Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 14, 2000 - Art Bell

02:33:09

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard C. Hoagland - Mars Panel Discussion

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	...deep in the ground.
	The wind and the flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
	Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
	To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing.
	To have all these things in our memories.
	All the reasons to come Ride, ride my seesaw
	Take me to Christ on the street Just for me
	Ride, ride my seesaw Take me to Christ on the street
	Just for me Wanna take a ride?
	Well, call Art Bell from West of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First line callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	The Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First line callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard 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 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Network.
	Last hour, we had what I will call Incident in Arkansas.
	And we had two eyewitnesses, Peter Davenport here from the National UFO Reporting Center in Seattle, Washington, along with Jane, we'll call her Jane, who saw this object which turned, she said, day to night, night to day actually, excuse me, night to day, white light, and then a red spherical object with sort of dancing
	Licks of fire coming from it.
	She was followed by Mr. Al Collier, just outside Little Rock, Arkansas, who heard all the reports and took a digital camera and went out to the site of this... Well, what are we going to call it?
	Crash?
	Of this presence of some sort of craft?
	Are they meteorite?
	We don't know.
	He took photographs of at least of one of them.
	Now really bizarre stuff.
	He said the firemen were describing the trees as dripping fire from the top of the trees.
	But they weren't burned at the top.
	They were burned at the bottom.
	Inches into the tree.
	Really, really a bizarre story.
	And before we begin with Richard C. Hoagland and company, and there's plenty of company, we've got a young lady who's an airline hostess, I guess, stewardess on a major airline.
	Where are you, ma'am?
	Hello?
	In Texas.
	You're in Austin, Texas now?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you want to give us your first name or no name?
	It's Carolyn.
	Carolyn?
	Yes.
	So, you're a stewardess?
	Yes, sir.
	Big airline?
	Yes.
	And you were flying on that night?
	Yes, well, it was Sunday night.
	And did you want me to go ahead and describe it?
	I sure do.
	Okay, we're flying approximately 32,000 feet going about, I would say, 525 miles an hour.
	Right.
	That's whatever you want to call it.
	And we're going from Memphis to, excuse me, Memphis to St.
	Louis.
	St.
	Louis.
	And it was approximately 9, 10 p.m.
	And our flight path crosses the northeast section of Arkansas into Missouri.
	Right.
	And I was serving first class, and as I was bent over serving 1A, which is on the left side of the aircraft, I noticed that my eyes indicated this movement coming up on it, I'd say at least 700 miles an hour, which was faster quite a bit than what we were doing, which is something I very rarely ever see, if anything.
	Probably something you don't want to see.
	No, and...
	Put your arm out at length and hold a nickel.
	It was about that size.
	And it was round, and it was kind of a cloudy, misty-looking surface on it.
	And it was changing kind of color to a light and a reddish light.
	You know, this thing is not a plane because it doesn't have its lights on it.
	So I asked the lady just to make sure I wasn't seeing things, and she saw it.
	and it was coming up on us and she said yes I do and I don't know what it is.
	At your apparent altitude above you or below you?
	Oh I'm sorry it was I would say that it was about 28,000 feet it wasn't that far below us
	and it was coming up and it was out on our left wing I would say oh I would say a couple thousand
	feet maybe over but anyway it was coming up and all of a sudden the light on it went out
	and we strained our eyes and every so often which didn't I guess the next 10 seconds
	We could see sparks going over the top of this metallic dome-looking thing.
	It was like a spherical metallic ball, and when light went over it, you could kind of see the metal shining on it.
	That's what we... Holy smokes!
	Right.
	And so I rushed out to the cockpit to inform the captain, and they, of course, you know, they're saying, oh, what, you think you see a UFO?
	Well, I said, well, you need to check on it, you know.
	It's off.
	It's coming up to our left side.
	So I went back to see what the lady saw again to look out and she said it went underneath us and to the other side.
	So I went to the other side of the aircraft and I couldn't see it anymore.
	But it was close enough to where you can detect the metal and the metal spherical look to it.
	But the white light and the reddish light went out and then it formed this sparks over the very top of it and I'd never seen anything like it before.
	So then I guess when you heard these two in the last hour, you went, wow, that's what I saw!
	Right, and I was a little bit concerned because I thought, well, maybe I was seeing things, but the lady and another passenger confirmed that they could not identify it, and it was flying too fast for any aircraft that I've ever witnessed.
	And so neither the pilot nor co-pilot saw it?
	No, and they didn't want to talk about it either.
	They didn't want to try that out.
	No.
	And I was, of course, you know, I kept talking about it and they just... Well, nothing was reported, so we're not going to say anything, so... I said, well, I reported it, the passengers reported it, but you're not going to say anything or ask anything?
	Well, we haven't heard anything, so that was it.
	They wouldn't talk about it.
	Obviously.
	No guts, no glory, okay?
	No guts, no glory.
	As my brother in Dallas says, no guts, no glory.
	Alright, well I can't tell you, I wish you would contact, if you've got the guts, I don't know about the glory, but I sure would love to have you contact Peter Davenport.
	Uh-huh.
	Well, I actually did just before you.
	I hope you don't get upset I called him before you.
	No, of course not!
	But I did want to report that, and I did leave a phone number for Peter to call if he'd like.
	In that case, he, I'm sure, is quickly checking his machine.
	Thank you.
	Okay, thank you.
	Yes, and good night.
	Pilots, they don't like to report those things.
	All right, he has won an Angstrom Science Award.
	He was an advisor to NASA and to Walter Cronkite during the big years of the U.S.
	space program.
	He is Richard C. Hoagland.
	He has been on sort of a series of nights in the first hour, I think last week, a couple of nights.
	Uh, when we were all anticipating the Mission to Mars movie, which we're going to talk about, because I, as well as Richard, and boy, we've got a lot to talk about.
	And, uh, hanging on the line is David Giammarco.
	We'll get to him in a moment, uh, and tell you all who David is.
	I know some of you may have not caught the first hour last week, so we'll be starting, for some of you, from ground zero.
	Here is, from near Albuquerque, high up in the mountains, Richard Seahogland.
	Richard, welcome.
	Yes, near expensive Albuquerque.
	Well, Richard, do you have any comments?
	I just had sort of a little bonus interview there.
	A stewardess in the first class section, serving the customer in 1A, and you know where that is if you've done a lot of flying, and she saw what all of these other folks saw.
	Well, what's even more extraordinary is I happen to know this person.
	Now that... And when you said you had a young lady who was a stewardess?
	Yes.
	I turned to Robin and I said her name, and sure enough it was her.
	And it's fascinating because she's a very good witness, you know, she's grounded.
	If you can consider someone who spends most of their time in the air as being grounded.
	Richard, the world is... I know the world is small, but it's not that small.
	Well, she has a predilection and an interest in this, and she has spent a lot of time in the air, you know, with other people just kind of...
	You know, glance out at the night sky if they're, you know, serving.
	She's actually looking.
	So being at the right place at the right time, she, I guess, saw something pretty interesting and confirmed that there was something quite remarkable in the skies over Arkansas that night at that time.
	Yep.
	And furthermore, what she described is very consistent with aerodynamic behavior.
	Remember how she talked about the sparks going over the dome?
	Oh yes.
	Well, if for some reason this thing was emitting some kind of luminescent particles, Then the flow pattern, as you described, would be exactly what you'd expect.
	Well, somebody came out and dug up something and took it away, and we've got photographs of the area.
	Yeah, and you don't do that with a meteor.
	I mean, these days, you know, if NASA finds a meteor, they, you know, go to Congress and say, look, we may have life in it.
	That's right.
	Give us more money.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Well, I guess that's what we do here, the inexplicable.
	Oh, it only goes to show you, Art, that the Bell family, as I was saying earlier, is coast to coast and beyond.
	And it's those of us that really want to get to the bottom of this that are ultimately going to make a difference, I guess.
	Yep.
	All right.
	Let's talk about Mission to Mars.
	Oh, an exquisite experience.
	You saw it which day?
	I saw it Saturday night, here in Albuquerque.
	And the theater was packed.
	And fortunately, they had arrived earlier and gotten tickets.
	Otherwise, we would not have gotten in.
	What's remarkable at that level is that there has been this incredible, you know, drumbeat of negative, because I have never seen a film, a major motion picture film since maybe, oh, I don't know, The Bonfire of the Vanities, which was a film done with Bruce Willis as one of the stars and directed by De Palma, which has received so much pre-negative publicity.
	So I was going in expecting, you know, grimly, well, we were able to throw a dog here.
	And remember the fact that you're cheering for the folks that are dying?
	Yeah.
	Well, I'm looking at my watch and I'm watching this stuff and I'm thinking, this person is dingbats.
	This is a good film.
	This is, you know, it's the 90s.
	I mean, it's late 90s, early 2000, but it's, and it's not 2001 because De Palma obviously was going for story and character and involvement and warm, fuzzy, emotional stuff.
	It's a very interesting scene.
	With the young astronaut and his son, who's worried that daddy's going to be away for a year or two years.
	I'm sitting there wondering, why are people so pissed off at this movie?
	And the more I watched, the more that thought became a very important point of analysis.
	Because it's almost like you have two different movie goers that have gone and seen this.
	Well, I know why they're pissed.
	Those that love it, or those that like it.
	And those that really hate it.
	Yep.
	And the fact that, I mean, look, the worst thing you can say is there are a lot of missed opportunities.
	Now, I'm prejudiced because I happen to know a great deal of things that could have been put in this movie, which would have made it the most extraordinary film of all time, but that's me.
	That's because of the research we're doing.
	The fact is that if you're going as a moviegoer, as looking at this as a work of art that has to be internal to itself, which is the only way you can really view these things, A lot of the feedback I'm getting is from folks who say, hey, it's pretty damn good, and the effects are extraordinary, and the feeling of being on Mars and over Mars is, you know, wondrous, and the end scenes, you know, when they get to the MacGuffin, as Hitchcock used to say, is done with grandeur and with hope and with... I mean, it's got a lot going for it.
	This film is not a dog.
	So then, why all this publicity that it is?
	Why did CNN, for instance, review it and say, This movie is the worst of all time and it gives bad names to bad movies.
	Which I think is slightly over the top.
	It's almost as if there had been a frenetic campaign, a political campaign, across this past weekend to keep the American people from going to see this movie.
	Oh my gosh, you don't suppose they wouldn't want us to see a movie about Cydonia and the other things on Mars, do you?
	Okay, it didn't work.
	Not at all.
	I understand they made a very great deal of money.
	3.1 million, which turns out to be the second highest gross for March of all time.
	And the highest film gross for this year.
	We're well, you know, we're three months into 2000.
	So this film has opened wide.
	It's open handsome.
	And what's really interesting is that the best reviews come from young folks, from 13, 12, 10 year olds.
	I have a friend who's in the film business.
	She's an executive.
	And her daughter, who's 13, has seen everything, been everywhere, done everything, and reported when they were coming out of the theater, she said, Mommy, this is the best movie I've ever seen.
	And it's because it connected to that level.
	It is a children's movie, in part.
	I mean, he's aiming, obviously, for the next generation, the children of whom it will be normal.
	Think about going to Mars, and what's waiting on Mars, and what it has done to those of us on Earth, and a revised view of who we are, and our history, and where we come from.
	It's obvious that's one of De Palma's objectives in this film, and apparently, he really brings it off for that age group.
	Yeah, Brian De Palma is still refusing to be interviewed on the movie, right?
	He is missing, although we lose from David shortly on that.
	Alright.
	Speaking on CNN's Pinnacle program on Sunday, March 12th, NASA's Dan Golden said, human beings will be setting foot on Mars in no less than 10 years and no more than 20.
	Now, that doesn't quite follow faster, better, cheaper unmanned and all the rest of it.
	10 years and no more than 20.
	Wait a minute.
	Yes?
	Golden's timetable.
	Yes.
	And in women.
	Yes.
	Was 30 years.
	30 years.
	What happened across this weekend to cut it down to 10?
	You don't suppose that the ending of the De Palma film is telling us what Golden and company are going to drop on American people, some as a way to spur the Congress to appropriate the money ...to do a John Kennedy within the 10-year time frame, which of course from this year would be 2010.
	Okay, Richard, I saw the movie Sunday, and we've had... My take is that it was not a very good movie.
	I disagree with you.
	However, there were spectacular messages in the movie.
	Not only that, but most of all, Cydonia.
	We'll talk about that.
	But there were other things that need to be discussed about this.
	Things that were all wrong.
	And so we'll get to those and, uh, Mr. G. Marco coming up shortly.
	I'm gonna check all this out.
	I'm Art Bell.
	East of the Rockies 1-800-825-5033.
	to get away and I think we'll be back.
	You want to take a bell 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 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard line is open at 1-777-8255.
	And to call out on the full 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.
	Richard C. Hoagland is here in a moment.
	David G. Marko will be here.
	He's been, uh... Well, actually, he's in Hollywood right now, trying to follow the diploma trail, I guess.
	So we'll get a report from him and discuss this movie in a little more detail, but... Just flashing back now to the incident in Arkansas.
	I got this fax.
	Art, the crash and cover-up of the object in Arkansas sounds like a repeat of what happened in 1947.
	Al's description of the field being plowed up sounds like what happened after the object at Roswell was recovered.
	Like the rancher in Roswell, the farmer who owned the field was intimidated into silence.
	The presence of magnesium at the large burn site sounds like a component of what was found in parts that came from the Roswell Craft.
	The break-up of an electrographic craft would be the only logical explanation for the magnesium-ringed craters the size of basketballs.
	The weird lightning seen by Jane and the bizarre burn marks among the trees.
	This crash I'll put a question mark there.
	Is obviously another confirmation supporting the existence of electro-gravitic craft based on hyper-dimensional technology.
	The same technology that has been described all these years on your show by Richard C. Hoagland.
	Yours truly, Daniel Perez, Jackson, Michigan.
	And I thought that fit in quite well.
	Something for you all to think about.
	We'll be right back.
	By the way, folks, the current issue of Time magazine is hitting the newsstands right now.
	And in case you don't get Time, you can go to Richard Hoagland's website and it reviews the movie.
	And let me read you one key paragraph in Time Magazine.
	Quote, this solemn, often silly, sometimes Probably the least, um, fictitious film of director Brian De Palma's, uh, career.
	Echoes, listen now, Richard C. Hoagland's 1987 book, The Monuments of Mars.
	Hoagland postulates that the planet was once inhabited by superior beings on Earth.
	So, that's what Time Magazine said.
	You know, when I was called and told this was in this week's Time, you could have knocked me over with a proverbial feather, because, my God, there is a God!
	Somebody remembered, the guy's name is Richard Corliss, who was one of the senior writers at Time.
	David G. Amarco actually tried to call him today to get me back to when I originally published The Monuments of Mars, A City on the Edge of Forever, back in 1987.
	And, you know, when he was sitting through it, obviously he had some thoughts like I had, you know.
	Can you imagine how I must have felt sitting there, been at this almost 20 years, trying to tell people what NASA's been hiding from us?
	I mean, sitting there and 20 minutes into the film, suddenly there's this spectacular scenery of Mars And in huge, you know, sans-serif yellow letters, it says, Cydonia!
	Cydonia.
	Okay, now I just want to give you my quick... I didn't think the movie was that great, Richard.
	So, in that we disagree a little bit.
	It was a $120 million dollar affair.
	And here's what I see wrong with the movie.
	Number one, as you just pointed out, it said Cydonia.
	NASA consulted.
	NASA was all over Said NASA.
	NASA consulted.
	NASA was all over it.
	There's no way in hell NASA would have made a film about Cydonia.
	No way!
	It was wrong with that movie.
	Yep.
	The second thing.
	It's like being a little bit pregnant as the old saying goes.
	Item number two.
	We never saw anything blast off.
	In other words, we never saw the launch from Earth.
	Either one.
	And for $20, you could have a launch.
	You could have some kind of spacecraft that would launch from Earth, and they never bothered to show that.
	They showed what?
	They showed a supposed international or world space station.
	That's all we ever got to see.
	Now, I understand that Mission Mars would leave from a space station, but still, you would expect to see some sort of advanced craft capable of leaving the atmosphere that's gone beyond the shuttle.
	We never saw any of the world's press Oh, we never saw NASA at Mission Control.
	All we saw was this World Space Station with this German scientist who was making every decision involving both of the missions, apparently, to Mars.
	That's all we ever saw.
	A German guy.
	Yes.
	Wearing a big WSS pad on his right lapel.
	Which was probably World Space Station or something like that.
	Who knows?
	And then, finally, Obviously, this was a secret mission.
	It had to be a secret mission, Richard.
	That's where we agree, totally.
	And when I say great, I'm not talking aesthetically alone.
	I'm talking about a true work of art has to have multiple layering.
	It has to have complexity.
	It has to be a reason why you go back and see it again and again.
	This has a lot of complexity and a lot of skullduggery and what you have to know is how to crack the code And you're well on your way to cracking the code of this film, because I think Brian De Palma suckered NASA, gave them a coded film that would communicate all the critical, important stuff, and his absence is because he doesn't want to face the heat from the people that he turned around and stabbed in the back.
	But there's no way that NASA could have been involved.
	In a close consultation with this movie without knowing that it was Cydonia and it was going to be about the face.
	I mean, that was central to the movie's plot.
	But if you look at a film, I don't know how many films you've seen in script form versus on the screen.
	Yes.
	There are a lot of people that don't know, particularly if they're coming from a technical agency, how to read a script and understand how it's going to hit people on the screen.
	I'll give you an example.
	One of the things to me, and remember folks, we warned you.
	We said, go see this movie over the weekend.
	Right.
	Because next week, Tuesday, we're going to talk about it.
	So if you haven't seen it, this is a reason to keep your eyes here that are going to be blown.
	There's that touching scene in the barbecue scene up near the front.
	Yes.
	Where the black astronaut is very concerned.
	His little kid, you know, says, Daddy, who's going to read to me?
	Yeah.
	And he says to his son, look, I'll take the book with me.
	That's right.
	And you read it every night and we'll read it separately.
	And then when we get back together, we will have had the experience of doing it together.
	That's right.
	Now, the technology in 2020, which is when this film is set, will be wideband laser communication.
	We saw that later in the film where they were seeing, you know, the World Space Station and the guys on the space station were seeing the moon.
	Yes.
	So we know there was full color wideband communication limited by the speed of light.
	This astronaut's son, I mean, NASA would create a situation so the families, even though they're doing on the shuttle these days, would have family time, downtime, where he could read to his son from Mars.
	But that would indicate an open mission.
	Exactly.
	So what you're seeing is a great artist showing us bits and pieces, giving us clues that this was a program.
	Now, what folks in the audience don't know, and maybe you don't even remember, is that we've discussed on this program in years past.
	that headquartered out of NASA Lewis, which is now called the John Glenn Research Center, where I was invited three times to bring my Sedonia team and research and to brief the denizens of NASA Lewis, the NASA rank-and-file.
	There was a bit of skullduggery detected by Congressman Walpy some years ago, Congressman from Michigan, when he was reviewing a nuclear program based at NASA Lewis.
	This was the SNAP-100 reactor.
	It was widely known that if this reactor was put into into a program a la Budget and NASA and the Congress and all that, it would be the core nuclear reactor of an ignition to Mars.
	And what won't be found from the Director's Office were a series of memos around the SNAP-100 program instructing us at NASA Lewis on how to latch and steal in every way but loose to the Congress, to the press, to anybody inquiring about this program and the uses for that reactor.
	And when he blew the whistle, heading all of NASA, who had been brought in to remedy the aftermath and the catastrophe in the wake of the Challenger disaster, he was going to clean house.
	And suddenly, George Bush and Dan Quayle fired him, and brought in Dan Golden, who had spent 30 years in black ops projects at TRW in California, And who had started his NASA career as an engineer at NASA, Lewis, back in the 60s.
	What De Palma seems to be telling us in this film, and the reason there was no surprise and no forewarning that they were going to Cydonia, is because in the secret program everybody would know they were going to the one place on Mars that has the interesting, important... And nowhere in the film do two guys turn to each other, particularly in the ending, where the extraordinary connection between Mars and the Martians and ancient
	civilizations on Earth and life itself on Earth is Is laid out in a pretty amazing visual tour de force
	Nowhere, just one astronaut turn to the other and say gosh.
	How are we going to tell the folks back home because of course?
	None of that is this is the palm is major fulfillment of the Disney Jury
	Remember the Disney trailer that was causing all the commotion last week?
	Oh, yes, I do.
	We're gonna cover up with real images of Sidonius.
	Oh, yes.
	On March 10th, the conspiracy will be exposed.
	Yeah, oh, yes.
	You know, you think holding them in there, writing their copy, right?
	Well, you did... Look, everybody needs to know, you wrote the book on this, and because of that, the film decided not to be threaded.
	I'm sure glad Time Magazine did.
	I mean, this has been virtually your adult life's work.
	Well, for the last 20 years it has.
	Yes.
	Because it's important.
	Look, if we really are not alone, if we really have lineal ancestral roots that go to a place like Mars, if somehow Mars is intruded in our biosphere and has tinkered and changed and tweaked and made us who and what we are in the environment, what it is today, we need to know.
	And NASA did a report, as we all know, the Brookings Report, 30 years ago, where it basically said, you know, if we find it, we're going to hide it because you can't take it.
	Brian De Palma, I think, sucker-punched NASA.
	All right.
	Well, that's a good... We're running a little late here.
	Let's bring David Giammarco on and find out whether Brian De Palma sucker-punched somebody or got sucker-punched himself or what in the world is going on.
	David, welcome to the program.
	Hi, Art.
	Hi, Richard.
	David, explain to the audience, David, who you are, please.
	I'm a reporter for the National Post and a lot of other publications in North America and syndicated in Europe and Asia.
	The Post in Toronto, is that correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	Can I just say something, Art?
	You sure may.
	I had to leave the Playboy Mansion early today to come do the show, so I think you owe me big.
	You left the Playboy Mansion to come and do the show?
	I was there doing an interview with Hugh Hefner to do some more digging and do the show.
	Well, you're crazy as a loon.
	I wouldn't have done that.
	You bet, I would have stayed, but I'm glad you didn't.
	If you go down on Art's site, on theartbell.com, and find David Giammarco's name under tonight's guest, there's a link there, over to Enterprise, to the interview that David did with me some weeks ago for the Canadian National Post, which is called, The Real Dirt on Mars.
	And we posted the whole article.
	It's actually quite beautiful.
	It's a four-color, glossy magazine on Sunday called The Marquee.
	Right, David?
	Yes.
	So that's how the two of you became connected?
	That's how we met.
	All right.
	David, you've obviously also seen something strange in the fact that Mr. Obama, on the eve of his $120 million baby, would not be interviewed.
	I don't know, hiding out, if that's the right word?
	Not granting interviews.
	Totally bizarre.
	And you're in Hollywood right now, to some degree, aside from visiting a Playboy Bunnies, trying to find out what's going on.
	So what does your nose tell you there?
	Well, you know, as I mentioned last week, it was just the strangest, oddest thing that the Palma would just take off and disappear and not talk to anybody, not follow up after the press weekend by doing at least phone interviews or satellite interviews or any of that.
	So I talked to Brian De Palma's office today and, you know, mentioned, you know, I was at the press weekend and I wanted to, you know, do a follow-up with Brian.
	I wasn't able to get the interview at that time and she said, well, you know, fax it over to us and we'll get it to Brian and see.
	And I said, well, is it true he's in Europe?
	Because we were told at the time, the first story was that Brian was sick and that's why he cancelled all his interviews.
	Then the next story we heard was that he was at one of the screenings and saw the poor reception he was getting from the press and cancelled all his interviews and left for Europe.
	Was that a rumor?
	Uh, these were from sources within the company.
	So in other words, he was sick of North America.
	Possibly.
	Possibly.
	So he left for Europe is what we heard.
	So I asked her today, uh, well, I said, is Brian here in the country or is he in Europe?
	And she said, Oh no, he's here.
	And I said, Oh, cause I heard he left for Europe.
	And then she said, well, maybe he's traveling.
	I don't know.
	So even she didn't want to reveal where he was, but, um, So that's how it was left.
	So I'll be following up and seeing.
	And I said to her, you know, it's a shame.
	I said, he's had, you know, he has the number one movie over the weekend.
	So, you know, it'd be great to get him on the phone, at least talk to him about this movie.
	And, you know, so she said, well, you know, we'll see what we can do.
	And it was sort of left at that.
	Well, gee, what do we imagine, David?
	Could he be hiding from bad reviews that came out initially?
	Or could he be really pissed off about something?
	That's something he wasn't allowed to put in the movie that he wanted to.
	Yeah, but the thing is, Art, if you go to the Time Magazine piece, which also is available on your site, under my name, he says there are parts of it that are lyrical, that are beautiful, and the ending is exactly what you'd want, and I mean, it's a very positive review for this film.
	Well, he did use the word silly as well.
	But there are silly parts of every movie, alright?
	I mean, we can start talking about all kinds of other movies.
	That doesn't make the whole... No, but there were... There were a lot of things wrong with this movie, and I outlined a few for you that I thought were wrong.
	No, you're talking about omissions, alright?
	I'm telling you that that's deliberate.
	The Palma has structured a piece here to communicate multi-leveled information.
	David, have you seen the movie?
	Oh yeah, twice.
	Might we... Oh, twice?
	I saw it in L.A.
	about three weeks ago now, and then caught most of it again at a screening in Toronto.
	And after seeing it for a second time, your impressions were what?
	It was an okay movie.
	You know, I was intrigued by the story, but, you know, and De Palma certainly is a very technically proficient director and knows how to put a lot of style into his, you know, his work on screen.
	Um, but as I mentioned last week, I just found, you know, the character development really shallow and a lot of the lines pretty clunky and it was the writing, you know, by the end of the film, you know, I was pretty intrigued with it.
	I thought the ending was the strongest part of the film.
	Sure.
	Oh, I agree.
	I certainly agree, but it was not, to me, As Contact was, it was not a memorable film that indelibly is imprinted on my brain for all time.
	Not that level of movie.
	Well, but remember, you deal with this subject matter almost every night.
	For most Americans, this will come as a startling revelation that Mars somehow reached into the nursery and effected, created, managed the origin and evolution of life on Earth, up to and including Almost sapiens.
	That is going to be a stunner for a lot of people.
	In fact, I said the other night, when I was doing a show in Canada, that it's going to make the evolutionists and the creationists pissed off at De Palma.
	Because he hits them both over the head.
	For most people, that is a pretty amazing piece of film.
	I'll tell you a little secret, Richard.
	I was in a theater with only about ten other people here in Provence, Nevada.
	I went to a midday, noontime showing.
	There were about ten people there.
	One of them I know personally, of very much a religious fundamentalist, who I was quite surprised to see there.
	And he did not greet that film well.
	I glanced over several times during the film, and he was not a happy camper at all.
	I was surprised to see him at the film at all.
	All right, both of you, hold on.
	We'll be back to you after the break.
	We've got a break.
	We're here at the top of the hour, so stay right where you are.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Right back where we started from.
	Home!
	Sedonia!
	Sedonia.
	Stay right there.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	1-800-825-5033. First-time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	And the wildcard line is open 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 Ghost to Ghost AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nine.
	It is indeed.
	Richard C. Hoagland is here, along with David G. Marco, who's in California right now.
	Trying to get to the bottom of what's going on with Mission to Mars.
	It was an intriguing movie in many, many ways.
	I thought not necessarily a great movie, but an intriguing movie that left as many questions as it answered.
	So we'll get back to Richard and company in a moment.
	Stay right where you are.
	All right, once again, back to Richard C. Hoagland and David Giammarco, and a lot of people are going to say, well, what's the big deal?
	Come on, it's just a movie.
	Well, it's really more than a movie in so many ways because of what it says and what it does not say.
	And so we're following it very closely, getting a lot of different reactions.
	David, you're back on.
	Richard, you're back on.
	David, just one more question from me.
	And that is, as you listen in Hollywood, what are the rumors about this?
	David?
	Are you there?
	Yes, I am.
	Can you hear me?
	Okay, yes.
	What are the rumors in Hollywood about this?
	I mean, when you have your ear to the ground, what are you hearing?
	Well, I mean, it's funny.
	The trade papers here in Los Angeles, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, You know, I was reading Variety today and they had given Mission Impossible, like they completely panned this movie.
	And the trade paper Variety usually is pretty kind to most movies.
	They're pretty even.
	It's rare to see them pan a movie.
	And they completely panned this movie to the point that they said it's like the worst film of the new millennium and goes down in the record books as the most horrible.
	You know, I mean, you guys both saw the film.
	It's not that bad.
	No, Richard, I think, liked it about an 8 or a 9 on a scale of 10.
	I liked it about a 3 or a 4, not that much.
	But I was intrigued by what it did say and what it didn't say.
	In other words, it's an intriguing film to me.
	And apparently, you felt somewhat the same way, David.
	Yeah, and you know, I was doing some interviews for another film this weekend, the Ridley Scott movie, Gladiator.
	And I was talking with some of my colleagues again about this.
	You know, quite frankly, they were just pretty nonplussed about the whole thing.
	They had moved on to the next film and, quite frankly, the film opened and they didn't care too much about it.
	I had mentioned I had called NASA about this to get their reaction.
	I actually saw what I consider to be a very good movie today, in fact, an incredibly good movie called The Green Mile, and I recommend that to anybody.
	My God, what a movie!
	The funny thing, and I mentioned this to Richard, is in the Richard Corliss review in Time Magazine this week, he obviously credits Richard Hoagland's research for You know, for this film, the basis for this film.
	And yet, in the press kit for Mission to Mars, you know, the press notes, there are 80, 90 some odd pages in the press notes.
	There's not one mention at all of Richard's work.
	You know, it's attributed basically just to the screenwriters and you're made to believe that they just brought this out of their head.
	Okay, you know, okay, fine.
	Obviously, I would attribute that to NASA consulting.
	In other words, NASA would no more let Richard's name be mentioned in that movie.
	Then the man in the moon.
	But, uh, they also wouldn't let it be told about Cydonia.
	And they did.
	Unless, Art, there is a fast-track hidden agenda, because look what we've been saying for the last couple weeks.
	That, you know, even before we knew all the content, and we, you know, De Palma had disappeared weirdly and all that.
	We wrote a review, which is on our site, Mission to Mars, where we laid out the case that this film was designed by NASA to telegraph Something to the general American people.
	That this film was the beginning of what Steve Bassett, who's going to be on later, has talked about for a couple of years now, the process of disclosure.
	Now look what happened the same weekend that this film debuts.
	Suddenly, Dan Golden, who was the administrator of NASA, brought in by George Bush to take the place of the astronaut who used to head the program, who was going to get to the bottom of why NASA was telling reporters in Congress that it was going to lie, to everybody about things related to Mars and the SNAP-100 reactor.
	Dan Golden says on Pinnacle, on CNN on Sunday, that suddenly we're going to be on Mars within 10 years.
	Yeah.
	Now, politically, there's no way!
	The American people do not have this burning desire.
	I'm not even sure about scientifically, but, you know, that's the pace we're going right now.
	Well, that's another interesting discussion.
	You know, I have a feeling that we know much more now than we knew Before Kennedy, you know, committed us to Apollo, and in fact, yeah, if you had any kind of commitment from Congress and the American people, we could easily go in ten years, because we've got all the bits and pieces.
	We don't have to invent almost anything, it's all there to be reassembled in various new ways, but we don't have to invent from scratch.
	Sure.
	Which we did with Apollo.
	But the fact of the matter is, Dan Goldin's suddenly saying, within ten years, now wait a minute, Daniel, my boy, unless you somehow dangle in front of the American people, or in front of Congress, or both, A real juicy reason to go to Mars.
	You ain't gonna get a dime to go to Mars, particularly after you keep losing all these unmanned missions.
	So their juice is Cydonia?
	So the juice is Cydonia.
	As I said, in the monuments of Mars, a city on the edge of forever, Cydonia is the reason to commit to go with men and women to Mars.
	And that's what Time Magazine is trying to gently tell everybody.
	I mean, this is a wondrous story and a layered mythological tale of cross currents, of friends and foes and enemies and black ops and secrets and half-truths.
	I mean, this is, that's why I think this film is a really neat film, not because of what you see on the screen, But in part what you don't see on the screen.
	What you see on CNN instead.
	As the film is making 23 million dollars on the first weekend.
	And all the press in the world is trying to tell you, don't go see this horrible film.
	I mean the same network that said this gave bad movies a bad name.
	Has the head of NASA saying we're going to go in 10 years to Mars?
	Yes.
	Now wait a minute, what's going on?
	David?
	When I called Richard Corliss today to find out where he got his information for his article because he was really the only other major reporter to attribute This film's science to Richard.
	Sure.
	And I got his voicemail and it said that he was out of the country until March the 20th.
	So maybe he's out of the country with Brian De Palma.
	Those two took off together.
	They're both hitchhiking across Czechoslovakia.
	Yes.
	But no, it almost looks as if we have friends and allies out there.
	When I say we, I mean the forces are trying to get to the bottom of this.
	Yes.
	And they have used this film.
	On both sides.
	Trial balloon?
	As a trial balloon, as a running up the flagpole, as I said in David's piece, to see what's going to happen.
	It has plausible deniability written all over it.
	All right, I've got questions for the both of you.
	Or a question, anyway.
	$120 million.
	I did not see $120 million in that movie.
	I did not see $120 million in that movie.
	What I saw, I think, could have been done for $50, $40, $50 million.
	This is fascinating.
	Because as you know, Art, we've talked about this, you know, the last couple of days.
	Yep.
	I've had several different people, some of whom are in the industry, some of whom are not, but who are movie goers.
	So, I mean, we're all kind of experts at how much you see on the screen.
	Sure.
	Armageddon, which was, as you know, was a slam-bang, slam-dunk, special effect every ten seconds.
	Sure.
	Non-stop roller coaster ride with NASA's full backing.
	Very similar situation.
	NASA's fingerprints all over it was $140,000,000.
	Now you take away the $20,000,000 that Bruce Willis got, okay?
	You've got the same amount of money that's supposed to be on the screen.
	But Armageddon, it looked like it was $120,000,000 of special effects on the screen.
	You bet.
	I am absolutely, with you on this, that there is about $60,000,000, I would say, on the screen.
	We've had a number of estimates ranging from a high, my, my, my, my, you know, movie executive who took her daughter the other night.
	Right.
	She did not know what the budget was supposed to be, so I asked her, you know, the other night, I said, what do you think was on the screen in terms of money and special effects?
	She says, oh, maybe 65, 70 million.
	What do you think, David?
	Well, you know, it's funny, I asked Tom Jacobson, the producer, a couple of weeks ago, about the fact, which you brought up earlier, Art, that we do not see any lift-off, we don't see any real, you know, dazzling, we don't see lift-offs or anything like that, basically.
	Right.
	And his response was that Brian didn't want to do it, Because he felt it had been done so many times before in, you know, Apollo 13, you know, all those movies, and he felt it was just repetitious to show yet another takeoff and landing and whatnot, so opted not to show that.
	Okay.
	What about the world's press, or even any input at all?
	I mean, Earth would be pretty interested in the first trip to Mars, and you never saw one ounce of that.
	You never saw the astronauts addressing the world, much less the American people.
	About the first, then the second rescue trip, which of course would hold the entire world.
	Oh, it would rivet people.
	Would rivet the entire world.
	And you never saw one ounce of that.
	That just doesn't add up.
	Which leads me to believe what Richard is saying, that it is intended as a secret mission in the film.
	That no one is supposed to know about this.
	Had to be.
	Had to be.
	And that little scene with the kid up front gives it away, because Daddy couldn't even on a video link read to his son.
	And NASA goes out of the way to make sure the astronauts and their families are taken care of and they come to mission control.
	Everything was done from the space station.
	Do you remember years ago when Bush and Gorbachev met off the island of Malta?
	Yes.
	And they met for the first time since FDR?
	Yes.
	And Stalin and Churchill had met on ships?
	Yes.
	During World War II?
	Of course.
	And of course you and I didn't really know each other in those days, but it was my take even then That there was some extraordinary high level of security and secrecy that they wanted to make absolutely sure no one would penetrate, and so they got on these ships and they steamed around the island during this high level conference, this summit, which Bush initially didn't want to do, didn't want to do, didn't want to do, and suddenly he broke down and admitted he was going to meet with Gorbachev.
	this headquartering the mission to Mars from the space station is cockamamie because you
	don't have the infrastructure.
	You can't really run a mission from a space station unless security is overwhelming.
	Now there was another point.
	During the film there's a scene where there's a real high tension scene where meteors slash
	through the cabin.
	That's right.
	And they have a few minutes to save themselves because the air is leaking out and they have
	to find the leaks.
	That's right.
	And all of a sudden a thing comes up where they're trying to restart the environmental
	control system and all that.
	And Gary Sinise has to access the computer and because the air is getting...
	I thought this was actually quite brilliant.
	The air pressure is getting so low, he cannot utter the words in the almost vacuum, and the computer is demanding voice print identification.
	Right.
	And one reviewer said, this is the most hysterical lunacy ever.
	What do they think?
	They're going to get ripped off of their stereo on the way to Mars?
	No, I mean, you're absolutely right.
	It's like... It's a high security mission.
	What did they expect?
	Some guy from the Yonkers to have stowed on board and give computer commands or something?
	But remember, what De Palma was doing here was a mirror image of key aspects of 2001.
	Where we discovered how it went berserk because of the inanities of the overwhelming security.
	Remember, 2001, 30 some years ago, done by Kubrick and Clark, was the first film about space and extraterrestrial life that basically said, in 1968, just before that amazing Christmas mission that I wound up being a part of, because that was my first stint with Cronkite, during that Christmas whirl around the moon, Kubrick and Clark said, if they find it, they will hide it because you can't take it.
	And we all said, oh, come on.
	The obvious implication in a mission that's already secret is that there was somebody on that mission, or somebodies, who had a level of knowledge above the rest of the crew.
	You got it.
	That's the only reason there could be voice print identification before a command was given.
	Now the other thing, remember that Gary Sinise's character, he and his wife were supposed to be the lead astronauts on the first mission.
	And then she's at this little flashback, you know, talking about the other reasons to go to Mars, and the idea that maybe there's something there waiting for them.
	Yes.
	And what happens to this astronaut?
	And by, you know, metonymy to him.
	She dies.
	Right.
	In a very tragic way.
	And he is removed from the program and only put back in when this emergency arises.
	In other words, the one person in the whole script that suspects that there's something really critical at Cydonia... Right.
	...dies early in the film.
	David... I think Kubrick is telling us... Ah, Kubrick.
	De Palma is telling us reams in this movie.
	Ream!
	David, the last time we spoke, you were going to write a follow-up article.
	to the first one you had written on the movie. Right. Have you done that yet? Yeah, you have.
	Give us a sense of what you wrote. It was basically further to what the original piece
	was that I had written. Delved into the issues a little bit more, brought up the fact that
	Brian De Palma's brother Bruce, the research he had done with Richard, that was brought up,
	and just delved into the issues a little bit more. Used more of the interviews that I did
	a couple of weeks ago in L.A.
	and, uh, just sort of brought it all together.
	Are you getting any feedback from all of this from people?
	Well, when that piece ran, I was already here in L.A., so I haven't spoken to anybody back in, uh, Canada yet, but when the first piece ran, uh, that Richard, I guess, has on the website right now, um, I got a lot of interesting calls from people, from fellow reporters, who said, you know, that was quite a great piece and we're all very intrigued by this.
	You know, the funny thing is, is that, you know, most entertainment journalists, you know, they don't do any digging.
	They didn't see any reason to go beyond the surface of this movie.
	And just right about the actors involved and their motivations or what it was like pretending to be an astronaut.
	They really didn't dig deep into this.
	And I have to thank Richard for alerting me to a much bigger story behind this.
	And look, the fact of the matter is, I don't think this film would be getting this much attention If it wasn't for the fact that NASA was behind this film.
	If this was just some filmmaker making a movie about, you know, a mission to Mars, and there being a face on Mars and whatnot, that's one thing.
	But the fact that NASA has endorsed this movie, and then trailers start running saying that NASA's part of a conspiracy to cover this up.
	By the studio, you know, it takes it to a whole new level.
	And of course, you contacted NASA as well with regard to those trailers, and they didn't want to talk to you at all, did they?
	No, and I never did get a call back from them.
	They seemed, when I first alerted one of the officials there, I mean, she seemed pretty shocked.
	When I described the trailer to her and immediately said, I have to get your number, I'm going to have to get someone to call you back, and then never heard back.
	Now, for the sake of the audience, the trailer suggested a 25-year cover-up was about to end.
	And in the trailer we're talking about, they show the real face at Sidoni.
	The real Sidoni images, yes.
	Yeah, that's right.
	So, with NASA not wanting to comment, this whole thing's... There is some new news on this, Renard.
	Yes?
	David today talked with his colleague at the Washington Times.
	Who lived a couple doors down from Dan Golden?
	Yes.
	David?
	And she, I believe, spoke to him because she's, you know, friends with him socially.
	And she spoke to him, I believe it was on Friday or Saturday.
	And she promised she was going to talk to him for me.
	And she did speak to him.
	Yes.
	And asked him about this film and this controversy and whatnot.
	And she said that he basically sort of glossed over it.
	I didn't really, you know, want to pay too much attention to the matter.
	And she felt she didn't want to press the matter any further because she didn't want to jeopardize her relationship with him.
	And she felt, as she said to me, if I'm going to press him on a matter involving NASA, I'm going to wait for a much bigger story.
	So I don't, you know, I just don't want... So obviously, she didn't want to press any more.
	He didn't want to talk about it.
	All right, both of you, hold on a moment.
	We'll be right back.
	Don't you feel it growing day by day?
	People getting ready for the show.
	Oh man.
	Don't you feel it growing day by day?
	People getting ready for the show, oh man The music plays, so don't you cry
	Don't you feel it growing day by day?
	Lonely days, lonely nights What would I do without my woman?
	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.
	First time callers may reach Art at area code 775-727-1222.
	Or call the wildcard line at 775-727-1295.
	825-5033. First time callers may reach Art at area code 775-727-1222 or call the wildcard line at 775-727-1295. To talk with Art
	on the toll free international line, call your AT&T operator at 808-930-903. This is Coast to Coast AM with Art
	Bell.
	Yes it is.
	And Richard C. Hoagland is here, along with David DiMarco, and to be joined shortly by Stephen Bassett in Washington, D.C.
	We're actually just outside, but in the Beltway area.
	So, if you'll stand by, we've got a lot planned for you tonight, and a lot to fit in.
	So we'll be right back.
	Alright, back now to Richard C. Hoagland and, of course, David DiMarco, who's in California, trying to figure out
	what's going on.
	Richard?
	Yes?
	All right, I think we're almost finished with David, and it's been very enlightening, indeed, and so nobody wants to talk about anything, it seems like.
	NASA doesn't want to talk about the film.
	Dan Goldman, who gave the orders that he's not supposed to talk about the film, doesn't want to talk about the film.
	Story Musgrave who David interviewed during his interview said all of the opposite things.
	Remember David what some of the things were that Musgrave told you about NASA being the most open agency ever created?
	Yeah I mean in the interview and it was very it was very strange I mean he really seemed to be talking in a sort of double speak a sort of You know, I mean, I've interviewed a lot of, you know, intelligence guys that worked, you know, sort of came of age during the Cold War, and a lot of them tend to speak in the same manner.
	It's the sort of read-between-the-lines, you know, kind of thing.
	And he kept saying to me, you know, there is no cover-up.
	The government is the most open body, you know, in America.
	You know, there are no cover-ups.
	There is no this.
	There is no that.
	There is no evidence.
	And, you know, he kept hammering this home, and it got to the point You know, where it was like, OK, you know, I get it.
	Remember the kernel art with time compression?
	Yes.
	It kind of comes off that way.
	It's like this is so outrageous.
	I mean, to say to the government is not involved in cover ups is like saying that Bill Clinton doesn't dye his hair.
	I mean, it just you know, there's no way a person can say that with a straight face.
	Yet you're saying, David, that Musgrave kept repeating it over and over and over again.
	Oh, yeah.
	And when I asked him about the evidence of Uh, you know, what the astronauts have, you know, what they know, all, you know, after spending all these years in space and with NASA, and what they found out about, you know, UFOs and extraterrestrials and whatnot, he kept repeating the phrase,
	I've been at the water cooler, and he repeated the water cooler at least eight or nine times in one of his answers, and kept putting emphasis on the water cooler, that there is no evidence, but I've been at the water cooler, and that's where it is.
	David, when he began repeating again and again the phrase, there is no cover-up, the government and NASA are the most open agencies and governments in the world, did his eyes kind of glaze over?
	Uh, no, but they sort of were, it was an intense stare.
	We'll put it that way.
	Alright.
	Yeah, he kept, when I, you know, was pressing him on this sort of evidence, he just, he kept repeating the phrase, you know, it's in the, it's at the water cooler, it's in the hallway.
	Yes.
	You know, but without, you know, without saying anything.
	Which again, if you go back to my thesis earlier in the evening about this whole film experience, of which he was an integral part, I believe Musgrave and others are, again, telling us between the lines, look not at what this film says, but what it doesn't say.
	Look at the things that are not there.
	They're glaring.
	Absolutely glaring.
	David, I want to thank you for coming on the program, and the moment you have any more news, or lack of news, which seems to be just as interesting, we want to have you back.
	I have one kicker for you.
	Today, when I was speaking with my colleague at the Washington Times, she had mentioned also that a friend of hers, a British journalist, was also trying to get NASA to talk about the movie, had been stonewalled as well by NASA at Houston, and she said, here's a number in Washington for the NASA office, and someone there will probably be able to talk to you.
	So I called them up and of course the government office had closed at 4 p.m.
	and it was a voicemail message and it said, you know, please leave a message after the tone so we'll get back to you.
	The beep comes on and immediately messages that had been left started being spewed back out at me over the phone.
	So all these people who had left messages at NASA They were all coming back at me, and I'm thinking, wait a minute, these are the guys that are running the space program?
	And they can't even get their phones to work?
	Did any of them, David, say, hey, the real pictures of Cydonia are buried under such and such a rock?
	They'll love to kill a Hoagland.
	All right.
	Thank you, David.
	No problem, Art.
	And good night.
	Good night, David.
	All right.
	Just before going to Stephen Bassett, the nation's only UFO lobbyist in Washington, I got this fax, and it does say this, Richard, tuned in LADAR, but have you talked with Richard about the special that ran on the Discovery Channel last night on Mars?
	It was loaded with NASA stuff about the possibility of life on Mars.
	Dan Golden was in several clips.
	I saw about the last 20 minutes of it.
	Yes.
	And it was the usual garbage, I hate to be so blunt, but it's, you know, without a real reason to go, without a commitment, What was more interesting is what Golden said on CNN on Sunday.
	Yeah, on CNN.
	Where he says, we're going within 10 years.
	Now, you're not going to do that unless they unveil Sedona.
	It ain't just going to happen.
	Or something almost equivalent.
	And I'm feeling we're on a very tight time frame.
	In fact, some of the reviewers that have been sending me kind of overviews of the film, part of what they find wrong with Mission to Mars is that there's a perception on their part that it's unfinished.
	That it was rushed to completion as if someone had to make a certain date.
	They had to make a timeline that we're all on even though we don't know it.
	And Golden's comments are in fact golden.
	Well, I'm gonna throw my hat in the ring in the following arena.
	I think Tupama's pissed off.
	Okay.
	That's what I think.
	I don't know what about.
	Something he couldn't put in.
	Something that was taken out.
	Something that... Something was wrong and he got angry.
	That's what I think.
	Well, there's so much at the end, you know, in the part that I wrote according to Time Magazine.
	Yes.
	You know, when you go back and you compare what I have in Monuments, which is a careful, loving, meticulously detailed expose of what might have happened, all the loving details of how this interaction between Mars and Earth could have taken place, that's up with what I hope is some pretty good science.
	The thing that I was left with is, oh, I wish some of that was on the screen.
	All the questions that people would have, that you're sitting there having about what happened... Yeah, by the way, Richard, where was the rest of Cydonia?
	In other words...
	They showed, they said, Sidonian, and they showed the face, but you didn't see any of the rest of the monuments.
	You didn't see the pyramids, you didn't see the tetrahedral forms, you didn't see any of the other city structures.
	But they specifically named a real place on Mars without duplicating it.
	You know, I get the feeling, not that De Palma's pissed, that De Palma is lying low because he pulled a fast one on the agency.
	And I will tell you one of the clues, one of the solid pieces of data.
	Remember when they're in the space, in the mission modules headed toward Mars?
	Yes.
	And they redirect this Saturn probe that, like Galileo, was going to make a swing by of Mars.
	Yes.
	And you get these beautiful, high-color, you know, God that we have that kind of resolution and color, look-downs on the Mars base.
	Right.
	If you noticed on the maps where the Mars base was, It was on the southern rim of Valles Marineris, the huge canyon that stretches a quarter of the way around Mars, which is a good 1,000 to 1,500 miles from Cydonia.
	So I got to thinking, this is information, confirmation, that he was pushing everybody in another direction, even at NASA, and at the last minute pulled a switcheroo.
	But that's in fact where the money went.
	He shot two films, Art.
	Two pictures.
	And the one we see is the one that NASA would never have wanted us to see.
	Unless there's a contingent in NASA that secretly helped him do it.
	And when you go see this film, that's what I mean when I say it's an amazing film.
	Not because of what's there, but because of what's in my book.
	Compared to what's there and what's not there.
	And your book, by the way, is doing extremely well now.
	And you can pick it up on Amazon.com at a really cheap rate, folks.
	30% off.
	Richard, your book is?
	The Monuments of Mars, A City on the Edge of Forever.
	Which you wrote how long ago?
	I started it 20 years ago.
	20 years ago.
	And it has been in print now since 87, continuously.
	It's in its fourth edition because I've been updating and updating and updating.
	I'm in the process of writing a sequel, by the way, which is going to be called The Heritage of Mars.
	God, can you maybe guess what might be in that one?
	I can easily guess, yes.
	Now, to Washington, D.C., Stephen Bassett, our nation's only UFO lobbyist in Washington, D.C.
	Stephen, as a matter of curiosity, welcome to the show first, and have you seen the movie?
	Oh, yeah.
	I've seen it.
	All right, then.
	Let's get your take.
	Well, first, my first take is that as I was sitting here listening and watching this book, Monuments, write up the I saw the movie.
	I liked the movie.
	I quickly recognized the weaknesses in it.
	of image in my head of you and Whitley Strieber and Richard all on the best seller list at
	the New York Times and Washington Post at the same time.
	What matter of consternation that would cause on the East Coast power elite?
	It will.
	The numbers are going into orbit.
	I can't believe it.
	My publisher can't believe it.
	I saw the movie.
	I liked the movie.
	I quickly recognized the weaknesses in it.
	It had all the hallmarks of a conflicted production, to sheer genius mixed in with some interesting
	things.
	But clearly it is an important movie in many respects because it is one of the only movies
	ever to deal with extraterrestrial phenomena.
	And to use material which is not only part of the research effort, but is still in contention and is immediately verifiable.
	This is a very rare thing that hasn't happened.
	Well, if it had not been Cydonia, if it had not been the face, I don't think we'd be here tonight talking about it.
	Well, of course not.
	Well, from the political standpoint, there are many political issues in the politics of UFOs, but one of them, certainly, is an important one, is the situation regarding NASA.
	Is NASA Between a rock and a hard place.
	Torn between its fundamental role as the Civilian Space Agency and its obligations under the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to defer to the Department of Defense regarding all things having to do with national security.
	And as we know, the government has, in various ways and on a number of occasions, made it clear that anything E.T.
	would be under that heading.
	Is it really caught in the middle here?
	In a conflicted position?
	Because, first of all, it costs a lot of money.
	We've spent a lot of money.
	Secondly, it's dear to the heart of many Americans still.
	It's a major part of our heritage.
	It is the crown jewel of our scientific, explorative front to the world.
	And if it's being torn up by this cover-up, then that is a serious political consequence of the cover-up, if there is one.
	Of course, obviously, I believe there is.
	Steven, you heard it when I said earlier that I thought a major message in this film, in Mission to Mars, that De Palma's trying to get across is There's a secret plan for secret missions and the public be damned and there will be no accountability and no one will ever know if there's anything there because they're never planning to tell us.
	Well, there is.
	Yeah.
	In fact, that secret aspect is something that I hadn't caught.
	And when you mentioned it in your chat earlier, it immediately came to me.
	Yes, he in an indirect way.
	It's even deeper than that, Stephen.
	It showed the mission was secret.
	And as you haven't mentioned tonight, he clearly threw a bone to you near the end of the movie
	with several references to the departure time from the planet.
	And that last departure is 1950.
	That was clearly a shot to you.
	I'm sure that NASA would not have wanted that.
	Maybe didn't pick it up.
	Maybe objected to it.
	Maybe put it at the last minute.
	It's even deeper than that, Stephen.
	Guys, how much rotation was there in this film?
	Think of the space station sequences.
	Think of the astronaut that dies in the swirling vortex of sand in the opening.
	Think of the last scene where the spaceship is leaving in the vortex of energy.
	The hallmark of hyperdimensional physics is rotation, rotation, rotation.
	It's kind of like that old joke about, you know, what's the first rule of business?
	Rotation, rotation, rotation!
	The 19.5 was merely the affirmation, numerically, of the math and science underneath everything you were seeing in the film for 2 hours and 45 minutes.
	Well, speaking of rotation, one of the things that would have definitely been rotating would
	have been the eyes in Dan Golden's head when that trailer hit the screens nationally.
	That is just an amazing thing that that trailer occurred.
	And I think in terms of the larger picture, there's interesting irony here.
	First of all, everyone admits, even those who don't believe that it's an extraterrestrial
	presence, that if there is one, there'll be huge impacts on certain aspects of our society
	and that NASA would clearly be one of the major beneficiaries.
	Well, I would love to see David G. Marko get on the trail of who actually produced and saw to it that that trailer was released.
	Well, I'm sort of with Dick on it, by the way, that if Brian De Palma has gone underground, and he certainly has disappeared, the best explanation I can think of is that after that trailer went out, he went underground because he simply wasn't going to take Dan Golden's phone call.
	I think that's a pretty good shot.
	And we know that that trailer was aired on X-Files on the evening of the 27th of February, which was simultaneous ours with the Hollywood premiere of the film.
	Let me tell you why I disagree with all this, because Brian De Palma doesn't have to take NASA's calls.
	If NASA wanted to show that they were angry, they would call up Touchtone Disney at a higher level and say, you guys have just burned your bridge to NASA.
	They wouldn't have to call to Palmer.
	That's what I think.
	Yeah, but you don't know what kind of personal relationships were established.
	I mean, a director is like a general or an admiral.
	To do this, you have to have a lot of personal English.
	You've got to move people with persuasion and all the other things.
	There must have been a lot of personal people at NASA that you worked with that may be feeling really ripped off, that their worst nightmare has come true, particularly after a period of time.
	Well, we can speculate, but the other point I wanted to make was that besides NASA, which
	would be a huge beneficiary of final validation of this extraterrestrial reality, whether
	it is current or ancient.
	In the honest scenarios.
	Yeah, it would be Hollywood, the entertainment industry.
	The entertainment industry totally knows that this type of event and all that comes afterwards
	is going to result in huge opportunities for them to make huge amounts of money.
	And so as this cover-up has played out over the years, I suspect that certain elements
	of that industry, particularly Disney, have been sitting there on their hands, sort of
	trying to be good citizens, play ball, but knowing that, my Lord, if you just get this
	going here, we could be pulling in some billion dollar projects.
	As you referred to before, and I have a copy of it and have seen it, the Disney documentary
	referred to in an earlier show was also part of their announcing wanting to put together
	a full GT theme park.
	You mean the Michael Eisner special?
	Put this in your mind.
	Try to imagine, okay, NASA, the government, confirms extraterrestrials ancient or current.
	Disney puts together a $200 million theme park and 5 billion people are going to go
	I mean, Disney can probably already figure out the numbers, and Disney is watching its revenues and return on capital drop.
	So, Disney's sitting there with huge amounts of money.
	I mean, I can already in my mind see the face rides.
	It's like, you know, in other words, this is big stuff, and big stuff is going to impact the big parts of our society, and billions of dollars are involved.
	So that is, that's huge pressure on this, this poor little agency that's caught between the D.O.D., the devil and the deep blue sea.
	It's got its astronauts out there, conflicted.
	I mean, on one hand, they'll repeatedly tell you that they never saw anything.
	They're very loyal to the agency, as they absolutely should be.
	I mean, their relationship with the agency is obviously well understood.
	And yet, a number of them have gone out of their way to tell us repeatedly, folks, there's something going on here.
	All right, now hold on, you two.
	We're at the top of the hour.
	I can almost envision now not only the face ride.
	I mean, in a Disney theme park about Mars, there'd be a face ride, and probably there'd be a... You know the Abe Lincoln that has motion?
	They'd probably have a Richard C. Hoagland that would have motion.
	You know, he'd move around.
	Maybe point toward Mars or Osiris.
	Or his arm, would it, you know, be at 19.5 or something.
	19.5 or something. I'm Art Bell.
	Well, I've seen enough to get ready to realize that what I have found, I have to live on as test.
	Cynical. Oh, intellectual cynical.
	There are times when all the world will see there's a question come to thee.
	I have found a simple man.
	To reach our dilemma, go for it.
	Call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	That's 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
	That's right. That's who I am. Richard C. Hoagland is here and so is Stephen Bassett.
	What did you say? They'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, or a fanatical criminal.
	Oh, won't you say that's the name? We'd like to see your accent, your voice.
	It's all right. They've been calling me...
	They've been calling me that for years.
	No problem.
	Listen to this.
	This is Sax Waves.
	Ah, boy do I like sax.
	Ah, boy do I like sax.
	Anyway, we're back into it in about a minute.
	Once again, Richard C. Hoagland along with Stephen Bassett in Washington, D.C.
	Stephen, let's bring Stephen up if we can here.
	I think he's here.
	Stephen?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Stephen, the whole controversy that we've been discussing tonight, is this, in your view, some sort of part of disclosure?
	Well, I think, and there's other things that reflect this, I think it reflects the developing dynamic tensions that are building up amongst the big entities in our culture as we move closer to this event.
	Obviously, the huge corporations, the big agencies, the military, DOD, these are the structures that have We are much at stake as these things move forward and are
	probably pretty interested in its outcome and may even want to affect the outcome.
	As we get closer we are going to see this and because we are dealing with what amounts
	to a cover up and not an open situation we are going to have to read between the lines
	constantly because no one is going to come out and just read a script for us.
	We are being given opportunities here.
	As they say on the farm, we now need to bale some hay while the sun shines.
	Dick and I have certainly talked a lot about this.
	This movie is going to be seen by between 10 and 40 million people over the next couple of months.
	One of the things I would like them to give very serious consideration to.
	is that everybody that goes to see this movie needs to come out of that movie and know one thing,
	and first know this, that there is a real Cydonia, there is a real artificiality issue in play
	that's been studied by a lot of people and has by no means been dismissed,
	regardless of what NASA says, and that they need to fax their representatives,
	their senators, they need to fax the major news entities, and they need to fax NASA and say,
	you are our space agency, we pay every nickel of what you spend,
	and we want photographs of Cydonia.
	We want it photographed from A to Z and from yin to yang.
	We want it photographed until we are satisfied that there is enough there, high quality, solid shots covering it all.
	I was going to say, we want photographs as clear as we've been getting of the rest of Mars.
	Right.
	And we don't want to hear about your budgets, and we don't want to hear about how you're offended by that.
	You've lost a billion dollars in spacecraft all over the galaxy, all over the solar system.
	You're under heavy pressure from Congress.
	You need the public support and we are just tired of being sort of treated as a side irritant to this.
	We want it photographed and we want it now because that spacecraft is in orbit and it can do it anytime and we pay the bills.
	You're our agency.
	You work for us.
	And there's a lot of people that are going to have the face issue raised powerfully because this movie really is a powerful movie.
	When you focus on the key issues, which is extraterrestrial, ancient, past, and the visual way it's structured, it's a powerful movie.
	It's in their minds, let's get to the real story and get to the bottom of it.
	And NASA is the agency that we created to do that.
	And that's got to happen and it should start immediately.
	Stephen, what's your political take on Corliss' review in Time where he goes out of his way I mean, to me, that's telling us that we've got friends that we didn't know we had.
	It's a crack.
	It's a crack in the facade.
	Look, there have been a lot of people working on the face issue.
	A lot of scientists, engineers, and so forth and so forth, but none of them have pressured NASA on the cover-up issue, as you have.
	No one else has.
	And for that reason, you have developed a significant A group of people within agencies that do not like you, and they've gone to considerable effort.
	I believe attack dogs were sent out from NASA to snap at our heels and try to divert us.
	And I think an effort is made to sort of diminish you in the eyes of any of the media people that you all know.
	The media people have to deal with these agencies, particularly NASA.
	NASA is a major generator of news and stories for every aspect of every major newspaper.
	You constantly see NASA stuff, and so these people all deal with it.
	So if NASA wants to put the kibosh on somebody, it's very easy to do, and I have no doubt
	that they have let it be known.
	You don't deal with Dick Coburn.
	Well, this movie, in a sense, is Disney and De Palma and Touchstone and maybe the entire
	entertainment industry throwing the gauntlet down to NASA and saying, look, we're tired
	We're tired of the delay.
	They threw a bone to you in that movie.
	Corliss picked it up.
	So the facade is starting to break.
	And that's how I view it.
	And I suspect the talk shows will be calling pretty soon.
	Well, actually, there has been some action in Hollywood and there are discussions of having me do everything from Oprah to Larry King now.
	Basically to connect the dots, to show people.
	Most of Americans do not know there's an actual set of images of Sedonia showing a face and structures.
	Paul David's art, who of course is a name that you recognize, our own Hollywood producer, did the Roswell incident for Showtime.
	He went to see it the other afternoon, and in the break, in the intermission between showings, as he actually stayed and saw it twice, he ran into a young man who was really enthralled with the movie, But had no idea that there was a real Cydonia and a real face on Mars and a real controversy.
	So the question then is how many people are there like that in the country that need to see it on Larry King that in fact their tax dollars turned up 30 years ago an extraordinary set of images and there has been an extraordinary level of independent scientific investigation for the last generation and a half or so around the real issues that De Palma is trying to communicate and code in this film.
	Well, there's another important thing.
	These shows need content.
	They're desperate for content.
	And the movie in Sedona, as it's represented in the movie, it's a modest show.
	The real Sedona and the real story is a dozen programs.
	And so they're not stupid.
	They're going to seize on this.
	The public needs to take advantage of it.
	And we can get rolling.
	Now, we also need to not forget that all of this is happening right in the middle of a presidential election.
	An important presidential election, in my opinion.
	One that tits, an incredibly ironic one, one that in my opinion, and this is my opinion, let me make this very clear, that tits the son of the president, who in my view was supposed to be the disclosure president in his second term, against the vice president of the president who beat that man and came into the office with clear interest in UFOs.
	So the UFO fan, I believe, is back in the context, back in the background, all over the place, and this election is underway.
	And interestingly enough, in the last month or two, some very interesting things have happened.
	And one of the most important ones is the emergence of John McCain.
	John McCain has left the campaign, but I can assure you he's going back to the Senate more powerful than he ever was.
	And that's the budget.
	Oh, unequivocally.
	John McCain now has a national constituency.
	Yes.
	And if he was thinking like Reagan, let's assume that Bush would lose this fall.
	Then John McCain could do a Ronald Reagan and in four years could pick up all the marbles because obviously with his reform message and his straight talk and his military background and his kind of Eisenhower-esque demeanor and people sick and tired of being lied to, McCain is in a position to capitalize on what's going to happen in the next four years.
	I have a question for Mr. Bassett back in Washington, and that is with regard to McCain, and I was a big McCain booster and supporter, I think you probably know that, Stephen.
	Is there any chance in your mind that he may make a third party run?
	No.
	I also want to refer to Dick's statement that McCain is more about winning the election.
	He wants to win, but actually McCain views himself more as a man of destiny.
	He has alluded to this several times.
	I think he has got a sense of greatness.
	He thinks he maybe does.
	We told Star Wars for his theme song, for God's sake.
	What is that telling us?
	You don't get to be great unless you take on the really tough stuff.
	Just waiting around to win an election isn't how you get that way.
	In fact, that is what we have seen in the past, recently.
	pain. Um, it doesn't really matter. It's just a matter of time. I'm going to be back. I'm
	I can't imagine McCain vice president to George Bush.
	I think that would be just an awful idea.
	No, I doubt it.
	What's the important thing about his run for the presidency is that if you look at the whole thing, which went on for about a year, what it finally came to, the point of it all turned out, maybe it wasn't the intention, but it turned out, is that he did two things.
	He ended up, unlike any Republican in some time, picking up huge interest from Independents and other Democrats, which is why he won so big in New Hampshire.
	And secondly... The Reagan Democrats.
	Yes.
	Well, let me tell you, there were some Clinton Democrats voting for him.
	Well, there were, but their motivation wasn't the same.
	Uh, and then the other thing he did was repudiate the, uh, extreme right of the Republican Party.
	Religious right, and I think, to some extension, the military right.
	And you may say, well, wait a minute, wait a minute, no, it can't be the military right.
	Something a lot of people don't know about McCain, uh, you pick up if you read the biography, is that McCain upset a lot of Republicans a number of years ago, when not that long after his return from the POW experience, after he was in office, He came forward and very aggressively pursued rapprochement with Vietnam, and they just didn't like that at all.
	Well, another thing, the Bush presidents do not pick vice presidents smarter than they are.
	So McCain is in this interesting position, and we also know that he was the only presidential candidate to ask the UFO question in the campaign so far.
	That's right.
	And hopefully there will be other questions because campaign Get Out the Question 2000 is still going and we want the presidential candidates as well as the House and Senate candidates to ask these questions.
	And even... And he made a statement that he was interested.
	He didn't dismiss it.
	He grappled with it and even brought up additional details like what was that thing over Phoenix?
	He left himself open.
	McCain may or may not have strong views on this.
	I think he does.
	But we do know this.
	He is in the center We know that he commands a substantial amount of power right now.
	We know that he heads a committee, a significant committee, a Senate Commerce Committee.
	A major committee.
	Which is not an irrelevant committee to the issues of the politics of UFOs, because many of the issues there have enormous commercial and commerce implications.
	But, you know, the fact, nevertheless, he also has the power to influence people who run other committees in the Senate, as well as the House.
	I would hope that people around the country, and anywhere in the country is appropriate, but most appropriately in his state, which he served, would get in touch with him and say, look, this issue is not being addressed.
	What's likely to happen is the two candidates will definitely try to avoid it, the main candidates, because winning is everything now in American politics.
	You're in a special position.
	Take this on.
	Help get open congressional hearings on this.
	Either hold them yourself, or get another committee to do it.
	Talk to some people in Washington, maybe even myself, who can set you up with other people so you can talk face-to-face with the people who worked in the government, astronauts and others who have spoken openly about this, and take it on!
	Okay, Stephen, we're about out of time here.
	Do you want to direct the audience towards some sort of effort to do all this?
	Well, all of these types of facts, Dick has conveniently made available on his website.
	They can go there and get that information.
	The other thing I want to mention tonight, this is breaking news, and this is important.
	In Missouri, the ballot initiative language is now virtually approved by the Secretary of State.
	What that means is, is that there's seven weeks to gather 75,000 signatures, which will ensure that that call for congressional hearings actually goes on the November election ballot and make history.
	Your listeners out there, particularly those in the Missouri, or those capable of going to Missouri, who are willing to volunteer, because there will be no paid signature gatherers, this is all grassroots, who are willing to go to Missouri, or are in Missouri, and are prepared to collect signatures, need to act right now.
	They have got to call Bruce Witteman, the director of this effort, in Missouri, at this number, and say, I want to collect these signatures, here's my address, here's my phone.
	And the number is 1-800.
	4-8-9-4-8-3-6.
	Alright.
	Which is four UFOs.
	So that's 4-8-9-4-UFO.
	800-4-8-9-4-8-3-6.
	And we're going to need about 500 people to collect about 200 signatures in about seven weeks.
	I think that they'll have a lot, not much trouble.
	I think people will be more than happy to sign this.
	The movie is going to be playing throughout all of Missouri during this, raising a lot of interest.
	And they can make history, but they can't think about it.
	They've got to get out there, and they've got to call now and get going.
	All right.
	Well, let's get them going.
	Stephen, as always, thank you for coming on the program and sort of giving us the political side of this.
	And it's a big one, too.
	You're very welcome.
	All right.
	Take care, my friend.
	That's Stephen Bassett in Washington, D.C.
	All right, Richard.
	In a moment, we're going to bring on a young lady named Kinsia.
	Who is Kinsia?
	Very quickly.
	Kinsia and I have known each other 15, 16 years now, since the beginning of the inquiry into Cydonia on my part.
	Yes.
	She has become the artistic director of the Enterprise mission.
	She has worked with all the key researchers from Carlotto, to DiPietro and Molinar, to McDaniel, to Dr. Crater, to I mean all of them.
	So she's seen the face?
	She has seen and sculpted and exquisitely mapped this thing.
	From stem to stern, and has some pretty interesting things to say.
	Has she seen the movie?
	She has seen the movie, as far as I know.
	All right, good.
	Well then, her input is going to be fascinating.
	All right, stay right there.
	Richard C. Hoagland.
	And soon, the gal who's been making faces for Richard for a long time now.
	Kim Thea.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Her hair's a hollow gold Her lips a sweet surprise Her hands are never cold She's got Betty Davis eyes
	She's turned her music on You won't have to think twice She's pure as New York snow
	From the kingdom of Nye This is Costa Costa From the kingdom of Nye This is Costa Costa AM with Art
	Bell on the Premiere Radio Networks.
	Good morning.
	Richard C. Hoagland is here, and in a moment, the gal who makes faces for Richard, that's probably unfair, Kilthea, will be joined by astronomer Thomas Van Flandern.
	I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	You make me laugh, my tears get by, every time I think about it I want to cry.
	Let's fall into the sea, little kids keep coming, the rain it will ease,
	and the time to be young will always be here.
	I'm a little nervous, aren't I?
	And by the way, tomorrow night you might want to be here, we're just going to have fun,
	or it's going to be very serious, I don't know, but we are going to do a...
	Possessed line.
	A night for those who feel they are possessed, in one manner or another, tomorrow night.
	But right now, Richard C. Hoagland, along with Cynthia, and of course, Astronomer, Thomas Van Flanderen.
	So here's everybody.
	I want to say first, Kinthea, welcome to the program.
	Well, good morning, Art.
	Welcome, everyone.
	I guess you've been doing artwork and facelifts and stuff for Richard?
	Well, darn, you get our secret out over the air.
	Right.
	For the past 18 years, I've been sculpting the face only a mother could love, and I feel like Mama Mars.
	Mama Mars.
	Um, so you have seen the movie.
	Yes.
	And you have seen the face.
	Probably in your dreams as much as dealing with it.
	Yes, yes.
	Um, and we would like to have your comments.
	And Thomas Van Flanderen, good morning to you.
	Yes, good morning Art.
	Um, if you have comments as Kinthea unwraps this for us, feel free to make them, uh, Kinthea.
	Well, yes.
	Um, well I found the movie to be entertaining when it came to the face.
	I found it rather Mickey Mouse.
	It doesn't touch the grandeur, the majesty of the real face.
	And, um, I was, uh, at first I was disturbed, and then I thought, oh, I see.
	They're actually planting a seed for the next generation here.
	This is a way of sneaking in, and I do think they snuck in this name Cydonia.
	I don't think that NASA was tipped to that, because, um, There was no attempt to show Cydonia.
	Any of the rest of Cydonia, I pointed that out earlier.
	So I think they just flipped that name in there and I think that the trailer that they did was that they were testing waters for another movie and like Stephen Bassett says, probably a theme park.
	Why not?
	You know, if they can see how much interest they get from that trailer.
	Yeah.
	Uh, it's quite amazing.
	You know, one of the interesting synchronicities of all this, has anybody been following the news today, Art, Thea, Tom?
	What's been the biggest story all day, including a major presentation at the White House, no less?
	I don't know.
	I can see.
	I was sitting here.
	I mean, it depends on when you watch the news.
	They were talking about how, you know, the political candidates are mopping up and getting delegates.
	Well, this was on Super Tuesday.
	I mean, this is when everybody showed it up on the Republican and Democratic.
	No, I'm talking about a much more fundamental story.
	Today was the story of the Human Genome Project.
	Oh, yes.
	On the very day the NASDAQ dived 200 points because all the biotech companies just went up in flames.
	There's been DNA all over every TV screen all over America for 24 hours now.
	That's true.
	You look just like stuff in the movie.
	Exactly.
	A key theme of De Palma's movie is the DNA strands, the missing chromosomes, How we have been stitched together by alien interference, and how life on Earth has been shaped by an extraterrestrial Martian presence.
	Absolutely.
	Two days later... That was pretty stunning.
	Yeah, two days... By the way, it was very tech-rehedral.
	More hyperdimensional physics for those scenes, okay?
	But two days later, in the real world, you have major announcements at the White House with the President talking about this extraordinary project, which will make everyone's code available to everyone, And demanding that the government keep it open so that science can progress by, you know, no, just non-disclosure of data so that people can't, you know, kind of lock up certain secrets of the genome.
	The point is, are we looking again at the idea of multiple messages?
	Because from my work, and, you know, backed up by Kinsey, is extraordinary modeling.
	There is no doubt in my mind tonight that the real face on Mars has exquisite, important, crucial links With life on Earth, particularly the ancestors of current homo sapiens.
	And although De Palma didn't say that with the face he put in the film, he said it with all the other stuff he put in the film.
	So there were dual messages, and the face that he designed for the film appears to be more the creators of this experience, of this phenomenon, of this intrusion into the terrestrial biosphere, than the end result Which, of course, is us!
	Cynthia, have you seen the trailer with the real face on Mars?
	No, I'm sorry that I missed that, but I can certainly imagine how powerful it must have been.
	Yes, and how strange it would be that it would be released at all in connection with this particular movie.
	That's why I think they were doing a test.
	I think that they were You know, Disney was putting out feelers for possibly another follow-up film with the real Sidonius.
	See if people are interested.
	So, what did you make of the face we saw in the movie?
	What was that?
	Well, I didn't think there was any attempt to make it look real.
	It didn't look like it had been weathered, and it didn't have any features that were really, um...
	You know, that's a really good point.
	They had a lot of sandstorms on Mars and it should have been blasted to bits.
	It looked Mickey Mouse.
	It looked like a cartoon.
	That's why I think that they, it was a deliberate, like a dream sequence seed that they're planting in our consciousness.
	And they know, I mean, Golden's talking about 10 years to Mars.
	A generation, just 10 years, will make such a difference.
	And the youth now that can't vote, 10 years from now will.
	And they're slipping it in where it's safe.
	You know, just like it was safe to say that microbial life could be contained in meteors from Mars.
	This was a safe way to sneak in this concept.
	It was a safe way to sneak in the face where the ones that were looking wouldn't feel threatened.
	But it puts it in the dream mind of the collective.
	Oh, this could be so.
	And it puts it in the mind of the youth to start inquiring.
	And that's why I think they flipped in the name Cydonia.
	I think that this film was deliberately pointed not only at the general audience, but at the young people who, ten years from now, are going to make a big difference.
	Art and Cynthia, there was, on the first mission, the face was still covered over and eroded, and then they made a point In the second mission, the rescue mission, of saying that that episode that happened during the first mission had basically cleaned off the face and taken off all the dust and so on, and it was now this shiny, spectacular thing.
	But it still, technically, it didn't look real.
	It looked like a drawn cartoon.
	Yes.
	There was nothing of the lighting that made you feel like it was a real structure.
	You've seen the face a million times, the old original shots of the face, and then you saw what they took more recently.
	Is there any way that we can urge them to go back and take clear, unambiguous Duplicate photos.
	I mean, this satellite going around Mars now, mapping Mars, taking photos, has been getting spectacular, just beautifully detailed shots of the rest of Mars, everywhere except Cydonia.
	Well, they must be getting, and they're just not showing them to us.
	Well, that's the big unknown, however.
	The attitude of Michael Malin, who is the principal investigator on the camera team, the imaging team, his attitude is, as he said to the planetary scientists and to the press, he said that taking photographs of the face was a waste of funds, $400,000 that they were given specially to do it, and a slap at the integrity of the scientists on the project.
	So he's of a mind not to do it.
	As far as we can tell, there have been at least three opportunities to get more images, three good opportunities, since the last ones were taken, and although they could be keeping that data under wraps, we have no indication that any images at all were taken.
	I wonder if Mr. Malin, Dr. Malin, has gone to see the movie.
	I rather doubt it.
	Isn't it also Mailman who said that if anybody was going to find something, it would be him?
	Or if he did, he put on a mustache and a hat and a trench coat and went late at night.
	Well, see, this illustrates how the process is broken and why we need to pay special credence to Stephen Bassett and the idea that we need to send faxes to Dan Golden, lots of them, demanding new images, and simultaneously send copies of those faxes to John McCain.
	And we have the numbers up on Enterprise.
	If you go to the Enterprise website, EnterpriseMission.com, or you go down to my name on our site tonight and click over on the Enterprise mission, you'll see that about four or five posts down, we have a section that lists fax numbers for McCain, Or Dan Golden, or Ted Koppel.
	All right, but about, you know, what percent of the audience does not have a computer?
	So, do you want to give out a couple of the key fax numbers?
	John McCain's fax number.
	Remember now, he is a national figure.
	Yes.
	He is chairman of the key committee, the Commerce Committee.
	As chairman, he can call hearings on anything he wants.
	Anything.
	Right.
	This is what people don't generally know.
	If John McCain really wants to reform government, you start with honesty in terms of, you know, a NASA mission that's gone completely awry, as Walt Disney himself, the corporation, has accused the government.
	In other words, it's not just us now, but it's a major corporation in America claiming that a major part of the U.S.
	government has not been telling us the truth on something of seminal importance.
	McCain's Washington fax number is 202-228 2-8-6-2.
	That's 2-0-2-2-2-8-2-8-6-2.
	Right, got it.
	Now if you want to email him, you can email to Senator, underline McCain, at mccain.senate.gov.
	And what I would recommend is people send more faxes to Dan Golden.
	Yes, I like sending faxes to Dan Golden.
	Which, of course, well, you know, Dan has not been getting enough attention from most of us for the last couple, three months, and he needs to know that we're still here and we still care.
	And, of course, you want to ask him in your faxes, hey, Dan, what's this new timetable of ten years to Mars?
	What have you found up there that's going to get you the money to get there in ten years?
	Yes, let's ask.
	This fax number is 202-358.
	2-8-1-0.
	That's 2-0-2-3-5-8-2-8-1-0.
	And when I say his fax number, it's in his headquarters office at NASA headquarters.
	These are public fax machines.
	Absolutely.
	Now, if you want to copy Ted Koppel and CNN and, you know, a bunch of other numbers, it would be very nice because the more exposure, the more copies that go around, And on your fax to Golden, it says copy to Ted Koppel, copy to Senator McCain.
	You know, the more they know, they've got to pay attention and respond in some way.
	Seems to me, Richard, Ted Koppel ought to be calling you up about that.
	As a matter of fact, my friend who works on Koppel's staff saw the Time article, Time Magazine, where I'm credited with the Monuments of Mars being the genesis and essence of this film.
	Yes.
	Has taken it to the producers and senior staff of the rest of the Koppel crew.
	And they did not know, as of this afternoon, until I told them, that Golden had changed the timetable.
	So I have recommended to Koppel's staff now that we do a program where NASA or Golden himself come on the show, talk about the new timetable, talk about the film, talk about what's really at Cydonia, and talk about why they back the film that turns around and stabs him in the back.
	And I'd also like to have him tell us where he got the money.
	Well, he doesn't got it yet, but if he's going to get it, There has to be another shoe that drops.
	And the politics of this year could be extraordinary.
	Because John McCain tapped into a deep, visceral vein in the body politic, which is people are tired of being lied to.
	And they want the truth.
	Now, McCain said he's, you know, running the Straight Talk Express.
	Here is a test.
	And John McCain will see it as a test.
	If enough people fax him and say, Senator McCain, look, you made yourself our titular leader in terms of reforming major aspects of this process.
	Well, here's a system that is broken.
	Absolutely flat-ass broken.
	It does not work.
	You have a major corporation accusing the government of lying about something of such incredible importance.
	And then simply glossing over it in every interview and in every discussion, and even when the mission takes pictures, the pictures are incredibly inferior to the rest of the planet that it's photographing.
	Right.
	So if we do this and do it in concert, I mean, the Bell audience has extraordinary power because, and I know that Tom and I have gone around on this, but without all those faxes from this audience way back in 98, I have no doubt there would have been zero pictures of Cydonia in April of 98.
	Yeah, we did.
	We caused action.
	We got the cat box pictures.
	I'm with Richard completely about the value and indeed importance of getting the message to NASA now that we definitely need pictures while we can still get them because the spacecraft is only good for probably less than another year in orbit around Mars and we don't know how long it'll be before There's another camera on any mission to Mars.
	Or, for that matter, how long it's going to be before we can get any successful mission to Mars that might be scheduled.
	That's right.
	Where Richard and I disagree is that I would rather give Golden and NASA the benefit of the doubt since they have been friendly up to now about getting the original pictures of Cydonia and about treating the matter respectfully.
	I think that the people who are Well, I'm not satisfied.
	None of us are.
	Well, but remember, Tom, he told John Holliban, my friend who's no longer with us at CNN,
	Yeah.
	that he was going to continue taking pictures of Cydonia until everyone was satisfied.
	Well, I'm not satisfied.
	And what happened to that promise?
	None of us are.
	Yeah.
	We got those horrendous photos that were taken at the wrong angle and were fuzzy and just
	not typical of what the rest of everything they've been getting from Mars has been just
	spectacular.
	And so, Archer, we now have probably better evidence for exactly what went wrong than
	with any other instance in connection with this whole affair, because JPL and its website
	has the recipe for how it arrived.
	at the picture that was released to the press and basically they detailed the steps there including putting it through both a high and low pass filter.
	The purpose of a high pass filter being to suppress details in an image.
	That's right.
	And to sharpen up edge features.
	The combination of those things and the extremely low contrast in the original image resulted in something that wasn't even recognizable for what we already knew was there from the 1976 images.
	Now, Kinsia has done a lot of work, a lot of work, I mean hundreds of hours, in painstakingly comparing the original Viking data with the Surveyor data and maybe she wants to chime in here and tell us what conclusion she's come to in terms of the so-called new Mars Surveyor imagery.
	Yeah, I would love that opportunity.
	I want to mention that when I first saw the cat box image I was definitely shocked but as I looked at it closer I noticed that there were certain lines there that confirmed actually what I had seen in the Viking High Sun angle and I began to start including the new MGS images in the sculpture.
	I had the sculpture in clay and I had duplicated the two Viking Sun angles and now I began to add in the third Sun angle and and position of camera and what I found was that the face although at first glance it looks like it's asymmetrical you when you first look at it you can see that there's this well we'll say the feline side and the humanoid side looks asymmetrical but when
	You map it out, and if you go to my website, Kinthea.net, and you go to comparisons on the Mars base, you'll see that there is actually a geometry of symmetry.
	For example, the pupil that shows up in the MGS image, is actually equidistant from the center of the face and on the same line as what appears to be the pupil in the Viking high sun angle on the other side of the face.
	So in other words, uh, translate it, Cathea, for an expert like yourself, I mean, the general public looked at only the new photos and went, what a bunch of crap, that's, the face is not really a face, it was a trick of light and shadows the whole time, but for an expert to add on Uh, the additional angles that you got, uh, carefully adding to the original photos, you confirmed, um, in fact.
	Exactly.
	Exactly, and not only that, I'm, I was able to create, uh, the model whereby I can do a sunrise, sunset, and I can simulate exactly the MGS image where it looks like that, and the mouth disappears, and all the features change, and then as the light goes over, it morphs, And you see the Vikings.
	And if you see the Mars movie on Richard's site, you'll see this morphing sequence.
	Which, by the way, would have been incredibly spectacular for De Palma to have put in the film.
	Can you imagine the vista where the astronauts are gathered and they're watching sunrise, over the face, the dawn, Martian dawn behind it?
	Which, of course, I described in great detail in Monuments and then Kinthea.
	Many years later with her three-dimensional modeling was actually able now to create that scene and it's up on the on the computer so everybody can now see it.
	It's a large file there's a couple of very large files you have to download but they're well worth it to take the time.
	All right that's on your side Kinsey as well as Richard's or just yours?
	Well the movies are actually on Richard's side All right.
	And your site again?
	Kynthea.net.
	How do you spell that?
	K-Y-N-T-H-I-A dot net.
	Well, I want to thank you for all the very, very good work you've done for Richard.
	Thank you.
	Obviously, over the years and behind the scenes of that.
	Glad to have you on the program this morning.
	Thank you, Art.
	Thank you, everyone.
	Good night, Cynthia.
	Good night, Andrea.
	All right.
	When we come back, Richard Hoagland and Thomas Van Flanderen will continue.
	I'm Art Bell from the high desert.
	This is Coast to Coast and Beyond AM.
	I'll be so happy, I saw the beauty in her eyes.
	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 Networks.
	With the man who wrote the book, On the Face on Mars.
	Richard C. Hoagland.
	He's been at that and working on it for the better part of 20 years.
	That's a long time.
	With us also tonight, Thomas Van Flanderen, an astronomer who has a unique view of what might occasionally occur to planets.
	How does all that fit in?
	Well, I'm sure we'll get to that shortly.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Once again, Richard C. Hoagland and Professor Van Flanderen.
	Gentlemen, welcome back.
	Tom, have you seen Mission to Mars yet?
	Yes, I saw it on opening night last Friday.
	See that?
	Reaction?
	I liked the movie.
	It wasn't great.
	I'd give it a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10.
	I did like the ending very much.
	I liked that because, of course, I knew a lot of things about it being even more fact-based than the movie makers probably gave it credit for themselves.
	Sure.
	Your criticisms of the movie, if any?
	Well, the first three quarters of it were a bit...
	It's melodramatic and not really that memorable.
	I thought it was the ending of the last quarter that made it very worthwhile.
	I agree.
	The science had a lot of flaws despite the credits to NASA for technical consultation.
	By the way, there was also a disclaimer.
	I watched the credits all the way to the end.
	NASA specifically disclaims that any credit given to it for technical consultation constitutes an endorsement of the story or the contents of this film.
	Never seen that one before.
	No.
	No, I wonder how long it took them to construct that.
	You know what's interesting in terms of Kinsey's reaction to the face, having, you know, lived with this thing for almost 20 years, I got a fax here from a friend of ours in Scottsdale, who had been involved in setting up some of the materials we've done in Phoenix over the years.
	Oh, yes.
	And I want you to read one paragraph, because I think that he's put his finger on what bothers me about the film.
	And you seem to think I'm raving about it.
	No, I'm saying that it's multi-leveled, and as you take it apart, it's richer and richer, but you've got to know the background.
	You have to have read the book.
	We've known about this program and followed our discussions over the years, and the more you know, the more this film resonates at a whole bunch of different levels.
	Well, like when they said, launch at 1950 with or without us.
	Yes, come on!
	Anyway, John says here, what I believe I saw today was a film, Mission to Mars, about two-thirds baked.
	Or, if you will, a two-hour rendition of about three hours of subject matter.
	It dealt with some very heavy material, In a very cavalier way.
	A film that asks us to contemplate some extraordinary possibilities, it fails to provide the necessary weight and moment to make it seem profound.
	A good score is very helpful, and with some meaningful pauses will give necessary inertia to stir our emotions.
	Think of Richard Dreyfuss' face glowing in the sublime light of the mothership in Close Encounters, and you cannot help hearing the superb soundtrack in your mind.
	Perhaps this film was never intended to be of that caliber, but parts of it were, and the whole thing could have been, had they committed the remainder of the effort necessary.
	The gods do, indeed, live in the details.
	Well, unless it was subsidized to be what it is, you wouldn't think that they would intentionally make it less.
	But that's just my take, and I've got a fax for you.
	William from Portland writes something I bet you'll agree with.
	What we're hearing tonight would support Richard's idea of two factions at odds in NASA.
	On one hand, there are the White Hats, who might have secretly given De Palma the green light to make an anti-NASA statement with the film, and then told him to get the hell out of Dodge till the smoke clears.
	Once the Black Hats got wind of the anti-party line message being promoted, I pretty much can't vote that.
	the press and try to limit the damage with across the board bad reviews. With Golden
	likely towing the line between the two elements and upping the schedule on a manned mission,
	it would seem disclosure is near at hand. I pretty much can't vote that. No, I didn't
	think so. Um, Tom, um, your theory of exploding planets or planets that are capable of exploding
	if I remember correctly, you once envisioned Mars as a satellite of another planet, didn't
	you? Uh, that's correct. I think that's correct. I think that's correct. I think that's correct.
	That's right.
	One of the two planets that apparently exploded to make our main asteroid belt was Yeah, in the present orbit of Mars, and Mars was one of its moons at that time.
	So, then, if that's the case, you always rather thought that the face was something erected by those on the main planet to be seen as we might see a giant face on our own moon, erected perhaps in our own image.
	And, obviously, the movie suggested that Humankind was either born from what came from Mars or tampered with by those who lived on the planet that was the mother world for Mars at one point.
	Yes.
	Yes, I think that's a credible line of reasoning.
	Given the artificiality of the face, and I expect not all the audience is willing to give us that, There are some very good lines of evidence now that have led me to conclude that the face is artificial beyond a reasonable doubt now.
	But given that, then it's a question of who built it, when, and for what purpose.
	And the fact that the face is a hominid in appearance, like all species, not like animals or aliens or anything.
	And the other fact of the timing, There's a tie-in that tells us that the face had to have been built earlier than 3.2 million years ago, the astronomical date of the last explosion.
	And 3.2 million years ago is also significant for the human race because the oldest fossil remains of our species date back to 3.2 million years ago on this planet.
	So that gives us two tie-ins with the builders of the face, the hominid appearance and the fact that
	their civilization was apparently ending just as ours was beginning on this planet.
	That tends to suggest that there is some kind of relationship
	between the builders of the face on Mars and our species on this planet,
	as indeed the movie was trying to suggest in a much more roundabout way as its basic theme.
	Tom, since you're an astronomer, in recent days they have been imaging
	these deep crevices on Mars and they have been suggesting publicly
	that there was just a massive, massive amount of water on Mars and how do you see that?
	I guess a lot of people would like to know where the water went.
	Is it down below ground on Mars?
	Did it get blasted away when the mother planet exploded?
	Where did all the water go?
	Well, a lot of that thinking is that that water was around for a long time.
	I think that instead we're talking about water from the explosion.
	That's right.
	I think it came from one of the exploded planets.
	was dumped onto Mars created these tremendous floods of fantastic proportions much greater
	than anything known in the history of Earth.
	So you don't believe it was there originally?
	That's right.
	I think it came from one of the exploded planets.
	And that it blew up quite close to Mars, dumped a tremendous amount of water there along with
	many other changes that it produced on Mars.
	Just this last week there are about 15 lines of evidence that Mars was very close to one
	of the explosions when it happened, especially the pole shift and the fact that one hemisphere
	of Mars is saturated with craters and has a crust that's 20 kilometers thicker than
	the other and the other, the hemisphere that was facing away from the explosion has practically
	a very little cratering and is a...
	Well, here's something that I can't quite grasp, and maybe you can help me with this.
	a sharp division almost at the hemisphere boundary along a great circle, just as you'd expect
	if a tremendous catastrophe happened to half of Mars but not the other half.
	Well, here's something that I can't quite grasp, and maybe you can help me with this.
	It seems to me that if there was a planet to which Mars was essentially a moon, with
	a face erected in the image of those who erected it, put it up there, the face.
	Thank you.
	And Mars, or the mother planet rather, was going to explode.
	It seems to me that that race that lived on that planet already had obvious spacefaring capability.
	And so then, if they could have escaped, they would have escaped.
	And the most obvious place, most friendly place, would be this great big blue world we live on.
	And so then we might not just be genetically tampered with, we might be Martians.
	Or I guess Martians would be an incorrect... Well, see, this again is one of the themes of the film.
	When the alien holds out its hand with the DNA, it's in essence saying, We are you, and you are us.
	I know, but it didn't look like us.
	Well, but look, I mean, remember... There was a little blank piece of DNA that was the difference, but why would, if they were spacefaring on this larger planet, Richard, why would they not have simply saved as many as they could and have taken them to Earth?
	Well, Art, you can't just save the species on Earth because as many as you may transport here, You've come to a planet where the atmospheric gases are different, the pressure is different, the food and energy sources available are different.
	Everything is different from what you're used to.
	Yeah, so in other words, environmentally you would have to have a different creature.
	What you'd have to do is to adapt to the creature which already was here, and that's why Corliss says that this movie traces its genesis to the monuments of Mars, because I lay out very specifically that kind of a scenario with the science behind it in the book.
	I did it almost 20 years ago.
	That's right.
	They would have to take the most nearly similar species already adapted to this biosphere and blend a bit of their DNA with the species' own DNA to produce a hybrid that was adapted to this biosphere yet had the intelligence and dexterity of the original species.
	Tom, when you see Genzea's Additions to the face based on what little information there was available in the latest photographs.
	What does that do to the numerical probability that this is not a natural formation?
	Well, we in fact have used some of Kenthia's work in our analysis because as she said,
	she has simulated both the Viking images and the MGS images with the correct perspective
	angles and lighting angles and does an excellent job of taking a real human face.
	In one case she used her own.
	In another case she used a face that was based on the face on Mars.
	But in each case, when viewed from say the MGS perspective with that kind of lighting,
	you can't recognize it anymore as a face.
	When you're looking at a face at too oblique an angle with very bad lighting and all shadows on the side that's visible to you, it's a bit like looking at a human face illuminated by a flashlight under the chin.
	Distorted and weird.
	Right, but again, coming back to my core question, when you take Kinthea's additions to the old photographs, what do the numbers look like regarding, if you've even run them, regarding whether or not this is an artificial object?
	Well, it's a combination of her work and the finding, the incredible finding in the MGS images that when we We'll find out what is where on the Mesa and get the eyes back in their right place, the nose and so on, and the mouth.
	Once it's all straightened out again and we can reconstruct the view as it would be from overhead, the most amazing thing happens.
	And this is what is absolutely convincing to me.
	We see secondary facial features that could only reasonably be there if this were a constructed Mesa.
	We see an eyebrow over the eye socket.
	We see a round pupil inside the eye socket.
	At the end of the nose ridge we see two small round objects that look like an attempt to portray nostrils.
	What was a mouth in the Viking image is parted lips in the MGS image and so on.
	All these secondary facial features that appear only in the correct location on the mesa With the correct size, shape, and orientation, and nowhere else, is absolutely convincing to me.
	The statistical odds against that are trillions to one, far beyond that, that this would happen by chance.
	So that's what makes it compelling that the face must be artificial.
	Trillions to one and beyond?
	Yes.
	The mathematical odds work out to More than hundreds of billions of billions to one against all that I just described happening by chance.
	And since it was predicted in advance, it's the kind of statistic that scientists are supposed to have to pay attention to.
	But you see, most of the American people, the people who fund NASA, because of this consistent campaign that McDaniel so carefully documented many years ago, do not know this.
	They have not made the connection between this film except through the Disney trailer and the fact that there's
	a real face and structures on Mars that demand answers and That's where there has got to be a connect
	There's got to be some way to knit these two things together and that's where our job
	You know gets very difficult unless we get a lot of help from people listening to us tonight
	Indeed what is so critical is to get?
	Pictures with the right lighting and the right perspective of the face
	I think that will go a long way toward convincing just about everyone who looks at it
	But the face is artificial when they can actually see an overhead view see the full face in its
	Normal symmetry with the shadows the way the builders intended them to be cast
	Let me ask you both a question.
	We're screaming for good, sharp, clear images at the proper angle of Sedonia.
	Do you think that they already have these photographs?
	Richard, Tom.
	I personally doubt it because there have only been a limited number of opportunities for overflights and Malin really is adamant against taking these pictures and he's kind of in charge.
	Well, I differ with Tom because Tom is willing to ascribe ignorance and stupidity to where I see malice and careful connivance and conspiracy.
	That's my Richard.
	Remember, I'm not alone.
	The Disney Corporation has said exactly the same thing.
	All right.
	Both of you will hold the floor at the bottom of the hour.
	Never to be disappointed.
	My guests are Richard C. Hoagland, who wrote the book on Cydonia all those years ago, which you can get, by the way, at Amazon.com, through his website, of course, through my website, and astronomer Dr. Thomas Van Flandren.
	I'm Art Bell.
	I'm going to be singing a song called, The Music of the Mind.
	I'm going to be singing a song called, The Music of the Mind.
	This is a song that I wrote when I was a kid.
	I was playing in a school, and I was sitting in a room,
	and I was singing a song.
	And I think to myself, what a wonderful world it is.
	you From west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may reach our desk at 1-775-727-1222.
	1-800-825-5033. First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	And the wildcard line is open 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 from the Kingdom of Niles.
	Is it maybe at one time Mars was a wonderful place to be.
	Blue skies.
	Water.
	Water?
	Come on.
	Not now.
	I'm not staying.
	Professor Thomas Van Flandern and Richard C. Hoaglander here, and they'll be right back.
	to wonder about. Professor Thomas Van Flandern and Richard C. Hoplander here and they'll be right back.
	All right, back now to our two Mars men. Gentlemen, welcome back.
	You know, during the break, Tom and I were comparing notes on that last scene in the film.
	Yes.
	Which is this three-dimensional, stunning solar system, which is pretty awesome.
	I mean, you gotta see this movie to appreciate all that we've been discussing tonight, and not let critics deter you from finding out for yourself.
	But in this last scene, it basically shows the disaster that overtook Mars and required in the theme of the story The quote Martians to leave, to have a diaspora, and to go elsewhere in the universe, even beyond this galaxy in part, and some of them to come here.
	And what Tom and I were noting was that the effect was disproportionate to the cause.
	In other words, the disaster that they picture in the film was frankly kind of small compared to the effect that they're saying It created.
	Sure.
	Whereas, what I think the pommel is hinting at, in the ultimate result, was Tom's model.
	Now, coincident, this week, just as this film comes out, we've got some amazing evidence, new evidence, that's coming from NASA, from Johns Hopkins, from Goddard, both relating to Mars and relating to this mission, which is orbiting the Eros asteroid, the Near Mission, which, by the way, tonight was renamed after Gene Shoemaker.
	Oh, really?
	It's now called the Near Shoemaker Mission.
	My friend who died, and Tom of course knew him too, a couple, three years ago in the wilds of Australia got hit by a truck, you know, when he was in a lorry doing, you know, what he loved doing, which was investigating asteroid impact here on Earth.
	Yes.
	Anyway, this Near Mission has been producing the most astonishing confirmations of what Tom has been talking about for 25 years, And the most amazing thing is that the project people are actually almost saying it right out loud, Tom.
	That's right.
	At the press conference they held a week after the spacecraft went into orbit around the asteroid Eros and began taking close-up pictures.
	Andrew Chang at the Applied Physics Laboratory announced that It seemed clear that Eros must be a fragment of a planet-sized body.
	That was his phrase.
	Which is a stunning change from the previous positions that every NASA planetary scientist going back generations are.
	Oh, no, it's true.
	I mean, how can they make such a statement without sort of apologizing for what they might have thought in the past?
	Well, he was questioned closely by the reporters At the press conference about exactly what he meant by that, and there was some quick backpedaling there, and he hastily added that the consensus in the field is that the parent body was probably no more than moon size, but that there were really very few lines of evidence that constrained it.
	In the meantime, they have discovered Evidence of, like, geological layering on the asteroid.
	Which means it would have been part of a larger body of planet.
	That's right.
	And they've discovered chemical composition.
	Exactly.
	The mineralogy is matching what you'd get from the cross-section of an exploded crust or mantle of a big planet.
	That's right.
	The rocks are made of lava-like materials and there aren't any volcanoes on this small asteroid.
	It shows evidence that its parent body was melted so that the heavy elements sunk to the core and the light elements to the surface.
	That kind of differentiation.
	Is there anything else, Tom, that would explain that?
	Anything else?
	Well, the asteroid people have been pressed on this for years because there's evidence from meteorites of some of these same phenomena.
	And they have been talking about ways in which small bodies like asteroids might be able to melt.
	They think that maybe things like aluminum-26, basically things that have high radioactivity, might have produced enough heat to melt a small asteroid.
	Now this is a stretch.
	You correctly sense that that's very much a stretch.
	Right.
	Of what's plausible.
	Well, Occam's Razor suggests what?
	That it was a planet.
	Yeah.
	There you go.
	Alright.
	Now you see, it's all of these leaks, this convergence, and either we're dealing with, you know, Jungian synchronicities of overwhelming dimensions, or is it that Dan Golden realizes that the jig is almost up?
	That there's enough honest people in the system Able to look at this disparate data, put it together, realize that there's something wrong with this picture, and it's only a matter of time until the conspiratorial forces are forced out of the closet.
	So the best way politically in Washington that you get ahead of the curve is you get ahead of the curve.
	In other words, you announce it yourself before your enemies can announce it and prove that you've been lying.
	And it's, I mean, Tom is very modest, but he has developed the most extraordinary insights into the real history of the solar system.
	And I feel almost as passionately about his work as I do about ours, because I've seen him shafted and not given credit and not given appropriate approbation and data fudged and hidden under the desk and under the table over and over again.
	So as the near mission unfolds and more and more goodies come to the fore that really confirm that he's been right all along, I mean, I am just tickled to death.
	Well, Richard, as this movie at the end didn't say for Richard, I would think that a movie suggesting the new paradigm, when it's found to be true, confirming Tom's work, probably won't say for Tom.
	I agree with that.
	Also, in fairness to the exploded planet hypothesis has been around for 200 years.
	A lot of good scientists have jumped on that bandwagon and been overtaken by history as the pendulum swung back and forth.
	But the evidence in the last 20 years has sent the pendulum swinging strongly back in the direction of there's really no other way to explain Everything that we see in the solar system except the exploded planet hypothesis.
	And now the NEAR mission is fulfilling, we've had quite a string of successful predictions and the NEAR mission is completing that string of successes, bringing it right up to date.
	for the near mission, the exploded planet hypothesis predicts that all of the asteroids and comets
	are really debris clouds.
	They're not just single isolated rocks floating around.
	But because they came from an exploding major body, lots and lots of debris of all sizes is trapped
	in the gravitational field of each big asteroid.
	Sure.
	So you expect then to find lots of debris when you go up close to one of these things and orbit it.
	So initially I predicted that when the spacecraft went into orbit around here, it would find the debris cloud
	and find the satellites just as an earlier spacecraft found a satellite of an earlier asteroid,
	much to the surprise of the mainstream.
	But a year before the spacecraft actually got there and went into orbit, I realized that the very irregular shape of Eros It's sort of like a stretched kidney bean shape, or even in some orientations, sort of like an icicle.
	Right.
	It's a very elongated object.
	That creates instabilities in the gravitational field.
	And then I realized that the debris that was originally there for just this object would tend to mostly crash onto the surface in slow, gentle grazing impacts, but within just a few hundred or thousand years.
	That the moons that were originally there would be found on the surface now, but still identifiable as moons because they would make a grazing impact.
	They wouldn't make a crater.
	Tom, a question.
	Will these smaller pieces that have been orbiting and pulled in be apparent with this mission?
	Yes.
	They already are?
	They already are.
	And you can tell that they came from orbit Because of roll marks.
	You can see the trail where they came in and skid or rolled across the surface.
	There are furrows going halfway around the moon and then you come to this huge big boulder which is really a small mountain because Eros is like 20 miles across or 20 miles long.
	A year ago I said the exploded planet hypothesis will predict that we'll see roll marks leading up to boulders and the very first image from orbit showed a big crater on Eros With a trail starting out on the plane of Eros, going up the side of a crater wall, down the inside, and ending in a boulder in the crater.
	Well, then they're cooked!
	What are they saying about this?
	I mean, they're cooked, because if it was an impact, it would be not a role mark at all.
	Well, it would splat.
	Splat, right.
	That's right.
	In fact, they found quite a large number of these trails and boulders all over the surface.
	The going, they always have, there are additions that are nothing if not inventive.
	We're now talking about how lucky we are to have samples of the interior of Aeros that must have popped out through fissures
	during impacts.
	Kind of like cookie dough forced out when you break one of those dough boy things for biscuits or whatever.
	That's what they're thinking.
	These are extrusions from inside.
	Now, they're just going to hang on to the bitter end, aren't they?
	Hang on to the bitter end.
	Mainly, they're ignoring the fact that this was predicted by a model long in advance.
	Well, 20 million people are hearing it's predicted, and they can go to the web, and you can click on the near side of Johns Hopkins, and you can see these amazing images that are confirming Tom over and over and over again.
	Then you've got Chang's statements, the project scientist, who says, part of a bigger planet.
	Duh!
	Yes, and you can see the history of the prediction and you can see an image showing the trail in the boulder I just mentioned on our meta research website to metaresearch.org.
	All right, Tom, just a real quick 101 because everybody always says, look, I understand how a sun goes supernova, but I don't understand where the energy comes from or the dynamics come from to explode a planet.
	Well, interestingly, there's been quite a bit of work done just in the past two years, which I'm very happy about because for most of the last 20, 25 years that I've been working on the exploded planet hypothesis, there hasn't really been a good theory of planetary explosions.
	Now there's interest and the theories, good theories, are coming out.
	One that geologists have caught on to recently It takes off from the fact that there's a region in a place called Oklo in Gabon in Africa where there's something called a natural fission reactor.
	There's actually evidence for fission reactions produced by nature from long ago on the earth.
	The theory has it that uranium was leached from the soil by streams and then pooled in some place until it reached critical mass.
	Once they realized that nature can produce fission reactors, the next logical step was to realize that in the core of planets where all the heavy elements like uranium collect, that sooner or later you're going to reach a critical mass and, given the right conditions, you can explode that planet through this process.
	Now, of course, I have a slightly different take.
	I think that the untapped potentials of the hyperdimensional model Not only will explain planets blowing up, but also supernova and, you know, nova and other extraordinary energetic events that we just don't have enough data.
	We got interesting models, but the models are more and more have to be tweaked and pushed and pulled and pummeled to make them fit the evidence coming in particularly from things like Hubble and some of the high energy, you know, observatories in orbit.
	So I don't think the jury is anywhere near in yet on what will cause planets to explode.
	But the very fact that they can, and the evidence now supports it, should give one great pause before dismissing that it could happen again.
	Richard, I'd like to let you know that probably as a result of the movie and the shows we've been doing, in all the interest, your book, The Monuments of Mars, A City on the Edge of Forever, is now ranked 877 at Amazon.com.
	Amazing.
	877, so... Congratulations.
	Thank you, guys.
	Well, it doesn't hurt for Time Magazine to say that it's an echo, you know, my book is an echo of what DePalma has put on the screen.
	Another sign that it's hot, Richard.
	You save only 20%, not 30.
	Okay.
	So, gentlemen, we're about out of time here.
	Final words, either one of you?
	Tom?
	We need more pictures of Cydonia Mars.
	The whole region is rich in anomalies and artificial looking objects.
	We need to know what those are.
	So, facts, Dan Golden.
	Richard?
	You know, you said earlier, Art, you asked the question, did I think, or did Tom think, that there were periods when Malin had taken secret images and not shown us?
	I think I said that, yes.
	And I think I can say yes, and I will give you one fact tonight.
	It's kind of like what happened between the time that Carl panned this work, Carl Sagan panned the work on Cydonia viciously and then the book written on his deathbed.
	You know, Demon Haunted World, he basically said that Cydonia was science and urged new missions to go back and get new pictures.
	Yeah, oh yes.
	Which of course was just the point when all the new missions kept disappearing to try to go back and get new pictures.
	I think that Dan Golden's change of heart Based on, you know, what he said Sunday about now ten years to go to Mars with men and women?
	Yeah, he pulled that out of some hat, I don't know.
	It has to be occasioned by something.
	And let's assume that we're dealing with sober, skeptical science, which from 98 to now has taken every opportunity to get for a group of scientists, some kind of team, inside the agency, The best pictures of Cydonia to analyze so the administrator can basically build a case for a manned mission to Mars.
	Hey Richard, how much would it cost us to put on a manned mission to Mars?
	Well, the numbers range from half a trillion, 500 billion, to a guy named Lowell Wood at one of the national labs, the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California, who calculated ways to do it for between 8 and 10 billion.
	So, you know, have it.
	Let's say it costs a quarter of a trillion dollars.
	Imagine the science and technology and the wondrous heritage and history to be learned when we land at Cydonia and the astronauts find the libraries and the engineering.
	And the science of an immensely old civilization that De Palma hints about in this movie.
	In other words, you can't cost-benefit this out because you're missing most of the reason for going, which is what's there waiting for us.
	All right.
	Well said.
	We're out of time.
	Ask Mr. Golden, whether everybody, whether he just came into a large inheritance or he got some money from someplace we don't know about.
	Because I sure don't know where we're going to get that kind of money right now or in the next 10 years.
	Richard, thank you as always.
	Erudite.
	Just a wonderful person I have on the air.
	And Tom Van Flanderen, professor, thank you.
	And I guess we're out of time.
	Good night, Tom.
	Good night, Richard and Art.
	Good night, Art.
	Good night, Richard.
	Good night, Tom.
	And good night, America.
	That's it.
	And good night, America.
	That's it, folks.
	We are out of time.
	Tomorrow night's The Possess.
	♪ Bill White and Steve Kaplan discuss the award-winning and
	unusual NonPolitics Magazine.
	On a scale from 1 to 10, what would you rate this issue?
	This is definitely, let's say, a 9.
	It's one of the best issues I've read in a long time.
	Frankly, I've been disappointed in a lot.
	Me too.
	I sound like Borg if you don't know the truth.
	But this is a good one.
	Some people might want to see the magazine, and a great way of getting a free trial subscription to this very interesting magazine, which, by the way, is called Law & Politics, is to go to our website, which is lawandpolitics.com.
	If you want to find out if you're a really smart person, it's pretty sure, if you've got an IQ of 130 or above, you will like this magazine.
	Well, yeah.
	Go ahead.
	If it's 130 or below, you might not like it.
	So read it and just find out how smart you are.
	For your free trial subscription and to look at our list of super lawyers, visit us at lawandpolitics.com.
	Law and politics, only our name is boring.
	If you took all the middlemen, Spence Diamond's employees, and lined them up back to back, oh wait a minute, you can't.
	We don't have any middlemen.
	Well, I wish more people would do this.
	Prediction number 16, by the end of the year everybody will know Ed Dames is full of something and it ain't truth.
	Uh, so, Ed Dames is full of BS?
	Pretty much.
	You know, uh, have you been watching the sun lately?
	Yeah, but you know what Art?
	What?
	The sun has done incredible things for five billion years and it's about halfway through its life and it'll do incredible things for another five billion years until it turns into a red giant Oh, it's not that bad.
	Well, I mean, if you think it's BS, then why are you scared?
	You shouldn't be scared.
	and hopefully they'll know how to get off of this godforsaken rock.
	Oh, it's not that bad.
	When you got characters like Mr. Dames and everybody else scaring people to death,
	here's my only question for Mr. Dames.
	Well, I mean, if you think it's BS, then why are you... you shouldn't be scared.
	No, he don't scare me. He scares all these little old folks out here.
	How do you know?
	I... I talk to them, Art.
	I know many, many people who listen to your show.
	Aren't they capable of making up their own minds?
	Well, yeah, but, you know, you've been cool.
	When Art Bell listens to this guy, you know, they put a lot of pressure on him.
	I listen to all kinds of people, including you right now, right?
	Yes, you are.
	So I let Ed Dames say what he wants to say, and I let you say Ed Dames is full of BS.
	Well, Art, have a good New Year.
	Yeah, you too, sir, and watch the sun.
	Now, he's probably correct with regard to the life of the sun.
	I don't think Ed Bain said the sun was going to die.
	I think what he said was that there was going to be an event, an ejecta event.
	Is that possible?
	He bet it is.
	That doesn't mean the sun is going to die, but we might.

▲