Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 25, 2001 - Art Bell

01:23:14

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard C. Hoagland with Kynthia - Mars Face Update

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the high desert in the great American Southwest.
	The time is now.
	Commercially, from the island of Guam, eastward to the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands, south into South America, north all the way to the Poland, worldwide on the Internet, of course.
	This is Coast to Coast to Coast to Coast AM, and I'm Art Bell.
	And I'd like to welcome this Friday night, Saturday morning, KBTM in Jonesboro, Arkansas, at 12.30 on the dial, and yet another affiliate as we are that close to 500 affiliates.
	Getting that close, folks.
	That's KBTM in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
	Welcome to the largest live overnight talk show in the world.
	Glad to have you.
	Reminding everybody that We have three hours of pre-feed every night before the program.
	In other words, three hours of the previous night's program is sent to stations that would like to receive it and listeners that would like to hear it.
	And that, of course, feeds in a very linear fashion into the current live program and allows you to have coast on a little bit earlier and do your listeners a great service, because a lot of them Of course, begin to nod off as the night goes on.
	People do have lives beyond this show.
	I don't.
	Some people do.
	Anyway, listen, as you all are well aware, the newest Face on Mars photograph, done roughly from the same perspective, with the same rough lighting, has been taken.
	Only a very high resolution A version of the face on Mars.
	Very high resolution, indeed.
	And for that, I think NASA deserves a big thank you.
	Thank you, thank you, NASA, Mr. Malin, everybody concerned for getting us finally a straight-on
	photograph of this incredible controversy.
	So, what tonight we are going to examine...
	All right.
	Just about every aspect of it, you can imagine.
	I'm going to give you my own personal opinion, and that may change during the show, but right now, when I saw the high-resolution photograph from NASA, I said, that's it.
	It's not a face.
	And that's what the media is saying, too.
	It's not a face.
	The argument is over.
	Here's one.
	A faxer, the local news in my area, did a story about the face.
	At the end of the story, the news anchor started laughing and said, sorry, no aliens, NASA must be putting out bulletins everywhere, it has even reached the local level.
	Yes, oh yes, it's everywhere in the media.
	And it's undeniably a high-resolution image of the face, the full face, not a little bit of it, but the full face.
	When we had Richard on some days ago, we said, Richard told us That tomorrow something's gonna happen.
	He said there would be an announcement of a news conference, I believe, and... I don't know about that.
	But they released the latest photos.
	Obviously, the lights were on late in NASA.
	As headquarters.
	I'm sure they were going.
	Okay, what do we do?
	We said the picture was gonna be there.
	How come the photo is not there?
	Well, they got it out.
	Right away.
	I guess a little of the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.
	Timing-wise.
	But the photograph itself... My own take was, Richard, it's been a good fight.
	Give it up.
	I'm sorry, I don't see it.
	I see... Then we began talking about, well, maybe if the face was reconstructed, you know, as you would reconstruct in a crime scene.
	And so some of that is what we're going to be talking about tonight with Richard and Kynthia.
	I'll tell you about Kynthia.
	And you're going to get their take on it.
	I talked to Professor Van Flanderen, who said that there is plenty there to disappoint both sides.
	For the professor, of course, he had looked for the symmetrical aspect of it, and it's not symmetrical.
	In other words, it is not a face of a A given creature, any single given creature.
	Now, that might do some harm to Professor Van Flanderen's model of what it was.
	Richard C. Hoagland, on the other hand, years and years ago at the UN, said that the face would be not that of a hominoid, fully, but rather of a hominoid-slash-feline combination.
	And I think the one thing you can say about the present face is that clearly it could be seen as that.
	As a matter of fact, one of Richard's harshest critics, as well as mine and many others in this kind of business, would be my good friends at the Skeptical Inquirer.
	Well, Gary Posner of the Skeptical Inquirer, incredibly, in his May-June 2001 Some have remarked that this version, a light reverse face on Mars photo, does indeed look a bit more like a head, though that of a lion rather than a humanoid.
	The idea, therefore, that Richard C. Hoagland should be ridiculed for stating that the new face on Mars photo shows an eastern side lion head is ridiculous.
	And you don't frequently ever hear that from a skeptical inquirer.
	The concept that Richards should be ridiculed for what he said, according to the skeptical inquirer, is ridiculous.
	So, in a moment, with Richard C. Hoagland, a one-time advisor to NASA, Richard C. Oglen, a one-time science advisor to Walter C. Cronkite, the Angstrom Science Award winner, and Cynthia, we're going to have a talk about the new Face on Mars photograph.
	My mind is open, it always is, but after looking at the photograph, like most of the mainstream media, I've said, you've got to be kidding.
	We'll see.
	Now, we've got a couple of things that we've got to get done right away.
	Richard was scrambling and lost his phone line, or his connection with us, so the very first thing I have to do is to get Richard back on the line.
	And sorry about that everybody, it occurs every now and then with live talk radio, Richard is scrambling to get an image working on the web, and so I suspect in the process he disconnected himself.
	So the first thing we're going to do Let's get Richard back on the telephone.
	Richard, are you there?
	Here!
	Okay, good.
	Very good, you're back.
	Now, Richard, sit right there while I introduce Kinthea, and then away we go.
	Alright?
	Okay.
	Kinthea is a well-known multimedia artist living in the San Francisco Bay Area.
	We'll join Richard tonight.
	For about the last two decades, she's also served as the Art and Simulations Director of the Enterprise Mission.
	Her own work first drew international attention in 1986 when she designed the first logo for the White House Young Astronaut slash Young Cosmonaut Exchange Program displayed right on the front page of the Washington Post with President Reagan and acclaimed as far away as Russia.
	Cynthia's 3D sculptures of the phase on Mars span now nearly 20 years of independent and analytical research.
	The very first sculpture on this planet of a potential extraterrestrial work of art.
	Cynthia's initial face on Mars depictions grace the cover of Richard C. Hoagland's first edition of the Monuments of Mars.
	Since pioneering efforts in 1983, she spent literally thousands of hours studying and sculpting and re-sculpting the smallest details of the face from official NASA data.
	Now we have more of that.
	Within the independent Mars community, it is widely acknowledged that after almost 20 years, no one knows It's every feature as intimately as does she.
	Her ongoing analysis via the new media of analog 3D sculptures blended with state-of-the-art computer simulations has risen to the challenge of incorporating new data points into these continuing simulations with each new release of NASA data on the face.
	Well, we've just had a really big one.
	Richard, welcome to the program.
	Good evening, Art.
	Cynthia, I trust you are there.
	Hello, hello.
	Well, let's get it on.
	Here we go.
	Intia, now you should be there.
	Hello, hello.
	Can you hear me now?
	I do, indeed.
	I'm happy to be here.
	Okay.
	Richard, I'm going to let you lead the parade here.
	NASA, certainly you had it right when you came on the air the other day and said, tomorrow there'll be something from NASA.
	Well, there certainly was.
	Big surprise.
	Boom.
	You may want to give a little history on how it happened.
	Well, first of all, in homage to my political friend who has been giving me insights as to how the Bush White House is proceeding on this new course, I thought I saw a putty tat.
	And I did!
	Ten years ago, I said this thing was a putty tat.
	You did say that at the UN, didn't you?
	On the right-hand side, in front of about 200 people in two packed auditoriums during a grueling multi-afternoon session.
	I laid out, you know, it's available on the UN video that we offer at the Enterprise Mission, I laid out the model that, unlike everybody else who had been looking at this since DiPietro and Moldavar started looking back in the late 70s, where everyone assumed that this would be a symmetrical statue, that if we only got good pictures of the Other side, it would look like Paul Newman or Marilyn Monroe or, you know... At least be symmetrical.
	It would be symmetrical.
	I said, apart from everybody else, nine years ago, in the spring of 92, I said, no, it is a fusion of two different species.
	Remarkable call for that long ago.
	And I said that it is hominid on the left, Looking down from orbit.
	Sea Lion on the right.
	Sea Lion on the right, and I further said, and I backed it up with some extraordinary numbers there at the UN, that there was another example in the solar system of this identical imagery, which is tonight just a few thousand miles away from us in a place called Cairo, Egypt.
	May I ask just a sort of for-the-record question?
	Sure.
	The Skeptical Enquirer never, almost never, retracts anything it ever says, and they noted In their May-June edition, uh, that, indeed, you should not be ridiculed for stating, uh, the new face on Mars photo shows an eastern-side lion head.
	Uh, they actually went out of their way to say, in essence, that they would agree, they might agree.
	Well, they didn't say that, but they said you shouldn't be ridiculed.
	They don't, they just never say that!
	They never.
	So, what did they know?
	In December, they did a hit piece on me.
	I know.
	On the cover, they did a Slash and Burn piece.
	Yes, but to come back with this retraction, Richard, what could they have known?
	Well, I think they had a heads-up.
	The skeptical, inquiring people?
	I had a dinner about a year ago in Pasadena.
	It was with a very wealthy individual, someone who lives in one of these, you know, 35-room mansions or whatever.
	And the reason for the dinner was he was interested in investing in Cydonia Research to basically create something that he could sell on the open market.
	And he wanted to pick my brains for what he might do to make him some money.
	And this individual, who will remain nameless, because I have to keep it that way, regaled me the entire evening with the strength and the depth of his contacts at JPL, which is literally just up the street from his mansion.
	And we're sitting there having dinner in this dining room where, you know, you have to have a megaphone to reach the other end of the intercom to tell people to pass the salt.
	And he suddenly said, you know, he says very, very sagaciously, he says, one of my deep contacts at the lab has informed me that the reason NASA has not released new data, this is a year ago now, is because the right-hand side of this creature is definitely a lion, and they don't know what the public reaction will be.
	And I looked at him and I said, um, sir, blank, are you familiar with what I did at the U.N.
	about eight years ago?
	This U.N.?
	No, no, I have no idea.
	What did you do at the U.N.? ?
	So after dinner, I took him into the drawing room, and we're sitting there with Brandy Snifters, and I opened my laptop, and I showed him some of the graphics from the UN presentation.
	Well, you never saw art a guy's jaw drop to the floor faster, because he thought he had a juicy tidbit of inside info to impress me with how he was connected.
	And eight years before, I'd laid out this model, and I had the glyphs, the graphics, to prove Well, we were contending.
	So, from that day forward, this is a year ago, I realized that if we ever got a full image, it would be incredibly contentious, since most people live up to their expectations, and everybody was expecting, except us, that it was going to be symmetrical.
	When we got it, there would be a food fight!
	There would be the free-for-all!
	And that's why I wanted to do this show tonight with Kinsea, because, as you said in your opening, Of all the people on this planet, out of six billion people, the lady we're going to talk to tonight has lived with this object, this enigma, this extraordinary sculpture for more thousands of hours than anybody else I can think of, and knows it better maybe than the face of her own grandmother, or her sons, or her father, or whatever, and it's her reaction and the reactions of artists that I believe we need to be paying very careful attention to.
	All right.
	Cynthia?
	Well, picture yourself on a beach, all right?
	And you see someone that's been buried in the sand by a child.
	Now, you notice that the form, the body is not going to show clearly.
	And what we have on Mars, when we look at the site, at the plateau there, we've got winds that are coming from the city, And they're moving across towards the cliff.
	That is, they're coming across the plain, they're sweeping up the city side of the face, carving away the sand, sculpting it away, carrying it over the ridge of the nose and depositing sand on the cliff side of the face.
	Okay, I can buy that.
	I can buy the fact there might be sand there.
	Okay, now when you look closely, because this is a high-resolution photo, so take a close look.
	And you'll notice that the texture on the right side of the face, that is, the left side of the face, is definitely different than the texture on the city side of the face.
	Well, it's pretty hard, Cynthia, because the right side of the face, certainly you're right, the texture is absolutely different.
	However, so is the geography.
	Well, now take a... I don't know if you can blow it up there, but when you blow it up, what you will see is on the left side, on the city side, you will see it granular, like... I agree.
	...carved and sculpted away.
	I agree.
	On the cliff side...
	It's smooth with striations, horizontal striations.
	That's how the wind is moving across.
	Oh, I'll buy that.
	That's mass wasting.
	I'll buy that.
	In the geological terminology, it's called mass wasting.
	Right, okay.
	I'll buy that.
	Okay, so what you've got here is you've got one side where it was probably at one times fuller.
	It may have been even, when I say fuller, imagine, you know how the face now looks very gaunt?
	On the city side.
	On the humanoid side, it looks very lean.
	Now imagine at one time it was full like a pharaoh's sculpture.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And the wind has come across and it has sculpted, carved away the terrain there, making it lower and lower.
	And in fact, it might have Originally been so high that you couldn't see that benchmark that's been called a teardrop.
	It probably was very high.
	I don't know what the teardrop is.
	Okay.
	Under the left-hand eye, there's a feature that was seen on the Viking data.
	Oh, yes.
	And DiPietro Molinar called it a teardrop.
	I see it there now, yeah.
	And in the very high-res, you know, MGS shot, it now is definitely a rectangular, rectilinear building.
	It definitely has structure.
	It has geometric structure, but it looks like it's been very greatly eroded.
	Yes.
	And all the western side looks very, very eroded.
	Well, we've known for 20 years, from the Viking data, the prevailing winds and the erosive patterns on this part of the planet.
	Yes.
	And they sweep in from the west, and they go toward the east.
	Okay.
	And so anything on the western side, like any mountain, you know, we have an extraordinary mountain here in Albuquerque called the Sandias.
	And on the western side, it's very craggy and eroded, and blocks keep falling down, and rocks keep hitting the bottom, and it's because that's where the, you know, wind and the water gets in.
	On the eastern side, it's protected, so it's a very different terrain.
	All right.
	The same thing appears to be going on here.
	Richard, hold it right there.
	Cynthia, stand by.
	We'll be back to you shortly.
	We're talking about the face on Mars, and we're going to get down to brass tacks here pretty shortly.
	Once again, from my point of view, I looked at it and I said, Richard, it was a good 10-year fight, but I think it's over.
	Maybe not.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	Nights in white satin, never reaching the end.
	Letters I've written, Never meaning to send
	Beauty I don't hate it With these eyes divorced
	Just when the truth is I can't say anymore
	Cause I love you Wanna take a ride?
	Call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	Please call 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	And to call out on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-825-5033.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nine.
	And Richard C. Hoagland and Kinthea.
	The case for the face, I don't know, can it be made anymore?
	Is there still a good argument that it's anything but a bunch of rocks?
	Well, if you look at the NASA high-res image, I'd have to say no.
	I stand to be convinced otherwise, but I was honest with Richard on the phone.
	We'll cover that in a moment.
	And I would have to say no.
	We'll be back.
	This is the end of side one.
	Please leave the cassette exactly where it is, flip it over, and begin again.
	Alright, uh, what I'm going to do is I'm going to take this cassette and I'm going to put
	Once again, Richard T. Hoagland and Cynthia and the Face on Mars.
	Richard, very quickly, reiterating a private call you and I had the other day when this happened.
	I called you and I said, oh my God!
	And you said, right, you already knew, obviously.
	And I looked at it and we had a real serious conversation.
	And I said, Richard, from what I can see here, I just I, you know, I think it's over.
	And, uh, we shall always remain friends, but on this point we may disagree, and I remain, you know, I'm an open mind, and if you can convince me, maybe you can convince a lot of people out there, but what they're showing in the media, and the high-resolution image of the face, uh-uh, partner, doesn't work for me, uh, however, continue.
	Well, I think it's important that we put the conversation in context, because, uh, about 20 years ago, when I got into this, When I first saw DiPietro Molinar's work.
	The face by itself did not impress me.
	Unlike Tom Van Flandern, who has rested his entire case on the face, I have always felt that it was one structure part of a larger complex.
	And I have felt that because when I got into this in 1983, and I looked at the images and I began to make measurements and look at alignments and Look at the, you know, ask the anthropological question, which was, if this was a sculpture, you know, where do the guys who did it live?
	Where do they hang out?
	And, you know, I've described all this in detail in the Monuments of Mars, so I'm not going to reiterate it tonight, but the bottom line is that after 20 years, we have found there is a complex of structures around this Sedonia region of Mars, which is about the size of the Bay Area in San Francisco, where Kentia is tonight.
	And there is an exquisite interlocking geometry.
	Alignment, mathematics, redundant mathematics, redundant angles, things that come up again and again.
	And we covered that in great detail.
	You're absolutely right.
	So if they had taken this picture of this mesa yesterday or the day before, and it had shown nothing.
	It was just a hole.
	I would not have been fazed in the slightest because you can't undo the mathematical matrix in which this thing is embedded.
	It was Sir Arthur Eddington who in the early part of this century said to his fellow British astronomers, he said, gentlemen, you do not have a science unless you can express it in mathematics.
	And what we now have over the last 20 years is a succeeding cascade of rigorous mathematics that demonstrate that whoever did this there on Mars New and extraordinary amount of geometry, math, and science that we are only beginning to rediscover.
	And we have extrapolated those numbers, that math model, to the whole solar system.
	That's the basis of my hyperdimensional physics conversation.
	We found planets in the sun doing things according to the mathematics we've uncovered at Cydonia.
	So, to me, at one level, the face is irrelevant to the discussion, and has been for Probably the last eight or nine years since I did my thing at the UN.
	Notwithstanding that it's not irrelevant, what I was expecting when we got this new image was not that we would, quote, confirm there's life on Mars.
	We already know there was life, okay?
	I was looking for what does it mean?
	What do the guys who did this, if we can peer back through the eons of erosion that have attacked this thing to where I'm astonished there's as much of it left as there is, What were they trying to say?
	What was this monumental work of art on the scale of a mile and a half tall, and a mile wide, and almost a thousand feet high?
	What was so important that they had to do this?
	And we have had intimations over the last several years, over the last nine years, and as Kinthea worked with her models over and over again, I mean, she was a skeptic art.
	Kinthea, tell them how How hard I had to work to get you to finally realize, from your own efforts, what you were dealing with!
	Oh, you know what convinced me with sculpting this over and over again art?
	First of all, you know how a forensic science artist works, where they reconstruct something?
	Well, as I sculpted this over and over again, it was very clear to me That there is a basic structure.
	First of all, the plateau that the face sits on is symmetrical.
	However, when you look at the structure of the two sides, and you look at, like if you were, let's say, the skeleton, or the skull shape, you begin to notice certain things.
	And I want to back up here for a moment, because Richard was talking about that The same is one unit in a complex, in a larger complex.
	Now, when you look at any complete work, each unit reflects the whole.
	And when you look at Cydonia as the city overall, it's not a symmetrical city.
	None of the structures are symmetrical.
	We are looking at a culture that is highly sophisticated.
	And the geometry that's inherent in it is not just put out there in a very simplistic, symmetrical
	There is nothing in Cydonia that is symmetrical.
	Why would we imagine that the face itself would be symmetrical?
	That is where everybody is tripping up.
	They're going in there looking at this new image and they're saying, oh, it's not symmetrical.
	Oh, it's not a face.
	However, if you look at each half, then you see a different story.
	Oh, what do you see?
	Well, here, if you go to my home page I've just put up, and not in the fanciest terms, but a link to an article called Two-Faced, and there you will see Mayan art.
	Which is actually a Two Faces, right at the top there of that page.
	If you hit the link that says Two Faces on my page, it will take you to a page called Two Faces, and I'm going to describe this for the people who can't see it on the web.
	This is Mayan sculpture heads, which was, it was a, when they would depict a head, it was of royalty.
	It was something important.
	And these This sculpture is actually, in fact there are two of them there, it's actually split right down the center.
	On one side is one side of the face.
	Very different than the other side.
	Can you give Art the link so he can see this?
	Well, I'm saying if he goes to the link that's to my page, on the homepage there is a link.
	Okay, well I can, whether I see it or not, and I will see it in a moment, I'm downloading something else.
	I can imagine half of one thing and half of another, and I know that's what Richard talked about at the beginning.
	There's two things I want to weave here.
	One is that we're looking that in antiquities it was the norm to present an allegorical work of art that told a story.
	And it was the norm.
	Symbology.
	Symbology.
	And it was the norm to combine images within one.
	That's one piece of data.
	The other piece of data is to look at the complexity of the whole Cydonia Plateau.
	If you look at our modern architecture, and this is something Robert Svirtek, an architect, so beautifully elaborates.
	If you go to Planetary Mysteries and hit Mars and then hit Svirtek, you'll see His article on the Cydonia Plateau, where he talks about the difference between modern architecture, like for instance you would see nowadays in very simplistic dark buildings, and then if you were to go back and look at the Gothic buildings with these high cathedrals, each society creates their art and their architecture to reflect their inner spirit.
	And it is natural to assume that the face is going to be an element of the entire plateau.
	It's not going to be separate from the plateau.
	It's not going to have a different intrinsic artistic value than the rest of the plateau.
	It's going to be consistent.
	And when you look at the city itself, you don't see symmetrical.
	So you're saying consistently inconsistent.
	Consistently asymmetrical.
	What Kierkegaard found, through his architectural analysis, is redundant geometry, that although it looks asymmetrical, it has an underlying, elegant, redundant mathematical pattern.
	Okay.
	Which is how you know it's architecture, as opposed to just pile of rocks.
	Okay.
	He extended that to include the face, and can see, of course, approaching it from the artistic perspective, finally saw what I was trying to say at the UN, That if this thing was real and made by somebody, it would be consistent with the whole of Cydonia, which had this elegant, underlying asymmetry, there was a mathematical pattern to it, and we should expect that they were trying to say something profound with this mile-long, thousand-foot-high thing, and it may, in fact, harken back to the most ancient terrestrial examples.
	I've got to tell a story here.
	Because there's somebody that I need to really credit for confirming this model.
	When I did this at the UN, you know, there's just so many things you can do, even if you're a multidisciplinary, and like I pride myself on being, you can't know everything.
	So what we have done over the years, Art, is we have opened the door to allow other folks out there, particularly now with the web, to input to us their research, their culling of the archives, their insights, their perspectives, and we've turned up extraordinary Connecting tissue.
	You know, more data points to fill out the model that we're in fact dealing with something which has touched two worlds.
	Well, a gentleman several years ago, after I did the UN thing, called me one day.
	His name is George Haas.
	He has a partner, a geologist.
	George is an artist.
	He's an anthropologist turned artist.
	Works in the New York City area.
	His partner is a geologist named William Saunders.
	And they have been working on a separate insight, which was to look, after they saw my UN thing, at ancient cultures all around the world, and they found, starting with the Central American cultures, the Olmecs and the Mayans, this extraordinary reservoir of imagery, glyphs and statuary and icons and hieroglyphs, that all are two-faced, that have double meanings, And we have some examples on our website tonight.
	If you go to Enterprise, all right?
	You go to the main page, and you go one link down, all right?
	It's the first link under... Kempia's site, by the way, everybody, is, I'm afraid, belly-up at the moment, so the moment we mentioned it.
	Yep.
	Well, what you want to do is go to Enterprise, which has all the bandwidth you would need.
	Right.
	And the first item under the PAX TV thing says, uh, new, the split-faced glyph of the Maya.
	Alright.
	You click on that, and we have a few examples.
	This is literally coming up right to air time, because I had to track down George and his partner.
	I'm there.
	Okay.
	Look at the example.
	At the top, you will see, on the left-hand side, a, um, a double You can do it with their statuary, you can do it with the glyphs.
	intended us to do is to slice them down the middle and fold them over like
	mirror images like we've done with the face on Mars, and lo and behold you get
	two separate and exquisitely meaningful representations in the Mayan cultural
	idiom. You can do it with their statuary, you can do it with the glyphs. In the
	center of the page we have one of the glyphs, and George has separated it
	below into two halves.
	Right.
	And you can see the interpret... These are all Mayan interpretations.
	These are important symbolic interpretations.
	In other words, if you could read Mayan, you'd be able to understand what this book is telling you.
	But what the Mayans did is they coded their meaning in these double images.
	Okay.
	We found that it goes all the way back to the Olmec.
	He said to me tonight, when I was talking to him just before the show, that he's got examples from the American Northwest.
	From California Native Americans who did this.
	And we'll have more examples up in the next few days.
	Alright, well... On the right-hand side... This is sufficient so I understand what you're talking about.
	Look at the right-hand side.
	Look at the sculpture sitting on the purple background.
	You see it?
	The purple background?
	Yeah, at the very top.
	On the right-hand side of that page.
	Okay.
	Oh, got it.
	I've got it.
	Okay.
	You see the left and the right half don't match at all?
	Well... But if you split them, they become each two independent caricatures that are telling a story.
	Okay.
	And you're saying that's how the Mayans did it?
	That's how the Mayans did it.
	Now, it turns out the Egyptians also did the same thing.
	George and his partner have got examples from Egyptian iconography showing this duality.
	All right.
	What's important, then, is to establish that even in our own terrestrial cultures, this is an established artistic technique to communicate something.
	So?
	And from the beginning, I have said, if the face on Mars was real, if the Cydonia Complex was real, if the ancient civilization there was real, you had to get inside the mind of the builders to figure out what they intended to do.
	And obviously they intended to communicate something.
	In this case, they intended to communicate it to the sky, because that's how you photograph this thing from orbit, looking down.
	Out of curiosity, Richard, with the first images that did seem clearly to show a face, how did you come to the conclusion, for that speech at the UN and for everybody else, that one side eventually would be seen as hominoid, the other feline?
	How did you come to that?
	Well, it was not because I knew about the Mayans and the Olmecs.
	What was it?
	Alright.
	It was literally spending about, at that point, what, ten years working on this, working with better enhancements from Mark Corlato on 7813, which is a high sun angle, and it just leaked out at me when I was preparing for the UN thing.
	I began doing left-right habits because a friend of mine in Virginia was deeply into one of the Sufi mystics, and there had been some stuff in the Tibetans about duality.
	And I started looking at this one day, and I said, damn, if that right-hand side doesn't look like it's human, And the more I looked at it, and the more I, you know, in those days we didn't have computers.
	Remember, this was back in the Dark Ages.
	And I remember literally sitting in a driveway in Washington, D.C.
	in Mark's car when he prepared some very high resolution 8x14 or 11x14 glossy for me.
	Right.
	And I said, you know, Mark, this is the best I've ever seen this, but I had to physically cut them apart and paste them together.
	And when I did that, it just leaped out at me.
	And of course, everybody said I was crazy.
	They all said, oh, come on, there's not enough data.
	Well, tonight we got enough data, and when you see the emails that have come in to Enterprise, it's about 9 to 1 of the people who see it.
	And the most amazing thing is Gary Posner's reaction.
	I mean, the Skeptical Inquirer can never be considered a prejudiced source in favor of our model, right?
	For him to say that I shouldn't be ridiculed for proposing this I believe, and the reason they did the retraction is they had an inside track from the political side.
	Not the NASA side, but the political side.
	That there is a face on Mars, it does have dual imagery, and we're going to go there physically and find out what it means with a manned mission.
	I think this release and the huge firestorm of NASA counterattacking Well, Richard, a lot of people are going to say, with these photos, with this new photo, we don't need to go there.
	That's what they'll say.
	And a lot of people will say we do need, because remember, Art, and this is a cliché, Art is in the eye of the beholder.
	Oh, well, of course it is.
	And you are wired differently than I am.
	I know.
	And Cynthia.
	I'm sure.
	We have lots in common.
	But on this one, my dear friend, you don't see it.
	I know.
	There's no disparaging that you don't see it.
	There's a lot of people who don't see it.
	Fortunately, there are a lot of people who do see it.
	And as we go through this process, it's going to get a lot more interesting in terms of those who do see it, in terms of their political commitment to finally go there and find out what it means.
	Well, Kenzie, I'll hold tight because we're at the top of the hour already.
	Right.
	And we'll get back into this.
	No, Richard is right.
	I don't see it.
	I mean, I see where they're headed and what they want me to see, and that's apparent on Richard's website if you've been there, and the feline tastes.
	It's just that I can't get there from where we begin, and where we begin is with the raw Data that NASA has just given us.
	And again, thank you very much, NASA.
	I mean, this has been going on for years and years and years.
	Finally we get what we asked for and I still say it was a B an A or a B. It was a B. We'll be back
	Like.
	Bye!
	Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind.
	It's gonna be a bright, bright, bright, unshiny day.
	Bright, bright, bright sunshine is here Gonna be bright, bright, bright sunshine is here
	I think I can make it now, the pain is gone the next video.
	All of the bad feelings have disappeared 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
	To talk with Art on the toll free international line, call your AT&T operator
	And have them dial 800-893-0903 This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell
	Well, I wish I could see it clearly now But I don't
	I'm looking at the high-resolution version of what NASA has given us of the phase on Mars.
	It's a new look at roughly the same angle, same sun level, so forth and so on, and I don't see it.
	I wish I could.
	But Richard C. Hoagland does, and so does Kinthea.
	Kinthea, actually, is the way it should be pronounced, and sorry about that, Kinthea.
	Anyway, uh, we're discussing the face on Mars.
	Latest, uh, photo that, uh, NASA has righteously given us, uh, in the old Viking photos, there was no question in my mind, hey, that might be a face!
	I could look at that and say to myself, hey, that might be a face.
	In the newest ones, I guess if I imagine, uh, one sort of face on one side and another sort of face on another side, then I might reach out and imagine a face.
	But at that point, I'm having to do too much imagining for my taste.
	Let me put it that way.
	I'm having to extend, leap over a bridge that is too far for my mind.
	But that's just me, and I understand that people have artistic minds, and they would see things in a way that, obviously, I don't.
	Yet, I did in the original Viking photos, I thought, well, there's a chance.
	Scientists most frequently look for Symmetric.
	Symmetry in something that would be proper to be a face.
	And so, if that's what they're looking for, they're obviously going to say, uh-uh, not there.
	So, to imagine now, what I think is being described to us as still being a face, really is not one, but two faces.
	Or at least, I believe that to be the argument.
	Whether I buy into it or not is another question.
	I don't at the moment.
	Once again, from the mountains of New Mexico, Richard C. Hoagland and Kinthea.
	Kinthea being in the Bay Area.
	You two, welcome back.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Let me try to move this in another direction, okay?
	Wait, no, no, no.
	No?
	No.
	Okay, go for it then.
	Art in his last tape in there, between commercials, gave me the perfect lead exactly where I was going.
	Okay, go for it.
	And that is, you mentioned scientists.
	And I want to say here, no one would ask an artist to be the expert on jet propulsion systems.
	Imagine an artist doing the last minute tech before you're going to launch.
	Now why on earth would we want a scientist who is basically linear thinking to be the expert on art, which is a right-brain
	thinking?
	Well, yeah, you might not.
	It doesn't make sense.
	I obviously am not seeing it, so I must be somewhat left-brained.
	Well, you are very left-brained, Art.
	You have a ham radio, you're an electronics guy, you've hung around with high-tech all your life.
	Well, Richard, you must admit, and Cynthia, you must admit, the original image left no doubt, hey, that might be a face, to the average person.
	You looked at the original one, and anybody could say, yeah, gosh, that might be a face, or it might be a bunch of rocks displayed in a way that looks like a face.
	You could make either call.
	We were very fortunate in the original Viking data that the spacecraft, which was Viking 1, orbited above Mars about a thousand miles at the low point, and it swept over the Cydonia Plain At the local time, down there at Cydonia, a thousand miles below it?
	Yep.
	About six o'clock in the evening, in Martian summer at Cydonia.
	Right.
	When the sun was low on the northwestern horizon, and the shadows were long and stark across the left-hand side.
	Yes, sir.
	The hominid sign.
	Indeed.
	Then, 35 days later, NASA, for some reason, still not properly explained, because they deny they did this, they took another picture of this object And it was one of the only other pictures ever taken of the same object in the entire Viking mission.
	Right.
	Which got me suspicious when I got into this.
	And that picture was taken at about, um, let's see, 4 o'clock in the afternoon, a couple hours earlier, woke old time, with the sun about 30 degrees above the horizon, still above the northwest horizon, but high enough that we could peek over the nose ridge and see, lit by both low-angle sun And a scattered skylight, what was on the right-hand side.
	That's what gave you the feline impression.
	That's right.
	Gotcha.
	Now, Richard, I didn't finish where I was going.
	I'm just your average left-brain guy or whatever.
	You're not average, come on.
	But I look at the original Viking photo, and I see argument for a face, definitely.
	Because of the lighting.
	Okay, fair enough.
	I look at the new, very high-resolution, very well-done photograph.
	I mean, there's no denying it, they did what you finally asked for, right?
	Yeah.
	And we have what you asked for.
	It's not like they didn't give you what you wanted this time, or there was some irregularity.
	They did give us a good high-res photo.
	And I look at this one, and I don't say there's an argument.
	I don't have the same questions in my mind about, gee, maybe it's a face.
	Or even maybe it's two faces.
	Well, follow me here for a moment.
	Everyone has a right foot in the West.
	And a left foot.
	We all have a right brain and a left brain.
	It's not really true that we're one way or the other.
	Gotcha.
	Okay, now let's go back to the model that we've got Stan that is going across the bridge of the nose and depositing on the feline side.
	Right.
	Now, when you see someone covered in sand, do you see much of their features?
	Barely nothing!
	Right, right.
	Exactly.
	What we have to go on here, then, is not the detail of the features, which we can't see.
	It's the structure, the innate structure.
	And this is where, if you look on Richard's home page, you can see those two images of the flip of the terrain, which is like a lion and a lion.
	At the very top of the Enterprise main page, yes.
	Now, when you look at those two images side by side, It's very easy to see that the basic structure is the same.
	And this is what a forensic artist would do.
	A forensic artist would look at the structure, at the skeletal frame, at the skull shape, and would then build on the muscle, build on the tissue to reconstruct what it might have been.
	Right.
	Now, in this case, what we're looking at is on one side it's been carved away, And on the other side, it is overflowing with sand.
	Now, you can't see detail through sand.
	It would be, you know, we shouldn't even be expecting it, but you can see the structure.
	And that is very obvious.
	For example, let's take details here.
	When you zoom in close on this high resolution, which, by the way, is very similar to the High Viking, it is not far from the High Viking. It's very, very similar. The
	details line up almost to the key. I mean, the camera angle is a little bit to the side,
	so you have to rectify it to get it to be exactly like the High Viking, but the basic
	features that are in the High Viking are still here. Now, let's zoom in and look at the
	nose area. On the humanoid side, you can see that the nostril area is a little higher,
	and the side bridge of the nose is sharper, just like you would see on a human.
	On the feline side, when you look at that bridge of the nose, it's rounder, broader, and in fact, the nostril pattern is lower.
	This is like a skull of a feline, where the nose would be very broad.
	The nostril would drop down.
	And if you look very closely at the nose area there, you'll see That as the ridge is turning, you can see all the detail of the terrain.
	And then, as it drops to the side, all of a sudden there's that soft texture.
	That soft texture is the sand.
	That's why you can't see detail.
	When you look at that, you can see there is a definite difference in texture between the bridge of the nose, where you can see the crevices and it's eaten away, And the soft sand that's on the beach area.
	But, Kinthea?
	Yes?
	How do you know what's below the sand to reconstruct?
	Well, this is where we're looking at the basic structure of the face.
	That's why I'm saying, look at Richard's image on his home page.
	Oh, I see it.
	Now, under that image... If you see this architecture... Kinthea, under that image, for the folks in the country who don't know this yet... Yes?
	We have been grappling most of the evening, you know, with getting a movie to work.
	Right.
	which you created probably red-hot rhetoric or if you're the big hand in it
	uh... insight media uh...
	and and i like people do is to click on that link and and or the fact that if you can get the movie to work
	because you know newt newt is of comparison movie two point six megabytes
	of says I noticed that on Internet Explorer it works for me, on Netscape for some reason it isn't working, and it did work an hour ago.
	It worked on my computer with Explorer.
	Alright, uh... Yeah, but you're not Netscape.
	Yes, no, I'm not Netscape.
	Alright.
	If you click on that and look at it, you will see a series of dissolves, where Kencia and Fred have registered The face, the lion, the pharaoh image, and made them all superimposed so you go from one to the other to the other and you can look at features that are very, very intrinsically similar in the same positions where they would be if this is the work of art that we are contending it is that has a duality, which is identical to the Mayan and Olmec and other indigenous culture imagery
	That George Haas brought to my attention five years ago.
	You know, you talk about science.
	The science of anthropology is to put the data points together.
	What we're finding is that these ancient Central American cultures, for some reason, chose to exhibit their art, their symbology, in a way that I am saying is identical to what we see on Mars.
	And I want to take it one step further.
	Because this gets into another investigation that we're all quietly working on, which is the Paulina Zalewski Atlantis thing.
	You know, half a mile down and somewhere off Cuba.
	Yes.
	Are you familiar with the ancient codices, the Mayan codices, where they talk about how they got to Central America, where they came from?
	No.
	They came from the East.
	They came from the direction of Cuba, from that city which is sitting on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, half a mile down.
	If that is really an ancient, you know, civilization that sank because of a cataclysm and the refugees fled to Central America and created the Mayan and the Toltec and the Aztec and all the cultures that we see, you then have to ask the question, what kind of culture did those predecessors have?
	In our model, which will be fully fleshed out in the sequel to Monuments, in my book, The Heritage of Mars, I will make the case That what we call Atlantis was not just one area on Earth, but it was a global civilization that succumbed to an incredible catastrophe roughly 13,000 years ago.
	And that catastrophe wiped out a high-tech culture.
	Not a primitive Neolithic culture, Stone Age, whatever, but somewhat like us.
	We've done this before.
	We've climbed the ladder and been slapped down.
	And we've come back.
	And this previous epic, Of which there could be a pristine city sitting under the fans half a mile under the Gulf of Mexico, as soon as we get our ducks in line to find out what they're all going to do about it.
	That would have been perhaps the last time that human beings knew about what's sitting on Mars at Cydonia and elsewhere.
	And not just knew about it, but actually, you know, traveled to and from Mars, walked in the library, decoded the disk, whatever kind of storage there is in this high-tech culture on Mars, So they knew what the art was that the, quote, Martians, the Sidonians, were trying to communicate.
	And it was embedded in this ancient culture circa 13,000 years ago.
	Well, when they were destroyed, when this cataclysm overtook the Earth, and a few refugees fled to the Yucatan to rebuild the civilization, they brought with them those cultural markers, those cultural ways of thinking And we are seeing in the Olmec and the Mayan and the other this duality of sculpture, which is an echo from an ancient source flying on a plane called Cydonia tonight on Mars.
	I wish I could see it.
	Well, what we need to do, and remember there are lots of things that we don't do.
	I do not do nuclear physics well.
	Right.
	I would probably not be very good in the cockpit of a 747.
	I'm really not very good at plumbing.
	No, but we have specialties.
	We have divided our society into people who love to do this, they love to do that, they're very good at this, they're very good at that.
	So what we do is we look at their expertise and we say, almost on faith, if you've done your homework, if I believe you've done your homework, I will go along with you pending further data.
	What I would implore you to do, my friend, is to suspend judgment And to go along with us, tending further data.
	And the data will come, will be coming forth.
	For instance, Fred and Cynthia tried to have ready for tonight a very important three-dimensional animation.
	Right.
	Which is a dawn to sunset view of this space on Mars with the high resolution we now have.
	In Monuments many years ago, I predicted, another prediction, this is what science is based on, That this thing, if it was a work of art, was intended to communicate an evolution.
	I really felt, and I still feel now, stronger today than then, that this thing is designed to tell us about who they were because it's really about who we are.
	The symmetrical aspects of what he thought he was going to see.
	And I've said, gently, very many times, Tom's all wet!
	Well, at any rate, that model certainly, with the new image, is more or less up in flames.
	It's obviously not symmetrical, right?
	And I go back to what I said about an hour ago, which is the matrix, the mathematical model in which this space sits at Cydonia, this exquisite interlocking matrix, which, by the way, will be published shortly in the last edition The Monuments of Mars, the 2001 edition?
	Yeah.
	Which I now, of course, have to rewrite another whole section because of all this new stuff that's happened in the last week.
	Were you surprised they released this photograph, Richard?
	You expected the announcement of a press conference.
	You got, instead, a high-res photo.
	Well, we knew the photos had been taken because Ed Weiler told us, in response to the FACET initiative... That's right, yes.
	...that they had taken this data on April 8th, That it was posted on April 19th.
	Well, it's been over a month from April 19th.
	Right.
	So then we're tracking the politics, and I again come back, I'm one of the only people in this whole independent Marxism who have thought that the beginning of the politics was as important as the science or the art.
	And I've made a lot of enemies along the way, because there are a lot of people who would prefer it to be very clean and honest and aboveboard, and not grungy with the politics of what people do when they're hiding something important.
	Which is what's been going on for the last 20-30 years on this issue.
	So we had a heads up from Weiler, early in the week, with the letter to Peter, Peter Gersten, that they'd done this.
	Yes.
	And then we kept posting them, you know, Peter would call every day, and I'd talk to you, and we'd go on the air.
	I know, yes.
	No response, no response.
	Finally, Wednesday, Weiler got back, and was in meetings all day.
	Right.
	My political sources, the people who are close to the Bush administration, told me The night I was on the air, that yes, something big was going to come down.
	And they didn't know, and I said on the air, whether it was going to be the actual image finally forced free, or an announcement of a press conference in the next few days.
	It turned out to be the image.
	Now, what's remarkable is that simultaneous with the posting of the image, I mean literally within microseconds, all the NASA websites suddenly put up hit pieces.
	Basically debunking this as a phase.
	In fact, one of them, the lead one, on the NASA headquarters website, is called Unmasking the Face on Mars.
	Right.
	It's just a MESA.
	And those things were not done in 30 seconds.
	They were done over a period of several days or weeks.
	I agree, they probably prepared for it.
	So they prepared for it, knowing the photo had been taken.
	Sure.
	And the posting of the photo was delayed By the enemies of Mrs. Real, until those counter-insurgency arguments could be prepared and sent to the BBC, The New York Times, ABC, all over the world.
	And I'd like to add here that the spin that they put on it is that they added, and the experts have concluded it is just a MESA.
	And what was that?
	Cynthia, you're going to have to hold on.
	We're out of break point here.
	We'll be right back.
	The problem is, that's what it looks like, a maze.
	Though I would not give the false hope on a strange and mournful day,
	But the mother-child reunion is only a motion away.
	Oh, and this daughter of mine, I'd care for the life of me.
	Remember a Saturday.
	Another day, another celestial...
	...and another day...
	Another day, another star...
	żenie Music
	Wanna take a ride?
	Well, call ArcBel from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	The vital card line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	And to recharge on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial...
	dial 800-893-0903. This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Network.
	Well that would be Art Bell and Richard C. Hoagland and Ken Thea. All of us talking about
	the new image that NASA has provided and a very good image it is of the Mesa slash face
	on Mars, however you deem to think about it.
	We'll do one more segment, then we'll head toward open lines on a Friday night, Saturday morning.
	This is the end of side one.
	Please leave the cassette exactly where it is, flip it over, and begin again.
	Alright, uh, flip it over.
	All right.
	Finally, I have managed to get the moving photo to work, the moving picture to work, using Internet Explorer, Richard, and hitting refresh did the trick.
	When I hit refresh, it suddenly ran.
	Wonderful.
	I haven't changed my mind.
	In other words, it looks like magic to me.
	You go from broken mesa picture to sort of hominoid picture to lion.
	And then back.
	I'll watch it and then back again, yes.
	You have to look at it several times.
	What you want to do is to look for the correspondence of the individual features.
	The eye.
	Oh, I see that.
	I see that.
	I would suggest that there's a button there that you can hit where you can go frame by frame, and if you get it to hold on the frame where it's like transitioning from the terrain to the line, where you can see both of them still clearly, you will have that aha moment, because then the structure will become so apparent.
	Okay.
	Um, I'll try that.
	At any rate, it is working, I think, for most people with Internet Explorer and not Netscape, for whatever reason.
	If you look at this again and again, and you do it, you single frame it at the transitions, so you can see both images together, you'll see the correspondences.
	And you'll see how this thing actually has exquisite detail on the right and the left, but they're not the same.
	And see, everyone expected, and I know you expected, If we got a good view of the other side, it would be symmetrical.
	Well, if it was, believe me, the arguments would be raging a lot harder tonight.
	But that's not what it is.
	You have to take what it is, not what it isn't.
	Right.
	I'll give you that.
	All those years ago, you said hominoid feline.
	No question about what you said.
	Because there's a method to that.
	There's a model, all right?
	No, um... Let me finish the thought.
	If you look at the If you look at the Sphinx in Egypt, which is well known to everybody, it is a fusion between Hominid, the man, and a lion.
	Everybody, you know, it's not left-right, it's front-back.
	Right.
	How many human beings do you know that come with tails curled around them neatly like this thing does?
	Right.
	You were there!
	You walked around it, right?
	I sure was, yeah.
	Is that how he took you and you could, you know, kick the tires and stand in front of it and lean up at it?
	I did.
	I touched and climbed on parts of it that other people are not allowed to, so yes, Richard, I was there.
	Okay.
	My reasoning was, you asked me what brought me to think that this might be true, is that on Earth we have this stunning fusion of these two images.
	What most people don't know is when we figured out the math of Sedonia, the matrix that I say locks it in that it's artificial, no doubt in my mind.
	None.
	All right?
	I would bet my life that it's artificial based on the mathematics.
	Not what it looks like, but the mathematics.
	And you're still saying that tonight?
	Because you can't unlearn what you already know!
	The problem, here's what is going to be the problem.
	Sure you can.
	All right.
	If you look at the latitude of The face on Mars, on Mars.
	You know, and there are trick functions to latitudes, to numbers of degrees.
	And the tangent of the latitude of the face on Mars is 0.866.
	The latitude is 40.868 degrees above the equator.
	Same convention as on the Earth, where you have Greenwich and you have latitude and longitude and all that.
	It's the same with Mars, and we've done that.
	The cosine Of the Sphinx latitude on Earth, in Egypt, you know, the Sphinx latitude is about 30 degrees, right, within, you know, a few minutes of Earth.
	The cosine of that latitude is exactly the same as the tangent of the face-on-Mars latitude.
	So the tangent of one is the cosine of the other on two separate worlds, and they both represent the same man-lion fusion.
	Hominid, feline, symbology, linked by a mathematical matrix which has one chance in 7,000 of being an accident.
	You just do that by dividing the precision of the numbers of degrees and minutes that you have, you know, measure the latitude of each object.
	So, that was what drove me to really explore.
	When that number fell out, the tangent of Cydonia is equal to the cosine of Giza, I said, wait a minute.
	If this thing is a left-right prominent Hawaiian, then it means on two separate worlds where you had a Sphinx-like image, remember the Russians called the base on Mars the Martian Sphinx, Avinsky called it back in 84 in Soviet life, the Martian Sphinx.
	You've got pyramids and a Sphinx on Mars, pyramids and a Sphinx on Earth.
	That was where I began looking at what I called the terrestrial connection.
	And as I get deeper and deeper into decoding, peeling away the layers of the potential linkages, it was fairly obvious that something about Cydonia resonated with Egypt.
	Overwhelmingly, right down to the math.
	Then, when George Haas called me, and laid this Olmec Mayan Central American layering of culture on me, and showed that they actually do multiple have statues, It's just a lot.
	The only reason you can't see it, Art, is because you can't see it.
	You can intellectualize it, but you can't see it.
	Right.
	You're right.
	I can't see it.
	Well, because, you know, it's under the fan.
	I mean, I can see in your motion video the morphing that you've done, which is really good, but I don't see that when I look at the NASA photo.
	I have a suggestion.
	Richard, I want to finish my thought.
	Okay, go ahead.
	And it's this.
	It's that if the face on Mars is not going to sell the people on Earth with regard to artificiality, if looking at that face is not going to do it, the math is going to be a much harder sell to the masses.
	And I just know I'm right about that.
	You may be right about what you're saying.
	I agree with you.
	In other words, what NASA has given us now is going to make it much more difficult to argue artificiality, period.
	There are folks at NASA who tonight are very happy because they think they won.
	Well, at least they did give you what you asked for.
	Let me stop you there.
	No, they didn't.
	We had to threaten them with a damn lawsuit for 20 years.
	The only reason they keel over is because the pull of Political forces above and beyond the NASA headquarters, at the White House level, I'm telling you tonight, demanded that this picture be taken and put out there.
	However, it happened.
	And it took almost two months.
	But you keep rewarding NASA.
	I do indeed.
	However, I do not agree.
	I do not agree.
	We disagree.
	This agency should have done this 20 years ago.
	With that, I agree.
	So when you say there's such wonderful people, no, Malin had to be drank, kicking and screaming, and it took him two damn months to put the damn thing up after he'd been ordered to.
	There's no credit in NAFTA for doing that.
	The credit lies with the American people who demanded, through their political constitutional process, that government be accountable, finally, and give us what we pay for.
	Okay, Richard, let's put that argument to bed.
	The credit really doesn't matter that much.
	The fact is We've got it.
	We've got it.
	Now let me tell you what's going to happen next.
	There is a rumor running around on the web tonight.
	Remember on your show I told you that we've been looking at a chain of events that started in December?
	Yes.
	That this administration is going to announce possibly on July 20th?
	Yes.
	A manned Mars mission?
	You said that, yes.
	There is a mainstream website tonight that has put up the identical data claiming there are rumors rife in Washington of this And they are coming, I've now identified, they're coming from sources other than our own.
	So there is separate confirmation.
	It's called MarsNews.com, I believe.
	And it's not Enterprise-friendly.
	In fact, at the bottom of their page, they basically cite that Enterprise, you have to watch out because there's fringe science involved.
	So they're not taking their cue from us.
	Right.
	Obviously.
	If this is mandated, if we are going to Mars, boys and girls, alright?
	Then, at some point, as I said the other night, you've got to get pregnant.
	You've got to put this data out there.
	You have to let the debate rage, the war rage as it's doing.
	The NASA detractors, you know, get their best shot.
	Oh, it's all just the Mesa boys and girls.
	Go home.
	Go away.
	Nothing here.
	All right?
	And then the political structure will step in with the next data point.
	There's going to be another shoe dropping.
	All right?
	I was told, and I unfortunately cannot reveal who it was that specifically ordered this face image to be taken and posted.
	Yes.
	But I'm telling you, it's damn high in this U.S.
	government.
	Damn high.
	Look, whoever it is, thank you.
	We've got the photo.
	Those are the people we should be thanking tonight, not NASA.
	Whoever.
	You know, NASA was either forced or voluntarily yielded it.
	Anyway, the picture is taken.
	We've got it, and it seems to me that should be the subject.
	More than, you know, who put on the pressure to get it there.
	The fact is, after all these screeching years, we finally got it!
	Now keep in mind what Weiler said in his letter.
	He said, this is our opinion, right?
	Right.
	It's a mesa.
	Right.
	But he also said, and this was stunning, go back to the Enterprise website and read the NASA letter.
	We invite other opinions We would like peer-reviewed proposal.
	Well, that's a good open attitude.
	So we're in the process now, but isn't it remarkable that it's only happened after 20 years?
	But it is a good open attitude.
	Because it's mandated from outside the agency.
	Well, if that is the case, then good.
	It's called the Executive Branch finally regaining control over its space agency.
	Okay.
	And on that note, we are going to propose, first of all, for the five additional sites for high-resolution imagery.
	Right.
	And, obviously, I'm going to cite the tubes as one of the sites.
	And, you know, the flying saucer we found.
	You know what, Richard?
	You know what?
	The tubes right now, to me, represent the best case for artificiality, much better than the face.
	Do you agree?
	Well, it's apples and oranges.
	Well, is it really?
	I mean, we're looking for artificiality somewhere on Mars.
	The reason, my dear friend, that you gravitate toward the tunnels Or the quote tubes.
	It's because there's no anthropomorphic confusion involved.
	Right.
	It isn't an artistic decision you have to make.
	It's an engineering decision.
	I look at the tubes, and I go... Well, I can't say what I say.
	I can't say what I say.
	It looks very artificial.
	When I found the first one, which was back on, what, July 18th, we posted that first one I found.
	Right.
	I said, dammit, this is it.
	This is the smoking gun we've all been looking for.
	That's what I said, too.
	Yeah, but it's not an either-or.
	It's a both.
	Cydonia stands apart as its own complex, with its own math, its own integrity, its own consistency, its own art, and it's separate from the other structures.
	I mean, on these 70,000 pictures, which again NASA didn't give us, we had to force them, with the help of John McCain, out of this system at the point of a gun, practically.
	To get what the American people paid for on the table.
	So, the political process is functioning if we get involved and stay involved.
	Okay, well let me throw this out, Richard, and maybe you want to tangle with this a little bit.
	One case that has been made, if not by you, then certainly by many, is that there was no re-imaging of the same angle, roughly, time of day photograph, that they haven't gone back and done it, because they had something to hide.
	No.
	How did my friend at JPL know a year ago that the right side was a feline image when he was in my U.N.?
	I don't know.
	But you've got to answer the question!
	How?
	I can't say you don't know.
	Richard, that's the only answer I can give you.
	I don't know!
	Well, there's only one or two explanations.
	Either he lied to me and he knew what I'd done with the U.N.
	and he was feeding me my own stuff, which I don't think was happening because he looked Polack.
	I mean, he looked really shocked when I showed him my imagery.
	The other thing is, he'd been told by inside sources at JPL exactly what was eventually going to happen.
	Now, that was a year ago.
	You know, that means that Malin had taken a picture with this spacecraft over a year ago, which shows the whole thing.
	Could be.
	Lan Fleming, when the June image, which was released, you know, last April, this past April, a month ago, was put out, Lan Fleming, who's at the Johnson Space Center, one of the members of this umbrella organization called Facets now, He did a calculation based on the pixel width and the length of the image.
	Yes.
	And he calculated that what Malin had done is to take the whole thing, slice it in half, and give us only the left half, the western half.
	Now that wasn't me saying that, that was Lan Fleming.
	If that was done a year ago, that's by the way roughly when I had my dinner in Pasadena, he would have given them a heads up of a year.
	Look, all I'm saying is that if NASA had been so convinced from the get-go But this thing was just a MESA, as they've gone over backwards to tell everybody now.
	Why didn't they take an honest picture in 98?
	Why did they sit on this picture for three months?
	I'm sorry, two months.
	Why did they put in that hit piece that they wrote on the Marshall Facelight website a MOLA piece of data?
	You know what MOLA is?
	It's the laser?
	I do now.
	Okay.
	And basically, it looks down at a little telescope and it pings a laser off the surface under this spacecraft that is flying around Mars, and you get an altitude height.
	Right.
	They have got, on their website, a claim that the MOLA data doesn't even show mouth and teeth and any features on this mesa, this table lab.
	Right.
	But what they neglect to mention, which is dishonest in the extreme, is that the MOLA footprint, the pixel size of that MOLA instrument, is a thousand feet!
	It's six times lousier, worse, than the Viking data.
	You can't make the conclusion they make from the MOLA data, which tells us it's a political argument.
	It's a spun argument.
	Why would they be spinning like crazy, and not just putting it out there when they took it, like a day or two later, or even the same day?
	Unless somebody had something to hide, and they're trying to steer public opinion in another direction.
	In other words, if there wasn't this internal There's a seething war between those that know what's there tonight, and those that don't want us to know what's there tonight.
	Richard, do you have any argument with the quality of the high-res image they have provided?
	Um, Cynthia, I have noticed that the so-called high-res is lower-res than the one he released in April, taken last June.
	But way, way higher than Viking.
	Oh yeah.
	There's no doubt that we're higher than Viking.
	But it isn't the highest resolution that the instrument was... we were told it was capable of taking, for some reason.
	And I don't know whether it's because it's just, you know...
	But I think even a higher resolution, if they had it, and this is pretty good, you'll admit it's pretty good.
	Oh, it's very good.
	It's certainly good enough to show the features we've been discussing tonight.
	I'm afraid that if it was better, it would erode the argument, not bolster it.
	Well, look, if you look at the Mona Lisa with a microscope, you're not going to see the Mona Lisa.
	Here, here.
	There's some point at which too much resolution doesn't buy you anything unless you get down to the level of the structure.
	I remember one of my other predictions, which will not be Confirmed now until we get the next spacecraft in 2005 that carries a camera, which is going to give us a few inch resolution.
	Oh yes.
	Not five feet, but about a foot resolution.
	Then you'll really see cracks in rocks.
	Well, no, you'll see the structure and the girders and the cubicles at which this thing was made.
	Remember, there's also on the table, which we haven't discussed tonight, Mark Corlato's fractal data.
	All right, we are so low on time.
	Kinthea, do you have something else you would like to say?
	Well, I would just add that everybody's saying, oh, it isn't a face because it isn't symmetrical.
	But I was approached by two different parties, requested to sculpt the face as being symmetrical.
	And I had to tell them, I can't do it.
	It's not symmetrical.
	And that was long before this photo.
	Because in the last two MGS photos that we had gotten, It was clear to me that it wasn't symmetrical, and it confirmed all along what the High Viking was showing.
	This one is not anything new.
	It's really reiterating what we could see in the High Viking.
	All right, well, when I look at it, I say, it's not a face.
	And I'm talking about the new image.
	And when I look at it harder, I say, it's not two faces either.
	But that's left-brain me, and the argument will go on and on and on and on, I guess.
	But I taught a putty test.
	I taught a putty test.
	And you've got four of them there.
	Go and hug them.
	Look at them carefully.
	Oh, I know.
	Sweep their little ears back, Richard, and they really get to looking like it.
	I know.
	I know.
	Kinthea, thank you.
	Thank you.
	Richard C., thank you.
	To be continued, I'm sure.
	Stay tuned, my friend.
	Night all.
	You, uh, decide for yourself.
	NASA has given us the new high-res image.
	It's up there to be looked at tonight.
	You tell me what you think.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM Next.
	For a Friday night, Saturday morning.
	We're going to open lines.
	Anything you want to talk about.
	Doing alright.
	A little driving on a Saturday night.
	Come walk with me.

▲