to one or two pages.
This is Prost Across AM with Art Bell.
Now, here again is Art.
Good morning, everybody.
Paul Dore 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, some sense 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 Dore, know and what you, Richard Hogan, know, it might be possible to find out who in fact did hoax this and why.
And I think that's what I've always wanted to know is why it's being hoaxed.
Well, I think that's what Richard took off on, Paul.
I think that Richard saw something larger behind this.
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.
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... Mr. Dore, 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'm... I am still, see, so... Let us continue... I'm quite willing to... If you are not... ...on my website and contact you... All right, hold on, hold on... ...if you're not.
All right, Richard... Then the next question, of course, is why did someone pick on you?
Yes, that is... What is it about your identity, your family, your wife's name...
Was it perhaps that you had the... Okay, Richard, let him answer that.
That's a very good question.
Go ahead, Paul.
You obviously haven't been to my website and read the stuff on my website.
Well, Paul, why do you think you were the target of the hooks?
Because I used to play... Well, I still do play in the Internet Gaming Zone, and I use a handle as UK Blaster.
Now, the hoaxer uses blaster, the blaster, to the blaster, all over the place.
Really?
More than coincidence, if you ask me.
Really?
Um, so in other words, somebody picked up, uh, 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?
Quite possible.
I can assure you that would not be Richard Hogan.
There's no question about it.
Believe me, Richard does not do gaming on the internet.
The only problem I've got is the person that did the hoax.
If you look at their other stuff, they haven't got the know-how and the storytelling ability that Richard's got.
Um, 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 possible?
No.
You don't?
No.
You think this was just a nasty joke?
Yeah.
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.
It was awfully elaborate, and it went from country to country.
Yeah, it's quite crude, though, because if it was being done with a lot of trouble, they forgot the fact that... Richard, let him finish, Richard.
Let him finish Richard.
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 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?
Who benefited?
The only people that I can think of that's benefited from this hoax is yourself.
You're getting into dangerous territory again.
You asked the question who benefited.
I haven't benefited.
Who has benefited?
It's cost me money.
We're talking fame.
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.
It's cost us a great deal of money because all of the throughput on our website It's 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 the truth.
I beg to differ.
OK, Paul, in what way do you see he's benefited from this?
This has been a conference, $200 a head, talking about the hoax and things.
about around the two pegasus. Oh the hoax! That's benefitting.
But Paul, the hoax is a big deal.
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.
Yeah, it's a lot, isn't it, really? I guess so. Anyway, here's what I see.
You both have backed off from earlier statements.
I would like to know who perpetrated this, folks, 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.
There is another difference.
The other difference is I'm quite prepared to put questions, etc., on my website and have an open debate, Richard's not.
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.
Richard, are you willing to establish... Well, Paul seems to be pretty close-minded that there's anything further...
To look into, and I think there's an extraordinary amount to look into.
Let me start with a couple of points.
Okay, what would you look into?
First of all, back to why they chose Paul Doré's name, or Paul Door.
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.
Yes.
If you take the standard steady frequency, the so-called water hole, where everyone's going to be listening.
Yes, yes.
1420.
Right.
And you subtract it from the ostensible frequency from the ostensible Mr. Doerr on the ostensible website.
Mm-hmm.
At 1453, you get precisely 33 megahertz.
Mm-hmm.
you get precisely 33 megahertz.
Mm-hmm. That's right.
And the 33 is a number that has come up over and over again in our search into this NASA Masonic pattern.
Okay, well that's where we're going in some other show.
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.
Paul, I do tend to agree that there is some other reason behind this other than somebody just having fun with you.
Well, okay, but the person that did the hoax, previously hoaxed the rainbow documents I've been told.
Now what purpose did they do that?
The rainbow documents, I'm sorry I'm not familiar with them.
I'm not familiar with them either.
Well then why reference them?
How do you...
Well why reference them?
No, I want to know how do you know?
First of all, what are the rainbow documents, Paul?
I don't know, but I've been informed that the hoaxer actually hoaxed the rainbow.
Do you know what those are Richard?
Haven't a clue.
That's not right, but you could ask the same question, what purpose for that?
Yes, but the thing is, all these numbers except...
Differences in frequency, 33 MHz, etc.
Now, they're quite convenient, aren't they?
Yes, and I'm not sure... The hoaxer obviously went to trouble to get all these frequencies, etc.
and get the numbers conveniently to fit.
I agree.
The hoaxer went to a great deal of trouble.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Unfortunately, the hoaxer's illiterate.
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.
Oh, it could.
And they had to, they had to research quite a bit about you.
Well, they didn't.
No, they didn't.
All they did was lift 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.
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.
That's right, and there's not that many people around who actually had that information.
Mr. Doering, I'm forgetting though 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 Barra 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.
Yeah, we have native sources.
I could say that.
I've got a source.
It doesn't mean a thing.
Are you accusing me of not telling the truth?
Yes.
Mr. Doria, I think this conversation is over.
Why?
I think this conversation is finished.
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?
And I thought we had resolved that about ten minutes ago.
That's how I would like to leave it.
Paul, we're trying to reach some 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.
Doesn't have 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 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.
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.
Yeah, I'm willing to cooperate.
Tell Richard to give me his email address and I'll send him everything I've got.
Well, that's a good offer.
Let me think about it.
Okay.
Richard, why would you not want to be in receipt of everything he's got?
I mean, that'll at least help you.
No, it's not a matter of wanting to be in receipt.
It's a matter of giving out my private email.
Well, we don't have to give it out on the air.
He can fax me.
He can send it to Enterprise, to Keith, and he'll forward it to me.
We'll 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 with Richard.
Actually, Keith is too burdened.
He's running two ships simultaneously.
Let's make Mike Barra the Lunar Anomalies email, the go-between.
Okay, it doesn't matter who does it.
I don't want to do it on the air, obviously.
second part. No, that's fair enough. That's fair enough. I've had emails to Mike Bauer and I've had no response from them.
Lunar Anomalies' email address. All right, Richard, can we do that then? Can we...
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.
I would not divulge his email address to anyone if he so requested.
I have your email, I will send you an email and we'll establish a direct communication.
There you go.
Would he do something about my name across his website as well please?
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, you know, vilified and taken against your will and all that.
This has become, it's a Kleenex.
I mean, you know, I hate to say that, but my name is also somewhat of a public commodity in some quarters.
Yeah, your free choice, mine not.
But you're still in the game.
Mr. Dorey, 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.
Yes, I don't get paid.
Neither do I. That's right.
Both of you don't get paid.
Right.
I don't get paid, but I don't go to conferences talking about the issue.
I don't get... No, wait a minute.
We have in this country something called the First Amendment.
You don't have it in Britain.
Um, 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 hoaxed as the subject of one of the conferences.
That's logical.
It's one of the top ten stories of the year.
But I'm just saying, you've got nothing to lose, he adds.
I've got lots to lose.
I've lost two days' work to all this.
I don't get sleep.
And all I want to know... Wait, wait, wait.
How many days' work?
Two days, he said.
Two days.
This has been going on since October and you lost two days work.
Yes.
All right, look, I don't want this to degenerate in 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.
No, that's what I ask, is that my name get removed.
Probably, Paul, your name is never going to be, as you wished it, removed from connection with this host.
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.
Okay, Richard.
And I just ask that he sends me his own email address so I can respond directly.
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?
That sounds good.
Richard?
Okay, I'm not quite sure if Paul is not involved how he can really help.
Hold it, Richard.
on the well you know you have a lot of those Richard Gary Richard involved
older brother like a little bit Richard he's willing to send you information
that he has that you haven't yet seen look at the information that judge
I'm willing to look.
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.
Well, I'm all for that.
Whoever did this, as far as I'm concerned... Showered.
Showered and ought to be burned at the stake and then tortured after that, I guess.
Well, you see, I have a different point of view, Paul, and that's another reason I'm a little bit... He thinks he wants to defend you.
Because I think whoever did this is a national, if not an international hero.
Well, I don't know.
I don't know.
They gave us a heads-up... No, he accused my name.
They gave us a heads-up... I could have said your name, it would have been an effect, sir.
...a major set of anomalies going on right now In terms of these radar signatures.
Okay, but General, that's another story.
It 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.
Provided he will look at it.
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.
Alright, 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?
Okay, done deal.
Thank you both.
Stand by.
I very much appreciate, of course, having a Paul Doran 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.
Uh, as you know, Richard Hoagland, uh, over the past, God, I don't know, it's been a month or two, has been documenting what he believes to be weather control occurrences with radar photographs.
Uh, this is part of what, uh, M. Stevens, um, 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 on 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'm not going to identify for obvious reasons.
But Richard, would you characterize This person, without identifying this person, please, would you characterize the person?
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.
He has had a background in the black ops area.
Very heavily credentialed.
Heavily credentialed, very serious, not a frivolous person, not a fight-a-fancy person.
Not a paranoid person.
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, for obvious reasons, I'm not going to read this entire thing.
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, I agree with much of what you have said.
But it doesn't change things for me at all.
As you know, I have an alien version of the, in quotes, aliens, and that whole scene.
Very little change, 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... It doesn't change what I had to try to do in what little time I have left.
Time for me to do... 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 fantasies, aliens, plots, plans, maneuvering, politics, quentinises, rogues, UFOs, 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 more.
was horrible is the spirit of his mind. It is his view that if he were
to proceed uh... to...
Except for the characterization of scared out of his mind.
I think that it's more of a measured outcome.
And this individual has decided not to waste it on this effort.
All right.
He's making a reasoned judgment.
Now, he also in this same note, warns that it may in fact incur a similar fate.
I know.
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 Doré was or was not behind this whole thing, events have now rapidly escalated to where we have discovered real data.
I understand that.
Oh, I do understand that.
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.
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, I thought about it really hard and I'm sure that after reading this response, 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.
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 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.
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 have... 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.
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 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.
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.
I think that this individual is coming at 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.
That is what validates it all the more.
From that perspective, he does not approach this like you and I do.
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 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 that 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.
And or.
All right.
There's been a series of exchanges between yourself and a man named Stevens.
Not directly.
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?
Yes, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you very much.
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?
Yeah, I started in 1980, and not only in documentation, but also with the NASA Fine Art Program, and mostly what I do is AutoCAD drawings and modifications on the orbiter, the parts that go on to the shuttle in flight and in static, and then we do a lot of work, at least, you know, 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 How long have you been doing all this?
I started in 1980.
I'd like to comment on what you read.
I think you both concur.
I applied through the Smithsonian NASA Art Program.
How long have you been doing all this?
I started in 1980.
I'd like to comment on what you read.
I think you both concur.
I've only been in this about two months.
But based on everything that I've read, I'd say...
I think he's referring to the radar signature business.
Is that what you're talking about, Robert?
No, no.
What I'm talking about is being exposed to the online UFO culture when I was issued my first report on the Montana UFO.
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.
Yes.
I would have to concur 100%.
Whomever that is.
Concur?
I concur 100%.
In what sense?
I agree.
100%.
You agree with what?
Everything that you've read.
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, and that takes us back to this weather control business.
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.
I concur over, 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, 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 a 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%.
I am very confused.
What are we talking about?
I am, too.
I'm not confused at all.
I'm responding precisely what you just read on air.
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.
The response that I read in part, it was only... No, that isn't what you read.
You read about as far as an enigmatic thing happening in the, having to do with intruders and so forth, having to do with something, an element that's happening that we're not totally have a handle on, I concur 100%.
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 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.
But not exactly an insignificant part of it.
Richard, as I said earlier... 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 up on.
Absolutely.
Alright.
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 and 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 likely not likely at all it's uh anyway we'll be right back and things said by Mr. Stevens and I think there was some contact with Peter Gersten
who is UFOs, the mythology community's only attorney that I'm aware of and then Mr. Stevens wrote something that Peter Gersten published and I thought it was quite literate and I changed my opinion, so Mr. Stevens, have I incorrectly characterized some of your early communications?
They were kind of vitriolic 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.
Okay, I wouldn't have said all that, but all right.
I'm going to read what you did.
I'm guilty 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.
Alright, having said that, let me read what you did write to, at least in part, what you wrote to Peter Gersten, 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 we are confronting, 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 Barra, states over and over that NASA plots and executes all unmanned and manned space flights by masonic symbols and astrological signs among many other lies.
There is a pathological lie, intent to do harm with malice, NASA plots all unmanned and manned spaceflights by the following.
1.
Algebraic formulas within the field of orbital mechanics.
2.
Locator trajectories based on target intent.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Spaceflight is not subject to mumbo-jumbo.
On still another matter, posted and posted on these and other sites like Orbit, Raven, LFRAD, and Flash Radar, These liars have exerted 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.
We're not afraid of anything.
I am not a source.
I am Robert 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.
Yes.
Absolutely.
I don't know where we want to begin here.
Well, tonight is a night for me to be rather confused, and I'm not normally confused.
I am somewhat confused because in other shows, Prince Jeff Prince's Sightings and 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 me, may I please?
Yeah, let him finish.
You have accused me and Enterprise and Mike Berra of faking data on the Enterprise site Of pasting 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.
I'm not a pussycat.
I don't believe a word of it, Evans.
I don't believe a word of it.
Okay, Richard, I'm telling you, you're a liar as far as your data.
Your personal reference to me, you're probably a very, very sincere individual.
Um, so you're saying, uh, That he's, Robert, that he's lying about the data?
Uh-huh.
Ask me why.
Okay, why?
Because he puts on NEXRAD imagery, but he does not put on... NEXRAD means next generation.
They're having all kind 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 Nexrad does.
And Nexrad's in trouble.
And you're saying that Nexrad is just simply faulty, and that's why we're seeing these... Absolutely, it's horribly faulty.
uh... the exchange and which is probably going to want to hold these folks
because some of the point he does bring up is extremely valid which is strong data ok well here's what
i don't understand and i'm confused and richard is confused as well i read you
this letter uh... from this individual uh... uh... who validates
everything in spin in terms of
this being absolutely real to the degree that if he goes public with it
He won't live another 48 hours.
Fine.
There's no question.
But we're talking two different subjects.
No, we're not, Steven.
We are not.
We're talking what you just read, and we're talking what's on the sites in question.
Perhaps the only disagreement here is that Richard has gone after NASA You're not disagreeing, apparently, with the weather control part.
You're saying NASA... No, I'm not questioning that much.
You're saying NASA's not the one doing it.
Absolutely categorical.
We're getting confused.
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.
Alright, alright, 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?
Yes, I'm saying, 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 call 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... No, in your public postings you've called them lies.
There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's a difference between being... There's and grammatically between being in error and perpetrating an absolute knowledgeable falsehood, telling a lie.
Agreed.
You have accused us at Enterprise of deliberately faking data, of lying.
Yes.
Not being in error, of lying.
I'm saying it again, 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.
Art, are you confused?
Yes.
Good.
So am I. Well, both of you gentlemen... 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... Fine, 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.
So then the only argument... I'm saying that weather control is going on.
Categorically.
Wow.
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... 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?
I think that there are categorical things in higher earth space that have to do with the topopause that I have problems with, and I can't get to a clear answer on it, and Noah doesn't know, and you go through your chains of command to the 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 has nothing to do with UFOs, but I think this whole enigma, this is why I say, I think Peter Gersten, 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.
Mr. Stevens, you just called me a pathological liar!
I've got 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 host.
Richard is a researcher.
Right.
And you're saying he's a serious Honest researcher, and you said that five minutes after calling him a pathological liar.
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?
Yes, sir.
And Richard, also, keep in mind, this is a question of your data.
I in no way want to assault you.
You have never done anything to me whatsoever.
Yeah, you've said that, sir.
When you tell other PhDs, you are 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 are a doctor.
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 got a lot of that out there.
When you make a categorical statement, Richard, to somebody like say a Dr. Sauter, a Richard
father who used to work for you or a joke y'all.
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. Hoagland, and go to the Enterprise mission And look at, say, some 19.5 or whatever, and your data may be, in fact, correct.
It was very hard to make that leap when, in fact, Washington, D.C.
did not get bombed by nuclear weapons.
And did not have nuclear weapons on both sides.
That's my data.
That's my authority.
And I would say that a statement like that is half a lie.
Mr. Stephen, what are you talking about?
Dr. Sauter said that he had a very big indifference with you.
I'll come back to him.
Joe Gil, Hawaii.
You wanted him, when he was working with Enterprise Mission, you wanted him to leave Hawaii because an asteroid was going to come and destroy Hawaii.
Joe Gil, and has he ever went back to Hawaii?
Listen, this is getting very confusing, and I, Mr. Stephen, I don't know if you get this.
You have to qualify pathologics.
I've qualified it.
No, you haven't.
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.
Richard, uh, do you know what he's talking about?
Not really.
Do you want me to send you the emails?
I have them right here from a Dr. Richard Sautter.
I don't know who this man is.
I've never heard of him before.
Or the same of the joke of Joe Joseph Gill, in a way.
You don't know of Richard Sauder.
He has worked on underground bases.
Right.
I have employed him as an archivist.
He spent a lot of time, months and months, in the National Archives doing a lot of very 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. Sauder?
Because he called me up and told me that I sounded like a drunkard.
On the email, no one knows you're a dog.
Pardon me?
On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
In other words, Mr. Sheehan, you seem to be taking these representations at email value.
He called me.
He called me.
I traced his phone call to his house.
You traced his phone call?
Yeah.
I had Netscape put the header and put the little phone number thingy on the top there.
All right.
I don't see the mystery.
We're not going anywhere very fast.
We're going real fast.
My grandmother used to say this is kind of like a three-legged race with a calf.
No, it's not.
Well, then we're going to have to get down... I mean, I really... We're arguing about ridiculous... No, we're not.
We're making serious charges here.
I'm making serious charges.
No, you're not.
The serious man told the USDA that Washington, D.C.
is going to get bombed by its own government.
I don't know about that.
I've certainly never read anything like that.
Mark, you're the moderator.
Then you play devil's advocate.
I'm playing that, and I've never heard anything of the sort from Richard.
Would you like me to send you the emails?
I've already sent them to you, and I sent them to Peter Gershwin, I sent them to Michael Perrault, I sent them to Jeff Branch, I sent them to 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.
Well, look, I've sent them to you, I've sent everything I'm, everything I'm running my big mouth about.
I have sent you, with the people, with original email, I've either put it, you know, priority or low or colored it, whatever, so you'd see it, because I know you get, I know, I know you just get blasted with mail.
Art, this has all the hallmarks of more spaghetti-on-the-wall disinformation.
What agency do you work for, Mr. Stevens?
I'm sorry, what?
What agency do you work for?
I don't work for any agency.
I've never worked for civil service.
Well, that's kind of a question that's kind of mine.
You are supposed to be a shuttle documentarian.
Uh-huh.
A contractor to NASA, right?
Uh-huh.
That means NASA pays you.
No, NASA does not pay me.
They don't?
No, they don't pay me.
How do you get your money?
When you work for NASA, who pays you?
The various vendors that I do work for.
Who pays you?
You know that?
Your own contract worker or whatever you've got.
Who pays you?
Oh, from one minute, it might be amongst Donald 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.
So you're not a direct NASA contractor, you have worked for contractors to NASA?
All contractors fall under the NASA umbrella because they're the parent organization.
Right, but they are not paying you directly, rather as you put it, McDonnell Douglas or whoever you... Exactly, they couldn't do that because I'm not civil service.
I'm a contractor.
I'm a NASA contractor.
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 understand.
I've answered everything directly.
I've answered everything directly.
I concur with your introduction, which I think is profound, whoever that individual is.
I've given full endorsement to Richard Hogan and his intent.
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.
I don't want this church turn into a 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. This is Coast to Coast AM.
Or call out on the wildcard line at 702-727-1292.
This is Coast to Coast AM from the Kingdom of Nine.
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, on names, 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, uh... to mister and
stevens uh...
now let me get his name right robert a m stevens
uh... the man you heard in the last hour who says he is a national
uh... nasa shuttle documentation program contractor
i have never in my life in talk radio uh... and that that includes the
previous two hours i have never heard uh... such a mixed up
indecipherable collection of contrary opinions and statements in my entire
life 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 Cause, 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 AM Stevens that showed up, Robert AM Stevens that showed up on the show here, was obviously the earlier Mr. Stevens rather than the latter.
You know, I gave him air time, 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 Holand.
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.
I just... What I found disturbing from the beginning of 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 Gersten, 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.
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 Gersten.
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 here's 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 give up on that one, so let's move away from that.
I can only hope Peter Christensen is listening tonight.
That's all I can say.
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.
And the reaction of the individual that we read at the top of the... Well, that was another thing.
I mean, here we... He 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 correct?
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?
Yeah, I'm here.
Hi, Michael.
Have you been listening to all this?
Yeah, I have, and I have several thoughts.
Michael, before you get to that... No, no, no.
I'd really love to hear what he has.
No, but I'd like to give Michael a proper set-up.
Okay, who is Michael Barra?
Michael Barra is an engineer.
He is a colleague, former colleague, of Ken Johnson's seniors at Boeing in Seattle.
Okay.
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 from the distant wilds of the Midwest, and that's what I think you might be wanting to share with us now.
Where in the distant wilds of the Midwest are you, Michael?
Well, I'd really rather not say.
It's the upper Midwest.
It's just a matter of privacy and respect for other members of our family.
That's all.
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 what did you get out of that
I think, unfortunately, the first thing I got was, why did I pick up the phone tonight when Arbel 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.
Yeah, I just read a portion of it.
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, you know, I think we should feel sorry for.
I think he's got some problems.
Well, I had him on at the behest of Peter Gersten.
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, my dad never heard anything like Anyway, I really want to drop it.
Well, you know, if there's a theme to what's going on tonight, I think it should be that email is not reality.
Yeah.
And both of the first two guests 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.
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.
That's how you end up with situations like tonight.
Yeah, I guess.
A couple other things.
I wrote, or Carl wrote, several of the pieces that were commented on by Paul Doré, and also some of the things that have been commented on by Mr. Stevens in some of his posts.
I wanted to clear a couple 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 impossibility or the impression.
the paul dora the rate was a real person correct yes and everything after that
should have quotes around it as if we're not sure if this person really exist
surrounded to let him know that that's the reason i'm not going to change it
because the pieces that old and i think it should they were part of the historical record i can't find the
record understand that right and uh...
i think that you know that that's important and also which i'd like to tell you that i
a i'd think i could help you set up a separate email account
where you can email back and forth with apollo not to give up your
personal i've had some cautions from the technical people now that are his devoted
to the country that i'm an internet techno non-profit ever
Thank you, Art.
Well, Richard, I just... I wanted to prove a point.
I mean, I... 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.
Now, you see why I didn't want it, folks?
Yeah.
Um, and have cautioned me not to be invested, or I equally weave me into the plot and make me the bad guy.
Well, alright, as just suggested, there can be a separate account set up.
It doesn't matter, as long as the communication is consistent.
Well, you know, the other thing too, you'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.
None of us are really all that secure in our identities on the web, as Art, I guess you know, has been talked about.
You have to remember that these are nothing but text files on web pages.
That's right.
You know, 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 was it, Terry Rogers.
Only a few people at this point have his email address.
He emailed 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... Well, actually, even more than that happened, because earlier in the day, strangely, Richard's number is not public at all, and Paul Doré actually called Richard Uh, from, uh, 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.
That's correct.
And he wouldn't reveal that.
And you said, well, then I'll talk to you tonight on Art Bell, quick.
That's right.
I mean, there has got to be some civility.
Somebody has to say, you know, 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 at the computer and send me a note.
But don't forget, also a serious researcher.
Oh, sorry, I forgot that.
This electronic instant satisfaction, instant gratification, is going to be the death of a lot of us because, again, there's no accountability.
What I was trying to bring with the Dory 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 in a chihuahua listening.
Yeah.
Well, you know, and I also would like to comment, I mean, he did send two emails to my public email address and Um, he, you know, accused us of faking everything, which is, well, 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, um, that that is really silly.
Well, Michael, didn't it bother you a little, Michael, that he said he agreed with every word of what I read, uh, 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.
Well, yeah, but I just want to say, first of all, I was talking about Paul DeRay there.
Oh, I see.
And, you know, he accused us of faking everything, which also Mr. Stevens did.
And he also... Exactly.
Well, Michael and Art, there is one commonality that makes me suspicious, and I will raise the C word.
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 whom 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.
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, you know, 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.
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, uh, this now begins to touch on the subject of reverse speech.
Uh-huh.
There was anything else right now, uh, for reasons that I don't want to go into right now, um, and will at some future point, if I must, um, be glad to.
But, um, 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, uh, 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?
Well, there's actually one reversal before that, which came at a really significant time that I want to start with.
I think we can get to the December 7th one quickly.
Alright, that's fine.
The first one, I remember, I guess it was back in April, when Malin Space Science Systems was releasing the Cydonia 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.
Right.
And it was, I think it was a Tuesday, and I was working around the house.
I'd 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, um, 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, you know, talking about what he was doing there on the day they were going to release... You mean the President?
The President.
The President.
All right, listen, hold it right there.
This has to develop, and 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 gonna get as much of it out as we can.
And as many of you in the audience know, um, for, I don't know, it goes back a couple of years, I had David John Oates on.
And, uh, we finally came to a show, um, 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, here it comes again.
Nothing but metaphors.
And we came to another break, and I said, David, What are you doing?
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, um, 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 uh... just very uh... uh...
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.
Some crazy stuff like this.
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 Ed Baines.
I simply wanted, for the audience, clear reversals.
You know, it'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 that 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, um, I even called him on a couple of them on the phone.
I had 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 webpage.
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?
Unfortunately, yes.
Unfortunately.
Yeah.
Let me say something about David.
David, I think, is a lost soul.
I think that he and Mr. Stevens and Mr. Doré 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, follow the trail that my friend doesn't want to follow because something very nasty will happen if he does.
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 forgone what started him on his journey, which was a search for the truth.
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 Barra, you're here.
What can you tell us about what you know about reversals from David Oates?
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 Sidoni 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.
Sure.
This was the hint that, you know, 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, you know, unnamed sources, I mean, everything on CNN practically is unnamed sources, so, you know, everybody has them.
If it weren't for unnamed sources, the whole Monica Lewinsky thing would have collapsed years ago.
Yeah.
A year ago.
Astronaut grudge, right.
Yeah.
Yes.
And he, you know, 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 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've started helping him with and that other people like David Jenks and some other websites have done, because it all fits this pattern, I guess Richard decided it would be interesting to reverse some of these stuff from the press conferences and he reversed And at this point, I was still in conversation with David.
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 was actually the third point now, two of them, that would be reversals that were pointing to this particular
date.
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, that I revealed to him for the first time in person in his
living room that I had a source who prior to this had pinpointed the 7th of December.
So I said, 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.
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, 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.
So there's another reason for focusing on that as a date.
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?
After October, unfortunately, the latter appears to be the case.
All right.
What evidence do we have of that?
Michael?
Well, um, 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.
One of them was plan evil weather.
Which is one of the tips about what we eventually figured out about December the 7th.
I recall that, yes.
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 You know, really distorting everything that had been presented, both in print and on your show, in order to make their case.
I really got infuriated and I asked for time on the air to respond and I was basically turned down.
The claim that was put back there that we've been offered chances to go on this other show is not correct.
But anyway, in the course of that, I began 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.
We can use his name.
He's a reverse speech hobbyist, enthusiast.
Right.
And I emailed him and asked him, you know, would he do some reversals on Doar, because I didn't buy Mr. Doar.
In other words, go over the same material that David did, and go off with whatever reversals were there.
No, actually go over material that David seemed to have no interest in going over.
He declared that Paul Doar was authentic in every way, shape, and form, and was a victim of this whole thing, which he may still be.
Without our presenting one reversal.
We'll need to present one.
In other words, if you're going to fry Ed Dain, You might as well try to do the same thing with all the other people that are part of a, quote, controversy.
Sure.
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.
An absence of evidence, an absence of inquiry.
Alright, but again, this is very specific and I want specifics.
Okay, well I'm going to get to the specifics here.
Actually, John is the person to tell you the specifics.
We have evidence on a website, is that correct?
Okay, he found a reversal that implicated, at least implied, that Paul Dorr 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.
And the reversal said, we can't use the F word, but it said what?
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... Effing.
F-ing fib.
I am the other F-ing fib.
So, somebody... So, this... John Penella sent this to David Oates.
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, you know, I felt like I was working with somebody who definitely was on top of the technology.
We might have noticed that I have not talked to Mr. Padilla.
I have been simply emailed copies of these things.
I have not communicated Here's what I want to understand.
These reversals were sent to David Oss?
Yeah, they were sent to David, and he played them, I believe, a week ago Saturday night on his show, 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.
Now, we've clipped it out, and I think that John, at this point, is the best person to bring on now to discuss that.
I would like to.
John Penello's not available.
But I know the reversal's on a website, so what portion was clipped out?
Well, there was a portion of it.
It was sort of twisted around so that it appeared that What Doar was saying was that he was near this other leaping 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.
Now that is very serious.
That's very serious.
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 Uh, collecting the reversals, and what you're saying, apparently, is that you believe that's what David Oates is doing.
Um, 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 Paldor was innocent, and I think that's what he, subconsciously, that's the way he chose to interpret what he heard.
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 uh... more recent
victim of attacks uh...
by david ronalds would be my webmaster and i think most of you know him keep
rolling he's been my webmaster now for how to
years uh... keith are you there uh... teeth
yet but i don't know where you are uh... how how long have you been my webmaster
i've never been with time but i'm added up and probably four years now or more
Four years at least.
It'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.
Are you?
Let's see.
No.
Let's see.
Where are you?
Keith, are you there?
Now I still hear you.
Yeah.
Okay.
Good.
Okay.
All right.
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... 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, you know, 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 were 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 while, coming back, David getting a show, blah, blah, blah.
As you had explained, a couple weeks before David was going to go on 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 I do a website for his program, and so once he finally decided he wasn't going to do the program, once we decided, 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, so on.
The new internet provider was more than, you know, welcomed my help, and it got it transferred over.
As a matter of fact, the website had been up a couple days prior to airtime in this program.
Right.
Then, you know, 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 the plug on his website, and that's not necessarily a proper characterization of what happened.
In other words, not the truth.
Not the truth.
In fact, 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, you know, 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 a new internet provider and said, 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 uncooperative 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 is 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 it?
He would have only been on for one night, and I could have done and kept on doing his webpage because he's really not in competition with you anymore.
No.
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.
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 yeah, I guess I did say that so now I have to go back on another night and correct myself.
The problem is that's a favorite.
a 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 you know and that
and then 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 but trying to make amends here
when he continues to characterize the situation properly the way i like to say
it what began at all
was the uh... ed dames reversals and i think you know that uh...
what i said about that is correct characterization of the way it went
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 You didn't, you know, say anything.
You didn't let people know that there were any problems behind the scenes.
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.
But he never did that.
Well, he's treading on dangerous waters here because there's a lot of things about, you know, that I'm sure he doesn't want to have said on the internet about him.
Well, I'm not going there, but thank you very much, Keith.
Okay, see you later.
Appreciate it.
Take care.
That's Keith Rowland, my webmaster.
And now let me see if I can properly reconnect everybody.
Let's see, Richard should be there.
Richard?
I am here.
Alright, and if I'm doing this right, Mike Barra should be here.
Michael?
I'm here.
Okay, good.
Alright, I want to jump in here for a minute.
Yep, go ahead.
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.
I understand.
This Paul Doré 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.
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?
That's unfortunately where the evidence is trending, and you need to talk to Panella directly, and you need to listen to these reversals, and they need to compare what's on David's site with what's on Panella's site.
All right.
How do they... First of all, let's help people out there.
Would you have the Panella site address?
It is linked in the new piece that Michael and I put up tonight called, The Truth Is Out There, and We Found It.
And it's a tongue-in-cheek... Okay, that's your site?
That's on EnterpriseMission.com.
So if people go to EnterpriseMission.com, Which they can do through my site, or they can do directly.
There are two new postings on the main page.
On the main page, and what should they look for?
What's the date tonight, Michael?
Well, what day is it now?
Is it the 30th we put it on yesterday?
It's the 31st.
31st, okay.
You just hit the second item down on the main page, click on that, scan down to the reverse speech part, and there's a John Pennella 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.
So in other words, they can compare what Piniella did in terms of reversals of the same material with what David Oates presented.
Exactly.
Yeah, he's got both there, what he said, David, and how it came back out again.
One other thing 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 Dan 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 weeks given the transition.
I guess that's that's reasonable.
But they're back up there now.
I see.
All right.
So people can hear them.
Good.
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 call me names that maybe I've been a little less than sensitive to Mr. Dorey 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.
I refuse to do that.
That's true of almost every public person.
Where I draw the line is where it impacts on the larger issues that concern 250 million Americans and 6 billion people on this planet.
And the response to this data, this trend curve, this yellow brick road we have followed, from Doré 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, That, if we're only that alone, we should take this very seriously.
Yes, I agree.
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 hyped in the mainstream media, the Perseids and the Leonids and the Orinids and the, you know, every meteor shower you can name, suddenly, you know, 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 codenamed Project Samson that came to us initially from the ultraversal 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.
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 has not given the 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 this way.
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 to an extraordinary pattern of noise.
You know, accusations, finger-pointing, mud-slinging, you name it, it's worse than any campaign.
The only thing I can comparatively compare it to is what's going on in Washington.
Richard, I've been doing talk radio in this incarnation for 14, 15, going on 15 years, and I have never, ever, I've never heard an hour like the hour we did with Stevens tonight.
I have never heard anything like that in my whole life.
And we didn't get to the good stuff.
You know, that's the bizarre thing, too, is that these guys are so easy to knock over.
Well, that's the point.
It doesn't add up, except if you think somewhat conspiratorially that somebody is putting these clay pigeons in front of us for us to shoot out of the sky.
▲
Export Selection