All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 1999 - Art Bell
01:17:43
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Whitley Strieber - Hale-Bopp. James McCanney and Earl Crockett - NASA and Weather
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
What, Whitley Cretel, is the Millennium Group?
As you know, I was on the TV show Millennium, and I know what the Millennium Group there was.
Well, this is a whole different ball of wax.
Their website, by the way, is www.millenngroup.com.
I assume we have a link up.
Right, good.
Sure we do.
What you're looking at here is, I think, one of the most interesting and innovative scientific websites on the net, and it goes far beyond where you may think when I say scientific website, because this is nothing less than a coherent and really supportable but completely new view of the way everything works.
It's not abstract.
It gets down to some very straightforward things, and you end up with a reinterpretation of things like data from the Soho satellite.
They have got, I believe, what is something very close to proof, if not proof, that there is a new object orbiting the sun inside, very close to the sun.
We're going to discuss that later in the evening.
But before we get into that, And we're going to discuss all kinds of fascinating secrets, by the way.
I had another conversation today about NASA and secrecy that was really startling.
And I want to ask these gentlemen, who know a great deal about NASA, what they think it means when we get to it later on.
All right.
Now, coming up is James McKenney.
And the information you sent me on James, Jim, is that he has a master's in solid-state physics from Tulane, taught physics, math, computer science, and astronomy at the university level, was canned from Cornell physics department in 79 for his heretical views about the nature of the solar system, then rehired by their math department, then fired again at the insistence of the astronomy department.
That's right.
And the other gentleman we're about to bring on is Earl Crockett, a scientific Generalist with a passion for quantum mechanics and of the universe.
And so I've got those two gentlemen standing by.
They are the Millennium Group, I guess, or at least some part of it.
Jim, welcome.
Good evening.
Did you really get hired and fired and hired and fired?
I think I may hold the record for being fired twice from the same location.
We'll ask about that.
And then also, Gary, rather Earl, you are a scientific generalist with a passion for quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics, I understand.
What is a scientific generalist?
Well, Art, I have a great deal of interest in many things.
I'm a businessman, first and foremost.
I've been a self-employed I've been a financial management organizational consultant for some 25 years.
I kind of grew up in Silicon Valley when I was first starting doing venture capital startup things and so forth, and I've always had a great deal of interest in the environment around us.
I also have a great deal of interest in truth, particularly in science.
So, I've taken that interest, and beginning about two years ago, met The other key founder of the Millennium Group, Gary Goodwin.
And between the two of us, we started an investigation together around the object Hale-Bopp.
That has led us now to bigger and better things.
Not to Hale-Bopp.
Oh, we just can't let that go.
Let's for a second return to good old Hale-Bopp.
What did the Millennium Group conclude about the entire Hale-Bopp fiasco?
What we've concluded is that there's a whole story to be told that still isn't told.
Well, if anybody in the world wants to hear that story, it's me.
And the other guy is Whitley.
Right.
Well, we have some things that we can get into later on in the program that may be of great interest to you.
I think it's high time the whole message be revisited.
Listen, no offense, but the hell with the rest of the program.
If you have information on Hillbob, I want to know about it.
I'm serious.
And either one of you, both of you, are welcome to spill your guts on what you know about this.
Earl, should I start out?
Well, we have a little background that will lead right into this.
For one thing, what we stand for at the Millennium Group more than anything is that we have a great deal of issue with the way that science is being conducted, primarily by NASA and by the astronomy community.
Do you think they're being dishonest?
Well, I think there's dishonesty, but I think that there's also something that's involved more like a paradigm whose time has passed.
That there's a mindset... They're working on an old model of the universe.
What do you mean by that?
A paradigm whose time has passed?
Do you mean the old expanding universe, Big Bang, that whole trip?
Well, yes.
You know, people In cultures like ourselves, I want to assume, somewhat in an arrogant manner, that if people have thought differently in the past about their universe, that they were just dumber than us.
That we've got all the answers, because we have the science and technology.
Before Newton, we had the Earth being the center of the universe, and we had social institutions that modeled that.
We had the king and the subjects.
That was overturned.
That was overturned for a scientific model.
One of an objective, verifiable, independent existence.
And we've operated on it now for some 300 years.
Is this Jim?
Yes.
Okay.
Then I guess that I was... I've got to learn my voice.
Earl was talking.
Earl.
Okay.
That helps the audience as well.
Earl.
What makes you think anything has changed?
I mean, if you look at what happened to Jim, hired, fired, hired, fired, it was the paradigm, obviously, that got him.
Absolutely.
And this paradigm now has brought along with it a picture of our universe, of our total existence, called the Big Bang.
Right.
Something that had a beginning and is now having a middle.
And we'll someday have an end.
In other words, that all we see was created from nothing.
Ex milio.
Somewhere between 10 to 15 billion years ago.
Something smaller than a quark suddenly and mysteriously became everything we now know and see.
Well, something unimaginable.
Something that was nothing.
What you might also call nonsensical physics, is what I call it.
It's ridiculous.
It is true that whenever you get a good physicist on the air, and I've had some of the best, you ask them about the Big Bang, and they say, oh yes, and you ask them, well then, how did it occur, from where did all of this come, and there's a real long silence on the line, and they say, well actually, that's, you know, that's something we don't know.
Well, they say things like, well, that's a ridiculous question.
That's like asking, where's a mile north of the North Pole?
Right.
But the fact is, is that the story goes on to say that five billion years after the creation, there was a supernova explosion, or many of them, creating carbon-based heavy metals and such.
That became, eventually, vast clouds of frozen dust.
These vast clouds of frozen dust then begin to congeal, and when they got massive enough, the gravity, by gravity alone, because remember, all we're dealing with is Newton, and all Newton dealt with was gravity.
When they got enough, then they created nuclear fusion and became like our sun.
And the other ones who didn't get enough math became planets.
And then even other ones who didn't quite even get that point became dirty snowballs.
Comets.
Comets.
So when we say we don't think Hale-Bopp and Shoemaker-Levy 9 and a few other things were dirty snowballs, we're not just making a surface Thanks, Errol.
That was a very good introduction to the existing paradigm.
And just to be direct about Hale-Bopp, which is a good example of a comet which in no way, shape, or form could have possibly been a dirty snowball.
And there's many reasons for believing that, and I can guarantee you the top-ranking officials at NASA know that better than all of us put together.
Well, I'm going to know it, and so will everybody else when we get back.
It is, again, the top of the hour.
This is not a hook.
It's just that everything we're talking about right now has a hook, because it's so interesting.
So when we come back, obviously, we'll explore, if not a dirty snowball, then what the hell are those things?
What's the Millennium Group saying these things are?
Now, we now know a little more about our members of the Millennium Group.
They're not lightweights.
Jim has a master's in solid-state physics from Tulane, taught physics, math, computer science, and astronomy at the university level, and he'll be right back with Earl and Whitley Strieber.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
Good morning!
All right.
Back to Whitley Streber and Jim, Jim McHaney and Earl, that would be Earl Crockett of the Millennium Group, and everybody's back on the air again.
Let's pick up exactly where we are supposed to.
If comets are not dirty snowballs, gentlemen, what are they?
Well, this goes back to my theoretical work in the 70s, Art, and I was working on two aspects of theoretical problems.
celestial mechanics, which is the mathematics of how planetary and lunar objects move around
the sun and asteroids, that entire topic.
And the other topic was plasma physics, which is the physics of gases, electrified gases
in outer space.
And I was combining these and for fun, or whatever, I included electric and magnetic
fields in these.
And at the time, I didn't know where they would come from, but I did it just as a, you
know, theoreticians do those kinds of things.
And what I noticed was that I gained quite an understanding of how these things work, and they're very subtle, and they only come into play at certain times, and it's something that had been totally overlooked in previous theoretical work.
So at any rate, being at Cornell, I had access to an incredible amount of data that was coming
in from the spacecraft, primarily Voyager and Pioneer.
And at that time, data was freely available.
NASA has a depository of data at Cornell.
And now data is hidden under lock and key so that people like me cannot see it.
Now, why would they do that?
Because they want to have the say on what it says.
They want to interpret it.
And they do not want anybody else to interpret it for them.
All right.
So you had access.
I want to break in here just a second.
Since NASA has been brought up.
I would like to get a reaction to the following statement, made to me by somebody whose credentials and knowledge I have reason to respect, today.
If it allowed the truth about what is happening right now around the sun to get out, the whole institution of NASA would begin to crumble as one scandal and piece of suppressed information after another came to light.
Two questions, guys.
Do you think that's a valid statement?
And second, what in the world is going on out there, around the sun, that they would be playing these games?
The first answer is yes.
Yes, that if we were to become aware of what was around the sun right now, NASA would virtually crumble, one scandal after another, about suppressed information.
You agree with that statement?
Oh, absolutely.
I'm amazed they've kept the bottle on this this long.
They have kept the cork on this one for 20 years.
Kept the cork on what, guys?
Now, we were discussing comets, but let's cut to the chase here.
Kept the cork on what?
Well, the basic thing we're talking about here, Art, is that comets are an electrical plasma property around a nucleus, which is not an ice ball, but just an asteroidal body, rocky body.
And it, through electrical processes, is dragging in the cometary tail.
Dragging it in.
In other words, not ice as we believe.
The regular paradigm says, well, comets get close to the sun.
They're made of ice.
The sun begins to warm them up.
They then begin to throw off this tail made up of, I guess, vaporized commentary material, right? Right, and the bottom line is
they have spent a trillion dollars in a 20 to 25 year span pursuing incorrect science that they were told at the
beginning of that that they were barking up the wrong tree.
Well, we just launched a rocket to get in a comet's tail and pick up the material to figure out what it is, didn't we?
Well, we already know what it is, and that's another thing.
Let me see if I'm clear, please, on what you're saying it is.
You're saying a comet has no eyes at all.
You're saying a comet is nothing but a rock.
virtually, that as it passes near the orbit of the Sun, begins to emit an electrical discharge of some sort, or draw, I'm sorry, draw something into it as a result of the orbital mechanics.
Let Earl jump here.
Let me jump in just a second.
The missing thing in the ingredients right now is that you have to first understand that the present Paradigm, Cosmology, Big Bang, whatever, in the field of astronomy, and you have to also understand that the solar system, our solar system, as someone has said, only astronomy, only astronomers deal with this in here, the solar system.
Astrophysicists and so forth, you're out there someplace else.
But what goes on in the solar system is only astronomy.
Has not changed since Newton's time.
Right.
The only law they have is gravity.
So, Jim is saying, no, there's electro-magnetic forces and the biggest electro-magnetic force is nothing else than our sun.
The sun is the, in fact, I'm sitting here with a release, it's the NASA News release that came out.
February 3rd, 1999, stating that they had found the source of the high-speed wind blowing off the sun.
This is actually a European space organization.
This is exactly what my predictions and my theoretical work stated had to be, and this was published in 1979.
Now, let me explain briefly.
Once you understand the science, all the rest of this will fall into place.
Let's get right to the core of this right now.
Because we're talking about paradigms and whatever.
The essential property of the sun is that it is giving off a solar wind.
We know that.
Yes.
The common belief has always been that that wind was electrically neutral.
That you have the same number of protons as electrons.
And this is what you call Chapman physics.
That space is electrically neutral.
And what my theoretical work showed and the data from all these spacecraft was showing, although they weren't even designed to measure it, I knew what the side effects would be.
What the spacecraft data was absolutely stating, without question, was that there were electric fields and the only source of power to generate that electric field was the sun.
So there had to be, because of the configurations of comets and the way things were working, because I knew For my theoretical work, how this would look, it had to be that the sun was giving off an excess current of protons, the positive charge.
Now, let me interrupt you, Jim, please.
I want to understand, you're going to cause people's eyes to glaze over out there a little bit if we keep up the way we're going here.
You're saying that, please pause a second, Jim, that a comet is not a snowball, that a comet is, go over it with me again, a rock, and as it passes by the sun, It begins attracting what?
Well, the sun builds up a capacitor.
Yes.
And this positive wind coming off the sun in the form of a solar wind sweeps out material in the inner solar system so it holds it back.
And we've seen these donut-shaped nebular regions around other nearby stars.
And that nebular zone is positively charged relative to the sun, which is left with a negative charge.
And there's a balance set up within the solar system.
Now, when one of these rocks comes in, it crosses through that capacitor, and it discharges that capacitor, and it's the material flowing into the comet nucleus that forms the cometary chain.
Let me ask a question here.
It has to do with something that happened last spring that worried me a lot.
It worried me because I didn't think NASA was telling The truth about it, or maybe didn't know the truth about it.
A cometary body, or it might have been two of them, impacted the sun.
Absolutely.
Two of them, I believe.
They were little, dirty snowballs of allegedly no consequence to the sun.
Right.
A few miles across, turned to steam long before they even reached the sun.
Should have totally gobbled it up without even thinking about it.
Without even thinking about it.
What occurred immediately thereafter was the expulsion of one of the largest solar flares ever seen.
That's true.
Hold on, hold on.
I'm not quite finished.
That worried me.
What worried me more is the combination of that and the fact that so many large, unexpected comets are appearing in our solar system now.
I want you guys to A, explain to me in a layman's terms what happened out there and why it was no coincidence that the comet and the solar flare were related and what is going on that all of these large objects would suddenly start coming into the inner solar system where they have not been before.
Yeah, as a layman... Here's a good theory that I think we can go back just a step here and say that Besides the cometary science and the solar system science that we're talking about, the plasma discharge science, we also have a picture on our web page, a story on our web page, that relates this to things that are going on here on Earth.
And the genesis of this paper, the Planetophysical State of Life on Earth, says, by Alexei Dmitriev, our Russian colleague, that our solar system Since 1962, it has been moving into a highly charged region of interstellar space.
Meaning junk?
I mean more energy.
And that energy has come into our solar system and it is energizing our sun and all the connections it has with all the bodies that are related to it.
And we say that besides the planets, comets are energized by this new energy, and possibly the calling card is put after them, bringing them in.
Earl, let me explain and answer directly the question there.
First of all, when you understand that comets are, in fact, themselves electrical discharges, and you looked at the sun on the day that those two comets came in, The sun had already a large flare, and it was just a streaming, thin flare.
One of the comets flew by it, and the other one hit directly through that flare off the surface of the sun.
And you can see the discharge from the comet trail down to the solar surface and explode, and then the flare comes out of the sun.
All right.
How could that possibly be accounted for?
In other words, a snowball?
It should surely just be totally gobbled up by the sun, as Whitley said, without even a second thought.
It would just totally vaporize before it ever got really very far to the sun at all.
Right.
And yet, you're suggesting that the impact caused the larger flare or ejector from the sun.
How can that be?
Well, it was like a spark plug, in the sense that the solar flare, which was a current of protons, primarily, that was already there.
Now, the comet has its own electrical discharge, and when that flew through the flare, it just augmented it.
Now, you have to understand something, too, that the standard solar model is totally incorrect, in that what is really going on is that the sun's energy is being produced high in its atmosphere by electrical discharges.
That's what's kicking off the fusion reaction.
All right.
Then?
So you're dealing with a lot of new concepts here.
And when you put them all together, what it says, and this is getting back to Hale-Bopp,
Hale-Bopp had an electrical connection with the sun for a period of six years.
What it was doing on a daily basis was pumping up the sun.
Now you have to understand that the current movement here is at a certain level.
Pumping up the sun, or the sun was pumping up Hale-Bopp?
Well, both.
Now the sun has built up this capacitor over a period of of eons because we haven't had any big comets in the solar system for at least 100 years, not the size of Hale-Bopp.
And so this capacitor was built up and Hale-Bopp came in and was draining that capacitor and that energy was going back into the sun via the current sheet that connected Hale-Bopp to the sun.
And so that's why we have been experiencing all of this incredible weather on Earth.
I just want to insert one fact here also.
We now know that the sun produces far more energy electrically than it does in the form of visible light.
So if you're looking for our weather to be explained in terms of visible light, or light coming off the sun, then you're missing the boat.
Because the sun puts out far more energy electrically, and the Earth, in fact, is acting as a comet also.
It has a long tail, and we are involved in this.
So then, what are you saying this means for us?
It's been myth all along that a comet portends change.
I mean, that's been handed down from generation to generation.
And it sounds like that's exactly what you're saying.
Yeah, it does.
Is that what you're saying?
Absolutely.
And what kind of change?
The small comets, and of course the ones that we've seen and even visited, All right.
We didn't do that.
In fact, hold on.
We'll be right back.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
a hail bop, which it's a terrible shame that in that time frame we couldn't have gotten
a few spacecraft together and sent up there to look at a distance and really observe this.
All right, we didn't do that.
In fact, hold on.
We'll be right back.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
All right, we are going to cut to the chase.
We are going to stipulate for the purpose of this conversation that the Sun is in effect a giant generator and we know that on Earth and other planets there's energy that cannot be accounted for that I think easily can be understood to be the Sun's interaction with the Earth and or whatever other planet electrically that there is energy coming from inside the Earth that can be accounted for by the Sun.
Stipulating all of that so that we don't have to run through the theory again.
Jim and Earl, I want to know, number one, what all this means to us,
and how it means NASA's been lying about everything.
Well, it means, first off, that this comet, like Hale-Bopp, and like Shoemaker-Levy 9, is not a dirty snowball.
We got that.
In fact, it's 180 degrees, and it's like a giant vacuum cleaner.
Okay, see, you're going over ground.
We just went over.
Let me ask a question.
A slightly different question, if I may.
In August, you said that we began to go into an area of a higher electrical charge in the 60s.
In August of 1972, there were two There was an enormous magnetic storm, and it involved two bursts of gamma rays passing across the Earth.
The first one nearly denuding us of the Van Allen belts, I believe that's right, of our radiation barrier.
The second one came a few days later, and if it had come just hours before it did, Many, much of that energy would have reached the surface of the Earth.
Now, this happens in the universe all the time.
We see stars sterilizing in effect with various types of intense flares.
If they have any planets around them, they're routinely sterilized, and we're still here.
Now, we are told That the solar maximum coming up in 2000 is going to be the biggest ever.
And in fact, over the past 30 years the sun has been getting more and more active.
What does this mean to us?
What should we expect from this solar maximum?
Is the weather going to change?
Are we in danger of having another situation like happen in August of 72 or worse?
Well, if that energy in August of 72, the second wave, had hit us, what would have happened?
Well, the side of the planet that it had hit would have been to a greater or lesser degree sterilized, depending on how much of the energy had reached the surface.
Do you two gentlemen agree with that?
Yes, we just posted a new paper on our website called Fire in the Sky.
It basically confirms exactly what Lee is talking about.
Are the two of you aware that Israeli scientists believe the extinction of the dinosaurs was not a bolide impact, that they believe that they were irradiated and instantly killed?
There's a number of theories there, but more recently, in fact, in the past couple of years, you were asking about direct earth effects and weather.
Yes, we've had incredible changes in weather and the weather-related institutions, Noah, and the down line into our local weather stations, they're completely at odds as to how to explain this.
In Minnesota here, we had a tornado that ran over 100 miles on the ground and destroyed city after city.
We could spend the rest of the night talking about how the weather has changed.
There's no question about it.
This is a direct effect, and what we've discovered is exactly what is causing these storms, including hurricanes.
A direct effect of?
What it is, is the ionosphere is charged up, and there's a vertical electric field from the surface of the Earth up to the ionosphere.
And what happens is when clouds form, and they raise up far enough, They become like a finger sticking up electrically, and when you get an electrical current attached to them, what happens is there's a current that is actually dragged up vertically, and something has to give.
That's the cause of the low-pressure cell at the center of these storms.
That's why at the center of a tornado or a hurricane, you see this tremendous updraft.
Explain this one.
Hurricane Gilbert.
Remember Hurricane Gilbert?
I believe it was either early this year or late last year during the hurricane season.
A big storm.
It had storm cells that formed above it and went all the way up into the stratosphere, farther than any storm cells they had ever seen.
It was an extremely unusual situation.
What does that mean?
Does that have anything to do with what you're talking about?
Well, the fact is that the sun has pumped up electrically, and that filters down through our five layers of magnetic field, and it's pumping up our ionosphere to a level above normal.
And meaning that they're going to have stronger and stronger storms.
Absolutely.
Yes, exactly.
Which explains the virtual hurricane that just went roaring up the Pacific Coast last night.
Wasn't that incredible?
There was so incredible that nobody even mentioned it.
Well, now the scientists, the weather people, are saying El Niño, La Niña.
Well, that is ridiculous because those temperature variations fluctuate.
It turns out that those things are actually byproducts of what we're talking about here, which is the overall effect.
All right, I think I can accept that.
There is an object that you claim is now orbiting our sun.
We have the SOHO satellite out there.
It studies the sun sporadically, somewhat sporadically.
And it occasionally takes photographs of things that shouldn't be there.
What's going around our sun that we don't know about?
Well, we believe that it's probably those two comets that came in that you mentioned earlier, and that they were trapped.
We never did see what happened to those two little items, or it could be some other ones, and it's like, I believe, Whitley said.
Well, I thought Whitley just said that one hit the sun.
No, it hit the flare going out from the ground.
Oh, oh, oh.
I said it hit the sun.
It's true.
I was wrong.
Okay.
Let me ask you guys this.
On your website, there is a picture of the sun with a huge flare coming off of it, and
that flare is fuming back around to the back of the sun.
You say on the website that that's because this object is at that point behind the sun
that it is drawing the flare back behind the sun.
That's...
You know, unless you can absolutely prove it by seeing it from another angle, we don't know for sure, but NASA does have the Ulysses spacecraft, which is looking at the sun from a different angle, and of course, that data is not available either.
What we can say is that NASA has gotten into the habit, like it did with Mars, with the infamous The Pathfinder mission that just went up, and they took picture after picture to the point where JPL apparently internally was complaining that Michael Malin was taking so many pictures of the face that they couldn't get their other projects completed in time.
Well, we had a little pressure on them anyway.
Well, here's some input on the situation that I got yesterday.
They never released it, and it's... Hale-Bopp's another excellent example.
Where are the high-res pictures of Hale-Bopp?
That must have been taken.
They have literally millions of them in all wavelengths taken with the Hubble Space Telescope and we know they do, we know the contract numbers.
Why wouldn't they release them?
Because they prove unequivocally that comets are not their dirty snowballs.
In other words, what you're saying is it's gotten to the point where NASA just doesn't release something if it doesn't...
There's got to be a motive for doing this that goes beyond shattering paradigms.
It's not different from what the church was doing in the 15th century, when they wouldn't allow their own experts to look through Galileo's telescope.
You know, there's got to be a motive for doing this that goes beyond shattering paradigms.
It's not different from what the church was doing in the 15th century, when they wouldn't
allow their own experts to look through Galileo's telescope.
But the mission of science has got to be the truth, and if they are collecting truth, and
they're lying to us, then there's got to be a motive that goes beyond, well, it just would
ruin some astronomers' theory.
Here's an input that I got today from one of our reliable sources, the quote reliable sources, and I'll read it to you.
It says, and this person who's writing this, now it's someone who likes our page, someone
who's retired from the military intelligence service, still very connected in the international
scene, and still very much interested in what's going on, that wants to change the system.
All right, what does that say?
It says, one of my sources indicated that a new object in our neck of the woods has
everyone upset at NASA and JPL, particularly that you guys came out with the information
prior to them making any type of statement.
Now they are not sure how they're going to handle it.
If they admit it outright, then they have given full acknowledgment of your observation.
If they announce it and give a date prior to your posting, then they will be questioned as to why they waited so long.
Then, if they disavow any knowledge of the object, and it is proved later that you were right, it might just be their undoing.
Actually, in any case, it may be their undoing.
For this reason, the military side may start a smear campaign against you.
I comment back.
All right, where's the meat?
Where are the photographs of this object?
We've got a few of them, but there again, SOHO shuts down.
We've been lucky enough to trap them.
What they're saying is, when the object appears, it has a five-day orbit, apparently, when it appears The satellite has doors that can be closed on it in order to avoid... Protected, if there's a trajectory flare or whatever.
They close the doors.
And then when it's gone, they open them again.
They say it goes offline because of something they call safe mode, a gyroless safe mode in which they're operating the spacecraft.
On propellants and not using the gyro-stabilizers.
I'm all aware of what safe mode is.
It's kind of like Windows 95 going into safe mode.
But the amazing thing is we're wondering where they're getting all this fuel to do all these burns.
They've had some burns that are alive.
Excuse me, but they took some photographs that did get through.
You've got those?
We trapped them before they shut it down.
Alright, so what exactly are in the photos?
Well, we've got three objects which we believe we have confirmation of.
Two of them are within the orbit of Mercury, so they're very close to the Sun, and we believe possibly it's those two comets that came in we spoke of earlier.
Now, are they going to eventually fall into the Sun?
We think one of them actually did the other day, because there was an enormous iron flare that came off the Sun.
What is an iron flare?
It was iron.
We know that there's iron in the solar atmosphere as a trace element, but this was a flare literally of millions of tons of iron.
Are iron flares frequent?
Do they happen often?
No.
Has there ever been one before?
I am unaware of any iron flares of this magnitude or this kind ever happening before.
I have a question.
With regard to comets and their dirty snowball theory, they claim to have spectrographic analysis of the cometary tails that shows moisture.
Oh, absolutely.
And the composition is not in question.
So what are you saying?
That's a lie?
No, no.
The composition is not the question.
It's what direction that material is flowing is the question.
Is it flowing into or out of?
In every spacecraft they've designed, as with all their other theories, the spacecraft are designed to confirm their theory, and they're not out there testing.
Okay, let's say you're right, and that this is a material virtually being drawn toward the comet, or collected and drawn toward the comet.
How would there be moisture?
We're talking about space here.
Well, you see that.
In fact, Hale-Bopp is a perfect example.
We've got pictures with a swan filter, which were taken by a gentleman in Florida.
And a swan filter has ionized hydrogen and ionized oxygen.
And that's the only thing it sees.
It filters out everything else.
It was invented by a guy named Swan.
And what you see is highly, highly ionized oxygen and doubly ionized hydrogen.
This means that there's a tremendous amount of energy that is stripped off the electrons.
And these are independent before they've made water.
And they're making water, as you observe in the picture.
Yes.
And these are coming in in tightly bound helical streamers.
OK.
individual streamers of water cycling in in a magnetic helical pattern into the comet nucleus and it's tremendously hot.
Alright, now here's a very important point and again I'm going to say this and I want a good straight answer.
Other than the fact that it would ruin some astronomers pet theory or even paradigm there has to be a motivation why NASA would lie and lie and lie and lie as you accuse about all of this about the objects about so many other things as So many lies that would unravel before our eyes.
Why would they do that, gentlemen?
Well, Art, I've written a list of what I call kind of like David Letterman.
I've got the 20 top reasons why NASA was hiding data.
Why?
Besides the fact that their theories are totally incorrect.
What I want is your best shot, your best reason.
Why are they hiding data?
Here's my best one.
I'll start with one.
They're hiding data because everything that we know that's even being confirmed as recently
as two days ago is instead of being 25 miles diameter, it's in fact 2,500 miles plus in
diameter.
What is?
Hale-Bopp?
Yes.
Hale-Bopp's nucleus.
Was there an object?
Instead of an icy snowball, what we have is a new planet in our solar system.
Wait a minute.
There's a lot of reasons to hide it.
Wait a minute.
You've got to understand, historically, in the 70s, NASA spent incredible effort.
In fact, Carl Sagan's fame came from the fact that he led the entire astrophysical community to insist that There was a controversy about Venus being a new planet.
Well, hold on a second.
You said Hale-Bopp would then be a new planet at that size.
They were trying to strip Pluto of its planetary status, and Pluto's bigger than Hale-Bopp even at your stated dimensions, right?
Right, gentlemen?
Well, they're about the same.
Yes, but you see, there's no definition in between.
Either you're a planet size, Or you're an asteroid, or you're some dirty snowball.
So you're saying that Hale-Bopp was as big as Pluto?
Yes.
And the other thing is, we have a picture that came out of one of the South American European Space Agency observatories, that's the only place you can see Hale-Bopp now, that shows a volcanic plume coming off the surface of Hale-Bopp's nucleus within the last eight months or so.
Volcanic?
Yeah, it's a volcanic plume, just like you see off of Eel.
And you can also see the secondary nucleus in that picture.
Alright, alright.
Then you have not yet still given me, other than the paradigm change, any motivation for hiding all of this information.
Again, I ask, why would they hide it?
Yeah, I'm not getting a motivation either.
well you don't understand the mentality of the people at nasa and the incredible
amount of work that they went through to establish those paradigms in the seventies
and and the amount of of of effort when nasa is a space agency well now that i
have a good enough to send out missions to mars and as you pointed out earlier
some in the deep space of four exploration to try and determine what the
truth is why would they
lied to us well yeah one of the reasons is that they've been a long time since they've been
even close to being a civilian agency devoted to peaceful purposes i have to
tell you that and i want to get into this when we come back from the break
i think there's more to this than them just trying to conceal the fact that
their model of the universe doesn't work alright we'll be right back we'll be right back
i've had many people on here talking about the sun
An ejecta.
And what's coming from the sun, Ed Dames, many others included, Gordon Michael Scullion, many, many, many, many people warning about what's going on with the sun.
So, I want to pursue this a little bit, but here's the way I want to pursue it.
Gentlemen, I need quick answers to these questions, because we don't have a lot of air time tonight.
I'm out of here an hour early.
Here's a fax, just answer it for me.
Art, wait a minute.
This is from Daryl in Los Angeles.
That the only reason that NASA obscures this is intellectual egotism?
That's really hard to swallow.
So there's got to be another reason.
What is it?
Well, they don't know what the answers are.
They're going to look rather foolish if they come out and say, well, look, we see new planets here.
Somebody's going to ask them to explain it, and if they can't explain it, That's intellectual egotism.
Yeah, that can't be the whole answer.
In other words, gentlemen, you're saying, are you not, if I got this correct, that under the right conditions, there could be an ejecta, radiation from the sun that would virtually sterilize the entire Earth.
Is that the reason?
Yeah, that's a good one, that in fact we don't live in a benign, neutral universe, that there's things that happen It could endanger us, and it looks like that the probability and possibility of that is increasing.
All right.
Now we're finally getting down to it.
In other words, from time to time, catastrophic events occur in systems like ours that virtually sterilize life, and then it has to start all over again.
Is that it?
Yes.
I'm going to quickly add something.
Recently, there was an announcement that G-type stars, like our own star, are spontaneously novating in other parts of the nearby
galaxy.
The thing I want to add here is the comets that are in there pumping up the sun in that
flare that you saw, those are the type of things that can cause stars to spontaneously
Blow up.
It explodes and we go away.
And look what we have already.
We have evidence that says that 1998 was the most costly year ever on record.
That's true.
Usually $9 billion worth of damage.
Disaster.
No, it's true.
And it does directly affect Earth weather.
And as I was explaining, when the sun gets pumped up and can bleed down through our five layers of magnetic field protection, And pump up the ionosphere, it is directly translated into Earth's surface weather.
All right, guess who I've got a fax from?
Chuck Schrammach in Houston.
Oh, Chuck.
And he simply says, Art, what about the Hale-Bopp companion?
Question mark.
Yeah, I was going to ask that question too.
So guys, what about the Hale-Bopp companion?
That whole story, that whole controversy, that whole disaster?
Well, here's the possibility.
Why NASA and SOHO doesn't want to look at this new object out there or talk about it, what if it's the Companion?
Wouldn't that be a good reason for them not to want to talk about it?
Was there a Companion?
The story that's coming out now is the Companion is still with Hale-Bopp.
But there are so many new... Wait a minute, hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it.
Who's saying that?
This is Jim, yeah.
Jim, I know.
Who's saying the Gumanian is still there?
I saw it in a photo myself.
You can see it independent of the nucleus.
Hale-Bopp's still visible, and occasionally we get feeds from South America, and the secondary nucleus is out there as a little comet.
All right, maybe then you'd like to comment for me.
The object's still there.
Yeah, but revisiting for a second, the first photograph Chuck Schrammack took, Then the supposed university professor photograph that our friend down in Atlanta, Courtney Brown, Professor Brown at Emory, still will not tell us where he got.
And the whole scandal, what the hell, you're telling us there is some kind of companion after all of that, after they proved With a photograph from Hawaii?
The photograph that was given to us was fraudulent?
We put both up?
The real one and the fraudulent one?
That's right.
And we've got two things.
There's a new article on the Millennium Group homepage that discusses that issue.
And the second thing is, I was invited and then disinvited to a conference that was held over in the Canary Islands by the European Space Agency, which was subsequently taken over by NASA.
NASA people were the primary speakers as opposed to Europeans, and one of the topics on the list of topics there was the companion.
I mean, it was a topic after the Hobart concert.
In other words, they just lied massively.
What was their purpose to drive people crazy?
No, this is more than a lie, because Professor Hainaut at the University of Hawaii came up with a photograph of clearly minus The companion, which was an identical photograph.
The thing about that is that outside here, looking in at that whole operation, the photo's released, it gets posted on the Enigma page by NEF, the next morning an astronomer calls, says it's a fake, and in an instant every major newspaper in the nation had an article about Hale-Bopp being the fake.
When in the last six months prior, they hadn't run one article.
No, I'm the first one who had it on air.
That name that just passed by, was Neff?
N-E-F-F?
Yeah.
Who is that?
Was that the... How was he connected with me?
He posted on his webpage.
Who?
Neff did.
I'm sorry, who's Neff?
He posted... Who is Neff?
Neff had a website by the name... Do you know what his name is?
Yes, please.
Who is Neff, please?
Is it Bob Neff or Phil Neff?
Would you please stop talking, sir?
Who is Neff?
What is Neff's first name?
I don't know his first name.
Does Gary know?
No, it's James Neff.
James Neff.
Who is James Neff?
He's a person that operated a website called Enigma.
Enigma?
He's a person who operated a website?
Was he associated with the University of Hawaii?
Or what?
He operated a website called Enigma.
We got that.
He posted the photo that you released.
That I released?
Yes.
Okay.
The one showing the companion that was given to me by Professor Courtney Brown?
Right.
Okay.
He posted that, so?
Right.
Then he was No, that's incorrect.
by he now dr high not uh... uh... and talk and he told
that it was a fake and the story generated from that website
that's the my knowledge and when immediately to all the major no that's in the arts
incorrect doctor high not be appeared in no publication
until doctor high not called me and i could pick up the phone and called whitley
Right, Whitley?
That's correct.
And we were the first to break the story that it was a fraud, that it was a fake.
And I got personal communication from Dr. Hynot, and until I broke that story and put up the real and the fake photos, nobody else in the media had it.
Well, Art, I'm not disagreeing with you.
You know it better than I do.
I'm just saying what it looked like from an observer standing out here.
Well, okay, let's proceed.
It doesn't matter whether Neff, whatever his name is, had it first, or I had it first.
The fact is, Dr. Hinot called Neff, or called me, and we all put it up and said it's fake.
Alright?
Yes.
What information do you have that indicates that it was not fake?
Well, we had the photo analyzed by two different sources.
The so-called fake and the so-called original.
And?
And, we got two reports back.
The first one says that they're both genuine.
The second report came back and said, for sure, the photo that has the companion is genuine, but I think that the one that's supposed to be real without the companion's been altered.
Based on what?
Based on their photo analysis.
What material did you give them to analyze?
Yes.
Gave them the two Photos that were available on the web.
Do you know who put those up?
I did.
Yes.
Yeah.
I did.
I put those photos up.
I took the one that Dr. Hynaut sent me and I took the one provided by Courtney Brown and we don't know anything about that because he won't tell us and it seemed rather painfully obvious that in the photograph by Dr. Hynaut there was nothing behind Hillbop.
All the other stars matched perfectly.
It was taken obviously From that telescope?
Well, then we have someone, we have a paper on our page about some serious analysis of the whole situation that's gone on for the last year or so.
Well, tell me anything I don't know.
Well, the conclusion is, is that from the location that the so-called fake and original photo were taken, there are several other telescopes there, large ones in the same area.
One of them, in fact... According to Dr. Hinot, if you'll excuse me, it would have had to have been taken within a 10-minute period because of the position of the stars.
Oh, absolutely.
But here you've got a ridge there that has five, six, seven different big major observatories, one of which uses 35-millimeter film.
Okay.
That's right, because Courtney Brown always did maintain That there was 35mm film of it, something rather unusual.
Rather unusual, yes.
Right, but there is one that was shooting at that time, we've verified, that was using 35mm film.
What one?
One of the military scopes.
One of the military scopes at the University of Hawaii site was using 35mm film.
Okay, we have confirmed that then, that there was a military site In Hawaii, on the same rough peak that was using 35mm film, correct?
Correct.
So what you are alleging here is that Dr. Hynot, not Courtney Brown, faked a photograph.
Now if I've got that wrong, stop me.
Is that what you're saying?
We don't know who Or whatever.
We actually have another name.
Oh, well, now gentlemen, Dr. Hynot called me.
I mean, it does point in a very weird way to the University of Hawaii.
Look, I've got the interview on tape.
I could play it again.
Dr. Hynot laid it all out.
He said, we took that photograph.
That is our telescope.
It only had been taken from here within a 10 minute period.
And so if you're telling me that there's another photograph that is genuine, that shows the companion, Then you are alleging that Dr. Hynaut faked that picture, or passed on a fake picture to me.
Now, which is it?
Did the companion... Was it constantly visible with the comet?
It wasn't.
I know it wasn't, because I saw a matrix in the comet's head.
When the comet first came in, and before they shut down the Hubble, you could see the companion whipping around That's true.
In other words, you could have taken two photographs in a very brief period of time, one of which would show it and one of which wouldn't.
From two different telescopes.
Earl, let me break in here for just a minute.
One of the very interesting things is in celestial mechanics, if you have an orbiting object and you can determine the period, which is exactly what we're saying here, you've taken successive pictures with just that information I don't want to play around the Rose Bush here guys.
of the orbit of that object around the central object, you can determine the mass of the
central object, and immediately they knew that Hale-Bopp's nucleus was enormous.
All right, but look, I don't want to play around the Rose Bush here, guys.
When I had Professor Courtney Brown on here, I didn't cut him any slack at all.
I said, who the hell gave you that photograph?
Right.
Right?
And I'm playing the same game with you guys here.
And that is, if you're alleging that we were fed a fake photograph and that Courtney Brown had the real photograph, then you better come up with some names.
Hello?
Say that again.
Okay, I'd be glad to.
If you are alleging that, in fact, Courtney Brown had the real photograph, And the one alleged, said by Dr. Hinot, to be the real, honest photograph, minus Hillbop.
If that one's fake, you better come up with some names.
Well, but you're not getting my point, is that there were two telescopes that took two photographs.
I do get your point.
Both have been genuine.
I do, no, I do get your point.
They were both genuine, and the evidence that was provided saying that it was fake was actually false.
So what you're saying is both pictures were real?
Both pictures were real, probably.
For sure, we got confirmation that the companion was not without anything in photo analysis that would say it was altered.
I'm not sure about the one that didn't show that, but we're saying that the rationale that was provided, saying that the second photo was a fake, was faulty rationale, as is told in our paper on the page.
You can read the paper.
It has all the information in it.
So then you're not saying that Dr. Hynaut intentionally labeled what Courtney Brown had as a fake.
Is that correct?
You're saying he did that unintentionally with a photograph that was real but just didn't show Hale-Bopp.
Is that what you're saying?
Yes.
I mean, I don't know what the motivation was.
All I'm saying is the facts as we see it is that there was a companion.
The photo appears to be genuine.
It appears to have been taken.
at a telescope right near the other one that was also controlled by the
University of Hawaii with a 35 millimeter. So then you're saying that
going back to who sent the fax here, Chuck Shramick, that Chuck Shramick's
photograph was real. Chuck Shramick, as far as I'm concerned, this photograph was
real. And that also would mean that the photograph on the Japanese National
Observatory website was real, which appeared in April, many months before
this controversy. That's right. As well as the one done by the Italian
astronomers that we have on our page. Right. All right, then, I guess it's going
to be hard to ask you about motivations of a university professor, but why would
Courtney Brown refuse to name the source of a photograph?
That was legitimate.
Yeah, which would have saved his bacon.
Well, I think if someone works for NASA in astronomy, and they've taken money and grants, they've also signed a non-disclosure agreement that has very, very severe penalties to it.
And if they're found out, there are implications beyond, I think, what we could even talk about.
So you're saying you believe this was sourced within the government, passed on to Courtney Brown, And protected by these secret agreements.
Is that correct?
Or Courtney Brown may genuinely be in the dark about what happened.
That's perfectly possible, too.
But he knows who handed him that photograph.
Well, that's true.
He must know that.
But most likely, the revealing of that name would be the end of that person's career.
All right.
Gentlemen, hold it right there.
This takes me back to the Hillbob days.
All right.
All right.
Stand and deliver time.
Gentlemen, If I have this right, then you are saying that the ceramic picture was real, you're saying the photograph that Courtney Brown foisted upon us was real, and you're saying the picture that Dr. Hynot gave us is real, and you're saying that Hale-Bopp in fact did and still does have a companion, and that NASA is hiding this from us, and ostensibly I guess you're saying that somebody in NASA
Who gave this photograph to Professor Brown intentionally to get that out?
Is that about an accurate assessment?
I'd say someone under contract or under NASA funding, yes.
You can get all the names and so forth on our page on the paper called There Was a Companion.
Who gave the photograph to Courtney Brown?
On your page, wait a minute, give us the address of the page again.
We're linked to it.
Okay.
There was a companion.
There was a companion in case people want to go to that, okay.
Oh, they'll go to it, alright.
It's under the comment section.
By the way, folks, we have also, right by your names, put a link to the real and the fraud photograph that I posted.
I was the first to post, no matter what you may say.
And so we've got that link up.
People can look at it again.
Who gave the photograph to Courtney Brown?
You'll find that on There Was A Companion.
Why can't, why can't I find it here?
Earl, do we know?
I mean, say it.
Say it!
I mean, it's on your website, so say it!
What's the problem?
Well, you know, I'm... Who do you believe, allege?
Tholen.
Who?
Dr. Tholen?
Tholen.
Also at the University of Hawaii.
Now, Dr. Hinot's colleague, Dr. Tholen.
Yes.
The thing is that it wasn't a secret at first, in the sense that after we did our first show on this subject, I called a number of observatories.
Honestly, I know that Greenwich was one of them.
I don't remember the names of two or three others besides that.
I remember.
And everyone I talked to, and there was also another listener, I believe, who called and sent you some faxes.
Yes.
They were perfectly straightforward about the fact that there was something there.
There didn't seem to be any controversy about it at all.
So you're saying Tolan was Professor Brown's secret source?
This is a suspicion.
Yes.
I also want to point out that we'll be posting shortly a paper written by a JPL scientist called Zet Anek Zakenia, called The Detection of a Satellite Orbiting the Nucleus of Comet Hale-Bock.
This is a JPL scientist, made in January 1998.
So now that the controversy has dwindled, and the public has been disinformed, quietly, The scientists seem to be admitting that it is there.
Well, I would like to know what substance you have to allege that Dr. Tholen is the secret source.
What evidence do you have to support that?
Well, this paper that you've got on your website.
How do you support it?
You need to read the paper.
It's three... Well, give us four long pages, and it's an analysis of Okay, so he said things about the images that suggest he might have somehow had some involvement in this.
Yes.
Can you give us an example of what he said that would lead you to believe that?
Regarding the location and the time of shooting and the background stars and the resolution, the only telescopes that had that sort of resolution.
And also the fact that there were not star trails behind the comet indicating it was a rapid exposure as opposed to a long time exposure with a smaller scope.
That's right.
So on and on.
Those are all things he would say to substantiate the fact that that photograph, the original photograph, was only taken in one place.
His place.
That's right.
And with a certain scope of a certain quality and a certain altitude.
Bingo.
Bingo.
That all supports the fact that of of of pollens claim and high not swing
that was taken their what in all of that says
they pass some sort of photograph to uh...
but according brown i mean where is where is the other part of it was that
that it was a thirty five millimeter
camera that took it
yes could only have taken a true a particular number of scopes and there was one scope that
had thirty five millimeter capability
photographing hilltop at night.
Militaries at night at the University of Hawaii.
That's right.
Yes, it's the Amos telescope operated by the Air Force.
Now, let me ask you this question.
Why would they give this pic out of the whole universe of human beings, Courtney Brown, to give it to instead of Art Bell himself?
Well, all I can do is speculate over here, but looking from the outside in, I think there were two things going on.
One, there was a report that there might be a companion from Ceramic and so forth, and secondly, Courtney Brown was doing the viewing.
From the outside looking in, to me, it looked like if someone didn't want that companion known, they had to discredit those two people.
That would be true.
Well, that was what was so amazing to me.
time from looking from the outside in because how did all of those stories
suddenly wind up in every major newspaper the morning after was
announced when there hadn't been a story about he had hillbock for
six months maybe how did that happen? Well that was what was so amazing to
me that there was no question about the companion until
suddenly the thing blew up like a prairie fire and all the media
jumped on it and there was no companion when
it had been on prestigious
uh... the websites of at least one very prestigious It's certainly arbitrary.
It's a non-controversial entity.
The thing is, little snowballs are not supposed to have enough gravity to hover something at a 25,000 miles radius.
There's another answer that we don't know yet.
You guys may know it and not be telling us.
We don't know the answer to why NASA keeps all these secrets.
That's not the answer.
There's some other answer.
It's not their egos.
Well, if the answer is that these objects would, in effect, keeping it simple, Possibly, under the right circumstance, agitate the sun to the point that it would erupt in such a fashion as to sterilize the planet.
Now you might have a reason.
Yeah, but see, that was long before they had a clue of what Hale-Bopp was going to be or do.
Yeah, but if this would have been the unraveling of the whole paradigm that would lead us eventually to the fact that that could occur, that would account for why NASA might keep it quiet.
That's right.
Yeah.
See, that's what I said before, and I think that comes right down to it, is they realize, now, I want to tell you, Art, I'm in communication with a number of locations, and I can pick up the phone and talk to various people inside organizations, and when that happened, I picked up the phone and I talked to a person within Goddard Space Flight Center, who I talk to somewhat regularly.
Yes, and?
And that person told me, and at first I thought it was a big story that the person was talking about, and that person said, Hale-Bopp is big.
It's huge.
It's really huge.
And there was a huge amount of activity.
It got it at the time.
And what I thought the person was talking about was the news aspect of the comet.
What the person was really stating was that physically it was huge and they knew it.
Well, I remember early reports that Hale-Bopp could be, I think, a thousand miles wide and then It got whittled down to 100 miles wide, and then it got whittled down some more.
I remember all of that.
25 is where they stopped.
25, yeah.
I remember all of that, sure.
But what you're saying is it was a planetoid with something orbiting around it.
Yeah.
Now, you'll see, too, that Gary made a calculation.
That's one of the first things he did.
He took the distance to the comet, and he took the triangulation, given the scale of the photos we had, and determined that the two, what we call the eyes, Because the second eye kept popping up and then disappearing.
Yeah, what was that?
That was the companion orbiting, and it was orbiting at a 25,000 mile distance from the main nucleus.
Well, as a matter of fact, the eye photo showing the two side-by-side objects, Hale-Bopp and something equally large, or seemingly equally bright and large, These were posted on legitimate astronomy boards.
It was from the Hubble, yes.
No question about it.
Before they slammed the door on it.
And it was right then where they did slam the door.
Yes.
And you could see that thing whipping around and the tail whipping around behind the secondary.
Okay.
There were some people hung out to dry here.
One of them is named Art Bell.
One of them has my name, and it seems like you're saying possibly Courtney Brown might indeed have been the victim that he said he was.
Looks that way.
It could be very, very possible.
But why, again, would Courtney protect somebody and see all of this science and all of this paradigm shift and all of the rest of it that's involved with this, if Hale Bopp really had a companion, go up in flames?
What if the guy is a friend of Courtney's and he said to him, look, I am going to lose my career.
Of course, Courtney lost his thing.
He lost his Farsight Institute.
There's no more.
And I think that it has to do, to a degree, to do with the fact that he was involved in this.
I know, but there are issues here larger than Courtney's friend's career.
Yeah, that's my point.
There are indeed.
Which is exactly what you and I pounded on him about for so long.
For so long on that.
Courtney, these are issues that go far beyond You know, he even speculated, well, it might have been some little lab technician who did this.
Yes.
Remember?
Yes.
And I said, come on, Courtney.
You're going to protect a lab technician?
All of this paradigm changing, all of this important stuff, and you're going to protect a lab tech?
You know, we're about to go off for what has turned out to be an incredibly interesting night.
Oh, yes.
And I want to, first of all, say to you guys that you're fascinating people.
I mean, this is really...
You've got a lot going here that's really interesting and unusual.
I agree with that.
And also, if it seems like we've been coming at you hard, it's because what you're saying runs completely counter to another very tough show like this that we did with Courtney Brown.
And yet, it's very solid.
It has a solidity to it.
You've got things backing you up that you've described.
There's an incredible amount of corroborating evidence.
Alright, we've got a link to your site, so anybody who wants to read about all this and come to their own conclusions, which I always urge my audience to do, for God's sakes, folks, go up to my website, go down to the Millennium Group name down there, And you know what you guys need to do?
You need to sit down and think out the issue.
Why all the hiding and the secrecy is really going on.
all wrong.
And we'll get this other paper up from the JPL people.
And you know what you guys need to do?
You need to sit down and think out the issue.
Why all the hiding and the secrecy is really going on?
Because I don't think you've got that right yet.
I do think, I do think...
Wendley, you know, we are not NASA and we can only check and guess stuff.
I do think that you probably know enough about the significance of all of these objects, and their theoretical implications, and on and on.
Now, all of that stuff.
That we do know.
Figure out why they would really feel an essential need to be silent about this.
Well, I think I hit it.
If what they assume at the beginning of the program is true, then when this all unraveled, it would unravel To the obvious conclusion that there are, from time to time, catastrophic events that virtually sterilize all life and start it all over again.
Now that's worth hiding!
And if Hale-Boppitt had come three months earlier, it would have been just that event.
Three months earlier.
Maybe what it comes down to is this.
They know that there are going to be a lot of these objects coming in, as indeed there have been and are.
They can see them.
And that any one of them Could cause an extraordinary situation, and maybe even the sun to go into a nova.
Yeah, okay, that's bottom line.
That's the reason why they might do all this.
And they might hide that.
But these things can possibly be prevented.
We have learned how to dampen the energy going into a hurricane before it hits land.
There's possibly a way we can affect larger objects with very simple means.
We can change the orbits of comets simply by increasing or decreasing the flow of material into them.
Well, once again, gentlemen, we launched a rocket that's going to go chase a comet, get in its tail, collect whatever's there, and bring it back.
The fact that our scientists are doing that must say that they don't fully understand what the hell's in the tail, or they wouldn't launch a rocket to find out!
Well, there again, all of their satellites that have been investigating comets are backwards.
They're expecting the stuff to be coming off the nucleus.
Their sensors are pointed in the wrong direction.
They don't understand the electromagnetic interaction, and they don't have electrical measuring devices on these.
They simply don't have a clue what they're dealing with, and the satellites are designed wrong.
We've got the wrong people in charge of the space program.
Well, that's been fairly obvious for a while.
Ever since when NASA found out that we had the Mission STS-80 video, they declined to go on the confirmation special, which I thought was a real cop-out.
I mean, everyone's seen that video by now, or most of the listeners have, and it's an incredible... Yes, it is.
Just totally and completely anomalous, unknown objects, and they refuse to discuss them.
To me, that's an abrogation of science.
That's a fundamental failure on their part to address the public's right to know.
Alright, look, to me, the whole Hale-Bopp affair remains, as Stanton Friedman would say, in a severe gray basket, and I'm willing to accept what you've just said, As certainly possible, and what I would like my audience to do, and we've got plenty of people in the astronomical community and plenty of independent rogue scientists out there who will go up there and read your site and decide for themselves if what you're saying is legitimate.
So I'll keep an open mind to it.
I want to thank you.
Thank you, Art.
For coming on the air, and it's a brave thing to do.
Yeah, guys, it's been fascinating.
Gutsy.
I appreciate the air time, and I just want to say one thing also is that the future of weather is going to be more severe in the next couple of years.
We've had five hurricanes in the Atlantic at one time in the past year, and next year is going to be worse.
We've had typhoons with wind speeds in excess of 300 miles an hour.
That's right.
What we've been seeing here, and we now understand these things and what drives them, and we can do something about them.
All right.
Gentlemen, we've got to hold it there.
It's been extremely provocative.
Thank you for the information.
Whitley, thank you for bringing all this together, my friend.
All right.
It's always a pleasure.
Okay.
Night all.
▲
Export Selection