Richard C. Hoagland and guests dissect Mission to Mars—a $120M film—claiming its "Sidonia" references and 700 mph UFO sightings near Arkansas (confirmed by airline stewardess Carolyn) hint at NASA’s suppressed evidence of ancient Martian civilizations, possibly tied to genetic influence on human DNA. The Near Shoemaker Mission’s findings on asteroid Eros align with Hoagland’s late friend’s "exploded planet" theory, suggesting Mars may be debris from a catastrophic event 3.2M years ago. NASA’s sudden shift from a 30-year to 10-year Mars mission timeline (per Dan Golden, CNN) and director Brian De Palma’s secrecy fuel suspicions of deliberate misdirection, with Hoagland urging public pressure via faxes to officials like John McCain and Golden to demand clearer images of Cydonia’s artificial structures. The discussion implies a broken system where taxpayer-funded agencies prioritize cover-ups over disclosure, despite potential societal upheaval if extraterrestrial life is confirmed. [Automatically generated summary]
The wonder of flowers to be covered and men should burst up through tarmac to the sun again, or to fly to the sun without burning a wing, to lie in the meadow and hear the grass sing, which in our memory is all for the uncle.
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 today, actually, excuse me, night today, white light, and then a red spherical object with sort of dancing, I don't know, 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?
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, a young lady who's an airline hostess, I guess, stewardess, on a major airline.
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 us, 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.
So then I guess when you heard these two in the last hour, you went, wow, that's what I saw.
unidentified
Right, and I thought, right, and I was a little bit concerned because I thought, well, maybe I was seeing things, but the lady and other passengers confirmed that they could not identify it.
And it was flying too fast for any aircraft that I've ever witnessed.
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, when we were all anticipating the Mission to Mars movie, which we're going to talk about because I has Richard.
And boy, we've got a lot to talk about.
And hanging on the line is David Giamarco.
We'll get to him in a moment 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.
But here is from near Albuquerque, high up in the mountains, Richard C. Hoagland.
Well, she has a predilection and an interest in this, and she has spent a lot of time in the air.
When other people just kind of glance out at the night sky if they're 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.
Well, if for some reason this thing was emitting some kind of luminescent particles, then the flow patterns, as she described, would be exactly what you'd expect.
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 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, maybe we're going to threw a dog here.
And remember the facts through that cheer for the folks that are dying?
Well, I'm looking at my watch and I'm watching the 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, 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 moviegoers that have gone and seen this.
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 wondrous.
And the end scenes, 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 Sidonia and the other things on Mars, do you?
$23.1 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 opened handsome.
And what's really interesting is 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 says, 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, for whom it will be normal to 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 case.
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.
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 the American people 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.
He's been, well, actually, he's in Hollywood right now, trying to follow the Topama 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 facts.
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 intimidated into silence.
The presence of magnesium at the large burn site sounds like a component of what was found in Art's parts, parts that came from the Roswell craft.
The breakup of an electrogravitic 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 marts among the trees.
This crash, I'll put a question mark there, is obviously another confirmation supporting the existence of electrogravitic craft based on hyperdimensional 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 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 beautiful space drama, surely the least fictitious film of director Brian DePama's 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.
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. Marco actually tried to call him today to get, you know, 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'm 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 Sidonia.
In other words, we never saw the launch from Earth.
Either one.
For $1, 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.
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.
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 DePalma 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.
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 because next week, Tuesday, we're going to talk about it.
So if you haven't seen it, this is a reason to keep places here that are going to be blown.
There's that touching scene in the barbecue scene up near the front where the black astronaut is very concerned.
His little kid says, Daddy, who's going to read to me?
And he says to his son, look, I'll take the book with me.
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 the World Space Station and the guys on the space station were seeing the roof.
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 as they're doing on the shuttle these days, would have family time, downtime, where he could read to his son from Mars.
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 Sidonia team and research and to brief the denizens of NASA Lewis,
the NASA rank and file, there was a bit of skull duggery detected by Congressman Walpey 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 a program, all out budget and NASA and the Congress and all that, it would be the core nuclear reactor of a mission to Mars.
And what Wolfe found from the director's office were a series of memos around the SNAP 100 program, instructing these at NASA Lewis on how to launch 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'd 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 Sidonia, 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 laid out in a pretty amazing visual tour de force.
Nowhere does one astronaut turn to the other and say, gosh, how are we going to tell the folks back home?
Well, for the last 20 years it has, because it's important.
Look, if we really are not alone, if we really have the lineal ancestral roots that go to a place like Mars, if somehow Mars has 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.
Let's bring David Giamarco on and find out whether Brian DePalma sucker punched somebody or got sucker punched himself or what in the world's going on.
If you go down on our site on theartbell.com and find David Giamarco'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 actually is quite beautiful.
It's a four-color, glossy magazine on Sunday called The Marquee, right, David?
David, you've obviously also seen something strange in the fact that Mr. Debama, you know, on the eve of his $120 million baby would not be interviewed.
I don't know, hiding out, if that's the right word, but not granting interviews.
Totally bizarre.
And you're in Hollywood right now, to some degree, aside from visiting the Playboy Bunnies, trying to find what's going on.
So what does your nose tell you there?
unidentified
Well, you know, as I mentioned last week, it was just the strangest, oddest thing that De 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 DePalma's office today and mentioned, you know, I was at the press weekend and I wanted to do a follow-up with Brian.
I wasn't able to get the interview at that time.
And she said, well, 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 canceled all his interviews.
Then the next story we heard was that he was at one of the screenings and saw the poor reception it was getting from the press and canceled all those interviews and left for Europe.
Yeah, but the thing is, Argy, 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.
And after seeing it for a second time, your impressions were what?
unidentified
It was an okay movie.
You know, I was intrigued by the story, but, you know, and DePalma certainly is a very technically proficient director and knows how to put a lot of style into his, you know, his work on screen.
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, I was pretty intrigued with it.
I thought the ending was the strongest part of the film.
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 affected, created, managed the origin and evolution of life on Earth up to and including Homo 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.
Well, for most people, that is a pretty amazing piece of film.
Richard C. Hoagland is here along with David Giamarco, 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 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 Giamarco.
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?
I mean, when you have your ear to the ground, what are you hearing?
unidentified
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 a Mark.
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.
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.
unidentified
But 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 this film, the basis for this film.
And yet, in the press kits for Mission to Mars, the press notes, there are 80, 90, some odd pages in the press notes.
There is not one mention at all of Richard's work.
It's attributed basically just to the screenwriters, and you're made to believe that they just brought this out of their heads.
Unless, Art, there is a fast-track, hidden agenda, because look at what we've been saying for the last couple weeks.
Even before we knew all the content, and DuPalma 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.
Now, politically, there's no way the American people do not have this burning desire.
I have a feeling that we know much more now than we knew before Kennedy 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 10 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, which we did with Apollo.
But the fact of the matter is Dan Golden suddenly saying within 10 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 going to get a dime to go to Mars, particularly after you keep losing all these unmanned missions.
As I said in the Monuments of Mars, a city on the edge of forever, Sidonia 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 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.
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.
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 DePalma.
Armageddon, which was, as you know, was a slam-bang, slam-dunk, special effect every 10 seconds non-stop roller coaster ride with NASA's full backing, very similar situation.
NASA's fingerprints all over it, was $140 million.
Now, you take away the $20 million 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 mil of special effects on the screen.
I am absolutely with you on this, that there is about $60 million, I would say, on the screen.
We've had a number of estimates ranging from a high movie executive, who took her daughter the other night, 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?
I asked Tom Jacobson, the producer, a couple weeks ago, about the fact, which you brought up earlier, Art, that we do not see any liftoff.
We don't see any real, you know, dazzling.
We don't see liftoffs or anything like that, basically.
And his response was that Brian didn't want to do it because he felt it had been done so many times before in Apollo 13, 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.
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 or then the second rescue trip, which, of course, would hold the entire world.
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 cockamaming 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, I mean, there's a real high-tension scene where meteors slash through the cabin.
But remember, what De Palma was doing here was a mirror image of key aspects of 2001, where we discovered that HAL 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.
The obvious implication in a mission that's already secret is that there was somebody on that mission or somebody's who had a level of knowledge above the rest of the crew.
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.
It was basically further to what the original piece was that I'd written, delved into the issues a little bit more, brought up the fact that Brian DePalma'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 weeks ago in L.A., and just sort of brought it all together.
Are you getting any feedback from all of this, from people?
unidentified
Well, when that piece ran, I was already here in L.A., so I haven't spoken to anybody back in Canada yet.
But when the first piece ran that Richard, I guess, has on the website right now, 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 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 write 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, you know, 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?
unidentified
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 have to get someone to call you back, and then never heard back.
And Richard C. Hoagland is here, along with David DiMarco, and to be joined shortly by Stephen Bassett in Washington, D.C., or 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.
Dan Golan, 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?
unidentified
Yeah, I mean, in the interview, and 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 where it was like, okay, you know, I get it.
I mean, to say that 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.
unidentified
Oh, yeah.
And when I asked him about the evidence of, you know, what the astronauts have, you know, what they know, 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 No, but they sort of were an intense stare, we'll put it that way.
unidentified
Yeah, he kept it, when I was pressing him on this sort of evidence, he just kept repeating the phrase, you know, it's at the water cooler, it's in the hallways.
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.
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.
unidentified
I have one kicker for you, Art.
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.
It was a voicemail message, and it said, you know, please leave a message after the tone.
Someone will 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 phone systems to work.
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, where he says we're going within 10 years.
Now, you're not going to do that unless they unveil Sidonia.
It ain't just going to happen.
Or something almost equivalent.
And I'm feeling we're on a very tight timeframe.
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.
At the end, you know, in the part that I wrote, according to Time magazine, 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 back 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 were sitting there having, about what happened.
You know, I get the feeling, not that Te Palma's pissed, that Te 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, and they redirect this Saturn probe that, like Galileo, was supposed to make a swing by Mars.
And you get these beautiful high-color, you know, God that we have that kind of resolution and color, lookdowns on the Mars base.
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 a way around Mars, which is a good thousand to 1,500 miles from Sidonia.
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.
That 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.
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.
Well, first, my first take is that as I was sitting here listening and watching this book, Monuments, rise up the chart there at Amazon, I had this rather subversive image in my head of you and Whitley Streeber and Richard all on the bestseller list at the New York Times and Washington Post at the same time.
And what matter of consternation that would cause an East Coast power elite?
It had all the hallmarks of a conflicted production.
Sheer genius mixed in with some interesting things.
But clearly, it is an important movie in many respects because it's 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.
Well, if it had not been Sidonia, if it had not been the face, I don't think we'd be here tonight talking about it.
unidentified
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 Iraq 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, on a number of occasions, made it clear that anything ET would be under that heading.
Is it really caught in the middle here in a conflict of 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, was 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.
Stephen, you heard it when I said earlier that I thought a major message in this film and Mission to Mars that DePalm is 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 made
unidentified
that mission showed the mission was secret and as you have 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 in the last minute.
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.
So the 19.5 was merely the affirmation numerically of the math and science underneath everything you were seeing in the film for two hours and 45 minutes.
unidentified
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 space nationally.
That is just an amazing thing that that trailer occurred.
And I think in terms of the larger picture, there's interesting ironies here.
First of all, everyone admits, even those who don't believe there'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. Marco get on the trail of who actually produced and saw to it that that trailer was released.
unidentified
Well, I'm sort of with Dick on it, by the way, that if Brian DePama 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 Goldman's phone calls.
I'll tell you why I disagree with all this, because Brian DePalma 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.
Yeah, but you don't know what kind of personal relationships were established.
I mean, a director who's 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 he worked with that may be feeling really ripped off that their worst nightmare has come true, particularly after what a period of time.
unidentified
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's current or ancient.
The entertainment industry fully 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 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, you know, if you just get this going here, we could be pulling in some billion-dollar projects.
As you referred to before, and I actually, 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 ET and put this in your mind.
Try to imagine, okay, NASA or the government confirms extraterrestrials ancient or current.
Disney puts together a $200 million theme park, and 5 billion people are going to go to that theme park.
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 ride.
unidentified
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 a huge pressure on this poor little agency that's caught between the DOD, the devil, and the deep blue sea.
It's got its astronauts out there conflicted.
I mean, in 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.
Stephen, the whole controversy that we've been discussing tonight, is this, in your view, some sort of part of disclosure?
unidentified
Well, I think it, 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 much at stake as these things move forward and are probably pretty interested in its outcome and may even want to affect the outcome.
And as we get closer, we're going to see this.
And because we're dealing with what amounts to a cover-up and not an open situation, we're going to have to read between the lines constantly because no one's going to come out and just read a script for us.
And so we are being given opportunities here.
I think, as they say in a farm, we now need to bale some hay while the sun shines.
And Dick and I 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.
And 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.
Well, first know this, that there is a real Sidonia, there is a real artificiality issue in play.
It'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 Sidonia.
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.
We want photographs as clear as we've been getting of the rest of Mars.
unidentified
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 any time.
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's review in Time, where he goes out of his way to mention me in the Monuments of Mars?
I mean, to me, that's telling us that we've got friends that we didn't know we had.
unidentified
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 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 know, you don't deal with their COVID.
So this movie, in a sense, is Disney and De Pama and Touchstone and maybe the entire entertainment industry throwing the gauntlet down to NASA and say, look, we're tired of the games.
We're tired of the delay.
They threw a bone to you in that movie.
Corlus 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 Sidonia showing a face and structures.
Paul David's art, who of course is a name that you recognize, well-known Hollywood producer, did the Roswell incident for Showtime.
He went to see it the other afternoon, and in the break and the intermission between showings, because 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 Sidonia 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?
unidentified
Well, there's another important thing.
These shows need content.
They're desperate for content.
And the movie and Sidonia, as it's represented in the movie, it's a modest show.
The real Sedoni 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, it's Pitts, an incredibly ironic one.
One that, in my opinion, and this is my opinion, we make this very clear, that Pitt's 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, he's 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 one 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 if he was thinking like Reagan, let's assume that Bush were to lose this fault, 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 and make a run for the White House then and probably win.
And what happened, 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 the other thing he did was repudiate the extreme right of the Republican Party, religious right, and I think to some extension, the military right.
And you may say, wait a minute, wait a minute.
No, it can't be the military right.
Something that a lot of people don't know about McCain, you pick up if you read demography, 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.
He grappled with it and even brought up additional details like what was that thing over Phoenix?
unidentified
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, significant committee, Senate Commerce Committee.
Majority.
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 that nevertheless, he also has the power to influence people who run other committees in the Senate as well as the House.
So 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, you know, 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 help get out of 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.
In Missouri, the ballot initiative language is now virtually approved by the Secretary of State.
What that means 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 Missouri or those capable of going to St. 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 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 file.
And the number is 1-800-489-4836, which is 4 UFO.
So that's 489-4 UFO.
800-489-4836.
And we're going to need about 500 people, collect about 200 signatures in about seven weeks.
I think that they'll have 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.
A key theme of DePalma'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.
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 no non-disclosure of data so that people can't 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 backed up by Kinsey's 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.
Yes, and how strange it would be that it would be released at all in connection with this particular movie.
unidentified
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 Cydonia to see if people are interested.
They have a lot of sandstorms on Mars, and it should have been blasted to bits.
unidentified
It looked Mickey Mouse.
It looked like a cartoon.
That's why I think that 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 that, 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 slipped in the name Sidonia.
I think that this film was deliberately pointed not only at the general audience, but at the young people who 10 years from now are going to make a big difference.
Art and Kinsey, 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.
unidentified
But it still, technically, it didn't look real.
It looked like a drawn cartoon.
There was nothing of the lighting that made you feel like it was a real structure.
Tom, 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, the satellite going around Mars now, mapping Mars, taking photos, has been getting spectacular, just beautifully detailed shots of the rest of Mars everywhere except Sidonia.
However, given 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.
And he has, 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.
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, for Dan Golden, for Ted Coppel.
He is chairman of the key committee, the Commerce Committee.
As chairman, he can call hearings on anything he wants.
Anything.
This is what people don't generally know.
If John McCain really wants to reform government, you start with honesty in terms of 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.
Now, if you want to copy Ted Coppel 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.
As a matter of fact, my friend who works on Coppel'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.
Has taken it to the producers and senior staff of the rest of the Coppel 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 Coppel 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 Sidonia, and talk about why they back the film that turns around and stabs them in the back.
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 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.
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 Sidonia in April of 98.
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.
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 Sidonia and about treating the matter respectfully.
I think that the people who are treating this unscientifically are those at the judgment.
Well, but remember, Tom, he told John Holliban, my friend who's no longer with us at CNN, that he was going to continue taking pictures of Sidonia until everyone was satisfied.
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.
Archer, we now have probably better evidence for exactly what went wrong than was in any other instance in connection with this whole affair because JPL at 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 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.
unidentified
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 this third sun angle and position of camera.
And what I found was that the face, although at first glance it looks like it's asymmetrical, 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, Confia.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, translated, Cathia, for an expert like yourself, I mean, the general public looked at only the new photos and went, what a bunch of crap.
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 the additional angles that you got, carefully adding to the original photos, you confirmed in fact.
unidentified
Exactly.
Exactly.
And not only that, I was able to create 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 Viking.
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 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.
I'd give it a six on a scale of one to ten, but 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.
Well, the first three quarters of it were a bit 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, and NASA specifically disclaims that any credit given to it for technical consultation constitutes an endorsement of the story or the contents of this film.
Well, you know, what's interesting in terms of Concini's reaction to the face, having lived with this thing for almost 20 years, I got a fact 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.
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 Dreyfus' 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.
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 fact for you.
William from Portland writes something I bet you'll agree with.
Hi, Art.
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, they go to 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.
Tom, 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?
One of the two planets that apparently exploded to make our main asteroid belt was 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.
Given the artificiality of the face, and I expect not all the audience is willing to give us that, but 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 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 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?
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, along with a lot of other things, was dumped onto Mars, created these tremendous floods of fantastic proportions, much greater than anything known in the history of Earth.
And that it blew up quite close to Mars, dumped a tremendous amount of water there, along with many other changes that are 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 very little cratering and is a one kilometer thick crust, smooth all the way around, and then 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, 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.
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.
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 the scenario with the science behind it in the book.
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 Kinzia'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 Canthia'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.
But again, coming back to my core question, when you take Kynthia'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 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.
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 gets very difficult unless we get a lot of help from people listening to us tonight.
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 that 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.
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.
My guests are Richard C. Hoagland, who wrote the book on Sidonia 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.
unidentified
I'm Art Bell.
I see them blue from you, and I think to myself, what a wonderful world bell in the Kingdom of Nye from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
First-time callers may rechart at 1-775-727-1222.
And the wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
To rechart on the Pull-free International line, call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
This is Coast to Coast A.M. with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nile.
Which is this three-dimensional, stunning solar system, which is pretty awesome.
And you've got to 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.
Whereas what I think the Palma was 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.
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.
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 geological layering on the asteroid.
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 of what's plausible.
And you see, it's all of these leaks, this convergence, and either we're dealing with 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.
Also, in fairness, too, 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 is 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 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 Nir, 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 before 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 orientation, sort of like an icicle, 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.
And so 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.
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.
In fact they found quite a large number of these trails and boulders all over the surface.
The going are the they always have theoreticians that are nothing if not inventive are Now talking about how lucky we are to have samples of the interior of arrows that must have popped out through fissures during impacts.
Well, 20 million people are hearing it's predicted, and they can go to the web and you can click on the near site 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.
Yes, and you can see the history of the prediction, and you can see an image showing the trail and the boulder I just mentioned on our Meta Research website, too, 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 at 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.
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.
I mean, we've 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 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, the shows we've been doing, and all the interest, your book, The Monuments of Mars, a City on the Edge of Forever, is now ranked 877 at Amazon.com.
You know, you said earlier, 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?
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 Sidonia viciously, and then the book written on his deathbed, you know, Demon Haunted World, he basically said that Sidonia was science and urged new missions to go back and get new pictures.
Which, of course, was just the point when all the new missions kept disappearing, tried 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 10 years to go to Mars and men and women 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 Sidonia to analyze so the administrator can basically build a case for 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.
unidentified
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 you land in Sidonia 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.
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 and Politics, is to go to our website, which is lawinpolitics.com.
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 and slowly envelops this planet.
And for the humankind's sake, by then, hopefully they'll know how to get off of this god-forsaken rock.