Coast to Coast AM’s EQ Pegasi hoax pits Paul Dorey (Web Computing Demon Co.) against Richard C. Hoagland, who disputes Dorey’s claims of forgery while accusing him of being manipulated—both cite third parties like Andromeda Williams and Terry T. Rogers. NASA contractor Robert A.M. Stevens contradicts himself, calling Hoagland’s weather control theories lies yet admitting real atmospheric manipulation exists. Michael Barra reveals Oates’ alleged reverse speech tampering, linking Project Sampson to December 7th attacks, while Hoagland warns of data corruption threatening global safety. The episode exposes a web of distrust, suggesting coordinated disinformation may obscure deeper truths about classified programs and their deadly consequences. [Automatically generated summary]
Contrary to what many have said, it did certainly not begin on this program.
The BBC on October 29th published an article entitled Puzzle Over Alien Discovery.
The scientific world is buzzing with the suggestion that signals from aliens living in another star system may have been picked up by a part-time astronomer.
Other astronomers are scrambling to confirm or deny them.
Remember, this is from the BBC directly.
It could either be the most important discovery ever made or more likely a case of mistaken identity or an elaborate hoax underlying the word elaborate.
The part-time astronomer who discovered the signals posted the data on the internet but would not reveal his identity.
He's been using a small radio telescope belonging to his firm to scan the sky for intelligent signals on October 22nd.
And on the following night, he reported detecting signals from the EQ Pegasi star system, which is 22 light years away.
The signals were not the type that occurred naturally.
The data has been distributed to several astronomers and observatories.
However, astronomers at the Godrell Bank Observatory in England say it is all a case of mistaken identity and so forth and so on.
So that was the initial blast that lit up everybody's, I guess, microphones and broadcasters.
And obviously, when you get something like this from a respected organization like the BBC, it gets your attention.
And that is, I guess, where it begins.
Here is Richard C. Hoagland, one-time advisor to NASA, Walter Cronkite's advisor, and winner of the Angstrom Science Award.
Mr. Dorey, that is flatly and incontestably not true.
I had a friend of mine for 30 years in London attempt to get hold of you personally.
Her name is Andromeda, Andromeda Williams.
She sent you email.
You emailed her back.
I have your response, which I would like to read, because it is very curious.
It is very inconsistent in terms of your actions subsequent to what you told my friend.
And I just think you'll ought to hear, you know, from the get-go that things are not as they are being portrayed.
You said to her, Dear Andromeda, thank you for your offer.
I will not be taking this up as I am growing tired of the whole affair.
This is on the 17th of November of this year.
I have no wish to perpetrate this hoax, perpetuate rather.
My only wish was to find out who used my name and who used my CV to start this whole thing, since it caused me a great deal of harassment, which I do not find amusing.
It reads in the BBC story, it says the part-time astronomer, you, of course, who discovered the signals, which you claim was a hoax and somebody used your name.
Anyway, the BBC says that you posted the data on the internet, but would not reveal his identity.
Now, that implies that they should have said something like, wishes to remain anonymous or something like that, but would not reveal his identity is the way it reads.
unidentified
Yeah, the BBC also put a second story with my name and what was believed at the time to be my employer, which has got totally wrong because I hadn't updated my CV.
Slightly unfortunate there.
So I got them to remove that.
I said, look, I'm not involved with this.
But the editor of that story then subsequently appeared a week later on the Law Release Show and said, his only regret was using my name.
So none of this gets reported on Enterprise Mission.
They just report what they want, which is to distort all the facts.
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.
When I got into this, it was specifically because you and I had a conversation a night or two after you came back.
And you asked me, I think it was in the early evening, what I thought of this BBC story.
And because of my background at NASA and the Hayden Planetarium and with Cronkite and all that, and the fact that I have more than a passing acquaintance with astronomy and SETI and Frank Drake and I have known each other for years, et cetera, et cetera, I said, this is pretty interesting.
Why don't we, if you want to do something, why don't we do something from my perspective?
And you said, okay.
And that night, Friday night, the 29th, I think, was it the 29th or 28th of October, was the first time that I was brought into this by Art Bell.
And all I did was a show which basically put down some numbers and did some speculation about the fact that the signal was not ostensibly at 1420, but at 1450-53, I think, and did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and speculated, freely admitting that we did so, that maybe it wasn't an interstellar steady signal in the classic sense, but might be coming from a probe heading in this direction.
The next I heard of my involvement in the story was an email exchange between Peter Gersten, who's a lawyer who's the head of cause, and Mr. Doray, where Paul Doray, out of the blue, accuses me of being, quote, the hoaxer of the EQ Pegasi story.
At which point my radar goes into full mode and I think, oh, this is interesting.
What's the plot behind the story here?
Why is someone in the UK who I have never met, never seen, never spoken to, who has not heard the Art Bell show, why is he taking out after Enterprise when we are only commenting on a BBC story?
You know, if there's a major bank robbery in town, about four or five million dollars or pounds has been stolen, does someone who is not involved immediately rush to the bank and stuff banknotes in their pocket and then I'll be able to get the best I've had my resume.
unidentified
ripped off by the likes of yourselves and to As Ronald Reagan said, there you go again.
Either perpetrator or victim of the Pegasus hoax is my guest.
Richard Hoagland is my guest as well.
We'll get back to them in a moment.
All right.
I want to say something as we go back to my guests.
We're going to probably run over into A.M. Stevens' time, and so I want to notify the audience and everybody involved.
Obviously, this is going to go a little longer.
I have been the victim of hoaxes, quite a few hoaxes lately.
Somebody out there decided to write nasty, nasty messages about the Filipino culture, about the Afro-American culture, about gays, about Mexicans, and posted these under my name in various cultural groups, a very dangerous thing to have done.
I've turned the whole thing over to the FBI, and they're working on that now.
But it is true that somebody can be the victim of a hoax, or in this case, a very dangerous hoax, because obviously with the vitriolic things that were said supposedly under my name, you could get somebody killed that way.
There's no question about it.
So I've turned all that over to the FBI.
And so from that point of view, I understand, Paul, that things could be done in your Name with your resume and with some limited knowledge of who you were, and that perhaps you could be acknowledged as not being the hoaxer.
I understand that you can be the victim of that kind of thing.
And the difference is that you and I have responded very differently than Paul Dore.
We have not flailed out and accused everybody on the planet of being behind something that we describe as despicable, a hoax, a terrible whatever against the halls of science.
And what bothered me from the beginning was not the events.
I mean, the events are intriguing and mysterious, and they led us to some pretty fascinating information, which we'll get to an update later on this evening.
What bothered me was that here was someone on the other side of the Atlantic who I'd never met, who had no way of knowing anything about me, who was attacking me to an attorney who is an email correspondent out of the gun, out of sight, out of the gate.
He simply flailed out and accused us at Enterprise of somehow being behind us.
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.
Paul, you said initially that Richard Hogan never tried to contact you, but now you say that indeed Andromeda did try to contact you on behalf of Richard Hogan.
Is that correct?
unidentified
Yeah, it wasn't obvious.
It was on behalf of Richard Hogan.
He never said I'm trying to contact you on behalf of Richard Hogan.
You stated on the Art Bell show that I was running from you, and I put it to you that it was the other way around because I appeared on three radio shows of which you were offered to attend, and you turned it down when you heard I was on there.
I have it perfectly, and I've got the real audio archive data and I still puppy that on my website where I appear on the Mike Jones show and you turn it down.
My whole point is that when we're dealing in this electronic virtual reality nonsense, nobody can be sure of anything anymore unless you sit down face to face.
I think, Paul, one second, that Richard's contention was, although he did say at one point that he was certain that you were the hoaxer and that you should sue him if that's untrue.
So both of you have made definitive statements that you have now backed away from.
Richard says, well, maybe you're not the hoaxer.
And Paul, you're now saying Richard may not be the hoaxer.
unidentified
Yeah, no, he's the hoaxer, but I believe he's been in contact with the hoaxer.
As I stated, the hoaxer, as I've said, who the hoaxer was, has got an email on his website which says, that is why I stated December the 7th.
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?
unidentified
That was one of the potential possibles.
Because Richard Hoagland still to this day has got on his website stuff which says I'm compared to A.J. Simpson.
And he's saying, just because I want to pursue the truth, that it compares with O.J. Simpson.
Well, this is a case of circumstantial errors from beginning to end.
And, of course, it's a cat chasing this tale because it's going nowhere.
The real story is out there on the landscape, and we're arguing among ourselves as to who did what, to whom, when, in fact, whoever is really doing something is getting away, quote, scot-free.
But let me try to give a little clarity here.
The only hard evidence we have, electronic evidence, of anyone forging material in Mr. Dore's name to that site, to that GeoCity site, is traceable back to Paul Dorey, and he is admitted.
My point is, in comparing it to a bank robbery, this has either got to be one of the dumbest things you ever do if you want to stay uninvolved to throw yourself into the middle by faking IP codes and naming that.
unidentified
stay uninvolved when you've got on your website stuff that compares me with OJ Simpson, you've got stuff that...
The point is, as a reporter, as a reporter, the metaphor, the analogy, the comparison between someone in this country who's very famous and claims he didn't do something, and yet we don't see any visible evidence that he's trying to find out who did, and the Paul Dor Dore who's making the same claims and pointing fingers at everybody else is pretty apt.
Paul, it is true that the only evidence, hard evidence we have of anybody who faked an email address, and there may be many people who did, is the one instance of your forging that email address.
unidentified
Well, that's right, because I use my own email address unlike others.
Now, can I go on to another thing?
I'd like to ask Richard, given that you're now saying it is a hoax, you agree it's a hoax?
Well, I think what Richard might be trying to say is that even if you did not do this, somebody did it for a specific reason, and that's why he has continued to follow the story.
unidentified
Okay, can I ask Richard then, what signal did he use to determine that the landing would be December the 7th?
You've put it in quotes subsequent to a certain date, but prior to that, you've got on your website, Paul Dore used to hopefully, you've got on your website, there's a message from Paul Dore without quotes.
Paul Dore is here from Great Britain, and so is Richard C. Hoagland.
And we are talking about the Pegasus hoax, and we'll get right back to it.
All right, Let's try and somehow lower the rhetoric.
Both of you are back on the air again, and I want to say this.
I'm a real neophyte when it comes to the internet.
I've been learning over the last few years, but I'm still a neophyte.
If I need help with something, like trying to trace something or something like that, I turn to Keith Roland, who is my webmaster, and he helps me.
I'm a neophyte.
Paul, I'm telling you right now, Richard, Richard, when it comes to email and things about the net, no offense, Richard, but Richard is a complete dummy compared to me.
And I'm a dummy.
I'm a neophyte.
So Richard Hoagland would not have the expertise to fake anything, Paul.
You, on the other hand, and I'm not saying you have faked anything other than the one thing you have admitted to.
Earlier in the evening, we were discussing emails back and forth to London, and my friend Andromeda, by the way, there's an incredible irony here, which we all kind of should step back and lighten up and think about.
This all started, you know, between Mr. Doré and myself over a horse, Pegasus, the flying horse of classic Grecian mythology.
Pegasus was ridden by an individual in Grecian mythology named Perseus to rescue a fair damsel named Andromeda from the Gorgon, from the Medusa.
I find it exquisitely ironic that after 30 years of knowing Andromeda, and that's her God-given name christened at birth, that my friend Andromeda should become the attempted go-between between me, Enterprise, and Mr. Doreen to the bottom of the mystery.
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.
Well, the order will come if not everybody talks at once.
unidentified
I thought Richard was quite scientific, so I thought he should enjoy explaining how the changing frequency, you've got to know the distance.
The thing is, on the same website where he's got my receipt for the signal, my claim receipt of the signal, it states when the following email has proof of it from Dr. Jim Warwick.
Now, if you read the email, it's not proof.
It's in fact saying it is not possible because if the probe is over 10 billion miles away, which is the same thing.
Paul, I just told Richard what he said was irrelevant.
I think what you're saying is irrelevant too.
Now, look, both of you.
unidentified
On the same page, he quotes Nathan Keyes of the sun.
There is no Nathan Keyes.
And then he goes on to quote that he's got that there's a press conference to be held and it's the International Astronomy and Breeze Astromical Association.
And through Andromeda, I actually had her trolling the streets of London, finding this press conference before it was supposed to take place, discovering that it was not going to take place, that none of the principles, either at the center or at the newspaper, existed.
And we went on your show in a series of nightly updates spanning almost two weeks and reported almost hourly the changes in the story.
You went to the things that were true and the things that were not true.
You went on the show and said that you've had all your contacts in the UK looking for me.
But by then, Michael Thoreau of Boulderland had actually found me a week earlier and sent an email to our show saying that he's found Paul's all right and so on and so on.
I have just emailed Paul Dorr or Paul Dore simply saying that you have asked me to represent him and would he consider an interview face-to-face if possible.
So now we wait.
Now, you claimed a few moments ago that you never knew that she was representing me.
On your show and on our website, I have said over and over again, since last June, we had a contact in the Pentagon who tried to get me to pay attention to an ostensible E.T landing somewhere on the west coast.
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, blue-shifted, as artfully said a moment ago, and an inside source claiming a possible landing, and that's how we arrived at the date.
Were you able, Richard, through only the blue-shift calculations to determine what the landing date would be, or did you require that second piece of information to put it all together?
Richard Hopeland, I was on a radio station, and he asked David Oates to reverse speech me while I was on there without my knowledge, which he subsequently did, but told me, and then replayed it, and it says, this bloody famous hoax.
Well, at least it is true, Paul, that this Andromeda on behalf of Richard and apparently even myself, my nephews, I guess, did contact you.
And I thought you had said that nobody on Richard had never attempted to contact you.
unidentified
Oh, yeah, I'm now aware that Andromeda Williams is true because she said she was the sister-in-law of Alan Boyle, and I emailed Alan Boyle to check that, and he confirmed that.
But, interestingly, Alan Boyle's name was used in the hoax as well.
Andromeda's linked with Pegasus, and there's lots of, I can put as much coincidental evidence together as Richard has seen as done, pointing the other way.
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.
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.
The ostensible Paul Doré, I mean, there's no other way to refer to this individual than by the nom de plume that everyone now knows, and we will separate the real from the fictional, hopefully.
This individual posted a rather remarkable message, which we went and spent a lot of time decoding, which named specifically certain intelligence agencies, both in Britain and here.
May I please finish?
It is my contention, it was my contention then, it is my contention tonight that therein lies the source of this so-called hoax, which in fact, I have said from the beginning, is a wake-up call.
Now, on one of the space agency's websites here in the United States, Paul, NASA site, the NASA SETI site at NASA Ames, Seth Shostak has put my name and my credentials and my theory that this so-called hoax was in fact an elaborate wake-up call by some person or persons in the intelligence communities on both sides of the Atlantic to alert us to a bigger problem, a bigger situation.
Paul Zoray and Great Britain and Richard Hoagland are here for the first time together on the radio.
We're going to try and make some segment of this in the final segment coming up.
All right, here we go again.
Here is what I would like to suggest to the both of you, gentlemen.
You both have finally acknowledged that perhaps the other is not the hoaxer.
If you were to combine your efforts with what you, Paul Doré, know and what you, Richard Hoagland, know, it might be possible to find out who, in fact, did hoax this and why.
unidentified
I think that's what I've always wanted to know: is why it's been hoaxed.
Well, I think that's what Richard took off on, Paul.
I think that Richard saw something larger behind this.
Now, it's, you know, Paul, it's really hard to separate a name from something.
It's like after all this terrible stuff was written under my name, it gets passed around and passed around and passed around, and your name gets attached to it no matter what you do.
unidentified
Yeah, you can do investigation, though, but when you go and decode a message that's allegedly come from me, and it's got my wife's name in it, it conveniently forgets to put my wife, the fact that my wife's name is called Helen, and then come up with some cock and bull story about Trojan horse of...
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.
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.
unidentified
Yeah, it's quite crude, though, because if it was being done with a lot of trouble, they forgot the fact that...
If it was done from the UK, then the messages that were sent, one, would have spellings which are using UK spellings, and two would have dates which are day, day, month, month, year, year, which they didn't.
If, as you contend, this was not done for some larger, more intriguing purpose, having to do with geopolitics or the agencies or whatever, but was a simple hoax.
What was the point?
Who benefited and how?
unidentified
Who benefited?
The only people that I can think of that's benefited from this hoax is yourself because you go to conference.
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.
First of all, back to why they chose Paul Dore's name, or Paul Dorr.
Doors and Helen and horses and Pegasus are all involved in the Grecian myth of Pegasus and Andromeda and the Medusa and the Gorgon.
The other curious coincidence, which bothered me from the beginning, from the first night that we talked about the numbers, the frequencies, if you take the standard study frequency, the so-called water hole where everyone's going to be listening, we think, 1420, and you subtract it from the ostensible frequency from the ostensible Mr. Door on the ostensible website of 1453, you get precisely 33 megahertz.
And the 33 is a number that has come up over and over again in our search into this NASA Masonic pattern.
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.
Mr. During, forgetting the one thing, the reason that I got into this as hot and heavy as we have brought Enterprise and all our other colleagues like Mike Berra and several others into this is because over previous months we have been given a heads up by an intelligence source in the United States.
unidentified
Yeah, you have to know your source is I could say that I've got a source.
Paul, we're trying to reach some kind of conclusion here.
Since you admit he might not be the hoaxer, and I don't think he's the hoaxer, I know Richard, and he just couldn't do it.
Wouldn't do it.
I don't know the knowledge to do it.
So I don't think Richard's the hoaxer.
I don't know whether you are.
I take you at your word that you're not.
But the hoax did it did occur.
The hoax did happen.
And our major interest now should be two things.
One, finding out who did do it.
And two, finding out why they did it.
And if they succeed in having you two at each other's throats, the noise level is going to be so high that we're never going to find out what really happened.
And the only way I can see that we can is if you two cooperate to some degree in trying to find out who did this and why.
unidentified
Yeah, I'm willing to cooperate.
So Rich, to give me his email address and I'll send him everything else God.
Everyone now knows that you claim you're not the hoaxer.
We have put in elaborate detail the story as it unfolded about your coming out and claiming you had been vilified and it had been taken against your will and all that.
This has become, it's like Kleenex.
I mean, you know, I hate to say that, but my name is also somewhat of a public commodity in some quarters.
Paul, to be fair, it is not a surprise that Richard Hoagland, he has done many, many conferences over the years, would have the Pegasus hoax as the subject of one of the conferences.
That's logical.
It's one of the top ten stories of the year.
unidentified
But I'm just saying, you've got nothing to lose, he has.
I've got lots to lose.
I've lost two days' work through all this.
don't get sleep and all I want to know is who did it Two days, he said.
Probably, Paul, your name is never going to be, as you wished it, removed from connection with this whole thing.
unidentified
Well, granted, he's not going to remove my name, but to put such details of the fact that my wife's name's Helen into the story, that the cars, etc., that were seen can't be in the UK, you know, all these truthful things as well.
And I just ask that he sends me his own email address so I can respond directly.
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.
I very much appreciate, of course, having Paul Dore on from Great Britain.
And I think we made some progress.
At least we pulled these two gentlemen back from each other's throats.
Now, believe it or not, this was the, in some ways, the most trivial part of the program that is ahead.
There is some very, very, very serious stuff going on.
And I'm not sure how we're going to approach it, but we are.
I'm Art Bell.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
All right.
I'm going to begin the segment with Richard.
Now, as you know, Richard Hoagland, over the past, God, I don't know, has it been a month or two, has been documenting what he believes to be weather control occurrences with radar photographs.
This is part of what Ann Stevens, Mr. Stevens, is going to be talking about.
But I have something that I want to bring up, and I'm going to let the audience be the judge of what we're into here.
In passing, and possibly not at all connected with any of this, is the fact that a man named Speaking Wind, a Native American, who was on my program literally just days ago and talked extensively about HAARP, about weather control, about the whole thing, had a massive heart attack and is now dead within days of doing the program.
That much you may have found out if you were listening last night on the program.
Now, Richard has been pursuing these radar images of what would appear to be some sort of weather control.
Now, I'm not an expert on radar, but on his site, you will see multiple images, most of them near military bases, of weather patterns that are illuminating what appears to be an attempt at weather control, or in fact, weather control.
And I think we're into something very dangerous here, and I'm going to read something in a moment from somebody that I've had on the air before who I am not going to identify for obvious reasons.
But Richard, would you characterize this person without identifying this person, please?
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.
We're not going to give this person's name for obvious reasons.
I'm going to read you part of what he sent to Richard, leaving a couple of details that would identify this person out.
And you can make up your own mind about what it all means.
Richard, I'm not, obviously, for obvious reasons, I'm not going to read this entire thing, but I'm going to read enough so the audience understands what we're up against here.
All right, here we go.
This was a response to Richard from this person that we both respect, this credentialed person.
Richard had written to this credentialed person with respect to the radar images that are on the EnterpriseMission.com site.
Dear Richard, agree with much of what you have said, but it doesn't change things for me at all.
As you know, I have a question of the, in quotes, aliens and that whole scene.
Very little changed, except the physics got better.
In my view, we ourselves created a problem, so the critters remain rather insane, in quotes, like a waking nightmare.
Precisely what they are, no longer any concern of mine, as that too has been overridden by events.
Now listen very closely.
It's this simple.
If I wish to live for even 48 hours, I cannot go into that or other things.
He's referring now to this weather control business.
Let me repeat that.
If I wish to live for even 48 hours, I can't go into that or the other things or go high profile publicly.
I won't do anyone any good winding up dead very abruptly.
Bluntly, in my estimation, my life expectancy right now, even only May, if certain others here in the rogue U.S. groups have their way.
Maybe sooner.
That's it.
Nothing anyone can do to prevent or affect that.
As an old soldier of I omitted an age here a few days ago, I accept the event.
It doesn't change what I have to try to do in what little time I have left, time for me to do the garden.
Most everyone else may not be very far behind anyway.
Nothing you or I or anyone else can.
All the TV shows and radio talk shows and such cannot change.
I'd give it a 75% probability, no higher, but would not argue that 50% of indices, aliens, plots, plans, maneuvering, politics, Quintinistas, rogues, UFO, reciprocity, etc., have any further effect on any of this.
It's really simple.
It's in place and counting down.
And the initial preparation period has already begun.
At this point, there are only two players in the game, and the U.S. is not either one of them.
Nothing the entire United States can do can change anything at this point, period.
It is his view that if you were to proceed to reach out to except for the characterization of scared out of his mind, I think that it's more of a measured, and this individual has decided not to waste it on this effort.
But he's making a reasoned judgment.
Now, he also, in this same note, warned that I may in fact incur a similar fate.
I had a discussion earlier about this.
This is why the previous two hours have been somewhat of a sideshow, because regardless of whether Paul Doray was or was not behind this whole thing, events have now rapidly escalated to where we have discovered real data.
And it is because of my respect and understanding of the credentials of the individual who wrote this that, you know, I wouldn't say that I'm scared out of my wits.
I have thought about it really hard, and I'm sure that after reading this response, Richard, you've gone down a lot of roads in your career, Richard.
Some of them have been crooked roads with dead ends, and some have been very productive roads.
The danger here is that you may be going down a productive road that could get you killed.
We have discussed this at various benchmarks in this long and twisted investigation that we have shared.
And I have told you again and again, and I will tell the country tonight, that my firm belief is that truth must out and that high visibility is the best protection.
The people that we're up against, the so-called rogue threat of concern to everyone.
And there are people who may have died and may be about to die if they step forward, and that's what we should focus on tonight.
Yep, I completely agree with you, and it is because of my respect and understanding of the credentials of the individual who wrote this that, you know, I wouldn't say that I'm scared out of my wits.
I thought about it really hard, and I'm sure that after reading this response, you thought about it too, Richard.
You know, you've gone down a lot of roads in your career, Richard.
Some of them have been crooked roads with dead ends, and some have been very productive roads.
The danger here is that you may be going down a productive road that could get you killed.
We have discussed this at various benchmarks in this long and twisted investigation that we have shared.
And I have told you again and again, and I will tell the country tonight, that my firm belief is the truth must out and that high visibility is the best protection.
The people that we're up against, the so-called rogue agencies that this individual refers to, they are not madmen.
They are not emotional idiots.
They are not out for revenge.
They are out to keep secrets because they believe they have the God-given authority to decide what happens to all the rest of us.
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.
From that perspective, he does not approach this like you and I do, and I do basically because of my network years with Walter, in that I really believe in the power of the American people and the power of the First Amendment.
And I believe that the only reason that we have made the progress we have made is because we have shared freely even those things at the cutting edge of some people accuse us of speculating wildly about.
The fact is that if I were to turn up dead tomorrow morning, there would be one remarkable hurrah that we, in fact, were correct.
Clinton's problems began with the death of Vince Foster.
Bodies tend to focus.
Remember, I can count among my friends Ted Koppel, Walter, you, obviously, and many others that I would hope would not stand by and simply, you know, wipe a tear and put a rose on my grave.
The fact is that exposure and the light makes the cockroaches go away.
And that's my philosophy, and I will live by that.
But based on everything that I've read of, say, I think he's referring to the radar signature business.
Is that what you're talking about, Rob?
unidentified
No, no, I'm talking about his being exposed to the online UFO culture when I was issued my first report on the Montana UFO.
If I had to take just the 200 or so mails that I've gotten, no matter how strange or no matter how lucid, and then what you've read to me or read on the air tonight from your credentialed individual, I would have to concur 100%, whomever that is.
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.
unidentified
Well, even before we got into that, if you took everything that you read from this credentialed individual, and if he is who he says he is, and he has presented that to you and Richard and so forth, I concur over a period of, say, 10 years Navy and 20 years NASA or so.
And I'm saying this from the standpoint, I've never been involved with this.
I've never.
So I'm saying this from the standpoint of involvement, not through intent.
Whereas like, for instance, Richard, through intent, he's interested in this particular field, so that's by intent.
For me, my intent had nothing to do with this.
So it was by involvement, by association.
I would have to say that what you have read there, regardless of who the individual is, but let's say that that's a legitimate individual, based on what he has presented and based on performance and based on just from the civilian standpoint, just what I've gotten in 201 emails, I would have to then assess that information, taking people for what they are, and I'd have to agree 100%.
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...
unidentified
You read about as far as an enigmatic thing happening having to do with the intruders or so forth, having to do with something, an element that's happening that we're not totally have a handle on.
So you are, again, let me say, this individual was responding to Richard's request for scientific testimony and backing and cooperation of what he's been posting on his website with respect to weather modification.
And that's what this individual was responding to, basically saying, look, I've had it.
I've had a long life.
And if I go public on this, I'll be dead within 48 hours.
That's what it is.
unidentified
You have to go back and take everything you just read in its entirety.
And again, all I can tell my audience is, those who trust me in my word, that the individual has been on my program before, is a credentialed individual, and didn't say what he said in this response lightly.
Not lightly at all.
Anyway, we'll be right back.
And things said by Mr. Stevens.
And I think there was some contact with Peter Gerston, who is UFO's, the ufology community's only attorney that I'm aware of.
And then Mr. Stevens wrote something that Peter Gerston published, and I thought it was quite literate, and I changed my opinion.
Mr. Stevens, have I incorrectly characterized some of your early communications?
They were kind of vitriolic.
unidentified
In fact, to put it in language to where the 25 million listeners can understand, I was crude, I was juvenile, I was truculent, and I was mean after Peter wanted to sue me.
Having said that, let me read what you did write to, at least in part what you wrote to Peter Gerson, then was published in the cause newsletter.
You wrote, I am not in this UFO culture.
And it frankly leaves me not only empty, but deeply angered and hurt at the slander, hate, falsehoods, lies, allegory, alludings, general overall dementia regarding the real issues that are confronting our nation, its people, the world, concerning the visitors, intruders, and the inexplicable events happening to us.
I can say categorically that in the plethora of lies on nearly 1,200 UFO sites, there is not one shred of organized truth.
The truth will never be divulged under this protocol, never.
If any of you were attacked as you have attacked NASA or some of the other agencies, would you tell the attacker anything?
The answer is no.
A case in point on one site, the Enterprise mission, I believe, presents to the public by a Dr. Richard Hoagland, he's not a doctor actually, and hosted by a Mike Berra, states over and over that NASA plots and executes all unmanned and manned spaceflights by Masonic symbols and astrological signs, among many other lies.
There is a pathological lie, intent to do harm with Melis.
NASA plots all unmanned and manned spaceflights by the following.
One, algebraic formulas within the field of orbital mechanics.
Two, locator trajectories based on target intent.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Spaceflight is not subject to mumbo-jumbo.
On still another matter, hosted and posted on these and other sites like Orbit, Raven, Elfrad, and Flash Radar, these liars have excerpted my postings and emails with phone numbers and contacts therein and gone on to say that 20-year-old proven historical events of radar rings in and around select locations are somehow some kind of grand deal
to kill us all by NASA and DOD.
Those, these, rather, are lies.
Then they go on to state that I am some NASA source and NASA is somehow scared of something.
NASA nor I are afraid of nothing, or we're not afraid of anything.
I am not a source.
I am Robert A.M. Stevens, and my phone number and email address is on the bottom of this mail.
This is as clear and honest as it can be.
It is not subject to further assessment.
And that, I'm not going to read the rest of it, but that, I think, clearly states your position, and I thought it was quite literate and very different than the earlier vitriolic kind of stuff that you had been throwing around.
And so it obviously does coincide to some degree with what we were talking about when we began the segment with Richard with regard to the radar.
I was saying I am somewhat confused because in other shows, Prince Jeffrey's sightings on the Laura Lee Show, all over the Internet, in some of the material that has been sent to me by people who you've corresponded with who, frankly, the things you have called me, the names you have called me, the assertions you have made about.
You have accused me and Enterprise and Mike Berra of faking data on the Enterprise site, of tasting radar images from the Unisys people and creating a hoax.
You have flatly, unabashedly asserted that.
And now tonight you come on like a pussycat.
unidentified
And frankly, John, I don't believe a word about it.
Okay, well, here's what I don't understand, and I'm confused, and Richard is confused as well.
I read you this letter from this individual who validates everything in terms of this being absolutely real to the degree that if he goes public with it, he's going to get killed.
You're not arguing that weather control is going on.
You seem to be arguing that NASA is not the one doing it.
Is that correct?
unidentified
Yes, I'm saying that, and I want to make it direct so that Richard understands this is not an attack against Richard Hoagland as a person, as an individual, as a researcher.
It's an attack against his data.
And when you called me a week and a half ago, Art, and I appreciate very much what you've given us this venue, this is an attack against data.
I have 200 questions here for Richard Hoagland of data that he presents on his website that I don't even want to debate him on.
I want to ask for clarification because I'm saying it's categorically flawed.
I really am confused Because it seems to me that if the bottom line to all this is that weather control is going on and the people who are doing it wouldn't stop at killing somebody to.
unidentified
Mine, they can kill me.
I got my address.
They can kill me.
I say it's going on.
I concur with your man with your big secret credentials.
So then the only argument that weather credentials.
I'm saying that weather control is going on categorically.
What evidence do you see that causes you to conclude that weather control is in fact underway?
unidentified
I think that there are categorical things in higher Earth space that have to do with the tropopause that I have problems with, and I can't get to a clear answer on it.
And NOA doesn't know.
And you go through your chains of command as best that you possibly can in emails and government servers, and you get to a dead end.
If you're interested, some of this stuff I've been interested in, most of it, no.
And it's just by association.
So you respond, you go, well, now wait a minute.
Now, wait a minute.
You're telling me this.
And you go to try to make a follow-up on it, and you reach a closed door.
And the whole focus is on the National Reconnaissance Office and the Office of Intruder Assessment.
And I've got problems with both those outfits, and I've had problems with it.
It has nothing to do with UFOs.
But I think this whole enigma, this is what I say.
I think Peter Gerston, and I think Richard Hoagland, and Art Bell is a mediator to, say, 25 million Americans, I think every one of you people are absolutely seriously looking for the data.
Now, when you tell other PhDs, you're not a PhD, I'm sorry.
I could call you worse things, and you could call me worse things, and forgive me for alluding that you're a doctor.
And some of the emails that have come to me, they call you Dr. Hoagland.
So that's how I responded, that you have a PhD, and I'm sorry.
Forgive me for that.
But anyway, that has nothing to do with your mind.
You've got a lot of doubt out there.
When you make a categorical statement, Richard, to somebody like, say, a Dr. Sauter, a Richard Sauter, who used to work for you, or a Joe Pill, when you tell them that the government is going to drop nuclear bombs on Washington, D.C., and I'm reading from Dr. Sauter's mail, and then he's supposed to move out of Washington, D.C., okay, because he's going to get killed, obviously, because the government's going to nuke itself.
That is difficult then to turn around and take that very same individual, Richard C. Holgland, and go to the Enterprise Mission and look at, say, some 19.5 or whatever.
He spent a lot of time, months and months, in the National Archives doing a lot of varied background research on a number of projects for us, which was supposed to be private under a confidentiality agreement.
What is this individual doing, sending you email?
And again, how do we know it's the real Mr. Saunder?
I have never heard anybody called a serious, honest researcher in one breath and a pathological liar in the next.
Never.
The whole hour was just beyond all comprehension for me.
The man came on saying, yes, he agrees the weather control is going on, doesn't disagree with one word of that or what I read from a very credentialed source.
Yes, unnamed, but very credentialed, somebody I've had on the air numerous times, agrees that it's going on and then says the evidence of it is an absolute lie.
The whole hour was just utterly and completely confusing to me.
We'll try and make some sense of this, if possible, in a moment.
But I'm not going to continue.
I'm certainly not going to continue as we were.
So we'll be right back.
With all due respect to Mr. A.M. Stevens, let me get his name right.
Robert A.M. Stevens, the man you heard in the last hour who says he is a NASA Shuttle Documentation Program contractor.
I have never in my life in talk radio, and that includes the previous two hours, I have never heard such a mixed up, indecipherable collection of contrary opinions and statements in my entire life.
It's just, it astounded me.
You heard what I heard, and at the beginning of the program, I said that Mr. Stevens had written a lot of vitriolic, horrible stuff.
And he admitted that.
In fact, he even went way beyond that.
And then I read you a statement that he had sent to Peter Gersten at CAS, which I thought was coherent and would challenge Richard in specific areas of spaceflight, orbital mechanics, and so forth.
And we got this mixed-up, indecipherable presentation.
So the A.M. Stevens that showed up, Robert A.M. Stevens that showed up on the show here, was obviously the earlier Mr. Stevens rather than the latter.
So I gave him airtime, but I'm not going any further with that.
There's no point in doing that.
We do have other very important information for you this morning.
And so now, once again, back to Richard Hoagland.
Richard, are you there?
I'm here.
Okay.
I've never heard anything like that in my life.
That was the damnedest thing I ever heard.
You are a serious researcher.
He bought into the weather modification stuff, but said that the proof of it was a lie, and then you're a serious researcher, and you're a pathological liar, and on and on it went.
I've never heard.
I've been in radio a lot of years, and I don't think I've ever heard anything as disconnected as that last hour.
What I found disturbing from the beginning in this was that this all dates back to Mr. Stevens, coincident with the beginning of the whole EQ Pegasi mystery.
He shows up on the radar suddenly with a purported UFO story out of Montana, contacts Peter Gerston, who then engages in a beginning series of colloquies.
And for the first several weeks, apparently, he was vitriolically attacking Peter like he was attacking me.
Yeah, he was taunting Peter to sue him and all kinds of things.
It was terrible.
It was vitriolic and childish.
He said it himself.
But then he wrote this at least articulate piece to Peter Gerston, and Peter forwarded that piece to me and said, you know, maybe you ought to consider having this fellow on with Richard.
And I read it, and all of a sudden I hear something that seems fairly articulate.
And so I called him and I had him on, and none of it went to anything that was in here.
It was all sort of nonsense.
I just, I give up on that one.
So let's move away from that.
And I can only hope Peter Christian was listening tonight.
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.
He is a colleague, former colleague of Ken Johnson Sr.'s at Boeing in Seattle, now in some godforsaken place in the Midwest, I guess.
He has been following our work for several years.
He knows how to bring analytical skills.
He also is a very good communicator and writes a damn fine piece, I must say.
And over the last several months, he and I have been collaborating on a series of investigative updates on the website, on Enterprise, probing into the whole EQPEG affair, the so-called NASA Masonic pattern, and all the ancillary material that comes attached, including people like Mr. Stevens.
He has formed some interesting assessments of this process, some of the distant wilds of the Midwest, and that's what I think you might be wanting to share with us now.
I think it really jumps back and forth between sanity and almost what I would describe as insanity.
There's a number of things in there that are really bizarre.
And I kind of was beginning to come to the conclusion from reading and reviewing what was on there that this was somebody who I think we should feel sorry for.
Well, I had him on at the behest of Peter Gerston, and frankly, I did think that compared to his earlier writings, that one at least was somewhat coherent, and I understand why Peter passed it on to me, but my God, oh, my dad, I've never heard anything like.
Anyway, I really want to drop it.
unidentified
Well, you know, if there's a theme to what's gone on tonight, I think it should be that email is not reality.
And both of the first two guests who wanted to debate Richard, and, you know, Richard, if you want a good debate, I could debate you.
I think they both were very dependent and very focused on emails.
And the other data, what we try to present is stuff that people can go check for themselves.
And I think, unfortunately, some of these guys are making their assessments just based on things that they read here and there on the Internet and not checking them out.
And that's how you end up with situations like tonight.
I wrote or co-wrote several of the pieces that were commented on by Paul DeRay and also some of the things that have been commented on by Mr. Stevens in some of his posts.
And I wanted to clear a couple of things up.
One of them is that he mentioned a piece called Oh My God, which is actually Oh My God, They Killed Soho, that I wrote with Richard.
And he mentioned that his name was not in quotes in that piece.
And that was published or put on the web, I think, November 2nd or November 3rd, back when we all were under the possibility or the impression that Paul DeRay was a real person.
And also, Richard, I'd like to tell you that I think I could help you set up a separate email account where you could email back and forth with Paul and not have to give up your personal.
The other thing, too, is we've got to keep in mind that there are tools on the Internet and tools that the government has that everybody knows about where they basically can find out anything about you.
Anything you've ever typed on the web can be taken and spliced into anything else.
So none of us are really all that secure in our identities on the web, as Art, I guess you know.
We've been talked about.
You have to remember that these are nothing but text files on web pages.
That's right.
You take an email and you cut and paste it, and you've just simply got a text file on a web page.
And also the issue with who is it, Terry Rogers.
Only a few people at this point have his email address.
He emails them and what I suspect is actually happening there is that one of the people that Richard was corresponding with passed on or forwarded his email and that's what ended up on.
This electronic instant satisfaction, instant gratification, is going to be the death of a lot of us because, again, there's no accountability.
And what I was trying to bring with the Doré part of this early on, mid-November, was a little sanity and let me have a real body in a real room with real people and let's have a normal human-level discussion.
And the fact that he rebuffed that and claimed he did not want to be involved and then has been involved all over the planet on places and stations that have five people and a chihuahua listening.
unidentified
Well, you know, and I also would like to comment.
I mean, he did send two emails to my public email address, and he accused us of faking everything, which is, whenever I hear this, it really makes me laugh because, I mean, we don't have time to fake anything, and we don't have to.
I mean, there's so many things, so many projects we'd like to work on that we don't have time for that that is really silly.
Well, Michael, didn't it bother you a little, Michael, that he said he agreed with every word of what I read at the opening of the segment, that he agreed that weather control was going on, but that Richard was a pathological liar with regard to the evidence that he put on the website.
unidentified
Well, yeah, but I just want to say, first of all, I'm talking about Paul DeRay there.
Well, Michael and R, 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 who claim they have not been involved in this and were dragged in against their will, and who have appeared on every place except Donahue and Geraldo to talk about this subject.
unidentified
Well, the other interesting thing, too, is especially in the case of Mr. Stevens, his proclamations are so nonsensical, they're so bad, they're so easily destroyed that you really wonder who is setting up these straw men for us to knock over, and it may be the whole purpose really just to get us to waste our time doing this.
Michael, I want to go back now to this whole business about December 7th, which was early on in this whole Pegasus business.
And this now begins to touch on the subject of reverse speech.
There wasn't anything else right now for reasons that I don't want to go into right now and will at some future point, if I must, be glad to.
But there was a reversal done, and I don't know how you want to pick this up, Michael, but maybe you want to describe the original reversal that David Oates did that he then claimed was misinterpreted by Richard Hoagland and used to claim there'd be some sort of alien landing or something or another.
Should we talk about that or the reversals done on Paul Dorr?
Or where do you want to begin?
unidentified
Well, there's actually one reversal before that which came at a really significant time that I want to start with.
I think we can get to the December 7th one quickly.
The first one, I remember, I guess it was back in April when Malin Space Science Systems was releasing the Sidonia pictures.
They had just released the space picture and they were, I think it was on the 14th, going to release the second image of the city area.
And it was, I think it was a Tuesday, and I was working around the house, and I had been out jogging, and I came back, and I sat down, and I put on NASA Select, and I saw President Clinton at Houston with John Glenn and a bunch of other people.
And I hadn't known he was going to be there.
I called up Richard and I asked him if he was watching this, and he said, yeah.
And we were talking about what he was doing there on the day they were going to release.
And we go back into the show, and here come the metaphors again.
And that was the beginning of the schism with David Oates.
And yes, I was disturbed by it.
David Oates has now framed this as a freedom of speech issue.
He's saying Art Bell wanted to edit me, Art Bell wanted to silence me, Art Bell wanted to muzzle me about Ed Dames, and nothing could be further from the truth.
I'm the one who asked him to reverse Ed Dames in the first place, and all I asked him to do was come up with clear, understandable reversals, not metaphors, not interpretive metaphors, but clear reversals.
And obviously, he was not going to do that.
Then he began making postings on the internet, just very vitriolic postings attacking me.
And I thought, well, okay, I'll let him do that.
I'll just keep my mouth shut.
And I did.
For months and months and months, I kept my mouth shut.
And the attacks came again and again and again.
Then he began doing reversals on me and playing them on other shows.
Just unbelievable stuff.
Even the president saying, I need Art Bell or something.
So crazy stuff like this.
And he attacked me on other radio programs.
Still, I Kept my silence.
I don't like getting in these vitriolic exchanges with people.
I just don't like it.
So it had nothing to do with restricting anybody's freedom of speech.
I was the one who asked him to reverse head names.
I simply wanted for the audience clear reversals.
You know, that's a programming kind of decision because it's very, very difficult for an audience to interpret or to accept the interpretation of somebody on metaphors.
It's something for a reverse speech classroom, not for the air.
And that's exactly what I told David.
And he has now turned around and tried to make the case that I muzzled him.
I didn't want the truth out about Ed Dames.
And it could not be further from the truth.
But that's the way he's chosen to frame it.
And he's been coming after me for a long time now.
And I've just kept my mouth shut and tried to think, well, maybe it'll go away.
Maybe there'll be a period of time that will pass and this will stop.
Well, it didn't stop.
And to this very day, it has not stopped.
He's put a couple of statements up on the internet about wanting to solve this problem.
But along with that comes a continuing series of vitriolic messages that he will, I even called him on a couple of them on the phone.
Face to face.
I like talking to people face to face, man to man.
And I've called him on a couple of these, and I've said, David, what are you doing?
Why are you doing this?
And he'd say things like, oh, well, this was a message that I wrote that it was only supposed to get out internally, but somehow it got out on the internet.
I'm sorry, I'm retracting it, and so forth and so on.
And it's just been one attack after another.
Then David decided he was going to get his own radio program.
And in doing so, he began to collide with my webmaster, Keith Rowland, who had been doing the web page.
And Keith said, look, if you're going to get your own radio show and you're going to try to compete with Bell, then it's going to be a conflict of interest for me and I'm going to have to transfer to another webmaster.
And so David Oates then began attacking Keith Rowland.
Then David Oates began attacking Richard Hoagland, who had been a very best friend of his.
As you know, the two of them had been very close.
And then the attacks began on Richard Hoagland.
And so that's kind of where things are today, frankly.
I think that he and Mr. Stevens and Mr. Doray and others out there are involved in something much bigger than they've understood.
I think that what this thing is doing, this secret set of groups that are manipulating all of us and planning something pretty nasty, they are in a last-minute attempt to get us not to look at the real stuff, the hard data, to follow the trail that my friend doesn't want to follow because something very nasty will happen if he does.
That this force has involved all these other people for all their other agendas, and David is one of the victims for his own failings and his, frankly, very short-term interests.
He has foregone what started him on his journey, which was a search for the truth.
That is in itself a very strong allegation, and I think at this point, before the segment's over, we need to back it up.
So, Michael Barray, you're here.
What can you tell us about what you know about reversals from David Oates?
unidentified
Well, what I can tell you is that starting with President Clinton's visit to Houston back in April, on the day that they released the Sidonia images, and he was unaccounted for for a couple of hours, David found some reversals from Dan Golden, who made a speech just prior to introducing the President.
And in those, there was a mention of something going down in December.
Now, I don't remember the exact reversal.
It's no longer on David's website.
At least it was not the last time I checked.
I don't think that one is there.
But it used to be there, and a lot of us have it.
And I think I've got it somewhere in my hard drive.
This was the hint that something might go on in December.
Now, what happened after that was that Richard got a call from an intelligence source that he cited here before.
And unnamed sources, I mean, everything on CNN practically has unnamed sources.
And he got a series of phone calls and eventually was given the information that there would be this landing on December the 7th.
And so that was kind of interesting.
There was a couple of pieces there.
Then during the attacks on Iraq back in not Iraq, but yeah, it was actually Iraq and Sudan, I think, in August where we did some bombing, because of the fact that these events all fit in with this alignment,
this celestial alignment pattern that Richard has started looking at and that I started helping him with and that other people like David Jenks and some other websites have done, because it all fit this pattern, you know, I guess Richard decided it would be interesting to reverse some of these stuff from the press conferences.
And he reversed William Cohen.
And in that, the Oates found a reversal that said, bring in NASA with December 7th.
So again, there was this reversal speech pattern that pointed to the 7th of December.
So this is actually the third point now, two of them that would be reversals that were pointing to this particular date.
And at this point, I was still in conversation with David.
In fact, I went out to visit him in the latter part of the summer, and I was so Excited because he had just found this reversal on Cohen, and I revealed to him for the first time in person in his living room that I had had a source who, prior to this, had pinpointed the 7th of December.
So I said, Look, look at all your December reversals.
He said he was getting them from other people, other clients that he works with.
He didn't quite understand the gestalt.
I said, we've got to focus on this.
Something big is going to go down.
It may not be what they're telling us, but it's something.
Pay attention.
unidentified
So now there's some debate as to what this reversal actually says.
David continues to insist that it's bring in NASA with December's, with the S on the end of the word, December 7th.
And so does the host of another national radio talk show that I emailed and argued with about it.
But I listened to it, and I clearly did not hear any S on December, implying that we were talking about a date, December the 7th, and not just something seven somethings in December.
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?
Well, in the course of the same sentence or the same speech, the same phrases that Cohen brought out at this press conference, there were some other reversals that were found by another researcher.
One of them was Plan Evil Weather, which is one of the tips about what we eventually figured out about December the 7th.
And there were a few others in there, and these were found by another researcher who sent them to Oates, who then played them on his Saturday Night Radio show.
As I began, you know, I listened to some of David's appearances with other guests on this other show, and they were really attacking Richard, really attacking Enterprise, and really distorting everything that had been presented both in print and on your show, Art, in order to make their case.
And I really got infuriated, and I asked for time on the air to respond, and I was basically turned down.
So the claim that was put back there that we've been offered the chances to go on this other show is not correct at all.
But anyway, in the course of that, I begin to think, well, there's this other guy out here.
Maybe I should get in touch with him because I'm not really trusting what I'm hearing from David anymore.
So when Paul Doerr made an appearance on this program back on December the 8th, I emailed this other researcher and asked him.
In other words, if you're going to fry Ed Dames, you might as well try to do the same thing with all the other people that are part of a, quote, controversy.
Now, the interesting thing about John is that we discussed bringing NASA with December 7 and his other reversal, and he and I hear these things exactly the same.
So I felt like I was working with somebody who definitely was on top of the technology.
It was sort of twisted around so that it appeared that what Dorr was saying was that he was near this other bleeping fib, implying sort of that this thing had been around to him, that it happened to him as opposed to the actual reversal that John found, which implicated an internal dialogue that said, you know, I am this fib.
And if reverse speech is a valid technology, and I lean toward thinking that it is after having done many interviews, it's possible to take, let's say, two hours of Paul Doré or two hours of President Clinton or, I believe, two hours of nearly anybody and come up with selected reversals that reveal an agenda on the part of the person collecting the reversals.
And what you're saying, apparently, is that you believe that's what David Oates is doing.
unidentified
Yeah, and I'm not speaking for John on this.
I think John should speak for himself.
But what I'm saying is I think David, my impression is that Mr. Oates got it in his head that Paul Dore was innocent, and I think that's what he subconsciously, that's the way he chose to interpret what he heard.
You've got to admit, it's an intriguing name for an ISP Earthlink, particularly on this program.
All right, another person who has been a more recent victim of attacks by David John Oates would be my webmaster, and I think most of you know him, Keith Rowland.
He's been my webmaster now for, I don't know, years.
I wanted to give you an opportunity, I guess, after all this time, and there's been a lot of water under London Bridge, to say what you know about all of this.
unidentified
Yeah, I mean, I really hate to pile on, but David is leaving us no choice in the matter.
I think Richard will attest to that during the early days of the squirmish that was going on, Richard and I worked many hours on the phone with you and David trying to smooth things over, and it just never would happen because Richard and I both know that all you were asking for was David to stop saying mistruths about you and to kind of lay low for a while, and he would just refuse to do so.
And I've got to give you credit for holding back and not going public with any of this for quite a while, and I pretty much was trying to do the same.
I was trying to stay out of it, trying to patch things up.
I mean, we all did want to get along, but David kept doing things that was preventing that from happening.
And more recently, due to the numerous events that have occurred over the last month or so with you having to take a vacation for a little while, coming back, David getting a show, blah, blah, blah.
As you had explained, a couple weeks before David was going to go on the air with his own show, we had discussed the possibility that if he's on the same time you are, there'd be conflict of interest and he should find somebody to do a website for his program.
And so once he finally decided he was going to do the program, once we found out you were coming back, then we had about a week before David was going to go on to find somebody to transfer the website to.
I spent several days doing so.
He spent several days looking for somebody.
We finally got somebody.
I worked for two days with the new provider in getting the website moved over as smooth as possible.
And I got email accounts transferred over there.
All the website material I personally transferred to the new website, so on and so on.
The new Internet provider was more than welcome my help and it got it transferred over.
Matter of fact, the website had been up a couple days prior to Airtime, which is programmed.
Then about a couple, two, three weeks later, I'm getting emails from people jumping on me on my case about how I abandoned David and pulled a plug on his website.
And that's not necessarily a proper characterization of what happened.
Insofar that even a few days ago, I got an email from a lady who had placed an order with David for some products and complained bitterly about how because of my actions, she wasn't going to get her Christmas presents for her family this year because somebody at the David Jono's office had told her that because I had basically abandoned David or pulled the plug or took down his website,
that they lost her order.
Keep in mind, this is like six weeks after the fact now.
And so I felt very perturbed that David and his office staff are blaming me six weeks after the fact of problems they're having over there with their new internet provider.
And so I called them today and I talked to Jeff and I said, why are you saying these things about the situation and where are you getting your information from?
And he tells me, well, this is what I'm hearing.
This is what I've heard from the new Internet provider.
And I said, well, this is interesting because we had a very amicable relationship.
Things transferred over smoothly.
I got no feedback from the new provider of any problems whatsoever.
So I called the new Internet provider and says, why are you saying these things to the David John Oates people about how I was very mean and dropped the ball and didn't give you everything you needed and was incooperative in setting up transferring the website?
And they're going, oh, we didn't say that.
Oh, we don't think you did anything wrong.
Oh, everything was fine with you as far as we're concerned.
And I said, well, David's telling you, or telling me and telling his customers and everybody he's in contact with that I'm a bad guy here and caused you guys all kinds of grief and trouble, and now you're telling me that's not true.
So I don't know where's this stuff coming from.
I'm getting dragged in the middle of it here.
I bent over backwards to help make this transition very smooth and get the thing transferred over.
If there's any problems six weeks after the fact, it's out of my hands at this point.
And I don't like being portrayed as being a bad guy in this because David was given plenty of time.
We transferred the website plenty of time.
He Was up and operational by airtime on Monday.
Who would have thunk he would have only been on for one night, and then I could have done and kept on doing his web page because he's really not in competition with you anymore.
But you know, you know, you know that for months and months, I don't even know how many months now, David has been attacking me on radio programs, on the internet, again and again and again and again, to the point where a couple of times I almost decided I was going to respond and I just kept my mouth shut.
unidentified
Yeah, that's true.
He would make a posting and then recant and pull it down, and by then, of course, it's too late.
Or he would make a comment on a radio program and then deny he ever said it until you go back and listen to it.
And then he was, oh, well, yeah, I guess I did say that, so I'll have to go back on another night and correct myself.
The problem is that's a favorite tactic of his, is to make a statement and leave it out there long enough to do its harm and come back and retract it.
And this press release he posted on his website trying to extend an olive branch to us is full of all kinds of mistruths about the situation.
So I don't see how he's helping the situation by trying to make amends here when he continues to not characterize the situation properly, the way I like to say it.
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.
unidentified
Well, he's treading on dangerous waters here because there's a lot of things that I'm sure he doesn't want to have said on the Internet about him.
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.
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.
That's unfortunately where the evidence is trending.
And you need to talk to Pinella directly, and you need to listen to these reversals, and they need to compare what's on David's site with what's on Pinella's site.
Click on that, scan down to the reverse speech part, and there's a John Pinella link that takes you directly to John's site and the real audio comparisons of the forward and backward speech and the text, which is the normal format to do this.
Yeah, he's got both there, what he sent, David, and how it came back out again.
One other thing, too, I want to clear up is that I did go to Oates' website during the break here, and what I previously said, that the December 7th reversals were gone, both the Dam Golden reversal and the bring in NASA with December 7th are both back on the website.
They were gone for a period of a couple of weeks, given the transition.
I guess that's reasonable, but they're back up there now.
See, what's important here is the integrity of the process.
I don't mind if people call me names.
In fact, so many people will call me names that maybe I've been a little less than sensitive to Mr. Dore, giving him every benefit of the doubt.
Because if I were to react every time someone calls me a name or puts me on a site or mischaracterizes what I've said, I would do nothing but spend 95 hours a day focusing on that.
Where I draw the line is where it impacts on the larger issues that concern 260 million Americans and 6 billion people on this planet.
And the response to this data, this trend curve, this yellow brick road we have followed from Doray and Cullen and Planned Evil Weather to the radar to the anomalies to our friend's abrupt removal from the field because of fear for his life, if we're only that alone, we should take this very seriously.
The fact that we've got very good data, in the new piece tonight, the truth is out there and we think we found it.
We have remarkable evidence that the meteor showers, which have been much hiked in the mainstream media, the Perseids and the Leonids and the Oranids and every meteor shower you can name suddenly is front row billing,
have been used as a cover for a testing of something that is affecting the weather, which we believe is this project code named Project Sampson that came to us initially from the O-Traversal of Golden,
and which appears to have been tested from the summer through the fall in piecemeal fashion all over this country, which as a side effect has had profound and disturbing and shattering effects on the weather, and if that's correct, has killed a lot of people inadvertently in tornadoes and floods, and even Mitch may have been affected by some inadvertent side effect of this technology.
The fact that a key technical individual involved in our analysis apparently has been threatened to the point where he has to withdraw.
It just doesn't add up except if you think, you know, somewhat conspiratorially that somebody is putting these clay pigeons in front of us for us to shoot out of the sky.