All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2000 - Art Bell
03:04:08
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Stephen Bassett - Disclosure 2000 Is This the Year, Discussion Panel
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening and or good morning, wherever you may be across this great land of ours.
Westward from the Tahitian and Hawaiian Islands.
Eastward to the Caribbean and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
So, good morning on all the islands, actually.
We're heard on all the islands there.
South into South America, north all the way to the pole, and worldwide on the Internet.
This is Coast to Coast AM, and I'm Art Bell.
Well, I thought the NBC Evening News was pretty interesting today.
How about you?
Those of you stuck in ice and sleet and in some areas up to two feet of snow on the East Coast.
As I said last night, they didn't see this one coming and apparently they really didn't see it coming because NBC did a big story on Sort of, hey, how did you guys, especially with your new gazillion dollar computer, miss this storm?
And they showed the computer and it looked like some sort of, uh, oh, I don't know, gigantic, dark, cray-like monster of a computer.
And you could only see the outside of it, really.
And the weather guys were saying, well, must have been Our models were wrong.
They said our models are wrong.
Now, duh.
And then next they said, my audio is cutting out.
What's going on here?
Next they said, well, maybe the input to the computer was wrong.
And then finally they said, well, it's going to take us years to figure out actually what went wrong.
We don't know.
Now, meanwhile, A storm that was here in the southwest is proceeding eastward at a rapid rate.
It will be the next blizzard, they think.
Now, these are the same guys who didn't predict the last one, so... I don't know what you should think back there.
I guess you ought to just be ready.
And anyway, NBC did a really big piece on it, and...
I thought it was kind of humorous.
I'm sure a lot of people didn't think it was so humorous.
You know, weather people probably didn't think it was so humorous.
I just got this fax just before air time.
I get so many like this and I thought it was cute, so I thought I'd read it to you.
It may relate to last night.
Dear Art, the weather is changing.
I work at a ski resort called Schweitzer Mountain.
We led the nation in snowfall this winter.
However, our lifts are closed due to high winds.
Now last night, anyway, I was cooking a steak on my front porch.
I went out to turn it over and guess what?
It was gone!
Now, whatever took my steak walked on two feet and left deep tracks in the snow.
My morning, however, they were covered with snow.
Now this is the second time that they've taken my stake.
I'm going to try to rig a camera, get a picture of whatever it is taking my stakes, so you can put it on your website.
Signed, nervously yours, John.
So maybe we'll find out what's taking John's stakes.
John, maybe you don't want to know what's taking your stakes.
Maybe you ought to, you know, Just take them out every now and then and put them on the grill as they used to sacrifice virgins into a volcano every now and then and you'll be Bigfoot free.
But I wouldn't take money on that, John.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, let's see what's going on.
and gore and bradley have faced off in a debate boring
Thank you.
The GOP candidates have been facing off in a number of debates and I guess McCain is being accused of wibbling and wobbling on the abortion issue.
They asked him some question about his own daughter.
Has anybody out there noticed that the presidential both the primaries and then the campaigns themselves have settled into An absolute usual bet.
I mean, you know, the things they're going to talk about, like campaign finance reform, that they're not going to do a damn thing about.
Nothing.
And so forth and so on.
I mean, they're just too predictable to me to be interesting.
And if it turns out to be Gore and Bush, I'm sure there's a great deal of difference in what they say they would do and not much at all.
In the way they would actually govern, not much difference at all.
Lawyers for smokers are planning lawsuits against, get this, eight states seeking a share of the $206 billion settlement against the tobacco industry.
Remember the states sued the tobacco companies and won, right?
Got the big settlement bucks.
Vermont, so let's see, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Rhode Island.
All those states are being sued by smokers, the very people that the states won ostensibly on behalf of.
So the smokers are trying to get some of their money.
Ah, gee.
The Polar Lander, the Mars Polar Lander, is out there talking.
Maybe.
Scientists at NASA have said that they have received, when they looked at the data, not a signal they could actually hear, but buried somewhere in the data, they think they heard, Hello Earth.
Hello Earth.
Or, you know, whatever.
Whatever it says.
Lander calling Earth.
Probe calling Earth.
Hello, Earth.
Very weak.
They don't know for sure that it's really the Lander, and they've sent another order up to it, they say.
And results will be a little while in coming, if at all.
Meanwhile, one of the guests tonight coming up on Disclosure 2000, Richard C. Hoagland, has instructed me to tell you that he knows more.
He knows more, and declares it to be a secret, breaking story.
And says it gets really wonderfully weird.
So, when we get to the part of this night where Richard is going to be on, we will promptly ask him about that.
The scientists in Spain, who have been studying not the rain, but the ice chunks, plunking down, gigantic ones, Are saying now that they don't know how... Well, let me read this.
While many chunks were likely planted in the streets by pranksters, one scientist said at least some of the ice pieces indeed had probably been formed through sudden temperature drops in the stratosphere, which begins about seven miles above the earth and extends up to about 30 miles.
Now the problem is they have no idea how the atmosphere could cause them to be that size.
It's an Associated Press story.
It goes on to say, Similar cases have been reported in China and Brazil, with even bigger pieces of ice.
Brace yourself.
One being 440 pounds.
Said the phenomena is indeed very unusual, and they can't really explain it.
But yeah, they're saying, you know, it came out of the... Well, here, here, a professor at Madrid's Autonomous University questioned how ice could form in the atmosphere because that layer has very little moisture.
Eh, good point.
And here, an Italian workman has just been hit on the head by a lump of ice weighing about two pounds.
Which fell out of the sky just yesterday.
A 24-year-old man, not seriously hurt, luckily he was wearing two hats.
Now, I guess if you were a workman you would wear a hard hat.
He was wearing two hats.
It's a quote from a doctor in Italy.
Indeed, another one, a lump of ice the size of a pumpkin, Landed in central Milan, Italy yesterday.
Hitting a car.
Weighed 11 pounds.
No, no, this is a second one.
11 pounder that landed on a golf course near Rome.
So, ice falleth from the heavens all over the place.
There's somebody out there breaking open seals.
What's going on?
What in the world is going on?
So anyway, in a moment, we'll be back and we will continue.
Coming shortly... A Disclosure 2000.
Now one more thing.
This is really interesting.
I think it's really interesting.
As you know, we had a telephone outage.
I was harping on this last night, right?
We had a telephone outage.
And it seems that some Sprint equipment went belly up.
Or somebody turned a breaker off, is what it said, I think.
Anyway, Sprint made a report to the Federal Communications Commission, which included some pretty wild stuff.
We've got it up on my website now, you can see it.
Including an admission about the existence, apparently, of Area 51.
I mean, that was one of the areas down by the outage.
It took out Pahrump, it took out A part of Las Vegas, I guess, and Military Base Area 51, which of course, as you know, does not exist.
But they put it in there.
They put it up on the FCC page.
We talked about it.
We put a copy of it up.
A link to the government site where it was.
Then Sprint wrote a letter yesterday asking to have it taken off the government site.
And they put that up on the government site.
So we put that letter up.
Then last night, after most of you would have left me, or I would have left most of you in the last hour, We lost phone service again for about 13 minutes.
All phone and internet service went down like somebody, like a knife, a hot knife through butter.
And in view of the fact that we were discussing all of this last night, I find that a little curious, frankly.
I wonder if somebody said, boy, enough of him and threw the switch.
Now, I believe in coincidence, but not that much.
All right.
Let us get on with the business of the night.
By the way, you can see all of this up on my website.
You've got to read it.
It's hilarious.
Read it.
Here comes Disclosure 2000, beginning with Stephen Bassett.
Steve is founder of Paradigm Research Group, executive director of XPAC.
XPAC.
That's a political action committee.
And he is actually the only registered lobbyist in the U.S.
representing extraterrestrial phenomena research and activist organizations.
And he's back east where a lot of snow fell.
Here is Stephen Bassett.
Hello, Stephen.
Hi, Art.
Hi.
Good to be with you again.
Glad to have you.
Well, so...
I know you've got the Paradigm Clock website still, and I'm sure we have a link to that up there.
And we are about to chat with a presidential candidate.
Not a lot of people know her name.
She's not a Bush.
She's not a McCain.
She's not a Gore or Bradley.
But she is a real presidential candidate, a Democrat.
Well, I guess a 52 year old now?
Yes, and you forgot to mention probably the most important thing.
She is a woman.
Well, she implies that aspect of sexuality.
But all those other names you were stating happen to be men.
And that's very significant.
I just said Elizabeth Dole, but she's dropped out.
She did.
She dropped out.
I believe she cut a deal with the Bush campaign to sort of drop out early, give him his support, and possibly get a guarantee on a VP slot, which they proved to be either the best or the worst mistake she ever made in her life.
Would it be good for Heather Ann Harder?
Now, the reason I ask that is because if the Republicans have a woman, probably the Democrats are going to have to have a woman.
Well, let us hope that there is at least a woman on both tickets in a VP slot come November.
That will solve a long-lasting problem.
But before Heather gets on, can Art tie us together with some of the shows we did in the past?
Yeah.
This is the third show called Disclosure.
There have been two others.
The first one was in very early 1998.
That show had as its feature, there were a number of guests, Stephen Greer, who talked about briefings that were made to the President and his staff, and a meeting with James Woolsey, and a number of other things, which were rather remarkable, and were the culmination of a lot of things that went on in 1997, pushing the politics of UFOs.
Nevertheless, we didn't get disclosure.
Nope.
Eight or nine days after that show, the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, and this country took a vacation.
It was a tough year and we slogged through it.
Probably most people don't even want to be reminded of it.
Then in early 1999, we had a second disclosure show.
In this case, the feature individual, though there were other guests, was Joe Firmage.
This was his first appearance on national radio and it was his first appearance on your program.
I talked about a number of things and certainly about what he was bringing to the table and
the good things that were coming from his entrance into the field, a lot of media attention
and he's been investing money in the field, all very good, very strong.
This is now disclosure three and we didn't get disclosure in 1999 and I think that it's
worth responding to that.
As you know, prior to the 98 show, several times on your program, I was projecting that
That disclosure would take place about a year before the primary season.
It didn't happen.
All we've had is ice chunks falling from the sky.
I'm afraid so.
Listen, we're breaking here at the bottom of the hour.
We can sort of continue this when we come back and then introduce Dr. Harder.
All right.
Sure enough.
Good.
Stay right there, Steve.
Stephen Bassett, and coming up in a moment, Dr. Heather Ann Harder.
A Democrat and a presidential candidate.
From the high desert where the winds howled earlier today, this is Coast to Coast AM.
You're listening to the Twin Cities Talk Station, AM 1500 KSTV.
Alright, we thought we were getting disclosure and we didn't get it.
We got a scandal at the White House.
We thought we were getting disclosure and we didn't get it.
And here's Steven and that's kind of where we were.
Steven, you're back with us.
I'm Dr. Harder on the line.
Some of the listeners that have joined your program in the last year, I think it's important to point out that disclosure has important meaning here.
It means the formal acknowledgement by our government of the presence of extraterrestrial life forms in our world now.
They won't even tell us whether we're here in the probe on Mars or not.
So true.
And this has been going on a long time, and two things prevented, I believe, the timetable that seemed to be in play.
One was the impeachment, unprecedented in modern times, and the second was the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, also unprecedented in modern times, which really took the president completely out of the picture.
But we're back in the track, and as it happens, tonight, very interesting evening, it is the night before The State of the Union, the year 2000, is also six days before the New Hampshire primary, the real beginning of this election, which I honestly believe will be one of the most important elections in the history of the country.
Boy, you're really an optimist, you know it.
I think it's important.
I don't know if it'll work out well, but important it is, for good or for ill.
And lo and behold, partially because of the withdrawal of Elizabeth Dole, We have a guest this evening who is... Well, she's been on my show before, so... Right, been on the show before, but just about to enter, really, into the last part of a very long race.
for the president of the united states this is a woman who is not a leading
candidate woman candidate in the field and the only candidate in the field
which has a specific position on a matter of ufo's and et phenomena although she's got a lot of hope about it
um she's in new hampshire right now She's a Democrat.
She's going to, I guess she's staying up awfully late to be on the air with us right now.
She's an educator.
She was an elementary school teacher, a reading specialist, and owner-operator of four daycare centers.
As a university professor, she taught both graduate and undergraduate classes.
Dr. Harder currently travels the world lecturing on a variety of topics ranging all the way from business, education, political activism, personal and spiritual growth.
She has a bachelor's and master's degree from Indiana University and a PhD in education from Indiana State University.
She's a businesswoman, an author, She is a mother as well.
She has two daughters, Carrie Ann, 24, and Stacey Elizabeth, 20.
And here she is from New Hampshire.
Dr. Harder, welcome back to the program.
Thank you.
It's a joy to be with you again.
So you're in New Hampshire, huh?
Yes, where it's very, very cold.
A lot of snow up there?
Yes.
And freezing temperatures.
Well, the weather guys missed it entirely.
They didn't know it was coming.
They had this big new computer, and they said, oops.
Anyway, how's it going in New Hampshire, Doctor?
Well, it's exciting.
Things are happening every day.
In fact, we were on CNN this afternoon, so we're real excited about the attention we're getting, and it's growing every day.
I'm going to give you a very cynical point of view, and I'm going to ask you to try to tell me why I shouldn't have this view.
I think that either George Bush or Al Gore are going to be elected.
One of the two.
And in the end, in the way they govern, Doctor, I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference which one is elected.
That's my personal, cynical view.
They will talk different talk, but they will govern pretty much the same as we've had.
They talk and debate about things like soft money and changing the way campaigns are financed.
It's all BS, because it's never going to change.
We all know it.
So why should we, as Americans, get interested in the presidential race?
Well, it won't change until we change.
We have the power to cause government to be different.
Because government is only the collective reflection of all of us in this nation.
And it is our apathy and alienation that lets them continue their game that they've been playing for decades.
And you're right, it won't make a difference if we do nothing differently.
With the money involved, Doctor, I mean, I've talked to you and I really like what you're all about, but without enough money in America, how does somebody like yourself have a real chance, being brutally honest?
Well, it's the concept that it's about money that causes the game to continue to be played the same way.
Our campaign has Thousands of citizen participants across this country.
And those people are doing the jobs that otherwise money would be paying for.
Certainly it's easier, perhaps, if you have the millions and millions of dollars of George W. But it's the citizens of this country.
65 to 75% of the people of this country are not involved with politics at the most basic level.
It is those numbers, that new majority, that have the power to overthrow the current system of dysfunction in order to change the system.
But it is through activation, not alienation, that will bring about the changes.
But the American public fully believes that they could not possibly elect anybody other than Bush or Gore.
I mean, that's kind of a general perception.
And so, instead of going out to, quote, waste their vote, They go and they vote traditionally for the lesser of what they consider to be the evils.
Correct.
How do you change that?
Again, through making them aware of what goes on behind the scenes.
I spent one year going to campaign trainings in order to learn how to be a quote unquote candidate.
And in those trainings they teach you how to do the mind games, the manipulation, the control.
Do they?
Of the voters.
Oh yeah.
They even teach you how to get people in fear.
Because when you get people in fear, you actually control their actions.
And so, yeah, all those things are going on, but they also teach you that half the people aren't going to register, so don't worry about them.
They're not important.
Of the half that does register to vote, half of those won't go to the polls, so don't worry about them.
They're not important.
Of the half, now we're at 25% of the half that do go to the polls and vote, a third are going to be Republicans, a third are going to be Democrats, and because they're predictable, they're not important.
A third are going to be the swing voters.
Those are the people that candidates are taught how to identify, how to poll, how to politic with, how to sway, because those are the people that determine the outcome of the election and thus have the power.
We know that 58% of those swing voters in this election will be women, thus every candidate talking about soccer mom issues or women's issues.
If we can activate just your audience to get others involved And we cause that swing voter population to be those who have real concerns with the secrecy of this government, with the dysfunction of this government.
We then cause politicians to talk on those issues.
And my campaign is about giving real voice to the American people, so we truly do have the power to change what's going on in Washington.
Are you going to get into any of the debates?
Well, again, that's up to the American people.
If I can raise the $5,000 in 20 states, I have to be invited into the debates.
I think it's part of the rules.
The stronger my base, through popular support, through the contributions as required by the FEC... Excuse me, do you mean $5,000 in each state or collective?
$5,000 in each 20 states.
In each of 20, alright.
I see.
It's a threshold of $100,000 that FEC recognizes as a credible candidate benchmark.
Money.
Money.
And interestingly, George W. has not met that benchmark yet.
No, really?
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Because it's money coming in from, and not from a grassroots, broad-based support, but from a very intentional and finite population.
I'm sure you don't doubt for one second he will come up with money if he has to send it himself.
Steve, I hear you drawing breath like you want to say something.
Yeah, I want to add, I think, an important comment.
One of the things that's been lost in the television electioneering that we've become used to in the last 20 years is that elections in America aren't just about winning.
They're really about ideas, and about debate, and talking to each other, and talking to candidates, and getting things out there.
I can tell you that a great deal of the things we enjoy in this country came to us because of ideas, concepts, and struggles of candidates that did not win elections.
The media has made it so much about winning that we've lost sight of that.
The money that Heather is talking about, Dr. Harder is talking about, $100, that's nothing.
I invite your readers to consider this.
Whoever they're thinking of voting for, that's fine.
They may have a candidate already in mind.
But by supporting someone like Dr. Harder, they are one Supporting the idea of women running for the presidency, which is very important.
And two, she has some issues that she's addressed that simply are not in play on any of the other candidates.
And by getting her on a stage, by helping her to get exposure, Right now I have great disappointment, Dr. Harder, in the fact that, for example, Al Gore, who was an environmentalist, seems to have lost his memory as the campaign proceeds.
You don't hear anything about the environment from him, really.
Right now I have great disappointment, Dr. Harder, in the fact that, for example, Al Gore, who was an environmentalist,
seems to have lost his memory as the campaign proceeds.
You don't hear anything about the environment from him, really.
What we are hearing is some crazy argument about McCain's daughter and whether or not he'd let her have an abortion.
That's where the news is.
I mean, that's what everybody's getting fed.
That's it.
Doctor?
Well, because we again have a very controlled set of national media, which has made shows like yours even more importantly.
And as fewer and fewer corporations own more and more of the media, that's going to continue.
Well, let's ask you straight out.
If you managed to get into the debates, and you could interject, as Stephen suggested, ideas, which you certainly could do if you were in the debates, what ideas would you be injecting into the debates that are not there now?
Well, certainly the idea of one law, one bill, written, centered English.
The whole way all the dysfunction occurs in Washington is through these 4,000 page documents
that go through Congress written in legalese and garbledy book with writers and attachments
and pork and things changed in the last minute so people don't even know what they're voting
for.
If they even tried to read it, they couldn't.
By putting things in standard English, plain English with only one item per bill, then
you and I become able to be a part of that process and have a say and be able to hold
our elected officials accountable for what they're doing in Washington.
And the second is the national referendum where you and I then have the ability to bring
issues to the table at the national level that could not be overridden by Congress.
But it makes the American people, that fourth branch of the government, a very vocal and viable means of bringing things to the table, like campaign finance reform, so that we can truly have a say in what's going on in Washington.
When I see them argue or debate, they would say, about campaign finance reform, I'm sorry, I laugh.
Absolutely.
It's just a laugh.
I mean, they're wasting our time by even arguing about something like that.
They're not going to do it.
Well, and as one person said, that we weren't going to pass any bill on campaign funds reform until we know the loopholes.
And, you know, everything that's been proposed thus far, I can see the loopholes.
And so you know that those insiders have lots more awareness about the loopholes.
That's why it has to be the American people being able to decide what needs to be done.
It's ridiculous to let them decide on the future of Social Security while they exempt themselves from it and give themselves multi-million dollar retirement packages.
And so it really is a time where the American people have to take responsibility, take the reins, and be able to have a say directly.
It's the only way we're going to get rid of dysfunction, the secrets, and all the other things.
Well, that's what I wanted to ask you about next, is secrecy.
Of great interest to us, the kinds of things we talk about on this program, secrecy.
Our government thrives on secrecy.
Ridiculous things are kept secret, and maybe very important things are kept secret from us.
And a lot of us think that when a president is elected, should he be something of an oddity, A very unlikely occurrence.
He's taken into a room where the facts of life are explained to him, or someday perhaps her, and then, you know, the secrets continue.
What could you do about that?
Well, I just don't buy into the game.
The number of secrets that a person has in their life, that a relationship has within itself, or between the government and its people, is directly proportioned to the dysfunction of that relationship or that government.
And we have to come to a time where the numbers of secrets and the number of agencies dealing with secrets has to be reduced, dismantled, so that American people really can become a viable force within this country.
And there's information in this country that's classified beyond the level of president, and I want to know who has the power to classify something beyond the level of president.
Do you know that for sure?
Well, I don't, I mean, I've not been within the government myself, but it's certainly written about in standard mainstream media.
I mean, I've read about it.
Now, who would you think, this is really interesting, who would you imagine this information would be classified for above the president?
Who would you imagine that group or that person might be?
Well, Art, after I'm President, I'll be on your show and tell you because it's the first thing I'm going to check into.
Who has the power to classify it beyond the President?
And if the President can't see it, who can?
And I have more questions than answers when it comes to things like that.
Well, secrets and secrecy is power.
So, what you're really saying is that there is somebody or a group out there that has more power than the President, if they have the power to keep secrets from the President.
Well, they're control.
I don't know that they're true healthy power, but they certainly are the manipulation and the control factors of keeping others out of their power.
In my world, healthy power means the ability to choose and live responsibly with those choices.
When people take choices away from you, they take away your power.
But it truly isn't power, it's manipulation and control.
Stephen, anything before the top of the hour?
With a nail on the head, we have, in spite of our great wealth and enormous political and military power, we've got a serious dysfunctional situation going on, almost like a cancer, and balance between the three main branches of government and this vast intelligence complex.
The Constitution was not written with that in mind.
It was written with checks and balances.
to adjust between those three branches, judiciary, executive and legislature.
They didn't envision this huge military industrial complex with huge intelligence segments.
The balance of power shifted so significantly in certain areas that major issues, not the
least of which is an extraterrestrial issue, are considered off limits for certain presidents.
Some, if they are deemed worthy, we think are briefed.
Others are not.
This is about as bad a thing that could happen to a nation otherwise healthy as you can imagine
and if we don't get people up on the stage with these standard candidates bringing up
those kinds of ideas and there's many others that Dr. Harder has on her website which you
are not going to see in the campaign.
I think it seems that way, but again, I'm not inside that loop, so I can't say absolutely yea or nay.
is going to keep going on and going on until maybe something very unpleasant happens.
Do you agree, Dr. Harner, that some presidents have been briefed on things that others have not?
I think it seems that way, but again, I'm not inside that loop, so I can't say
absolutely yea or nay. But we certainly know that Jimmy Carter, when he was running for president,
talked about his UFO contacts, he talked about his experience,
and he vowed that when he became president, he was going to make the truth be known.
That's right.
And when he got into the office, we never heard the topic come from his lips again.
That's right.
Something took place that caused the man to be quiet.
Yeah, that sit down that I was talking about a little while ago.
Hold on, everybody.
Stay right where you are.
We'll take a break here at the top of the hour.
And then we'll continue with Dr. Heather Ann Harder, who is a Democrat running for the presidency.
A very, very interesting woman.
I've interviewed her before.
And those eyes can read license plates and the part in your hair.
That's another issue.
Privacy.
Also, Stephen Bassett, America's only UFO lobbyist.
I'm Art Bell and this is Close to Close Band.
To reach Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nigh, from Worcester, the Rockies, dial 1-866-933-7000.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
1-800-8255-EAST OF THE ROCKIES 1-800-825-5033 First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222
Or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1222 To reach out on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
Ah, secrets.
That's what we're talking about right now.
My guest is... My guests, actually, are Stephen Bassett, Who is a lobbyist in Washington, D.C.
Not a lobbyist, but a lobbyist trying to get disclosure with regard to the possibility of extraterrestrial life or whatever is going on out there.
And we have with us from New Hampshire a presidential candidate, Dr. Heather Ann Harder, who's been on the program previously.
In a moment, we'll get back to both of them and we'll keep talking about secrets.
It is really an honor to have Dr. Heather Ann Harder, who's in New Hampshire, campaigning away, climbing a pretty big mountain, I must say, trying to get some attention and get into the debates and really get into the primaries.
But she is indeed a candidate for the presidency on the Democrat side.
And, Doctor, if, just for the heck of it, if you were to get elected, And we both believe, let me backtrack a little bit, I had something come directly over my head, Doctor, that was utterly inexplicable.
It was either too far ahead of anything we have told our people about as to be incredible, I mean anti-gravity type technology, or it was from elsewhere.
I have no way of knowing which is the case, but either way it would be a big story, and it certainly is a big secret.
And if it came over my head, and I don't get it, is how you, as president, could go in and get information that you've already said you believe it's thoroughly possible other presidents have not been given.
And perhaps if they didn't get it, they didn't want it.
The easiest way not to deal with something is to either not know it exists or pretend that you don't know that it exists, which is what happens in a lot of cases.
You know, I don't want to know, because then if I know, I've got to take responsibility for it.
And I want to know.
My prayers have always been to know truth and the courage to act in those truths.
And I think whether it's through prayer or affirmation or visualization or truth, we're going to collectively see all the lies and deceptions that have been going on in Washington for a very, very long time.
I think Kennedy's assassination just brought to a head where people could not accept the magic bullet theory.
And I think the cynicism has grown from that point.
So you think the assassination was a lie?
I think the version of assassination that we were given was a lie.
A lie, yes.
And it pretty well went downhill from that point.
I think it was already bad before that point, but we pretended everything was okay.
And then with the assassination, we couldn't pretend any longer.
Then we had to start taking responsibility for it, and we're seeing a continued degradation of our Constitution that's taken us to this point today.
Boy, I would just dearly love to see you become president.
You have no idea how much I would love to see that.
You or anybody else who would go and grab everything back in Washington and shake it until, you know, all the penny secrets came loose.
Turn it upside down and shake it.
I'd love to see that.
I just wish I saw that it was possible.
Well, can I mention here that while that would be an interesting thing and we need some new ideas in this country, it would also be pretty amazing if uh... doctor harder was able to take the stage
with the other two uh... candidates for the democratic uh...
primary and
have her positions which are unique set of positions which i invite people to
to look at uh... up there
taking questions because when you're in a position and you're given a question
and i have to respond to and that would be unprecedented that's a non-trivial thing to and that's very doable modest
support from uh...
from people in about 20 states.
Is it an excellent possibility that Dr. Harder would be able to participate in these debates?
If she actually were to get up on the debate stage with the other two, with Bradley and Gore, and she were to bring up the subject of UFOs, don't you think they would use that as an opportunity to try and suggest this is why smaller, lesser candidates should not be allowed in the debates?
Here, look at this.
Look at what she's talking about.
Secrecy and UFOs.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Are you asking me, or?
I'm asking anybody who wants to answer.
Well, I'll say this.
They can do anything they want.
The point is, they will do it in front of the American people.
The House and the Senate, the Presidency have had a free ride on this for 40 years.
They've never even had to go on record.
The public has not even been in a position to really ask them questions.
They've had to say nothing on the subject.
Let's hear what they have to say, and if it's to make a joke out of it, then that's what they do.
But I think you know, and I know, there's a lot of people in this country that will not be happy about candidates for office trying to blow this off, because we're far beyond that point.
And I invite Dr. Harder to comment what she thinks would happen.
Well, first of all, I don't think they'd have the nerve to do this because they've done polls already that show more people in this country believe in the existence of UFOs than believe that they'll ever see a Social Security check.
I think the media does the blowing off for them and tries to discount and make the issue go away.
The candidates are very mute on the topic because they don't want to alienate any voters.
But the Democratic Party is the party of the people.
What's happened over time is the party is only representing such a very, very small percentage of the people.
Most of the people out there don't use their political voice at any level.
We need to get those people back engaged in the political system and then what happens is the elected officials then have to address all people.
We have removed ourselves from the political system and thus How are you doing in the process of getting into the debates?
In other words, how close are you to that goal that you talked about last hour?
Well, again, we're not there yet, so we're still working toward that point.
We have to become credible in lots and lots of ways, and you mentioned introducing the topic of UFOs.
When you do debates, the candidates don't introduce topics, it is the questions that are presented to them.
So it would be the American people who clamor to hear from the candidates about these issues.
But the more people we have that support us, the more money that we have behind us, that's when the credibility from the From the party begins to be reflected on me, the candidate.
Well, you've raised a very good point.
It is the inquisitors who seem to set the agenda.
I frequently wonder how the agenda precisely is set.
But if the American people wanted to affect that agenda and have a specific question or area inquired about, how would they go about applying pressure?
Who do they write to?
Who do they fax?
Again, the power is in the media.
Let us, the editor, call in talk shows.
They have the ability to keep calling their camping headquarters, demanding they get a statement on how they stand on these issues.
You know, when these people appear in Larry King Live, those call-ins are real.
And just keep working until you get your questions before them and make them go on record.
That's a pretty good idea.
as they see these issues are important to people, they are then a force to address them.
The reason why we're hearing about healthcare issues and education issues is because pollsters
have determined those are the issues that people wanna hear about,
and candidates want them to use those issues to draw in the voters.
That's a pretty good idea.
You know, when one of them gets on Larry King, just flood the lines until you get in,
and you manage to ask a serious, not a kooky sounding, but a very serious question
about military secrets and about what we know about what might be out there.
And if elected, what would you do?
And so you're right.
I think that's a really, really, really good idea.
Larry may not like it, but I think it's a good idea.
I think Larry would love it.
It would be the candidate that doesn't like it.
And part of the campaign training is to teach, take those questions that you don't want to answer and how to manipulate them and give the answer that you want that has nothing to do with the question.
Well, you went through that school.
Let's say that you were on Larry King and I'm a caller and I say, Dr. Hutter, what can you tell us about the extraterrestrial visitation saying the whole government cover-up.
What do you know about that?
Answer that the way George Bush would.
Well, I don't know how George Bush would.
I think I'd say something like, well, I don't know a lot about it, but then let's talk about that.
And I think it would be just a pitch-and-switch kind of operation from George W. He's very, very slick.
He doesn't need to be pinned down because he's already got all the money in the world and all the support of his party in the world.
He's not going to feel the pressure to be pinned down like someone who's struggling to get the nomination like McCain or others.
So it's going to be much harder to pin down the big boys.
I think it's also important to note that many of the debates, particularly at the state House and Senate level, are in fact more like town hall meetings.
People in the audience are asking questions and can get command of the microphone.
There will actually be some town hall meetings with respect to the presidential and vice-presidential debates.
So it's not as if the media is always in between the audience and the candidates.
There will be plenty of opportunities to ask these questions if people are willing to do it.
And the point is, I think it's fair to say that if a candidate was up on the stage with Al Gore and Bill Bradley with a stated Open position on the UFOET question.
You know that some of the media, even if we're talking about a media debate, are going to ask her about that issue.
And if she is asked, that means the other candidates must respond as well.
Correct.
And especially the listening audiences here in New Hampshire, because I think New Hampshire has the most contact with candidates up front.
You have town hall meetings, you have high school gatherings, where there is nothing between you and the candidate.
And this is a place where you can really pin people down to hear how they feel about issues, even if they don't like it.
What kind of campaigning are you doing up there now?
Are you door-to-door?
Are you addressing groups?
That sort of thing?
Everything.
What they call retail politics, which is shaking hands and meeting people on the street, talking before groups that have invited us to speak, being a participant in some of the candidate forums.
We spoke before the college convention.
That was 1,500 high school students and college students from across this country, and all the candidates spoke.
I was the only candidate that got a standing ovation.
I think that especially the younger people are hungry for truth and sincerity, which is what my promise to the American people is.
I want to be the candidate that I would want representing me, which is someone who doesn't have all the right answers, but when they open their mouth, I know they're telling the truth.
And that's what we're lacking in Washington.
Doctor, do you believe it's possible in the year 2000, the next election coming up, for anybody to be elected who does not lie?
Yes.
I think every day it becomes more so.
And especially if you add to that the vice presidency, as well as the presidency.
I think people are sick and tired of the Hollywood spin, the manipulation and the games that are played politically.
I think people are craving someone who tells the truth, who lives in integrity.
You know, I say and it causes a big laugh because I'm the only candidate that's doing my own research, writing my own words, and actually believing what I say.
And without hesitation, all the media in the audience laugh because they know the game that goes on in the political arena where, you know, candidates don't even know what they're saying until they're off and open their mouth to repeat the words that have been written for them.
In fact, Herbert Hoover in 1929 was the last president that wrote his own speeches.
That's pathetic.
That is pathetic.
You're absolutely right.
Steven, anything we must get in while we have Dr. Harder?
Well, certainly that her political campaign is on our website at Harder2000.com.
Our positions are right there.
They are.
There are a number of positions there which are not in the debate at all.
Point number one.
Point number two, the amount of money necessary to get into debates is really small.
Point number three, I am deeply troubled that at the beginning of the third millennium and the twenty-first century, given what's happened in the last thirty years, that we are seeing all of these debates going on for the president and the next millennium and there is not a woman in sight This deeply bothers me.
52% of this country are women.
It is time that they were represented in the mainstream of the political debates and issues and the marketplace of ideas at the presidential level.
I don't know why Elizabeth Dole dropped out.
I regret it.
I think she should have stayed the course, if only because it was going to affect the nation in a positive way.
Dr. Harder has stayed the course.
She's been running for six years.
You know, Stephen, it's my understanding, forget the presidency for a second, that even down here at the grassroots level, women in America, I believe it is true, only earn 75% of what men earn for the same jobs, all across the nation, coast to coast.
They make that much less than men.
Well, certainly there's a money issue there that any woman could relate to, but more importantly, One of the things that will prevent the 21st century from repeating the worst of the 20th century is that
The world view that women hold, which I am free to admit, and not unashamed to admit, is different for men.
It is clearly different for men on many levels.
That world view has got to get into the political marketplace in a major way, meaning near 50% or more of the major legislatures as well as the corporate power.
If we do not get their world view into the game, We are going to repeat the paradigm of the last century, and the price is going to be awful.
And the sooner we get this done, the better.
So, there are actually many levels to Dr. Harder's campaign and its implications.
The more I looked into it, the more impressed I was.
Okay, well let's ask her about this.
Dr. Harder, in what way do you think a woman's worldview differs from that of a man?
Oh, I think in almost every capacity.
I think we look at issues differently.
We've been enculturated differently.
I think our priorities are different.
I agree with Stephen that I think that women are just prepared in life to handle things differently.
It's been shown in just the brain research and how we think and how we react to things.
It's been shown in just the priorities we have in the world.
I think we're much more people-centered.
I think there's much more cooperation and intuition I'm nurturing built into a woman than there are men, which are much more competitive in nature, much more aggressive, much more outwardly dominating.
I mean, I think that the whole way we've been reared affects the way we handle the world.
Do you think a woman president would be less likely to get us into a war?
I think the history has shown a woman can lead in war, but I don't think they would go there as quickly.
I think they would look for every kind of alternative, every kind of of way of peacefully negotiating a settlement before we
moved and used aggression to stop aggression but I don't think a woman would call it peace if
she's using bombs and bullets and body bags and that's what our current politicians do
and as long as we're calling war peace we will never know peace.
Another way to look at it is with that world view sharing the stage we would stop having
war on drugs, war on poverty, war on crime.
This concept that we have to be at war with our own people and our own nation, this is an extremely male-dominated concept.
We've got to move away from that.
Society is not a war.
It's a pattern of policies toward the common good.
Women are orientated toward coalition.
Communication, they're less territorial, less predatory, less violent.
Alright.
They have been out of the game and they've got to get in the game.
Alright, getting in the game.
Doctor, how can people help you get in the game?
We only have a few seconds here.
Well, certainly checking our website and becoming a volunteer.
We need a lot of citizens to help with this campaign and ballot access across this country and getting the information out.
They can call our toll-free number 1-800 Give that again.
Be gentle.
We have a few volunteers.
We had a storm come in so we don't have as many people there as we hope to.
That they can get involved with the campaign.
We have information that can teach them what they need to know to get the word going out.
Alright, Doctor.
We've got to break it off there.
Thank you.
It's been my joy.
You take care.
And we'll be back with Stephen Bassett and Richard Hoagland and more shortly.
You're listening to the Twin Cities Talk Station.
AM 1500 KSTV When the wind blows
Call ArcBell in the Kingdom of Nye From West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255
East of the Rockies 1-800-825-5033 First time callers may rechart at 1-775-727-1222
And the wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295 To rechart on the toll free international line
Call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903 The streets are alive.
And the wind did blow today here in the desert.
Good morning, everybody.
I'm Art Bell, and coming up in a moment, we will continue with Stephen Bassett, who is our nation's only ufologist lobbyist.
Maybe that sounds better.
Ufology lobbyist.
How's that?
We, in a moment, will be joined by the esteemed Richard C. Hoagland, Founder of the Enterprise Mission.
Author of the Monuments of Mars.
Oh, we've got some news about that, too.
And numerous videos addressing a range of space and science-related topics.
He, of course, received the Angstrom Medal for his excellence in science in 1993.
And he is beloved.
All the halls of NASA.
As you well know.
And I always add.
Somehow.
Peter Gersten is joining us as well now.
He is founder of CAUSE, Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, the publisher of the CAUSE updates mail list, which you can get for free.
And he's a pioneer in the use of FOIA lawsuits to force UFO-related document disclosure.
I've had him run a couple For me, over the last couple of years, as a matter of fact.
So, once again, in a moment, all of these gentlemen, as we continue with what we call Disclosure 2000.
All right, here comes the group, and they should make life easy for me, and I'll make them all talk.
Included, of course, again, Richard C. Hogan, the man voted by NASA.
As the man they would most likely wish to launch into an eternal orbit before he actually turns to ashes.
You have so much fun with that.
Yes, I do.
So, anyway, Richard, there you are, obviously.
Peter, say hello so we know you're there.
Good morning, Arthur.
How are you?
Oh, hi.
Peter.
Richard.
Stephen.
Good morning, Peter.
Good morning, Stephen.
Well, here we are, gentlemen, and it's Disclosure 2000.
It was Disclosure 99.
That didn't happen.
And we're all still waiting, and I guess we want to engender some kind of conversation, if we can, about what we think and when we think and so forth.
Well, there's much to talk about.
Just to bring your eyes back up to speed again, Disclosure is formal acknowledgment of the government of the extraterrestrial presence.
I had predicted it would happen about a year before the primaries.
It didn't.
And I believe the reason was the president, who needed to be involved and could have significantly affected the willingness of any certain committee chairs to act, was taken out of the game by a scandal and an impeachment and then the political aspirations of his wife.
These were major unprecedented events that affected everything going on in this town and they were unforeseen.
However, we're still in the game, and a lot is going to happen this year.
I'd like to throw the ball, if I may, right to Peter, who I think has got something going on right now and is considering a pretty interesting strategy.
Can you talk about that?
It depends what the strategy is.
First of all, I want to thank you, Stephen, for the award you just bestowed on the Cause website, the Extra Award.
That's great.
And people can see that award by going to the Cause website, and there's a link to Steve's website.
And I want to commend you, Steven, also on the Get Out the Questions that you sent me a fax of, which are the UFO ET-related questions with follow-ups for the national candidates.
I think that's an excellent strategy.
I think that each of the websites devoted to the UFO phenomena should have those questions on their websites.
People should download those questions and take them to the town meetings, to the debates, to the caucuses, wherever they go.
Okay, they're on what website now?
They're probably on your website by now.
They're on your website, Art.
They're on Enterprise.
They're on the Cause site.
X-PAC as well.
They're on the X-PAC site.
So all of the related sites, beginning with mine, have the questions that you would want to take to the candidates and or call when Larry King is on.
Yeah, let me interrupt before we get into Peter's strategy because Peter's strategy actually should follow some new news.
I was very impressed to listen to Dr. Harder a few minutes ago, and I would like to disabuse everybody listening to this extraordinarily activist Art Bell audience, that even though Heather Harder does not really have a chance to be president unless, you know, remarkable untoward things happen in the next, you know, week or so, she does have a major role to play in introducing the candidates and the press and the National Press Corps And the national discussion to the important questions that have to be asked in this election.
And the Bell audience, and this is how Steve and I and Art kind of got this thing together this time around, the Bell audience has demonstrated something that most other people in this country don't seem to have, which is moxie.
You know, a get up and get out there and do something spirit.
We have proven now twice, maybe more, I mean, I'm losing count, but we've at least proven twice that when we Ask you guys out there to do something, and you do it, you get results.
It really gets done.
And there is something extraordinarily simple that you can do, particularly those of you in New England listening to us tonight, very late in a very cold, wintry New England evening.
If you simply go to these town meetings between now and next Tuesday in New Hampshire, that all of the candidates, including Heather Harder, will be holding feverishly between now and the election, the primary next Tuesday evening.
And you simply download from any of these websites the list of questions that Steven and the rest of us have prepared, print them out, take them with you, and ask them.
And have other neighbors and friends and family go with you and ask them.
You can totally change this election.
You know, for the sake of our audience who may not see the list, I wonder if one of you, any of you, would be willing to read a few of the top questions that you would want asked.
I've got right here.
what's most important about these questions is they are structured in such
a way that even if the candidate rolls
his eyes or her eyes, if they do it, she's not going to do that, and blow it all off with a laugh
the question itself will significantly inform the media and the rest of the
audience who hear just the question. Well, here's an example
uh... you'll get the idea real quick uh... candidate, are you aware of the allegations of career
army intelligence officer, officer the late colonel philip j corso in his
nineteen ninety seven memoir the day after roswell confirming an extraterrestrial
presence and cover-up of this fact
Follow-up.
If no, given the significance of these allegations, shouldn't you be aware?
If yes, why hasn't the Joint Chiefs, Army, Congress, or Executive Branch responded to both the book and Colonel Corso's public statements in 1997 and 1998?
And here is another example, and these are the two strongest questions, and not by accident.
Are you aware of the public statements of former Apollo astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell that active and retired government and military personnel of stature have confirmed to him the extraterrestrial nature of the 1947 Orozcoel, New Mexico event, and that a kind of second government is maintaining a cover-up of the facts regarding an extraterrestrial presence in the world?
Then for follow-up, if the answer was no, given that Edgar Mitchell was a distinguished American with an MIT PhD and a member of the exclusive group of NASA astronauts who walked on the moon, should you not be aware?
And if yes, why hasn't NASA, the Congress and the executive branch of our government, thoroughly and properly responded to these allegations?
I think you can see that these are not the kinds of questions that a candidate can sort of huff and puff and blow off.
At least, I don't think so.
If enough ordinary folks, the people who got the pictures of Mars, You know, through the activities of this program, if they were to stand up at these town meetings in the next six days and ask every one of the candidates, particularly John McCain, and I'll get to why John McCain is a critical part of this strategy in a couple of minutes, you would see a remarkable set of things happen in the entire election.
People would be forced to address, both internally and externally, the concept of the national security state that major players, Both in the intelligence community, the defense community, the astronaut community, are making extraordinarily serious documented accusations, and nothing is being done.
That's right.
Let's focus now on McCain.
Senator McCain is especially vulnerable for two reasons, and this is why, if you all went to McCain's and asked these questions, I guarantee you, you will get explosive, positive results.
I mean, this is a minimalist effort with a maximum, you know, effect.
For very few dollars.
I mean, you know, what's a tenth of a tank of gas to go to a town meeting in the next few days?
I can guess.
I know what it is.
Okay, you asked McCain.
McCain was the senator, who was a sitting senator, still is, from the state of Arizona, when Francis Barr would turn to him as a friend and a colleague, an elected official, and said, John, please help me get to the bottom of the Phoenix Lights controversy.
And John McCain blew her off.
He would not go to the Air Force, he wouldn't even make phone calls, he pretended it was a non-problem, and he's a Republican, and the head of the Republican National Committee there in Arizona actually stood up at a town meeting that she held when she was running for governor, or not governor, but for Secretary of State, and admitted That he had seen this big, two-mile-wide, V-shaped thing with the lights.
Right.
It had flown right over him, and it was because of Francis' courage in bringing it up that he was able to stand up in a public meeting and admit that he'd seen it.
But Richard, if he blew off Francis that way, what do you think he'd do to some inquisitor, be it an average person or, you know, Tom Brokaw or whoever would ask that question?
That's where the Bell audience comes into its own, because the person or persons asking these questions will know That even if they're shot down, you know, with a kind of sneering remark, at the next town meeting, another bell person will stand up and ask the same question or an even harder question.
Good point.
It only takes two or three people asking the question until suddenly the press is on this like fleas on a dog.
Because you know there's a concept called hack journalism.
And when they see the candidate flinch, they're going to see vulnerability, vulnerability.
And McCain is especially vulnerable in the next six days because he's number one.
And what do we like to do in this country?
We build the underdog up to be number one, and then we like to tear him down.
Yeah, they're doing that now.
That's what's going on right now.
Now, I happen to think that John McCain has some pretty interesting ideas and deserves his day in the sun.
So do I. And should go the distance.
But not if he's not going to the level.
And one of the questions you might pitch to McCain is simply, Senator, you expect us to believe you are the reform candidate.
You are going to come in and clean house, and you are going to reform a system which is in bad need of repair.
If we can't trust you to be honest on the simple question, what flew over Phoenix where 10,000 people saw it, and you did not even call for any minimal investigation, how can we trust you on any of your other positions in your run for the presidency?
And I guarantee you, that one question will get headlines in the Washington Post.
Well, we've got the audience that'll do it, I guarantee you that.
It'll be interesting to see what occurs.
Poor Senator McCain has enough troubles right now, though.
As you well know, he's involved in this big, stupid brouhaha about abortion and what he would do or not do with his daughter.
John McCain says he wants to reform the electoral process.
He wants to take the soft money out, make it more streamlined, make it more direct so that undue influence is not exerted.
He wants to streamline the defense establishment, the military-industrial complex.
Well, it starts with telling the truth.
And the big truth.
I mean, you had Nick Begich on the other night.
That's right.
Who had a shattering, fearful litany of patents that have been filed under this government for technologies which can reach in and directly control the hearts and minds of the American people.
You bet.
Now, that's been paid for in part with DOD money.
A lot of this research is going on in the military industrial sector and the American people, notwithstanding the Bell Show, would never even know about it.
A candidate who says he wants to clean house and reform the process and wants to restore confidence in the military should be asked the hard questions about what has military money been used for and how is it possibly going to subvert the American constitutional process if it goes on unchecked.
And I think, if you don't want to pick on John McCain, let's not forget that one of the candidates on the other side is the Vice President of the United States, has been for eight years.
Al Gore, yes.
Here's an example of a question I think that would be a really good one for Vice President Gore.
Are you aware of the briefings provided to President Clinton on the UFO ET issues by Lawrence Rockefeller, as well as UFO ET briefings provided by others to high-level administration officials between 1993 and 1998?
Our government claims the UFO ET matter is of no consequence.
If so, why would such precincts have taken place?
That's, you know, only the beginning.
There will be more questions added to this list.
We expect your listeners will probably email in other suggestions and it'll continue to grow.
But this is campaign season.
John McCain may have been able to maneuver away from Frances Barwood's demands, but that wasn't under the cameras, and that wasn't in the middle of a presidential campaign.
No, it was directly between letters that were exchanged between her office and his office, and nobody knew about them, and Frances being the lady that she is, she refused to make it a major issue, and ultimately the opportunity came and went.
In this case, it's a very different arena.
He is in the national spotlight.
The entire press corps is there.
He is a military officer who served with distinction.
He is a veteran who has an extraordinary record.
He's been in the Senate for, you know, at least a decade, if not more.
He has a public set of positions to defend, and if a question is asked with seriousness and respect, I guarantee you it will have to be addressed.
I really like McCain.
They say he's got a temper.
That was a big rap.
I kind of like a guy myself with a temper.
A little bit of a temper would be nice for a change.
Here's a guy who was tortured as a POW.
I think he's hardened.
I think he's real.
I guess we can ask him these questions.
It's going to be hard for him.
He's kind of suffering now under a bit of an attack.
As it is, but yeah, I'd like to hear the question.
Well, he can only rise to the challenge.
Remember, McCain is not willing to be honest with the American people on something that he knows.
It's not like this is five states away and it has nothing to do with him.
The Phoenix Light situation and what happened with 10,000 voters and a constituency was right in his backyard, and as their representative, as their senior senator in Congress, he owed them.
At least he didn't have one of his staff put on an E.T.
I asked the Air Force and there's nothing there, end of discussion.
At least he didn't have one of his staff put on an ET mask and brought him out in front
of a microphone as the governor did.
Again, that's the old days.
I mean, I think it's time for the politicians, the people who want our votes and our money to go and serve us, supposedly, in Washington.
It's time they got to realize that those days are over and that we expect straight answers, we expect honest answers, and we're going to keep asking them and bugging them until they give it to us.
I mean, Peter, you were involved in a project with Larry Bryant on disclosure, from which cause, I think, sprang or was birthed or evolved or whatever, right?
Not Larry Bryant.
Cause resulted from the need to bring a lawsuit against the National Security Agency.
Okay.
So it arose out of that, Brad Sparks and Todd Zeckel.
But listening to Steve and Richard and Art, it's really frustrating for me because I see a practical problem.
I see a movement that is basically impotent.
We should have Or at least had a strategy in place to have people at these town meetings, at these debates, with these questions.
Our movement is so fragmented that we find ourselves in a position again of not being in a situation where we could take advantage of... I agree with you, Peter, completely.
Listen, we're at the top of the hour.
Everybody hold on.
We'll be right back with more of this.
Maybe there is still time to get some of you out there with the right questions.
And if you are not sure, you can always ask your parents.
I'm sure you can find some answers to your questions.
they go right at.
Well, call Art Bell from West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
First-time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
First-time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
Mobile card line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
And to reach out on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-727-1225.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Network.
That's who we are.
Good morning.
I have with me a whole array of people.
It's Disclosure 2000.
Richard C. Hoagland is here.
Stephen Bassett is here.
Mr. Gersten is here, and we're just going to tell you about all kinds of things, Peter Gersten, as we go throughout the night.
We're going to be touching on all kinds of things that relate to disclosure and how we can achieve it.
I've got a pretty encouraging facts here which I'll read you in a moment.
It lasts at least half the people I see are dead.
You mean that's not normal?
Alright.
Anyway, I think that the gentlemen on the line right now are going to be happy to hear this because I'm getting a lot of these.
This is typical.
This is from John, listening to WLS in Chicago, and he simply says, Art, hey, I just downloaded the questions, and when they have a town hall meeting in the state of Illinois, here, I plan on going and asking, I'll get back to you with a follow-up.
So I'm getting a whole lot of that.
That's really good news.
When we left, though, at the top of the hour, Peter Gersten was expressing some agitation at the fact that we perhaps were not as well prepared going into this as we might have been.
All right, let me address Peter's pessimism, all right?
I think we're exactly... Well, I'm not sure his pessimism was completely stated.
Was it, Peter?
Well, I'm not really pessimistic.
I'm a little frustrated.
I don't think it's too late to do what we have to do.
Well, I don't think you need to be frustrated.
Let me tell you why.
There's only a few people, a handful, mainly inside the Beltway who are called political junkies or policy wonks or whatever, who have been following the campaign up till this point.
Most people are not plugged in, paying attention, give a damn or whatever until After the Iowa caucus, which was this past Monday night.
Suddenly, a lot of people, particularly in New England, in the last week, particularly the National Press Corps, at the grassroots level, meaning the rank-and-file, the normal beat reporters on the regular news shows, not just the political shows on Sunday, those people are now plugged in.
People are kind of looking for the first time.
There's a large-body politic that, for the first time, is kind of saying, oh, we've got candidates in our midst and I wonder what they think.
So the election really began this week, the election cycle.
That's a good point.
If we had tried to do a show with Art, let's say two or three months ago, nobody would have given a damn.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Right?
They would have thought of it as five or six years out.
Attention fans are fairly sure.
I've got something I want to offer my audience here.
If one of the candidates appears on Larry King or any of the other myriad of television shows that are going to have them in these sort of town hall meeting atmospheres where you can call in, when you call in, Tell the call screener that you want to ask about campaign finance reform.
Great!
I'm serious.
Absolutely.
And then when you get on, pop the big question.
Precisely.
Alright?
Alright.
That's a hint.
Or the military-industrial budget, or how the Defense Department is spending our higher-than-tax dollars, or something like that.
Hammers, whatever.
Yeah.
Let me make one more little point here, and then, Steve, you can obviously say what you want to say.
The idea that we are all super organized.
I mean, the ET community, the UFO community, the extraterrestrial artifacts community, are very underfunded and woefully unorganized for a political campaign.
Where we have had extraordinary success is in appealing through this program, Coast to Coast, to ordinary people, who frankly, when it comes down to it, are extraordinary.
And it's those people that if they don't care, nothing will happen.
But if they do care, a lot can happen.
So there's no way, Peter, we could organize this, because we can't fund X number of people to sit at town meetings in New Hampshire.
It's got to be real people on the ground who live in New Hampshire, who give a damn about these questions, who take the things from the web.
We've got the web to work with.
Our job is to prepare people so when they go into the meetings, they know what they're talking about, and that's what tonight is all about.
One of the things is that Peter and Richard and myself are so busy that sometimes we forget to keep each other abreast of what we're doing.
The fact is that for the last two months I have been gearing up to make this campaign the focus of XPAC and the Get Out the Questions Campaign 2000 is in fact going to be XPAC's chief program.
I'm in the process of sending a fax to every single uh... office of the house and senate members including
their home district offices which number approximately uh... fifteen hundred as well as the five hundred thirty
five offices in warrens two thousand
telling them actually sent these questions to them telling them to expect
to be asked these questions There is already a site up on the Expect site about this.
There's going to be a lot more.
It's going to be talked about on the radio.
So, in fact, there is going to be, starting right now, an effort to try to organize this into a cohesive concept that people can get involved.
But I also want to point out that a number of organizations that are high on a single issue, in fact, do hire people to stalk candidates.
They follow them around and they ask them certain questions.
And that could be done here if the money was there.
But yet, there's something about this issue I think really requires that people, without being part of, say, a specific organization that's certainly being paid, go and get up and take these microphones and finally put these issues to the candidates who have not had to respond for virtually the last 50 years.
Well, given that Art has 500 affiliates all over the country, well represented now east of the Mississippi, big stations out of Boston and New York and Springfield and you know where I used to hang my hat and
given the the commitment of the Bell audience to asking good questions
I have no doubt that in the next seven days six days a lot of people are going to go to these town meetings
You're going to see by simply watching NBC CBS or ABC or CNN
You're going to see some very baffled reporters as to why questions are suddenly being aimed at important things like
secrecy national security the military industrial complex leveling with the American people on major sightings
whereas Harder said a few minutes ago more people in a Gallup poll
think that UFOs exist I think they're going to get a Social Security check
Even on that given, again, I said, I'm really serious about this, audience.
What you've got to do is what they do.
You've got to lie.
In other words, even in the TV shows where they roam the audience, believe me, they pre-screen the people so that they know what question they're going to get.
So why?
Tell them you want to talk about campaign finance, and then when you get the microphone in your hand, they can't stop you.
I'm very serious.
We'll have to come up with some UFO campaign finance questions.
We can do that.
By the way, Steve, you've missed only one.
We only have nine questions.
We need a tenth.
Well, there's going to be more.
This list will probably expand to 30 or 40 questions over the next 30 days.
I expect people to be emailing in suggestions.
There'll be more added.
But the thing is that the questions are crafted.
They're not just casual.
There are a lot of questions you could ask about this subject that would be so easy to blow off that it would be gone and over and gone in a second.
Sure.
They've got to be questions that really force them to address a grounded, reality-based issue.
In other words, Corso did exist.
He wrote a book.
He's dead, but the book's still here.
That kind of thing.
He was a real player.
He was a real member of the intelligence establishment.
He was an advisor to President Eisenhower.
And it's no shame to get up and read the question.
Sure, they start all the time.
But let's not forget that there's still plenty going on in the UFO movement that will generate new questions.
And one of those things, obviously, is Peter has been continuing to file lawsuits and it's been a while.
I wonder if you could give us an update of where the current lawsuits are and if you've got any ideas for any immediate new ones.
First of all, I think you need 19.5 questions.
19.5, no question about that.
If you have that number, then you can be sure that there will be asked.
Well, in about 11 days, knock on wood, I will be appearing in the U.S.
District Court in Phoenix, Arizona to argue the court's position against the Department of Defense's motion to dismiss the lawsuit involving those objects that you saw, Art.
Triangles that fly in our skies.
The issue will be whether the Department of Defense did a reasonable search And hopefully, unlike the Army lawsuit that CAUSE brought involving Colonel Corso that was dismissed the week before I was scheduled to argue the case, this case will not be dismissed and I will be arguing.
So if any of your listeners will be in the Phoenix area, or live in the Phoenix area, on February 7th, I suggest they check the CAUSE website.
I will know definitely on February 1st, next Tuesday, whether in fact I will be arguing that case.
Um, are you aware of the two police officers from the Midwest that I interviewed who had, actually over several police departments, many officers, but I had two police officers who came on and gave very dramatic descriptions of triangular objects coming right over their head.
Did you hear that?
Yeah, as a matter of fact, I called one of the police officers this evening because someone sent me a newspaper article which indicated That one of the police officers was approached by at least one government official.
I had heard that.
I was wondering if you were going to say anything about that.
Yeah, who took his sketch of the object and told him to refuse any media interviews.
What?
What?
Are you serious?
Yeah, I put in a call to him to find out what agency he was from or they were from.
And?
So that he hasn't called me back.
It was his day off today.
But I'm going to follow up on that.
And you know what I would like in court on the 7th?
I would like some of the witnesses who submitted the affidavits.
And if I can't get the witnesses who submitted the affidavits, I must have included about 35 affidavits, including yours, Art.
Yes, sir.
In opposition to their motion to dismiss.
So we're going to have a good time in court.
At least I'll have a day in court.
So that's the status of the court's lawsuit against the Department of Defense.
And that'll be an open court deal?
Open court.
Oh, that would be an interesting one.
I will know on February 1st whether we are a go.
Okay.
And that'll be great.
The other lawsuit, the latest lawsuit against the United States, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Governor of Arizona, as well as State of Arizona, is also in the United States District Court in front of another judge.
The State of Arizona, as well as the United States, represented by the U.S.
Attorney's Office, Move to dismiss the lawsuit.
Basically, their arguments are, number one, we're sovereign.
You can't sue us unless we consent.
Number two, you don't have standing to sue us.
Even though Article 4, Section 4, directs that the federal government protect the states, it doesn't give the authority to the residents of the states to bring a lawsuit.
And four, the executive branch of government has the discretion To declare an invasion or not, and it's not for the courts to decide or interpret or intercede.
So basically, as Steve said earlier, there's a separation of powers, and it's the executive branch that controls the decision on whether there's an invasion, and we can't go into court to force them to declare anything.
And what do you expect the result to be?
That sounds like some pretty heavy ammunition on there.
Well, it is.
I think it'll be dismissed definitely against Arizona, because the only reason we named Arizona is because we wanted them part of the lawsuit.
The Constitution gives, I guess, the power to the states, not to the residents.
So since we sent letters to the governor and she didn't even respond to the letters, we decided to name her as well as the state.
I think it'll be dismissed and probably be dismissed against the federal government also.
Hopefully the judge will ask for oral arguments and we can have our day in court.
But it's pretty clear that the cases are pretty clear that Um, it is the executive branch.
They call it a political question.
It's not for the courts to decide.
It's for the executive branch.
So, basically, unless... You know, the courts are deciding political things all the time.
In fact, in California, a bunch of ballot initiatives that have been passed by the people get overturned by courts.
Well, I don't know if that's on point.
I don't know if the issues are the same.
But in this particular case... Well, they're not.
But, I mean, they are things that... They're things that bear on the government.
And the courts end up overturning them one way or the other, saying that law is not valid or not enforceable or whatever.
Well, they talk about political questions the same as suing the government and trying to restrict their use of defense funds on, say, black projects or different military operations or suing the government so that their tax dollars are only used in a certain way.
And so forth and so on.
Basically it's, you know, California and Arizona sued the U.S.
government under Article 4, Section 4 at one time, to help with the illegal alien problem that they were having.
And the court, the federal court, said that's a political question.
It's up to Congress to enact laws.
And it's not up for the courts to tell the executive branch how to run the executive branch.
Well then, Peter, do you think your approach is going to continue to meet with brick walls and the better idea right now is to try to inject this whole issue into the political campaign ongoing?
Well, my position on disclosure has been consistent.
It's a practical impossibility.
It's never going to happen.
If you step back and think about it for any length of time, you'll realize that it's not going to happen.
No one in authority is going to admit that the American people have been lied to for 50 years.
Because if they did, it would create a media frenzy.
It would make the O.J.
trial and the impeachment hearings look like a minor diversion.
Okay, then.
Here's my question.
Remember earlier, Stephen, you said that Monica Lewinsky came and everything else stopped.
Maybe I could have phrased that in a better way.
Anyway, the Monica Lewinsky story broke and everything else came to a screeching halt.
Wouldn't that have been the ideal time for the president to do something very diversionary, like reveal something that would grab the headlines?
Peter may not remember this, but Dick certainly does.
A whole bunch of faxes were sent in to the top people in the White House, even including Hillary and her Chief of Staff, making that exact suggestion.
And the fax basically stated that there were people, and I think you know who we're talking about, that would come to Washington immediately and meet with the President if he wanted to bring that issue into play, to try to stop this endless nonsense that was going on.
I mean, there's a certain amount of self-interest there.
Uh, we did get, you know, there was an acknowledgement, I think, from the President that that information was received because the day after the State of the Union, he made a UFO statement.
That was the famous statement about Social Security, the one that actually Dr.
That's a good point.
You see, that was the second unprecedented event.
After the President survives the trial of impeachment, still has a substantial number of months left.
And as you know, we were on the show talking about the idea that this may be his legacy.
Take this as your legacy.
We're ready to help you.
Here it is.
Take it.
Sure.
What we didn't know is about the same time, Hillary Clinton was already doing the background discussions with respect to running for the Senate.
And so suddenly we have a new unprecedented situation where the spouse of a sitting president is going to run for a major office.
And if that president decided to go in the directions we wanted to go, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be a major blow to that campaign.
Yeah, but Stephen, imagine this.
I mean, even if the president had said, uh, look, there are things that I'm afraid even I don't know about this subject, the whole thing would have come unzipped.
He would have weakened it.
No, but yeah, whatever would have happened would have damaged his wife's campaign.
In other words, he was in an impossible position.
He's decided to take a path.
That means the next president is going to be the discreditor.
All right, hold on, everybody.
We will be right back.
You're listening to the Twin Cities Talk Station, AM 15 and up.
1,800 KSTV.
You brighten up my day.
Return of my pain Come sit beside me
Take me away Come sit beside me
Come sit beside me Take me away
Come sit beside me Buy at 1-777-417-8333.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
It is indeed.
Good morning everybody.
We are doing what we call Disclosure 2000.
And I've got a really, really good facts here that I think is Something I'm opposed to the group in a moment, and the group is composed presently of Stephen Bassett, Peter Gersten, and Richard Hoagland.
I'm Art Bell.
In a moment, we'll get back to it.
All right, the following question comes for the whole group from Joe in Bel Air, and it is as follows.
The questions are easily answered by McCain and the other candidates, except for Gore.
The answer to, are you aware, is, no, this is the candidate speaking, no, but if it's true, when I'm elected, I'll make sure that I find out the truth.
Since I'm outside the loop, as you are, I could not now say whether there's any truth to, and you get the idea.
The result of this answer would be to diffuse the question, Gain audience sympathy and allow it to be buried for the
indefinite future Gore on the other hand has a bigger problem since he should
be aware of what's going on since he's a heartbeat from the presidency
Of course, who knows whether the president knows anything?
How would he find out if the truth keepers don't want him to?
any comments oh Yeah, it's some some of these questions are better for some
candidates and for others But whatever the candidate says it's on record
It's on camera.
It's on tape.
And now you have a benchmark from which to work.
And take the situation regarding Corso.
A person doesn't have to wait to become president to read that book and be able to comment on it.
So there are plenty of ways to put them in positions where they have to make legitimate responses.
By the way, I'd like to make a... I want to get this out early so I don't forget.
As part of this get out the questions thing, any of your listeners who are going to be watching these debates in some of these town halls, even local stuff, who have a tape, VCR, try to keep a blank tape in there all the time so that if you suddenly see a UFO question being asked, tape it.
Take the response of a candidate, what follows, and then contact XPAC, and we'll try to make arrangements to get copies of those in here.
All right.
And those will be compiled.
Yeah, I mean, with this big an audience, really, I do think if we make an effort, everybody, to get at least each candidate asked once, if not more than once, then you're right.
We can sort of figure something out at the end of it all if people will just go out and help.
All right.
With all due respect to Joe, and it's a very good response to what we've presented so far this evening, There's also an easy way around it.
It's called redundancy.
Remember, you know, one raindrop does not make a thunderstorm, but 10,000 and you've got yourself a flood.
The idea here is that it's not just one person or two people.
It's 10 people, 20 people, 30 people.
If enough people start asking these questions, and they don't have to be just the questions on my website.
I mean, we've got intelligent listeners out there who have their own questions.
Sure.
The fact of the matter is that there is a trend and the press are going to say, hey, wait a minute.
These are things the American people really give a damn about, and it's novel, it's new, it's not taxes, it's not social security, it's not education, it's not healthcare.
It's even entertaining, and they don't like that.
Of course!
And I am sure there are very innovative people who are listening tonight who have their own experiences, or who have had their own experiences in the military, where they were told to shut up, or who were airline pilots and were told, you don't want to report that, etc., etc., etc.
Let me turn the subject here a little bit I want to ask Steve a question.
When you define disclosure, Steve, you defined it very carefully that the government officially admits the UFO presence in our midst right now.
Right.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay.
I would like to broaden the definition of disclosure because I think I can almost take bets on this that disclosure is going to occur irregardless, as my grandmother used to say, on a specific date in a few weeks That I can name and will name, and around an event that I will name and can name.
And that once this event takes place, there will be a series of other events that rapidly take place that will result in some kind of official discussion.
Not of the presence of aliens in our midst, but the presence of alien artifacts on official photographs taken by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
That sounds good.
And I'm speaking specifically to a major $120 million film Which is destined to come out March 10th of this year, with a press preview in Hollywood on February 25th, which is called Mission to Mars.
Oh yes.
In a few minutes I'm going to discuss the real mission, the Mars Polar Lander, but let me talk about the movie first.
And this feeds back to your question to Peter about his plans to put NASA in the gun sites.
Let me quickly stop you, Richard, and just say that I have been contacted by the people who are producing this movie, and they want to have a guest on about the movie.
I wonder what he'll say, or she'll say.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, if you could ask a question, which you can, because I'll ask it for you, what would you ask?
Well, it's the same question that I'm going to have a major correspondent for a major newspaper Uh, who is going to be at the press conference on the 25th, Ask, because although we are trying to arrange to be there and ask it ourselves, we may not succeed, but we, this evening, successfully planted the question with this major reporter who intends to ask in front of the entire press crew who are covering the premiere of the film on February 25th.
So, we'll have to see how this plays out, and as the next few minutes evolve, you'll see what the obvious question is.
Alright.
The point of fact here is that this film, Which is being directed by Brian De Palma, is a major sci-fi flick with $120 million behind it, produced by Disney, you know, put out forward by the Disney Corporation, which happens also on ABC, etc, etc.
I know.
De Palma has never done a science fiction picture before.
This is his first major sci-fi effort.
What is remarkable is the plot of the film, without giving anything away, I can tell you categorically that it's basically a revisit of the most remarkable parts of Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles.
The plot line goes something like, NASA sends mission to Mars.
Right.
Mission to Mars disappears.
Like the rest of them.
Yes, I mean, it's going to be a trend curve here.
NASA sends a second mission to Mars.
With mission to rescue or find first mission.
It disappears too.
No, always.
So in other words, something changes.
Something radically changes because the crew on the second mission undergo an extraordinary series of events and occurrences and bizarre things and apparently a lot of the 120 million is being spent on special effects The likes of which have never been seen on the screen before.
That's what I've been told as well.
As a matter of fact, the movie will not be available for screening until the very last minute because the special effects are so heavy and nobody, they say, has ever seen anything like it.
Well, here's... Alright, now the special effects are designed to visually compel the viewer, the audience member sitting in the theater watching this thing and listening on Dolby Sound.
That what they're seeing, in fact, is actually real.
And what they're going to be seeing as reality are a bizarre series of physical phenomenon that cannot happen within the purview of current physics, current space science, current understanding of how the universe or the Martian environment work.
The first shoe, the major first shoe here is we have learned through our sources in Washington and in Hollywood and then reaffirmed now by this major correspondent for a major newspaper That the place where the second mission lands to rescue the first is Cydonia.
Well, you couldn't make a movie like that without going to the place where the face is.
So, here comes the next shoe.
Brian De Palma, who is the director, remember, who's never done a sci-fi flick before.
Yes.
Was brother of, until he died unceremoniously and much too soon last year, My good friend and colleague, the physicist, Dr. Bruce DePalma, who worked with us for five years on the hyperdimensional physics coming from Cydonia.
Now, the key question, of course, is from you to members of the cast, hopefully DePalma, but if not, crew members, cast members, how much of the relationship between Bruce DePalma and Enterprise has wound up in Brian DePalma, director's script, of NASA missions going to a place on Mars called Cydonia.
And the last scene is they find the face.
I mean, that is the last 2001 kind of scene in the movie.
Now, this is going to happen the 25th of February and the 10th of March.
Date absolutely, unquestionably certain.
It has been our projection, based on a lot of research we have done that I can't get into tonight, but in a future program in the next few days or weeks, We will have time to really lay out with proper web documentation.
It is our position now that disclosure, in fact, is going to happen this year.
But it will begin with what we have said all along is the only natural way to begin this process of disclosure, namely with dead artifacts safely millions of miles away that we can kick around and discuss and play games with and theorize about.
Without the presence of those nasty aliens that might be in our midst.
Well, that would allow a non... What would be the right word?
Volatile reaction to the news.
Yeah, this is what is called in Washington, plausible deniability.
Now, the major reporter for the major paper that is going to ask the key to Paul McQuestion in front of the entire press corps at this film premiere, he is the one who told me that when Armageddon was rolled out, The Disney people had two official NASA spokespersons at the film to answer questions.
And of course, they technically had, you know, they did not fund the film.
They were not involved in the film except, you know, in terms of some advice on how to get to meteors or asteroids and comets and land on them and all that kind of thing.
But they were there in force.
He thought it was remarkable that they were there as a person covering film.
He is going to be looking and asking questions about how much NASA support behind the scenes De Palma has had for this picture.
Remember, we've been fighting an uphill battle for almost 20 years to get NASA to even admit that Cydonia exists.
To even get pictures taken with missions that go there.
Suddenly we have a $120 million motion picture, which is almost more than the real missions cost to go to Mars.
That's true.
And the mission is set at Cydonia.
I know, of all things.
Well, we're also for a movie.
I mean, they know where the public's interest is.
They're not fools.
Well, they certainly know where the coast-to-coast audience interest is.
Well, no, even the larger audience, Richard.
I mean, what do you expect?
Are they going to land on some red, barren, rock-strewn nowhere?
Or are they going to land where something extraordinary might occur if you're making a movie?
Not a hard answer.
Well, given the De Palma connection with us and with Enterprise and with the physics and with the experiments that De Palma conducted for years that are mind-boggling in terms of actually proving in the lab that this remarkable physics is real, All these extraordinary special effects you're going to see on the widescreen are going to be hyper-dimensional effects.
I mean, this is the $120 million infomercial for Enterprise.
All right.
I've got you.
There's another point here, though, and that's that the Lord is that NASA did provide support to this movie.
That's true.
Understand that the effect of this movie is absolutely going to raise the interest in Cydonia again, bigger than ever.
And that makes you wonder, does NASA understand that?
And if it does, is that because it doesn't matter?
It's a moot point.
In other words, is the dive and cast, and they're trying to capitalize on inevitable consequences or results of this work. SPS offerings have a
field day when this movie comes out.
Because it's going to be a lot easier, I mean, 100 million people go see this movie, or 50 million people,
it's going to be a lot easier to come and say, hey, guess what? Can they really be a face there?
So NASA's problem, assuming it can actually get up, you know,
When you say NASA, remember, we have said from the beginning, there is not one NASA.
There is a factionalized NASA.
to take some real photos and stop playing footsie with the SPSR scientists.
So all this is very interesting.
Let me go back to one other point.
When you say NASA, remember, we have said from the beginning, there is not one NASA.
There is a factionalized NASA.
There are good guys and bad guys, you know, suppressors and leakers
and people who want to see the truth come out and people who are afraid of their jobs, etc., etc.
It looks as if in this year, it's not an accident that this is coming out this year, based on our research, this has to be the year and that future program I'm going to do in a few days will lay out exactly why we can make that claim.
The good guys, the ones who have been waiting for the right time, they have now chosen this year in the new millennium As the time to begin the inevitable process.
Alright, so you believe it's about to happen, Stephen is lobbying for it to happen, but Peter Gersten, he's in court, Peter the quiet one here, batting his head against the wall, and he actually doesn't think it's going to happen.
So an obvious question for Peter is, Peter, if you don't think disclosure is going to occur, why are you consistently going into court battles that you will not win?
I don't think disclosure is going to occur voluntarily.
I think possibly through the judicial process we can cause something to occur that might not ordinarily occur.
If we can open the door a little bit through a hearing, through calling witnesses, presenting evidence, possibly we can create a result that wouldn't ordinarily occur through, say, congressional hearings or the political process.
Well, let me give you one example.
Specifically on NASA and this film, you try to subpoena or you demand through FOIA all documents relating to what went on between NASA and Disney relating to this film.
Can you do that, Peter?
I don't see why not.
I think we used to submit requests under the Freedom of Information Act to NASA in the 80s and they responded.
And I think, isn't NASA established by congressional directive, by legislation?
Absolutely, thanks to the FDA.
So let's subject it to the Freedom of Information Act.
And possibly, this is where it gets interesting, if it's possible to use NASA's relationship with JPL as a basis to try to get at JPL documents with respect to the last three Mars missions, and particularly the one at film, Cydonia, That could be very intriguing, and I would encourage you to do it.
One reason being that the public is a little less sympathetic to FOIAs at the Defense Department, Army, and intelligence agencies, because they sort of know that, well, you know, we have to have our secrets, and we all keep them safe.
NASA's a civilian, supposedly, space agency doing science, and I think they'd be much more supportive of efforts to get information about extremely interesting stuff, and upset if you get the same kind of stonewalling that you're getting from the military agencies.
So I would certainly encourage you to come up with some good, cleverly done FOIAs targeting NASA and a possible JPL.
Go ahead, Peter.
Richard's idea last year to take a look at NASA was the inspiration to bring the lawsuit under Article 4, Section 4, because basically Richard said to me, Peter, you have to think creatively.
And unfortunately, at that time, my focus wasn't with NASA.
It was with the Department of Defense and alien abductions and so forth.
But I think now I'm getting several emails from some of the course members saying, why don't we take a look at NASA?
You know, what's going on with all these missions to Mars that are failing?
All right, listen, you guys, hold it, hold it, hold it.
Top of the hour, who's staying, who's going?
I have to go.
You have to go?
Yeah.
I have to get up early.
Visit a death row inmate tomorrow.
Oh my.
All right, I'm gonna lay a bombshell about missing missions after the top of the hour.
All right.
I got a couple of things, so... All right, all right.
Steven, then hold on.
Peter, thank you very much and good night.
Okay, I'll keep you informed about February 7th.
seven please do.
The wheel in the grass is singing out all these things in our memories so long, from the years of the past to the
present.
I'm a sinner.
I'm a sinner.
Wanna take a ride?
Call Art Bell from West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
Want to take a ride?
Call our bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
First time callers may rechart at 1-775-727-1222.
The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1222.
And to call out on the toll free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nine.
Ah, yes it is.
Well, you know, I think the best idea of the whole night And I really mean this, is the questions.
The injection into the campaign of questions from you out there.
You can do it.
All of you can do it.
When you see a candidate appearing on Larry King or any other show, when you see a candidate in some sort of forum, you know, where they answer questions, town hall meetings, that kind of thing, well, go to my website.
Download the questions.
Assert yourself.
Call in.
And remember what I said, by the way.
When you get the call screener, be sure to tell them something like, you want to ask about campaign finance reform.
That'll zip right through.
Then when you get on the air, ask them the real question.
I mean, Howard sends his army forward with silly things, phone people up with.
This is not so silly!
And maybe we'll get a few serious responses, so...
Yes.
I think it's a wonderful idea.
Download the questions.
Come up with one of your own.
But get it to one of the candidates, one way or the other.
And let them know you're serious.
We've still got Richard C. Hoagland, who's got a bomb he's going to drop.
And Stephen Bassett.
We'll have Bassett for just a few more moments, so we'll get to him first.
and then Richard's farm.
Well, I'll tell you all the truth.
I was so completely disillusioned with this year's presidential race that I wasn't even going to watch the debates.
Haven't so far.
Wasn't even going to watch whatever coverage there was because I thought it would be not worth watching.
But with all of you out there helping out and carrying questions forth, I'll watch.
I mean, that would make it interesting, wouldn't it?
So, if all of you out there who have a mind to want to know the truth will get on the telephones and take the questions in front of the cameras, then I will watch.
It'll be interesting, to say the least.
Alright, gentlemen, welcome back.
Stephen Bassett, Richard C. Hoagland.
Richard, I want to first get Stephen on with a number of things.
I know he's got to go.
Absolutely.
You've got a bomb, we'll put the bomb on hold.
And Stephen, go ahead.
Okay, let me clear out of ground zero here.
A number of things.
First of all, I've been informed by Robert Bletchman and Larry Bryant that The Secretary of State of the State of Missouri is just about to sign off on the language for the State Ballot Initiative.
A UFO State Ballot Initiative there, which, as most of your listeners know, calls for congressional hearings through state election.
As a result, then it formally begins.
We're really underway.
As of tonight, a temporary site for the State Ballot Initiative went up at the Paradigm Clock website.
So someone can jump from your clock, go to the main page, and you'll see a button for the UFO State Ballot Initiative.
That site is going to be beefed up over the next couple of weeks with lots of contact information and so forth, and eventually we'll have a resting place at a high-impact site.
For now, the leader of that effort in Missouri is Bruce Witteman, W-I-D-M-A-N.
And he can, for those who want to get out and get those signatures, and they don't need that many,
give him a call and he'd love to have your assistance.
And that number is 1-800-489-4UFO.
1-800-489-4UFO.
There's obviously a number of people running for Congress in Missouri.
That obviously opens up the door for a lot of interesting questions there.
The other thing I want to mention is that it's continuing to develop.
It intends to make this question issue one of its major issues this year.
He has received about $1,700 in contributions and some people have said, well, that's not too much.
Are you worried?
And I'm not.
Are you hungry?
No, no, no.
It leads to my problems, believe me.
My hope is that I will not look like Marlon Brando by the time Disclosure gets here.
If you were to ask a hundred people what's the first thing you'd do if the barn was on fire, a lot of them would say, well, get some water.
The correct answer to that question is, when the barn is on fire, the first thing you get is a bucket.
The X-Pac is intended to be a bucket.
So far, people have put $1,700 in that bucket, and we greatly appreciate that they have done that.
The X-Pac needs about $100,000 to really do some serious paradigm busting.
If the public wants that to happen, then they'll fill that bucket up, and that's really what it's all about.
XTAC is going to have projects going on.
It's going to be involved in the USBI.
It's going to be certainly pressing this campaign issue and getting the questions out there in front of these candidates.
And I think this is going to be a very, very interesting year.
Yeah, I think that's a fun project.
I will actually watch the debates in hopes of somebody out there doing the right thing.
So that's pretty much it for Disclosure 2000.
I'll close with this.
Just not too long ago, Richard and I were in a position where I was really convinced we were going to get it in 1998.
Richard was not so committed.
He thought it was going to be later.
Now we have interestingly reversed roles.
Which now he is thinking that this is the year, certainly for the, maybe for the beginning of it, if not a formal action.
Right.
And I'm inclined now to believe it's going to occur in the first year of the next presidency, toward the end of the first year.
There's a lot of reasons for that.
So it's going to be fascinating to see who's right.
I'll settle for either one.
Stephen, as always, thank you, and I think the whole concept of getting questions into the campaign is really dynamite.
Always great to be on your show, Art, and good luck.
And I'll now turn on the radio here and find out what the bomb is.
All right.
Good night, Stephen.
Good night.
Stephen Bassett, everybody.
All right, Richard.
I guess this is it.
Okay.
Well, as you know, I sent you a fax earlier tonight by an interesting set of coincidences.
There's been a major story developing broke in the Denver Post yesterday.
Oh?
Which is actually the day before yesterday, the 26th, coming out of a meeting between JPL types and Lockheed Martin types over the weekend.
What were they meeting about over the weekend?
Mars Polar Lander.
What happened?
Oh, really?
All I've got is this story that they had a couple of signals that were so weak that they had to detect them, I guess, after the fact in the data that week.
Well, it's related to that, but it's much more interesting and obviously the kind of depth that you get, you know, on this program with people, you know, like ourselves, you're not going to get on CNN or Reuters or MSNBC.
We have a link right now to the Denver Post story on MSNBC on our website and on your website.
It's, you know, Mars Polar Lander back from the dead question mark.
Because a couple days ago, the Denver Post, which is close to the ground, the source is apparently Lockheed Martin, Yes.
Got a leak that, in fact, on December 18th and on January 4th, if I can go back to my notes here.
Right.
They, in fact, detected what may be a signal from Mars Polar Lander.
And I understand what this means and why this could be a real bombshell in the next few hours.
You have to understand that this spacecraft, like the one before it, the Mars Orbiter, and like the Mars Surveyor, Which is currently orbiting the planet successfully, carries two types of radio transmitters.
It carries the official pipeline, the big pipe, the big bandwidth pipe.
Right.
Which is an X-band, very high frequency, very short wavelength transmission.
Right.
With basically a dish antenna, like a little backyard satellite dish on the spacecraft.
Sure.
That aims at Earth and then the big antennas on Earth pick up the signal.
It carried, as a backup, For a variety of reasons we don't need to go into, another radio transmitter and a spiral antenna that's about the size of a coffee can called a UHF antenna, also high frequency.
Right.
The same kind you got on your roof if you're still not plugged into cable and you're receiving UHF television by your roof, by an antenna sticking on your roof or on top of your TV.
Sure, I've got one.
There are a few radios still equipped to listen to UHF transmissions or noise or signals coming from outer space.
One of them is the big 250-foot antenna at John Roe Bank in England.
Another one is the antenna at Arecibo.
Right.
Which can listen to UHF, because there's a lot of astrophysical stuff that goes on in the UHF bands.
Sure.
There's also an antenna, which I was very fortunate to be able to literally borrow a few years ago, just south of San Francisco on a hill north of Slack, the Stanford Linear Accelerator.
Yes.
To the east of the big highway there.
It's a 150-foot antenna.
It's an alta azimuthal antenna, meaning it swings up and down and left and right on railroad tracks.
And we borrowed it years ago to try to listen in on something being emitted by an astrophysical object or something else in the rings of Saturn back during the time when Jim Warrick and I were pursuing that, pursuant to what they'd found on the Voyager missions back in the early 1980s.
Right.
So I know the facility well.
Well, it turns out that this facility has been part of the Mars Orbiter, Mars Polar Lander project from the beginning.
Part of the effort would be to pick up signals from the spacecraft and relay them in a secondary mode via UHF frequencies all the way back to Earth The UHF signal would be far less directional by design and it would also be far weaker because of the physics involved.
So it would be a very weak signal indeed.
Is that the signal?
That's the signal that they think they have picked up on December 18th and January 4th.
Now what they had to do And apparently the project itself didn't commission this.
This was done by the enthusiasts at Stanford.
Because the radio telescope is actually run by my old friends at SRI International.
Well NASA officially gave up.
Oh yes, they gave up on the 17th.
Yeah.
But the signal processing, basically, you know, you get these signals coming in and you do a lot of processing and number crunching with a computer.
And there's all kinds of very sophisticated techniques that you can use now It's basically the radio equivalent of image processing and image enhancement.
Gotcha.
And you're reaching down in the noise, and you're looking for a signal.
Well, the advantage, of course, of signal exactly, the kind of signal you're transmitting.
And the frequency.
And the frequency.
So, when you make adjustments for rotation of Mars, rotation of Earth, time of day, ionosphere conditions and all that, you can basically reach very far down in the noise, and they apparently did this, And it leaked out.
It wasn't officially announced.
It leaked out and then JPL confirmed through Richard Cook, who was the project manager of Polar Lander, He said that, yeah, we've kind of looked at this.
They set up a test for this week.
Why does something like that have to leak out?
Isn't that interesting?
Well, that's a question.
I'm serious.
Why does it have to leak out?
Why wouldn't they just announce it?
It's a question to ask the candidates, all right?
Let's keep thinking what questions you're going to ask these guys who run NASA, who want to run NASA.
Right.
All right?
So it leaked out, and Cook, who is the official project manager, confirmed that, in fact, they were going... He did this in a written statement.
It's not on a press conference.
He said the signal the Stanford team detected, I'm quoting now from the MSNBC story this afternoon, is definitely artificial.
But there are any number of places it could have originated on or near Earth, which is true.
Still, we need to conduct this test, the one they ran this afternoon, to rule out the possibility that the signal could be coming from Polar Lander.
I'll have to lop over into the next half hour if I don't get to the checkpoint.
Oh, it's not a problem.
Goodie's here.
You've got to understand a little bit about the physics of this.
The X-band signals, which are the primary means, are extremely focused.
I mean, they move in straight lines, and when the spacecraft sets over the horizon as seen from Earth, you ain't going to get any signal.
Well, precisely.
In fact, if that dish is even slightly incorrectly oriented toward Earth, you're not going to get anything.
That's right.
Now, there are, however, unusually different properties for UHF transmissions.
Sure.
In the good old days, and you and I are old enough to remember, But there used to be VHF television.
Right?
Well, there still is.
There still is, but mostly people, you know, maybe in Appalachia are listening or out here
in the desert, but certainly not in cities, because everything is almost wired now.
But it used to be that you had to put up a coat hanger or a TV antenna on your TV or
up on the roof with big, like, you know, parallel bars.
I think I object to that characterization.
I still have an antenna like that here, and I use it every day.
You're in the desert, okay.
Yes.
But, I mean, it's not state-of-the-art.
It's been state-of-the-art for 50 years.
We have out here UHF translators that give us the Las Vegas station, so there you are.
Now, when UHF came in, and VHF was kind of superseded from the original channel 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.
You know, you had channels like 27, 18, 32.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They are of a much higher frequency, which means they behave a lot more like light in that when you get to the horizon, they kind of stop.
That's right.
However, if you've ever been a long-term teletubbie, you'll notice that there were times when you could get UHF transmission from halfway across the country.
Yes.
And that was due to the fact that the Sun ionizes the Earth's upper atmosphere, Actually, Richard, what you're talking about is more common in VHF than it is UHF.
In other words, the first channel it would be seen at a great distance with, say, a type E skip would be channel 2.
Oh, absolutely.
I used to get 2 from weird places, by the way.
Exactly.
But UHF also can be sunspotted flare activity.
It's a little more rare, but yes, it does occur.
Yep.
So the idea that UHF goes strictly line of sight to the horizon and that's it is not exactly true.
Not always true.
So I'm looking at this problem, and remember, we have been working quietly for weeks on what really happened to Mars Polar Lander.
And it has been our model that they hit it, like the others.
And that they did it because they wanted to either not let us know what they were going to look at when they landed where they claimed, or more interestingly, that they in fact did not land Mars Polar Lander where they claimed they were going to.
Remember how on the last show we had a questioner Who called in and said, Dick, what if they set it down somewhere else on Mars?
Oh, sure.
Sure, sure.
It's a risky kind of scenario.
But here's my problem with it.
If that's what they did, then they would declare it dead, and that would be the end of that.
But here we have this new little ray of hope that we may have been receiving some very weak... Well, remember, you're talking about they as if there's only Russians in this pie.
There are warring camps.
There's most of everybody, which are the quote good guys, the ones that still believe in the NASA charter.
Then there's a tiny group, maybe just two or three people, who know something more interesting and they're the ones who can dictate things to happen.
And the good guys don't even know that it's happened because they're not in the loop.
So then what you're really telling the bomb is, then, that a private group has found something that NASA didn't want found?
Is that about right?
Well, that the secret group of NASA didn't want found.
Yeah, exactly.
And it was a very, as we're seeing, the Stanford dish, according to my sources, that do not, by the way, come directly from the West Coast.
All right, well, hold on, Richard.
We'll be right back.
You could be running, going out of my life.
You could be thinking that I'm wasting my time, going way down.
No, no, no, no, no.
I'm with you.
I'll tell you what's wrong before I get up and start going way down.
You wanna stay after the fancy dress.
You're listening to the Twin Cities Talk Station AM 1500 KST.
This is a video of the Twin Cities Talk Station AM 1500 KST.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
First-time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222, or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1295.
First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222 or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1295.
To reach out on the toll free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them
dial 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Network.
All right, we're going to finish up what Richard is dropping on us about the Polar Lander, the lost Polar Lander, or is it the found Polar Lander?
We don't know yet, I guess.
And then he has graciously consented to stick around and take phone calls if you want to ask Richard C. Hoagland a question.
We're going to get to that shortly, so stay right where you are.
I should see Hoagland and Richard.
Okay, so we've got the Mars ladder spacecraft that was declared lost officially by NASA.
On January 17th, a few days ago.
Now we have a private conspiracy that thinks it's received signals.
Yeah, well we have two links on your site.
The first one is to MSNBC.
The second one I just got up is from the San Jose Mercury News, which as you know is the
great paper there in Silicon Valley in San Jose, which really knows its stuff.
And there's a gal who's interviewed us.
Her name is Glenda Chu.
She's a Mercury staff news writer.
She has got one heck of an article which is on our website called Signs of Life from Lander,
which was posted this evening.
She says that the guy in charge of this at Stanford Space Telecommunications and Radio Science Lab, his name is Ivan Lynn Scott.
He's the one that took weeks to process the signals.
Now, it gets really interesting down to the bottom of the article, because remember how quick the project manager was all gung-ho about they were going to follow this plan and do this and do that?
Sure.
He's in charge of a $165 million project that disappeared.
You would think he would be kind of intrigued that maybe they found something.
Let me quote you what he says.
Our experience with this sort of thing is that there are a lot of things out there that can cause this type of signal.
Basically, they're looking for a needle in a haystack.
You can get all sorts of weird stuff, it's a very difficult problem, and you can hear things which are not real.
Does that sound like someone who really wants to find his spacecraft?
That sounds like somebody from SETI.
Yeah.
Now, he says, however, Sure, she says he credited Lin Scott for persevering long enough to dig the possible signals out of a great deal of noise.
Yeah, okay, well here's what bothers me, Richard.
If it weren't for this one guy.
Richard, they know the frequency, they know the nature of the signal, how it's going to be modulated if it is, so they're going to have a pretty good idea of whether or not You know, they're getting something random from Earth, or even a military satellite, or the real thing.
Well, Lin Scott says they were at the right frequency, he said.
They changed pitch just as the lander's transmission do when its communications gear is warming up.
It looks like it could be it.
But you can't tell unless you do a test.
So, yesterday morning, JPL commanded the computer on the Mars solar lander, in the blind, To send another transmission to Stanford.
Right.
And at 4 o'clock Eastern Time this afternoon, that transmission was supposed to reach Stanford.
And there were a bunch of guys in the control room recording everything and listening.
Yes.
They said it would not be available to everybody, you know, because of the processing time, for days or even weeks.
This evening, I got a call.
And that's the call that I faxed you about.
From a source that I cannot reveal.
But I know the source is bona fide because it came through someone that I do know is absolutely bona fide.
Alright.
Who recommended that this person call me.
Yes.
And the quote was, he's the man to talk to about this Mars stuff.
This individual, who's talking with NASA people involved in this whole thing, stretching from coast to coast.
Yes.
Says to me, they heard it this afternoon.
That's the bombshell.
Wow.
The next piece of data that he gave to me was even more bizarre, because he said that it sounded like, and this was a quote from the project, it was coming from underground.
Oh no, oh no, wait a minute.
Now think about this, alright?
I am thinking about it.
Alright, now that's why I did in the last half hour the setup on UHF signals and how they are transmitted.
Yes.
Because if the Stanford dish is looking at Mars, when the Mars Polar Lander is supposed to be in
view.
Yes.
Meaning it's in the southern hemisphere with that hemisphere turned toward Earth.
Right.
And the lander is really on the other side of the planet, approaching one of the limbs,
because the time that you would listen is when the spacecraft is near the horizon.
If it came down where they thought it came down.
I'm saying if it didn't come down where they thought it came down.
In other words, let's assume that, let's assume initially that it landed exactly where they wanted to land it.
Okay.
You would then time your listening for when the Mars rotation would move that site over on the edge of the planet.
Of course.
Because the UHF signals, for those folks that aren't technical, go out in a fan beam horizontally.
So you would have to be at the edge of Mars to get the signal to Earth.
Right.
But at the same time, if you look at the geometry of where we think they really landed it, which is Cydonia, That's where you think it is?
Of course!
Because the Mars Polar Lander site is almost exactly opposite the Cydonia site.
If you look at Mars, look at the globe of Mars, and plop the 195 longitude ellipse, if you simply lifted the spacecraft up a little bit by a burn just before, remember I said there was a burn that morning?
I do.
And moved it 5 degrees to the left, which is really easy when you're that far out, about a million miles out when they did it.
You would wind up entering the atmosphere on the other side of Mars at Cydonia.
Trivial, if you know what you're doing.
Which means all the official effort, all the honest guys looking for the lander were looking in the wrong place.
But the Stanford guys, because the way UHF signals behave, particularly in terms of the dielectric properties of the Martian surface, the soil, and the unusual properties of the ionosphere, which are not like Earth, Yeah.
Our model is that what they were hearing was a faint echo bounced off the Martian ionosphere around the curvature of Mars from the other side over the horizon.
And yes, it would be a muffled signal exactly like it was buried underground.
Um... First of all, we don't know anything about how UHF would duct or propagate on Mars, so...
Your contention is at least reasonable.
That could happen.
No, actually, we do.
No, no, no, no, no.
But wouldn't they make the assumption with the lander lost that it might have come down at some or any other site with an atmospheric problem.
It could have literally come down anywhere.
So wouldn't they be testing and commanding and listening?
No, no, no.
Because of that entry corridor.
In other words, the Newton's laws being what they are and the trajectory calculations being what they were that morning.
They had a very narrow ellipse of where they knew it came down.
In other words, if it was following the stated mission flight plan, it had to be within that very narrow ellipse that was marked on all the maps that we've seen all over television.
Yeah, but how much confidence is there that it was... Oh, very high.
The so-called three sigma, which is the really high precision, puts it somewhere in that ellipse, which is like 30 miles wide and maybe 200 miles long.
It's a very tiny part of Mars.
Very tiny.
I have another question for you, and I think I might have asked you this, I'm not sure.
NASA actually said at one point that they were going to have the Hubble telescope look for the parachute on Mars of the lander.
No, no, no, not the parachute.
I'm sorry, not the Hubble.
The Hubble could not see anything at Mars.
They were going to have the Mars Surveyor.
Oh, that's right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's right.
But you brought up something else that my source tonight said.
And again, well, first of all, let me let me qualify.
The reason I'm not broadcasting his name, he gave me his full name and where he works and all this is because I promised him not to because he was terrified of his job.
Furthermore, his wife did not want him to call me at all, and I could hear her in the background during the conversation being very upset and agitated.
He was even talking to me.
There is fear in the minds and hearts of these people.
Communicate to the candidates that this level of secrecy, this black ops nonsense, has gone to the level where people working in conjunction with a civilian space agency think they're taking their life or their job in their hands when they pick up the phone and talk to us.
Let me play devil's advocate for a second with this whole thing, Richard.
NASA has had a series of disasters on Mars.
Or at least... Well, two.
Well, there have been a series of disasters, not just ours, but Russian as well.
A lot of disasters on Mars.
In fact, this last one was bad enough that rumblings are going on in Congress about, well, gee, maybe this isn't such a better, faster, cheaper program after all.
Maybe we better rethink everything in the budget and... Oh, I wish he was still with us, because what I wanted to announce earlier is that tonight, during the presidential debate, during the Republican debate, The anchor for WMUR, which is the New Hampshire station, actually asked two key questions related to Mars and the missing polar lander of Steve Forbes.
So everybody get your questions, because the ice has been broken by the anchors themselves.
And they asked him if he would continue vigorous exploration of Mars, and he, by the way, said yes.
And he talked about, you know, faster, better, cheaper, and, you know, putting NASA back on track and all that kind of thing.
My point is, why would they allow, from a budget point of view, from a publicity point of view, why would they allow yet another disaster that would likely get their funds cut?
Because you're dealing with a secret rogue group.
You're not dealing with official policy.
I have said from the beginning that this is being done by a handful of people who are in positions to give orders and no one questions.
And the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
I know, but they're threatening the goose that lays the golden egg, the 160 million dollar golden egg.
If the funding is cut, they can't play games anymore, can they?
Well, but maybe that's not their only source of funding.
Maybe NASA has been a false front town from their perspective.
Maybe they want NASA to die, as we said, you know, on our last appearance.
There's a lot of ifs here that we cannot begin to speculate about because we have no data.
What we do have data, as of this evening, is that after two Let me ask you a follow-up question.
And that is, let's assume for a second that we do make contact with the Mars lander.
Scott persevered and his team through sources apparently heard a successful signal on UHF
this afternoon. Let me ask you a follow-up question and that is let's assume for a second
that we do make contact with the Mars lander. Obviously they're going to try then in some
way to command it to orient the X-Bandish toward Earth properly.
Um...
Is that in fact what would occur or what would be next if we hear a weak signal and fall down and can't get up or whatever?
Well, here is the official party line.
They say that even if, this is Cook now, even if a signal does arrive from the lander, there is little hope that any sign stated could be gleaned from the spacecraft because Of the weakness of the UHF signal, they're assuming that the primary signal, that the primary transmitter is kaput.
Yeah.
That the X-band transmitter is out.
Right.
And that the UHF transmitter has somehow been compromised so that it's sitting there where it's supposed to be, but the reason it's so weak is because it's not really broadcasting with anything like full power.
Right.
However, if our scenario is correct, and now all the folks that are listening to us from NASA, from Stanford, from JPL, Who don't admit they listen to us.
I mean, I feel like Playboy sometimes in the brown paper wrapper.
Yeah.
But we know they do.
You honest guys, if you just realize that maybe it's not at the South Pole, maybe it's at Cydonia, so what you need to do is to wait until that longitude comes around and listen when the spacecraft is in full view.
I don't suppose you know what the UHF frequencies are?
Of course, it's 401 megahertz.
401?
Even?
Yeah, well, not even, but in other words, the actual frequency is published On the San Jose Mercury News, and there is a website, which is out of Stanford, which I will put up on our site and on your site, that gives the actual technical specs of the Mars Relay Experiment, which is what this is officially called.
So, even amateurs with good ham equipment May have a shot, although because it's so weak, I mean, this is a 150-foot dish.
I think that it's going to be a little bit beyond your rig, okay?
Well, you know, I've got some really good UHF radios that cover that frequency, and I've got a nice 12-and-a-half-foot dish.
Nothing I know.
Well, the problem is that if they're listening at the wrong time, in other words, if they think it's on... Let's use Earth as an analogy.
Assume that we landed, and I'm going to make up stuff here.
Let's assume that they landed in L.A.
when, in fact, it landed outside Moscow.
If you were on Mars and trying to find the spacecraft, and you only listened when L.A.
was in view?
Yes.
You would hear the faint echo of the refracted bent signal coming from Moscow, but it would be way down in the noise.
Right.
If you waited until Moscow came around, rotated around 12 hours later... You'd have a big signal.
You'd have a huge signal.
I'm telling the guys, the good guys who are listening to us at Stanford and NASA tonight, just listen when Cydonia is in view, and have JPL run the test again, because of course the way The only way that JPL could have rigged the test this afternoon is to have the spacecraft broadcast at the wrong time so that it would never even receive a signal to send a signal.
In other words, if they sent their signal when it was ostensibly in view at the South Pole, the signal from JPL from Goldstone would never get to the lander because that is X-band, that is line of sight, that is like light, and it couldn't go through Mars to get to the computer on the polar lander.
They have to send the signal in this model when the spacecraft is in view, and if it's really at Cydonia, and not at the South Pole, it would explain all this data, it would explain why they got a positive tonight, and it would explain why they're freaked out and why this guy barely called me, because he frankly was afraid that he would be, you know, outed, that I would talk about him on the air.
I had to spend a half an hour assuring him that my days at Cronkite and on, I have learned how to keep sources confidential and private, And no one would ever find out how we got this information.
Okay, so the information from him consists of the fact that they did earlier... This afternoon.
This afternoon.
Get a positive signal.
Another signal.
Yep.
On UHF.
Another weak signal of the same type?
Yep.
And that it appeared to be muffled like it was from underground.
Now, this guy is not a technical guy.
Well, RF now, see, I've got a problem with that.
RF signals You would not be able to, if that thing was in the ground a little bit, and there was some RF getting out enough so they could hear it here on Earth, you would not hear, Richard, a muffled sound.
In other words, you would hear a weak sound.
There would be nothing about that sound that would tell you, hey, I've got two inches of dirt above me.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You're taking me too literally.
The guy I'm talking to is relaying information from the technical people.
He is not a technical person.
I understand.
He's a managerial person.
Oh, no, I've got that.
He is using metaphors.
All right?
He's not saying it's literally underground.
Oh.
He's saying the signal characteristics were like it was muffled.
Oh, I see.
All right.
Well... And I'm saying that if you were on the other side of the planet, or on the limb, and you're coming around, the phase shifts in the ionosphere and the refraction over the horizon would give you the kind of signal effects that would look muffled It would not be a precise, clear signal.
It would be a down in the noise, shifted signal.
Alright, I'm glad you cleared that up.
Yeah, yeah.
We're dealing with some metaphor here from a non-technical person.
The key thing is, this can all be cleared up if the honest guys listen when Sidoni is in view.
Well, that shouldn't be too hard to do.
Alright, let's break here.
When we come back, I want to open the lines.
Let's see what people ask you.
How about that?
Absolutely.
Alright, good.
We'll do it.
Richard C. Hoagland is here.
He'll spend the last hour on the phones.
So if you have a question, Here we are.
I'm Art Bell.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
Turn the beat around.
Love to hear percussion.
Turn it upside down.
Love to hear percussion.
Love to hear it.
Oh, Martin, you're so pretty.
Turn it upside down Love to lift it fast and shut
Love to steer it Oh, Martin, you're so pretty
Your body will just keep moving Till the next day, green tea
When you hear the clapping Just as you start scratching
Then you know that rhythm Carries all the action
Whoa!
Ooga-chaka-hoo When you ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho
In your arms so tight Won't you let me know, everything's alright
I put on a feeling, I'm high on believing That you're in love with me
It's as sweet as candy, the taste is on my mind Girl you got me thirsty for another cup of wine
Wanna take a ride?
Call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
Call 1-800-618-8255. East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
First time callers may reach out at area code 775-727-1222 or call the wildcard line at
775-727-1222.
To talk with Art on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
That's exactly what it is.
Good morning, everybody.
Richard Seahogland is here, and we're about to go to the phone.
First, though, the usual required and energetic commercial messages.
See, I knew that we would get this kind of facts just real quickly, Richard.
It says, Dear Art, if there is an alien base on Mars, due to the lack of atmosphere, it would certainly be underground.
The Mars lander signal says it's underground.
One plus one equals the lander is underground in their base.
Thank you, Lonnie.
Well, I disagree because if it was underground, we wouldn't hear a damn thing.
Alright, this man has obviously never tried to receive UHF signals, you know, from... Well, he took you literally.
Well, you can't.
The characteristics for a non-technical person sounded like it was underground, but in fact, it may be where we said.
Now, Keith has got the link up.
I got him the link to the official Stanford site.
And there's all kinds of wonderful technical details on this Mars Relay Downlink Experiment, including parameters for HAM site detection.
All right.
So all you have to do is go to your site or our site, Enterprise.
All right.
Well, I'll be all over it.
And you'll find all kinds of neat stuff.
They did two tests of this in 1996, when the Mars Surveyor was en route to the Red Planet.
Right.
And they got all their data.
Everything they needed.
All the results are there.
And the same equipment was carried.
It's French equipment, by the way.
The CNES, the French Space Agency, furnished the antennas and the transmitters.
Figures.
So this is done in association with the French.
It's the same gear that was on Polar Lander and on the Mars Polar, I'm sorry, the Mars Orbiter.
So there's a lot of interesting stuff here.
The key thing that I'm pegging all this on is Lin Scott is for real.
Stanford's for real.
The Denver Post is for real.
Sure.
And there is no way, unless somebody knew I was going to be on the show tonight, and this is an official, dedicated leak, so we do exactly what we're doing... Don't overlook that possibility.
...to transmit to the honest guys.
Remember, I'm not claiming this has actually happened.
Yeah, I understand.
I repeat... I'm claiming it could happen.
Right.
There's a way to test if it's happened.
And if the honest folks want to really solve this mystery, listen when Cydonia is in view.
Yep.
All right.
In fact, the longitude between Cydonia and the Mars Polar Lander site ...is less than 180 degrees, Art.
I just figured this out.
Alright?
It's about 10 degrees less.
So, if you had the... So, it's not quite opposite, but close.
It's not quite opposite.
So, look at the geometry.
If the Mars Polar Lander is on the sunset horizon, going away, on the edge of the planet, Cydonia would be on the sunrise horizon, on the other hemisphere, the northern hemisphere, coming around the planet.
Which means, if they're timing it for Bopton and reception from the south polar site, They actually might have, by accident, picked up the faint signal coming around the bend from where it really is.
Well, it's a possibility.
I know those telescopes are hard to get time on, so they would probably only listen at a specific time, and you're saying they ought to vary that a little bit.
All right, I've got it.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
Hi.
Yeah, me calling from Gainesville, Florida.
Okay.
Um, we had a couple questions.
Um, first of all, these guys are, um, obviously they're rocket scientists, but wouldn't they have already thought to look in Sudonia?
Like, when they didn't show up first, wouldn't they have already, you know, like, well, hey, maybe we missed.
Yeah, I already asked that question.
The answer is no, because it was a very narrow place that it could have come down.
Okay.
And another thing... If you're on an airplane, which is headed between New York and Los Angeles, and you suddenly are missing The search-and-rescue people are not going to look in Saskatchewan or in Tierra del Fuego.
They're going to look somewhere between New York and Los Angeles.
Right.
This is the situation here.
This spacecraft, unless somebody deliberately sent it radically someplace else, they would assume, the honest guys, that it's somewhere where it was supposed to be.
And that's a very tiny location, almost exactly opposite where I think it is.
Next question.
Okay.
So, you said, like, with the honest guys.
I mean, who...
There seems to be a lot of government, like, cover-up conspiracy going on with this whole Mars thing, with, like, the face on the Mars, and then, you're kind of, you know, the way you're kind of talking with this, like, the honest people.
Why would the government spend so much money going to Mars that they're just gonna keep everything so secretive?
I mean, why even go, or why publicize it?
Right, okay, alright.
Well, the answer to that one is... Again, you have to differentiate between the official policy, And the sneaky manipulations of a tiny group who are manipulating everybody, including the rest of NASA.
This is not official policy.
This is a small handful of people who change frequencies in computer codes so that even the honest folks that they are dealing with don't know that they're the ones behind the cover-up.
All right.
We're correct.
All right.
Bob Hardline, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
Hi, Richard.
Missing Learjet, Tim Culling from Coal Lake, Alberta, Canada.
Yes.
Long story.
Yeah, that's a long story.
I'm on an airbase up here in Canada, a regular caller to our show, and I've been on, well, I don't know, four times in the last couple of months, and I've been maintaining that the NPL landed and was there, and mildly trashed by Ed, who said it burned up in the atmosphere, but I hope I'm vindicated here within the next couple of days, but... It may take longer, but... Yeah.
See, the way I read this is there's just too much coincidence about this.
I think that we've got honest guys and dishonest guys, and the honest guys have figured out they've been snookered.
Frankly, I don't think this was accidental.
I don't think Lin Scott, just because he had nothing better to do, was looking for this signal.
And I think that he persisted in a way that had to politically get through the system to get the right kind of test.
And the fact that he's not himself holding a press conference tonight is because now that he's got a signal and he's got proof in hand that this thing is not gone, He's got a real problem.
What the hell really happened?
Yeah.
Because he's now figured out that somebody is lying big time.
And that, of course, is like finding out that your mother or your... I mean, these people believe in the NASA family.
If I had a dollar for every time I was told not to make waves and keep it in the NASA family, I'd be able to fund Enterprise on those things alone.
So you've got a real psychological hurdle here.
A lot of people who are participating in this, who are analyzing data, or who are looking at this on the web, or talking to each other, are probably going through one hell of a psychological trauma, because this now would prove to them that they're going to be very disturbed as to what they do next.
My question, You know, dealing with NASA.
We've got, actually we've got here up in Cold Lake, the Air Force Base here in Alberta, we've got two teams of NASA astronauts coming in tomorrow night for a cold weather survival, winter survival out in our practice range.
Oh yes.
And they're going to be up there and they're in for some cold weather, that's for damn sure.
Any of the guys that went to the moon?
Or are these shuttle crews?
No, these are shuttle crew people.
Okay.
Yeah, absolutely.
My question really deals with The fact that, uh, you know, NASA is a big organization.
It's huge, and no one likes to get... Wait, wait, wait.
Stop.
Stop you there.
Why are shuttle crews testing survival in the Arctic?
Well, it's northern Alberta.
It's not the Arctic, but the weather's pretty darn close.
It's not weather survival.
Cold winter is for, you know, pilots get it.
I guess air crews... Yeah, but wait, wait, wait.
The shuttle cannot get to those latitudes.
There's never a shuttle mission that will ever come down in those latitudes.
You know what?
He's right about that.
Why are they testing?
In those latitudes, what do they expect to be doing?
Maybe, uh, you know, I could probably answer that by saying, um, cold weather survival, you know, for the individual would probably be, remember Apollo 13?
I know, I know that jet pilots go through it.
Yeah, that's right.
Um, Apollo 13, remember when they had that?
You're talking about a moon mission now.
A moon mission could have landed anywhere to get home safely.
But not the shuttles.
Not the shuttle.
when they lost pressure in Apollo 13 it got really cold inside
and they had to operate in very cold temperatures and memory loss and all that kind of thing. I don't know man,
that's pretty good point.
Well yeah, that's true too, but this is a real thing.
A question that basically Richard is is that, you know, it's such a huge organization
and when it comes to egg on the face, would they take this type of hit?
I mean this NPL thing may find them all in the appointment line.
Remember, we're not talking about the official big agency.
We're talking tiny rogue elements within it that are twisting and manipulating and pulling strings, and the guy right next to these people doesn't even know they're playing on another team.
Well, how about Dan Golden?
Wouldn't he know?
I mean, he's the same guy.
Why?
He'd have to be in on it.
How would he know?
Yeah.
Hey, Art?
Yes?
Did you ever see Jurassic Park?
Yeah, I did.
My favorite model is the computer guy in Jurassic Park who loused up everything.
No, it's not.
for a dollar. I mean, we're not talking to these people who are doing this for dollars.
But basically, one guy at a key position in a technical system with nobody suspecting
can run rings around everybody else. Particularly if no one suspects that they're being run
rings around. And the NASA mantra is, everything's open, everything's open, everything's open.
Well, it's not. No, it's not. As a matter of fact, NASA actually
has a mandate for some time now to have been privatizing, and they have not done it at
I mean, just a tiny percentage of what Congress mandated them to do have they done.
They're keeping it all in-house.
Now, the other thing that's interesting, and this goes back to this shuttle astronaut suddenly doing polar area field exercises.
Yes.
There was a secret meeting between NASA and the Russians held this week.
Oh?
The discussion, it came out, it was held in Houston.
It was not supposed to leak, and it eventually did.
Eventually, there was an official story on AP a couple of days ago.
I sent it to you over the weekend.
I think I sent it to you Monday.
It came out on Friday.
It was specifically designed to discuss manned missions to Mars.
The reason you would test shuttle astronauts in the semi-Arctic conditions is if you expected these guys to suddenly need survival and Arctic-like temperatures in a field condition Which is very much like Northern Alberta.
Oh, isn't that interesting?
And there's another meeting scheduled for later on this year.
This is the year, Art.
I can prove that this is the year of disclosure and we're going to have a lot happen between now and the election.
And I disagree emphatically with Stephen that it's going to wait until the next president.
It's going to be this administration And that may explain a lot of weirdness regarding the Clinton administration and all that's going on to try to get this man out of office.
All right.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
Hi.
Hi.
I'm Larry from Montreal.
Montreal, yes sir.
Yeah.
I would like to ask two questions if you'd like.
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
The first question is about the mission Pathfinder.
Because we don't seem to have the result of the experiment they made there.
Well, there were published documents.
There's a book written by Golombek of the National Geographic on the mission.
There are a variety of pictures, overwhelming numbers of pictures on the official website.
What's peculiar, if you look at the book and you look at the website, is that all the photographs are very peculiarly fuzzy.
And they've changed from the initial images that came down live on the CNN link, and I've done extensive presentations on our website, EnterpriseMission.com.
There are a lot of pristine images, including some that we got directly from CNN before they mysteriously changed as part of the official NASA website.
So if you want to learn what was really found on the Pathfinder mission, go to EnterpriseMission.com and just start doing a word search on Pathfinder.
All right.
Okay.
And my second one, do you think by looking only at Mars they might make a diversion to not look at Venus?
Now, what do you mean by that?
It's like they get everyone to go to the mission to Mars to... Oh, I see.
Oh, I see.
All right.
Why all of the... Why all of the concentration on Mars?
Well, the obvious answer is it's closer.
Well, there's also an even more obvious answer.
It's livable.
Venus is Earth-sized, but its atmosphere is a thousand degrees Fahrenheit.
It's a hundred times the surface pressure of the air that we're breathing tonight.
And it's mostly carbon dioxide.
Venus is the closest approximation of Hell that we're going to find in this dimension.
Mars, although it is, in the words of Elton John, not the kind of place to try to raise your kids, It's a kind of a poor Earth.
It's a glaciated Earth.
It's got a thin atmosphere, but it's got definitely handleable temperatures with any kind of technology.
And in a space suit, or even a good face mask, you can survive on Mars without much of a pressure suit.
And that's what makes this polar field expedition, this Northern Alberta field expedition by shuttle astronauts, who may be the crews picked to go to Mars in a manned mission, on the very, very, very fast track, All the more interesting, because Mars is the only place that you can send humans without much technology to actually survive.
I'm also told in a generation or two, probably, Mars, if we wanted to, could be terraformed.
Yes?
More like four or five.
I mean, it would take a hundred or so years even with some of the best ideas that I've seen.
But yes, you could produce a Mars much more Earth-like with current ideas and technology.
Fascinating.
All right, Western Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
Good morning, Art.
It's Greg from Thunder Bay, Ontario again.
Hi there.
So I've got one quick comment for you on Somewhere in Time and then a question for Richard.
Just go straight to the question for Richard.
Okay.
Richard, with the good guys in NASA, how likely is it, though, that they could get the information out if they find it, if this little cadre that's in there finds out that they're doing it?
I think that what we're seeing in the last several days are deliberate leaks by the good guys.
I mean, I think the story in the Denver Post, I think the fact that they were able to politically get an actual test, meaning uplink commands to the lander, and then the guys at Stanford listening at the right time, and then this call tonight was just too amazingly timed to be coincidence, alright?
Richard, what can they have it do?
What can they try?
Let's assume that they confirm they've got UHF Weak contact.
We can pump out lots of RF from Earth.
We can get commands to it.
What can they command it to do and try and resurrect the mission in some manner?
If we are correct, and it's sitting safe and sound in Cydonia, then there's nothing wrong with it.
And that means that if you send commands... That's one possibility, but let's for a second assume What they're saying is true, that it's down about where it was supposed to be, but it's tipped over, or, you know, down on the side of a mountain, or in a crevice, or whatever in the hell.
What can they send on UHF to try and resurrect the mission?
Well, remember, they sent the commands to have the UHF system fire back.
Correct.
On the X-band.
Right.
So if it responded, and they got a successful detection this afternoon, It means there's nothing wrong with the X-band receiver on the spacecraft.
Well, if there's nothing wrong with the X-band receiver... Then what Cook said is a lie!
Because, remember, we have a broken antenna on Galileo, right?
That would imply... I didn't realize what you had said, apparently, before.
You're saying...
We transmitted on X-Band and commanded it to transmit to us on UHF.
You got it.
And of course... Well, then that means the X-Band dish has got to be pointed accurately at Earth.
Surprise, surprise!
Uh...
So then, you could assume, uh...
You might assume a broken transmit or an X-band transmit, uh...
That would be one possibility.
you In which case, you would have a much lower bitrate for UHF, but you could easily conduct some of your mission through UHF.
Again, regardless of where it is, what happened this afternoon, if this source that called me is correct, it means that there's a spacecraft out there alive and well, and the Stanford guys have found it.
And Cook admits that they were doing it on their own time.
He congratulates them on their persistence.
Meaning it wasn't an official persistence.
It was because these folks really give a damn about the space program.
Sure, sure.
And we're not willing to let it go.
Alright, hold it right... We're honest guys.
I got you.
Hold it right there, Richard.
I'm Art Bell.
This is Coast to Coast AF.
And we're going to be right back.
More Richard C. Hoagland.
Holding you is a warmth that I thought I could never find Just trying to respond
Or stay by your side I know I could cry
I just can't find the answer to the questions that you've got through my mind
Baby, you're the one that I need to find Cause I'm falling in love with you
You're listening to the Twin Cities Talk Station AM 1500 KSV We are the best
I'll never love him for a moment Call Mark Bell in the Kingdom of Nye from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
First time callers may reach out at 1-775-7255.
Please call 1-800-825-5033.
First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1295.
Do reach out on the toll free international line.
I mean, this is right down his alley.
He's gonna melt when he hears this.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nye.
I'll tell you, I've got a fax here for Richard. I mean, this is right down his alley.
He's gonna melt when he hears this. So we'll do that in a moment.
Alright, first of all, I have a Richard Hoagland kind of fax.
I mean, if there ever was one, this is it.
Richard, listen to the following.
And then I've got some hard questions for you, okay?
Great.
All right.
Dear Art, here's an interesting tidbit on the Mars Polar Lander for Richard.
The longitude and latitude of the landing site given by NASA is 195 degrees west by 76 degrees south.
The 195 in 195 degrees is a variation of the hyperdimensional number 19.5 commonly found at Cydonia.
The 76 is 76 degrees, which is symbolic of the year 1976, the year in which the Viking spacecraft took the first pictures of Cydonia.
Therefore, the real location of the Mars Polar Lander, which is at Cydonia, is encoded in the official latitude and longitude given by NASA.
I agree.
In fact, there's hard data here.
There's a story now on the MSNBC website related to the decision by the project to change the landing site in the last few weeks because they saw these canyons and craters and whatever.
Yes.
And with great resistance, they claim they were sticking to the original plan even though, you know, at the end of the ellipse there was this huge hole they were going to fall into if they overshot.
Right.
Because of some other reason.
And this factor, obviously, is on to what we've been on to.
We published this, you know, months ago on our website, that this choice of the 195 longitude was absolutely 19.5.
So, he's absolutely right.
There is a reasonable suspicion, based on the Denver Post, you know, story, that the faint signals are coming from around the planet.
By the way, I was looking through this technical website which is up now linked on ours, you know, Scotty Roland is on the job.
Oh yes.
So if you want, if you're an amateur radio astronomer, you can find everything you ever wanted to know about this UHF relay, including the downlink frequency which is 437.1 MHz.
437.1, oh that's different.
And they involved amateurs in the early relay test back in 96.
And there's a whole listing there in QSO did something or QSL.
Sure, I can listen to that frequency with high gain.
All right, listen Richard, here's some hard questions.
All right.
One, if Mars Polar Lander was appropriated by some sort of covert group and made to land at Cydonia, Wouldn't they be using X-band communications?
Why would there be any UHF transmission at all from the Mars Polar Lander?
Unless Richard is suggesting, let me finish, that the covert group lost control at some point and the spacecraft is executing pre-programmed communications re-establishment protocols.
I agree.
Now let me tell you what we think they did and here's where my source tonight, I mean this is a guy We have not leaked any of this to anybody.
What I'm about to tell you I was going to put together, and I still will put together, in the official thing we're going to put on the website, which will be extensively documented, but I told nobody this.
Our suspicion was that when this thing got lost on December 3rd, and it was landed at Cydonia instead of in the South, they've been doing this great public show of having Malin take pictures of the landing site, looking for the parachute.
They've had the Stanford team listening to the UHF and there's nothing there, etc, etc, right?
Right, right, right.
The actual means by which we think they have got the data home is to send the data from Mars Polar Lander to Mars Global Surveyor on the UHF link.
When it gets to the Surveyor spacecraft, it is put into Malin's It's right in the official documents.
Okay, I'm already with you on that one.
Then, how did they get it from the surveyor back to Earth?
This is where this guy absolutely knocked me over with a feather tonight because he had come up with data that he had no way of knowing unless he's on to something.
He said the second piece of weird information coming out of today's test was that somehow the Hubble Space Telescope has been involved.
He said, could they see it?
I said, of course not.
There was, and is, a laser on board the Surveyor spacecraft.
And there's one on Hubble as well?
No, what you do is you send the data via laser, and Hubble is the pickup receiver.
I've got you, alright, I've got you, alright.
Now, on December 19th of 96, and this will be part of our web posting, there was an official test in space between Earth and Mars of the downlink signal processing capability Of using the on-board laser to carry information back to Earth.
I remember reading about that, yes.
We've got the documents.
All right, um, here's... All fits together.
Now, this guy had no way of knowing that Hubble was even part of our scenario.
Gotcha.
This is getting really intriguing.
Let me continue with what this man wrote.
Two.
Under a conspiracy scenario, where a covert group had sufficient control to divert active control of the spacecraft away from the main group upon initial landing, Why would the covert group not have sufficient control now to prevent the issuance of the main group of a UHF transmission command, which Richard indicates has now resulted in the reception of a second UHF signal?
Well, we have said from all along that the only reason that the covert group has been winning is that the honest guys weren't even aware they were in the game.
Right.
And as soon as you, and particularly we, on your show, raise again and again the suspicion It doesn't take much to begin to look around and ask questions.
It's only when you don't even know you're being horn-swoggled that you can be horn-swoggled.
So what I think has happened between December and now is that the good guys, the honest guys, are beginning to reassert control.
And the covert guys are on the retreat.
Okay, well here's a clinch area.
If Mars Polar Lander were under active control by a covert group under X-Man Communications, It would seem the spacecraft would not be listening to any UHF commands from Earth, or could easily be commanded to ignore any such commands.
Under all scenarios, it seems that if covert control were assumed, it was subsequently lost, as indicated by the reversion to UHF communications, unless the covert group is intentionally using UHF to mask more obvious communications, even though bandwidth is sacrificed.
There are a lot of potential scenarios.
We don't know exactly which scenario to look at, but just looking at the technology, we know that this thing can receive X-band, we know it can also receive UHF, and there are uplink frequencies which are 401.5 and 405.6 MHz for reception by a UHF receiver on the spacecraft.
In our prime scenario, the only way they could get the data from the surface of Mars up to
Surveyor was UHF.
And they thought it was safe because they were on the other side of Mars.
Everybody's looking over in Los Angeles and it's really in Moscow.
What they didn't count on was the dedication of this guy at Stanford and the fact that
UHF signals can do funny things in an unusual environment and Mars in this case helped us
by means of its ionosphere and perhaps the properties of the surface and bent the signal
around as a faint echo that the Stanford dish may have been able to pick up.
Interesting scenario.
All right.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland.
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
This is Bay from St.
Louis, and I live in the neighborhood of Stanford, and NASA Ames, and SETI, by the way.
It's an interesting neighborhood.
Yeah.
I'd like to get your comment on two things real quick, and I'm going to go in and out.
The first thing was, what amazed me was with this last shuttle launch, they were real quick, we had to get it done, we have to get this thing launched, because we have to open the eye of Hubble.
Now, that was their words, not mine.
The thing is, I sent you Mike Farah and I sent Art and even Whitley Streber a little
blip of an article that I found that said that on that shuttle mission they unfurled
the Mars flag.
I remember that fact.
Alright.
And that group that designed that flag is based in the Arctic, by the way.
The Mars flag?
Did you have...
Pardon me?
You said the Mars flag?
The title of the article was, Mars Flag Unfurled in Space.
What?
And that was the last shuttle mission, remember?
No, this is very true.
There is an official Mars flag for the first manned Mars mission that was flown quietly with no fanfare on the last shuttle mission to repair the Hubble.
Which they had to hurry up, which they had to hurry up.
First of all, we know what happened on the Unforced Challenger incident.
And these people, in the face of Y2K, in the face of extreme weather, somehow had to get that shuttle up there Oh, they even violated their own launch rules in terms of the last day.
Remember how it was only supposed to be Saturday and they went to Sunday?
Yes, they do.
They had to get it up there?
Yes.
Our scenario is that they didn't lose the gyros when they claimed.
You know, they just took it away from Goddard.
Because Goddard is looking at radio signals from Hubble and if it says it's broken, it doesn't mean it's broken.
Remember, you're looking at a virtual reality world in a computer.
Right.
You're only looking at data that's coming in through a TV screen or a computer screen If somebody's diddling with your data, you don't know it if you're part of the honest team that's not supposed to know it.
But you do understand the symbology of that?
Oh, absolutely.
That's why I'm very intrigued with our guy from Alberta who claims there's a bunch of shuttle astronauts doing Arctic maneuverage.
Absolutely.
That's the time.
And the second thing, and real quick and I'm in a mop, is that with this Jack Parson, who was one of the founders and one of the key players in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which a lot of people Still nicknamed that facility the Jack Parsons Laboratory, JPL.
Absolutely.
Once again, go to the Babylon Working.
Once again, I don't care what people's beliefs are, but look at his beliefs and what he did in that Babylon Working.
This was the man who was one of the founders of the space program.
Look at his beliefs and look at Von Braun's And understand this.
We have begun to put up on our website a series of posts beginning tonight.
I hope so.
Which says something about the things are getting serious.
All right sir.
In the next few weeks we're going to lay out what we think has been the scenario and who the good guys are and who the other ones not so good are and what the timetable is and why this is the year of disclosure and why these various incidents I don't believe are happening by accident.
I think this signal And this whole brouhaha over UHF signals is not because of just randomness, but because it is a leak.
It's the good guys fighting back finally, and they're doing it through a mechanism of the press, through art shows, through work like ours, and they're going to let the American people push for ultimate disclosure because they're basically burning their own.
They have figured out that they've been snookered along with all the rest of us.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard C. Hogan.
Hello.
Hi, Art.
I'm calling from New York, listening to WPHT.
In Philadelphia, yes.
Yes, sir.
Richard, it's a great pleasure to speak with you again.
This is John Vincent Sanders.
Hi, John.
Thank you again for helping me with that Fate magazine article in 1998.
It was a big success.
I'd like to suggest to you an alternative scenario for why NASA astronauts might be training in arctic conditions.
Okay.
As you know, there's a The U.S.
Air Force and Boeing Space Systems were trying to develop a mini-shuttle called the X-40A.
And also, there's the ongoing X-33 Venture Star program.
Right.
Lockheed Martin.
Right.
Now, the Air Force has wanted its own private space fleet for years, going all the way back to the old Boeing X-20.
And Dinosaur, which was X-20.
Right.
So I'm wondering... Now, I may be mistaken, but please correct me if I'm wrong, that the International Space Station will have a circumpolar orbit... Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
The highest orbit is now something like 50 some degrees to match the Baikonur launch site, but it is not polar at all.
Okay, so here's my scenario and see what you think about it.
Do you think it's possible that the Air Force is still trying to, and Jim Wilson commented on this in 1998 Popular Mechanics with the new Area 51 story, that the Air Force is trying to create its own space interceptor squadron which may operate in polar regions as part of the Ballistic Missile Defense Program.
That's a plausible theory.
That has legs.
We can look at that.
The other possibility, of course, is if you're coming back from Mars, and you miss your re-entry corridor, and you want to get home safely, you'll take any place to land, which could include the polar regions.
Well, thanks a lot, Richard.
Nice to talk with you again.
Take care.
Thank you very much for the call, and take care.
West of the Rockies, without a lot of time, you're on the air with Richard C. Hoagland.
Good evening, Mr. Bell, Mr. Hoagland.
I'm calling from Juneau on KANY.
Juneau, Alaska.
Yes.
In the polar region.
Well, this is pretty much south for me.
But I was wondering if anybody's... I understand we lost one of our recent probes that we pushed out by metric and English conversion contamination.
That was the Mars Orbiter, supposedly.
Yes.
Right.
Now, I wonder if anybody's extrapolated the data on what would have happened if even the re-entry sequence on this little lander would have been Contaminated like that.
Oh, that's an interesting question.
Or were they absolutely sure they had their act together, Richard, when they re-entered this craft?
Oh, well, that was checked 16 different ways from Sunday, and they put new teams on, and Golden put his reputation on the line.
No, I don't think it's the same problem at all.
I mean, officially and even unofficially, that's not the explanation.
The question is, did they really lose Mars Orbiter?
And I have serious doubts of that failure, given... Remember the woman who had dinner with one of the Lockheed guys that I reported on?
Oh, yes.
And who claimed that he was absolutely dumbfounded, and that he was so broken up about it, and yet he did not use the metric of the English system.
He kept discussing everything in terms of metric.
Yes.
And Tom Van Flandern, who, as you know, runs at Warp 9 from some of our More interesting conspiracy scenarios.
Yes, I know.
He said from the get-go that this metric English nonsense was nonsense, that it was a cover story.
And I was dumbfounded that Tom Van Planter would even use the word cover story.
I didn't think he had it in him.
But in fact, it doesn't make any sense.
It was something the press would be satisfied with, something the politicians could, you know, take to the bank.
It looked like a dumb, stupid mistake because it's diversion.
I think both spacecraft are alive and well.
I think they were part of a covert team mission, and I think the way the Stanford guys got onto this is because the Mars environment let us hear something, and their mode of getting the information back forced them to use the UHF mode.
They just got caught.
Let's pray they got caught, and let's pray that there's some kind of revelation out of Stanford in the next few days.
You're really something, Richard.
I'll give you that.
You're really something.
Listen, I want to take a minute here at the end of the program to, again, give you a chance to urge people to download the questions or concoct one of your own and go to the meetings, call Larry King or Whoever has the political candidates on, and ask the questions.
Let's hit them with that once more.
You know Art, with all due respect to you, you have an extraordinary reach.
You have done something that hasn't been seen since Long John Nebel did it in the New York area.
You have a lot of people focused on the search for truth and honesty.
And if there's one thing this campaign season needs, it's a little more truth and honesty.
The Art Bell audience can have enormous power.
By simply downloading these questions from your website, or our website, or Steve's website, and, you know, go to your website, and there's links to all this.
And add your own, and stand up in these Open Town Meetings, or phone Larry King, or the other talk shows, and simply keep asking the questions.
The way things get done in this country is by repetition.
Look at commercials, look at advertisements.
Sure.
Over and over again, the same stuff.
If enough people in the Bell audience, the audience that counts, that makes a difference, which has demonstrably made a difference, If they begin asking these questions, there's no way this campaign is going to stay the same.
No way!
So, again, let me give my little caveat.
When you call in, and I really mean this, or when you're in an audience and a screener comes to you and asks what you're going to ask, which they will, before you get on the air or as you're sitting there waiting to ask a question, Tell them you want to talk about campaign finance reform.
Tell them you want to talk about social security funds.
Tell them you want to talk about a tax cut, healthcare, anything.
Lie!
Do what they do, and then when you get the microphone, ask the question you want to ask.
Now, I've never asked my audience to do this before, but I think it's a reasonable tactic to get to the truth.
Well, as Emily Dickinson, one of my favorite poets, used to say, she said, Art, tell all the truth, But tell it slant.
And so folks of Coast to Coast, just tell the truth when you get on the air but slant it a bit so you can get on the air.
That's right.
You've got to get your foot in the door, and that will do it.
Otherwise, trust me, if you give them this question up front, they'll slam the door on you and you'll never get in.
That's a little inside tip, and it's an honest one.
Richard, as always, what a pleasure to have you on.
Wild ideas, to be sure, but that's what you've always been about, so I wouldn't expect anything else.
It's been a definite pleasure.
Richard, you have a good night, and when you're ready with the rest of what's coming in a few days, you let me know.
I sure will.
And America, good night and go to the polls.
There you have it.
All right.
That's it, folks.
Night-night from the high desert where it just blew and blew and blew yesterday.
Boy, did we have some wind.
Maybe more today if the models are correct.
I'm Art Bell.
▲
Export Selection