Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 12, 2001 - Art Bell

02:53:51

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Mike Heiser, Grant Jeffrey - Bible Code Debate. David Ruppe - Echelon

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from June 12, 2001.
	From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, and or good morning, wherever, or good afternoon, I guess, wherever you may be.
	Commercially heard from the island of Guam, out across the day line and days, my time traveled eastward to the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands, south and to South America, north all the way to the bow, and worldwide on the Internet.
	This hosts Kozay Em and I'm Art Bell.
	Great to be here, everybody.
	As you know, I've taken a day or two off in the last week or so.
	And, in fact, I'm going to be going on vacation on the 21st, June 21st.
	And there is method to that particular state of madness for vacation, which I'll explain to you in given time.
	W-A-I-M in Anderson, South Carolina.
	Welcome aboard, 1230 on the dial.
	That's W-A-I-M in Anderson, South Carolina, as we rocket toward 500 affiliates.
	Well, just a couple of items, and then we're going to speak to an ABCnews.com reporter about Echelon.
	You know, I've been talking quite a bit about Echelon.
	Just a couple of notes.
	One on the website tonight.
	Scenes from a flooded Texas mall.
	And finally, my affiliate in Houston is back with the program after dedicating some very obvious broadcast time to what was going on in Houston, and I covered quite a bit of it.
	Here are a couple.
	I'll just read a little bit.
	Art wanted to share the story with you on the massive flood that we had here.
	It started last week, came ashore in one day, went to the north to Waco, then came back south, and that's when it all hit the fan.
	So, this was written when it was at its worst.
	And everything in Houston flooded.
	Here's another one, Art.
	Houston Update.
	A surprise attack on Houston by the strangely calm killer, Allison, was almost intelligent in nature, as if it had been a well-thought-out plan.
	For us, for many days, Allison just circled around, quietly saturating the drainage substructure of the region, no one worried.
	And next, when she got a ground, When she got a ground and everything was good and wet, she hit the freeways hard, totally crippling any mobility.
	Thousands upon thousands of people didn't even have a clue.
	Well, I tell you, that's the weirdest storm that I've ever seen.
	It was forecast as it occurred.
	The low built right there, and then pounded and pounded and moved away and moved back and pounded some more.
	So we've got some scenes of the flooding in Texas.
	One more, you're not going to believe your eyes, on my website at artbell.com.
	We also have a new video up there, a UFO from Michigan?
	Again, we know who said it, but we're trying to get hold of that person and have them talk to us.
	It's from Michigan and there are actually, there's a JPEG photo, a still photo, you click on that and you'll get moving video of this same thing.
	I assume one was taken from the other.
	Absolutely astounding.
	Astounding.
	So we do really know who sent it.
	Norm Klakota.
	And we're trying to get hold of Norm to get the story to go with it.
	Ever important with these photographs.
	But fascinating stuff.
	Gosh.
	Very clear.
	As in the last one.
	Last week you may recall, regarding James Randi, I said, quack, quack, quack, chicken, come on.
	And Randy responded to one of my listeners, somebody sent him an email.
	And his response, this was a challenge after all, you know.
	His response was, regarding coming on the show, I can't take the time to refute every lie that is told about me.
	That's playing the game.
	Their game.
	I don't do that.
	And that was Randy's response.
	He didn't lie about him.
	We simply invited him to participate in an on-air challenge.
	Nobody lied about him.
	And I went, quack, quack.
	And I still go, quack, quack.
	Come on, Randy!
	That's not an answer to why you're not coming on, at least not one that anybody out there can digest.
	ABC Air Day Sunday evening show, incredibly entitled, Voyage to Atlantis.
	And they talked about the Reuters report and Cuba and the location of the lost city.
	Well, guess what, everybody?
	Leonard Moldenhau will be here tomorrow night with a big update on that story.
	A big update on that story.
	And it has legs.
	So wait till you hear it tomorrow night.
	Boy, I'm telling you.
	2,200 feet down.
	And then there's just one more item that I want to get on before we go to my guest this hour.
	This comes under the category of, gee, it sounds like a bad idea.
	NASA aims to move Earth.
	Cue title.
	NASA aims.
	NASA aims to move Earth.
	Scientists answer to global warming.
	Nudge the planet farther from the sun.
	Scientists have found an unusual way to prevent our planet from overheating.
	Move it to a cooler spot.
	All you have to do is hurdle a few comets at Earth.
	And then its orbit will be altered.
	Our world will then be sent spinning into a safer, cooler part of the solar system.
	This startling idea of improving our interplanetary neighborhood is, believe it or not, the brainchild of a group of NASA engineers and American astronomers who say their plan could add another 6 billion years of useful lifetime to our planet, effectively doubling its working life.
	Dr. Greg Laughlin of NASA Ames Research Center in California says, quote, the technology is not all that far-fetched.
	It involves the same techniques that people now suggest could be used to deflect asteroids or comets heading towards Earth.
	We don't need raw power to move Earth.
	We just require a delicacy of planning and maneuvering.
	The plan put forward by Dr. Laughlin, I shouldn't laugh, and his colleagues, Don Korytansky and Fred Adams involves carefully directing a
	comet or asteroid so that it sweeps close past our planet and transfers some of its
	gravitational energy to Earth.
	Earth's orbital speed would increase as a result and we would move to a higher orbit
	away from the sun, said Laughlin.
	Engineers would then direct their comet so that it passed close to Jupiter or Saturn,
	where the reverse process would occur.
	It would pick up energy from one of these giant planets.
	Later, its orbit would bring it back to Earth, and the process would be repeated.
	Anybody out there want to vote on that idea?
	Alright, coming up in a moment, we're going to talk about Echelon.
	With an ABCnews.com reporter who wrote a story about it.
	That comes next.
	Now we take you back to the night of June 12th, 2001, on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	And we're back.
	Echelon.
	We talked about this, uh, I talked about it quite a bit last week, and for good reason.
	You may remember Sixteen Minutes did a piece on it.
	It's a pretty well-known what Echelon... Well, no, it's not either.
	It's not very well-known.
	I guess it's known, that is what they do.
	Quoting from a London article.
	Every minute of every day, the system can process three million electronic communications worldwide.
	The network has grown to keep pace with the explosion in information technology.
	Today, My system gives 55,000 British and American operatives access to data gathered by 120 satellites worldwide.
	55,000 British and American operatives.
	Hmm.
	Interesting, huh?
	The French were said to have lost $6 billion in a contract for Airbus with the Saudi government to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, thanks to echelon intercepts of faxes and telephone calls.
	Oh my.
	The report given to these British lawmakers says that businesses and ordinary individuals are being spied on and that users should encrypt their emails.
	That would be all of us, right?
	It said, a global system for intercepting communications exists, is no longer, that it exists, is no longer in doubt today.
	They do tap into private, civilian, and corporate communications, impotent to do anything much about it.
	The MEPs in Britain have pointed out that Britain could be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Well, David Rupp wrote an article for abcnews.com.
	He is a reporter for abcnews.com, and wrote on Echelon.
	David, welcome to the program.
	Thank you.
	Great to have you.
	Where are you?
	You're back east somewhere, huh?
	Yeah, New York.
	New York.
	All right.
	So, did they send you... Did you already know what Echelon was, or did they dispatch you out into the ether to go find out?
	Well, actually, I've written...
	Three or four stories on it, sort of focusing on the controversies over it and trying to explain what the system is.
	And so that has involved calling a lot of these journalists that have gone out and actually spoken to a lot of the former employees, former people who worked on the system.
	So number one question is, is it real?
	Is it obvious?
	Yes, I guess.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The question of whether it's still called Echelon remains open.
	I mean, if I were the U.S.
	government and everyone was calling it Echelon, I'd change the code word.
	But yeah, I mean, there seems to be skepticism out there still that the system may not exist.
	But it does?
	Oh, well, certainly.
	You just have to look at the U.S.
	government's own documents that have been released through the Freedom of Information Act, which doesn't specifically describe the system, but it explains in pretty good detail the limitations of the U.S.' 's ability to gather
	Communications intelligence can't gather communications against citizens under certain circumstances.
	They can gather them against a foreign person.
	Very loose rules.
	Right, but what if I call a colleague at the BBC?
	Let's say, just as an example, I call somebody at the BBC.
	So, I'm presuming it could listen to something Involving a call, an overseas call to, say, Britain.
	Right.
	That would be correct?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Now, of course, they'd only be able to hear half of that call, because they're only allowed to listen to the British guy, so they couldn't hear me, right?
	No.
	That's not correct.
	That's not correct?
	Yeah, well, what it does is it intercepts the communication An international... Actually, it intercepts a lot of communications, and then they have these specific code words that search through these communications to find the ones that have, you know, words like bomb or terrorist or whatever the words that the government is looking for, or any of the partner governments involved in this.
	Now, I've seen lists posted on the internet of these supposed code words, the trip echelon.
	I presume you've seen them too?
	Um, I may have read some, but, you know, it doesn't really matter.
	I mean, we can't know for sure, really, what they're searching for.
	I would think just use of the word echelon alone would probably get you listened to.
	What do you think?
	Probably.
	Probably.
	But, okay, so they can intercept, so they can intercept, let's say you're talking to someone in London and you're mentioning echelon and spy networks on the phone.
	They, it may pick it up.
	But then they have certain rules that they have to use.
	First of all, if they can identify that you're a U.S.
	citizen, then they can't use the document unless they get permission from the Attorney General.
	Unless they get permission?
	And even then, they have to have probable cause that you're a spy or an agent of a foreign power.
	But wouldn't all of this have to be determined after the fact?
	In other words... Right, right, yeah.
	Now here's the trick.
	They have very specific rules about when they can target U.S.
	citizens.
	However, the way the system works is it gathers in huge quantities of information, and then sort of pulls out the communications that it wants, and then they go and look at it, and they see if it's a U.S.
	citizen.
	So, if you ask me, does the system collect U.S.
	telephone calls, faxes, emails overseas, Sure, it does.
	Absolutely.
	And, you know, if you would speak to U.S.
	government officials candidly about the capabilities of their collections, as I have, they would tell you, sure, you know, we're bringing in all sorts of things, but we have specific rules designed to prevent the illegal or improper use of U.S.
	person information.
	How personally comforted are you by that?
	Well, that's a very good question because ultimately it comes down to trust.
	And, you know, that's what they say.
	They say, look, you know, we train our people so that they don't, you know, deviate from the regulations.
	And we have oversight within the federal government, within the Congress.
	But, you know, ultimately it's, you know, Day-to-day, they're making decisions about, you know, which information to keep and which information not to keep.
	Well, here's an example, and I'll bring it right to your level, and that is, let's assume that a reporter from ABC.com or ABC is overseas somewhere and gets a really big story.
	They're not ready to go to print yet, but they're going to have a communication back to their editor, what you would normally do.
	And so, you send an email or whatever it is you send, And the story has obvious, serious national security implications.
	First, about Ben Laden.
	Yeah, Ben Laden.
	Okay, there you are.
	Ben Laden, fine.
	Is it really reasonable to assume that because you're an American and because you're a reporter, that information would not be processed and, if necessary, used?
	Well, it depends.
	Here's the thing.
	One of the exceptions that they have that allows them to use communications by a U.S.
	citizen overseas is if it's necessary for understanding or assessing the foreign intelligence, basically.
	So that's a very loose term, and if they feel like You know, they need this document if they feel like they need my name to be included in the document, because they have procedures for erasing, you know, my name if they just want to keep the document.
	You know, it's a judgment call.
	If they feel that, you know, they needed to understand the intelligence, then they'll keep my name in, or, you know, they have the ability to do that.
	Wow.
	But, um, as I understand the regulations, they have to go to the Attorney General first, and they have to make a case, they have to establish some sort of Probable cause.
	No, actually, I take that back.
	That's just to specifically target... To target?
	That's to target me.
	But if you're getting a search warrant... That's like getting a search warrant, right?
	Right.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	But to keep the document, they don't have to go through all that.
	They just have to determine that it's necessary to understand or assess the intelligence, basically.
	And it has to... That, and it also has to...
	Have some sort of a... It has to involve some sort of foreign intelligence.
	It has to be about... Okay, but I... ...lying or some illegal activity.
	Okay, but it's illegal activity.
	Alright, but it's important for me to understand that...
	This would all have to be determined after the fact, after the intercept.
	Yeah, I guess that's the point I'm trying to make is they collect large amounts of information and then, so they have it.
	They've collected it.
	They've got, you know, my phone calls to whoever in France or wherever.
	Wow.
	And then, you know, their computers pick out the documents that they want based upon these, you know, code words that they, or keywords that they punch in.
	And then, um, You know, after that, they decide, OK, do we want to use this?
	OK, you know, should we remove this guy's name or not?
	That sort of thing.
	All right, well, what about keyword Airbus?
	I don't know, is it?
	Well, yeah, I mean, you know, that's a very good question.
	You know, the former CIA Director James Foley said, you know, look, we collected this intelligence and we used it.
	You know, the U.S.
	government used it because we found that Uh, a European government was trying to bribe its way into a contract, and he said, you know, well, we don't pass the intelligence on to our companies, that's forbidden, but we did use it because we, you know, thought the whole situation was unfair, they were breaking the law or whatever, but the question goes, well, why did you even get it in the first place?
	Uh-huh.
	You know, what were you going after that you got there?
	Well, is that the allegation, that there was, uh, over on the other side of the pond there, there was bribery going on?
	That's the allegation?
	That's what the former CIA director said that, you know, through our intelligence intercepts, we had uncovered.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	But that's old news.
	I mean, what's interesting about this is the purpose of the NSA, what it does, and this is the, you know, this is our biggest spy agency, and this is the one that David, then, is it fair to say that big business is national security?
	That's a question you have to ask the government, but I'm going to speak to that.
	I'm going to speak to that.
	All right, we will have to be after the bottom of the heartbeat of a break coming up.
	That's a very good question.
	Is big business national security?
	All right, hold on.
	David Rupp from abcnews.com is my guest.
	He's written on the subject of Echelon.
	I assume you can go to abcnews.com.
	Search under the name David Rupp.
	R-U-P-P, I believe it is.
	See if that's right.
	R-U-P-P-E.
	That's R-U-P-P-E.
	We're talking about Echelon.
	And believe me, Echelon's listening to you.
	and me. All of us.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 12, 2001.
	Out on the street, I was talking to a man.
	He said, so my brother's not the man that I understand.
	You shouldn't worry, I said, that ain't no crime.
	Cause if you get it wrong, you'll get it right next time You need to race in the end
	You need to race in the end Thanks for watching!
	Thanks for watching!
	Inside that we need so much.
	The sight of the touch, or the scent of the sand, or the scent of an oak when it's deep in the ground.
	To wonder if flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
	Or to fly through the sun without burning a wing.
	To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sting.
	To have all these things in our memories.
	in our memories for when the years come to pass.
	I'm not sure I'll ever forget.
	I'm not sure I'll ever forget.
	Why, why would you so quickly take on this trip, take on me?
	Why, take a free ride, take a rest, I wanna see it's all free
	But I would rather take the years, with the heart that's still inside me
	Have to end my life before I rest, but by now, I know, I should have tried
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 12, 2001.
	You know, if you go outside at night like now, but all within an hour of sunset, about an hour before sunrise, you will see all of these little tiny dots, these lesser magnitude stars, crisscrossing the sky.
	You can't miss them.
	They're everywhere.
	You just stare up there long enough and you'll see them.
	Teeny weeny dots of light.
	They're all satellites.
	And 120 of those satellites are listening to everything we do.
	120 satellites.
	You know how much one satellite costs?
	One really good spy satellite?
	They cost a lot of money.
	In the B for billions.
	Sometimes.
	Hundreds of millions if not billions.
	And there's 120 of them up there.
	And they're listening, they're digesting, and they're spewing forth.
	It's called Echelon or maybe by now as David points out something else but it doesn't matter what it's called, does
	it?
	Sound of a jet taking off Now we take you back to the night of June 12th, 2001 on Art
	Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Music Back now, David Rupp, that's R-U-P-P-E, if you want to do a search at abcnews.com and see what he has written, a reporter he is for abcnews.com, and we were talking about the nature, sort of, of Echelon and what it looks at, and I wonder if it's fair to say that our economy is national security.
	That's another way to put it.
	Right, okay.
	So, well, Yeah, the debate in Europe is over whether we're using it to spy on their companies or not.
	And what came out of a recent report that the European Parliament put out was the allocation that Echelon is being used specifically to target European persons, companies for non-intelligence, read that as economic motivations.
	That's something we've denied.
	But there's an interesting thing here.
	If you go to the NSA website, you'll find a definition of the term foreign intelligence, which they give on the site.
	It's in their facts section.
	What does it include?
	Oh, you'll like this.
	Foreign intelligence.
	I'm reading from it.
	Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities Intentions and activities of foreign powers, organizations, and persons.
	Organizations and persons?
	Well, that includes everything.
	Capabilities, intentions, and activities.
	Right.
	It's very general.
	It's very general.
	But, I mean, should this... I'm going to say something controversial here.
	Should this really be so surprising?
	I mean, you know, wouldn't we presume that our government and Other governments around the world would want to know what foreign diplomats are doing, would want to be able to anticipate a terrorist attack or a terrorist plot.
	All right, here's the real question.
	I'm sorry, David.
	Here's the way I've weighed it for myself, and I don't know that I have the answer, but here's how I weigh it.
	On the one hand, I hold up my hand and I say, okay, we'll put national security here, bin Laden, terrorist attacks, bombs, people dead, all that.
	I put that in that hand.
	Then over in this hand, we'll put Privacy and the Fourth Amendment and all of that sort of thing, and try to weigh the two against each other.
	And I'm thinking, personally, on the one hand, hey, I don't write anything that I'd be afraid to have anybody read.
	Honestly, I don't.
	In fact, I sort of assume that what I say on the phone is probably monitored by somebody.
	But, you know, there is this Fourth Amendment thing.
	Maybe it's old-fashioned, huh?
	Right.
	Well, yeah.
	How do you weigh it?
	Well, it's not important how I do, but the way the NSA has weighed it, the way that their current, let's see, director has weighed it when he spoke before... Did he used to say it in this one?
	Anyway, basically, their basic view is U.S.
	law regulates all of this, and the NSA believes that the law strikes a good balance.
	And they use this term, balance, to describe it.
	It's a balance between the need for, you know, the privacy, the Fourth Amendment privacy of Americans, and the government's need to have information to be able to do the job that it's supposed to do.
	It's a balance that strikes a good balance.
	Now, there was a controversy about, I guess it was about a year ago, where one of the committees that oversees The NSA's operations was having problems because the NSA wasn't turning over all of the guidance that its legal department was providing to the people out in the field, telling them where to draw the line.
	This committee wanted all of the guidance given to it because they wanted to review it all, and they wanted to see whether or not Echelon, you know, how far Echelon was pushing it, basically.
	And so there was sort of a standoff, and I'm not really quite sure how it was resolved or whether it was resolved or not, but, you know, Congressman Barr, I guess, has still been expressing concerns that, you know, Echelon may be crossing the line.
	Well, haven't the British, for example, helped with Echelon?
	Didn't they have a ground station somewhere in Britain or somewhere another?
	Or several of them, in Europe, with cooperating partners.
	Right, right.
	We've got the Brits.
	This is all based upon lots of reporting done by investigative journalists who have gone out and spoken to people, but basically it comes down to five partner countries, the U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand.
	Not French.
	English-speaking.
	No, no, no.
	In fact, it's suspected that the French have their own...
	I would imagine so.
	The French always go their own way.
	If they're participating in this, do they participate in the raw data that issues forth from the system?
	Yeah.
	In a funny way, each country sort of develops its own word that it wants the computers to search for.
	Let's say there's a station in New Zealand, which supposedly there is, Then each of the five partner countries will have their code words, or their keywords, fed into the computers and search all of the information that's brought in by that station, and then New Zealand will get its information, Australia will get what it's looking for, UK, US, like that.
	The British then could have put in keywords Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.
	Oh, so you're trying to see if maybe we sort of squirted the law by allowing the Brits to collect for us?
	Well, no, but if the Brits are entitled, because they have facilities there, if they're entitled to the information themselves and they can put in keywords themselves, then they could be looking at Boeing and McDonnell Douglas as we looked at their efforts.
	Well, yeah, there have been allegations in the press or critics of Echelon that said, well, you know, you can sort of get around the legal restrictions by simply having the Brits spy on U.S.
	citizens and then, oh, you know, happen to pass it back to the U.S.
	Whether that's happening or not, I can't speak to it.
	What I can speak to is the NSA's position that that's absolutely forbidden and we don't do it.
	But once again, it comes down to this issue of trust.
	We're not privy to the system.
	You know, the general public doesn't, you know, can't get any information from the government about it.
	The government doesn't deny this system exists.
	It simply will refuse to comment on whether it exists or not or, you know, what's involved in it at all.
	Well, that's better than we get out here at Area 51.
	They don't admit that exists.
	So it comes down to trust.
	But again, if we determined that there was You see where I'm going here?
	Yeah, yeah, sure.
	to the congress uh... contract with the airbus then why couldn't british also use the raw
	data to look is what i was asking uh... at our companies here in
	america uh... doing exactly uh... the the same thing going in the
	ground of the listen you know
	uh... i don't know where i am you can see one going here
	yet yet her home well according to uh...
	uh... i guess interviews and research done by one of the uh... ground breaking journalist who who have
	covered the system uh... nikki hagar
	who's the new zealander uh...
	uh... there's a uh...
	There's a rule, I guess, or sort of an agreement between the partner countries that they won't spy on each other.
	So they'll spy on perhaps everyone else in the world.
	But, you know, they won't find each other.
	Have we ever kept agreements like that?
	I mean, we've had story after story in the international press of friendly governments, friendly in quotes, spying on each other.
	And so the information is delivered right to their doorstep.
	Yeah.
	You know, it's conceivable, but how much spying do we really need to do on the Brits?
	I mean, they have a pretty open system like we do, and we share a lot of stuff with them already.
	It's a hypothetical, I think, that's not really the most pressing issue.
	And for the Europeans, the most pressing issue is the fact that U.S.
	citizens have privacy rights and and and laws that protect them from
	that sort of uh...
	the sort of surveillance what you got to have orders the system can you know
	listen to a french person's private conversation or you know approach diplomats or whoever
	that that's a big concern in europe or or the other way around uh... for us in
	other words british could listen to american citizens or or the uh... the aussies could listen to american
	citizens i mean so this is uh... it is a fair concern that
	Just out of curiosity, David, from a personal point of view, maybe you hate to comment on that when you're a reporter, but if you hold out those two hands the way I did, how do you feel about it?
	Alright, well, you know, once again, you know, I said that I could see a good need for the system.
	Like, frankly, you know, I live in New York City.
	I would like to go to sleep at night feeling that You know, our government and intelligence agencies are doing basically everything they can to make sure someone doesn't sneak in and do something really bad in the city.
	So, I'm, you know, all in favor of that.
	Now, you know, we've got oversight committees, we've got procedures within the government for making sure that the intelligence community doesn't step over the line.
	And, you know, I guess all I can say is, so far, at least in the press, I haven't seen Any evidence that the system is being abused.
	You don't see Republicans charging that, you know, the NSA passed off secrets to the Democrats or vice versa.
	On the other hand, you're not liable to hear that either.
	Well, if that information was used, it probably would be laundered several times before it got to where it was going.
	Possibly.
	However, you did hear it back in the 70s because there were two or three Really important congressional investigations that basically exposed the kind of illegal wrongdoing that we're talking about.
	The NSA was involved.
	They were gathering intelligence on civil rights leaders, Martin Luther King, keeping files on these people.
	Now, I heard that was the FBI.
	You're saying that went all the way to the NSA.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	NSA was involved.
	FBI, NSA.
	Well, gee.
	I can understand the FBI, perhaps, but the NSA, gosh, aren't they a little like, well, I guess, their territory, the FBI is national, and the CIA is international, and the NSA is without borders?
	Is that right?
	Well, it's supposed to work exactly like an intelligence agency, you know, just like the CIA.
	It's not supposed to be spying on U.S.
	citizens when they say that they don't do it.
	So they actually have a... But they admit, you know, or at least U.S.
	government officials have admitted that, yeah, this sort of illegal activity or improper activity was occurring back in the 70s, but then, you know, these committees, these investigations prompted Congress to set up these oversight committees and develop, you know, some pretty elaborate regulations to try to control the agents.
	So basically, they're saying, we did it then, but we're not doing it now.
	Mm-hmm.
	Do you believe that?
	Well, you know, I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
	The tricky thing is that it's really darned hard to get evidence to the contrary, so you're left, you know, basically trusting them.
	You know, the one thing that might concern people is that there are, you know, serious people in Congress like Senator Porter.
	Um, who was chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, um, you know, who was trying to get all of this guidance, supposedly, that the NSA had put out on, you know, where to draw the line about collecting intelligence on U.S.
	citizens and everything, and the NSA said that, you know, well, look, you can't ask us for everything because, you know, I think they claimed it's executive privilege, but they didn't want to turn it over.
	So, you know, That may lead some people to conclude that, well, maybe they've got something to hide, maybe they've made some controversial calls in the past, or, you know, whatever.
	You may not know anything about this, but one defense the average citizen thinks about is encrypting, for example, email.
	You know, with, say, PGP, which is said to be really good.
	My thinking was, gee, if they're really as good as they suggest they are, number one, an encrypted message would absolutely trip some sort of attention-getting signal.
	Number two, if they're really as good as they say, they probably can decipher PGP if they need to.
	Well, this agency is enormous.
	I mean, tens of billions of dollars, and they've got massive computer power, and so, you know, I'm sure that they can decrypt things pretty easily, but, you know, what would Screw them up a little, maybe, as if everybody was encrypting their email.
	Because then computers would be working overtime trying to bust everything, and most of it isn't any good.
	Most of it's me calling grandma or whatever.
	Sure.
	Not only that, but we'd be attacking national security if we did that.
	I don't think they're arguing that.
	No, I'm arguing that.
	In other words, you'd be making it more difficult.
	It would so cripple their system that you could argue it would affect national security.
	Yeah, I guess it could.
	I'm sure the Bin Laden types of the world are probably encrypting it.
	And the other way of avoiding getting your messages intercepted It's not to have them go over commercial satellites in that way.
	The NSA complains now that a lot of the communications around the world are moving to fiber optic.
	Those don't go up through satellites.
	They go underground, I guess.
	They do in cables.
	They have to find other ways to get to them, or maybe they can't get to them.
	If it's in France, they can't go digging around to try to tap a fiber optic cable.
	So it's causing a problem for them, and it also, you know, dispels the idea that they can intercept everything around the world, which obviously, you know, they can't get to everything.
	But, you know, they can't see those satellites.
	Yeah, but very little is actually fiber optic from point of origin to termination.
	It carries some of the information, but then inevitably, It goes through part of the Internet, or it goes through some other relatively open circuit.
	How much is really fiber-to-fiber?
	Not much.
	Okay, well, I don't know about that.
	But there are other ways of transmitting as well.
	I mean, you can do it through microwaves.
	So, you know, supposedly the U.S.
	government would have ways of intercepting microwave transmissions.
	And, you know, there are lots of different ways to do it.
	Okay.
	Well, let's just complicate things for them.
	I mean, that's the bottom line is there are lots of ways to communicate and, you know, I mean, you can speak in code.
	I mean, if you're a terrorist and you don't want NSA to pick up your facts about blowing something up, you don't put bomb in it.
	You talk about, you know, the Rose or something.
	The Rose plan, yeah.
	I've got you.
	All right.
	Hey, how is it working for ABC.com?
	You like it?
	Yeah, sure.
	How long have you been with ABC?
	Let's see, I've been here about two years now.
	Two years?
	And do you get assignments like this all the time, or is this one of the more interesting?
	Yeah, I found this one particularly interesting, but I have the ability, like quite a number of the other people, other reporters at APCnews.com, to go out and find our own stories, and so I do a lot of investigative Well, that's kind of neat.
	So you can sometimes pick what you want and sort of submit it as, hey, is this interesting?
	Absolutely.
	Well, S. Echelon certainly is interesting, and I want to thank you for coming on tonight and talking about it.
	It's amazing, and I'm sure I'll get a lot of feedback, and so will you.
	David, are you... You're welcome.
	Are you PPE, right?
	Yes.
	And I'm sure we can do a search on abcnews.com and come up with all sorts of things you've done.
	Yeah, sure.
	We'll do it.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, David, for being here tonight.
	You're welcome.
	Great talking to you.
	Good night.
	Good night.
	So there you have it.
	Echelon.
	For those of you that thought it was some sort of urban myth, it's not.
	You might do the same sort of, well, privacy over here, national security over here.
	But what is national security?
	And do we really have privacy?
	It's written, it's an amendment, but do we really have it?
	I don't know.
	At just the last hour, you tell me what you think.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 12th, 2001.
	Music playing.
	Like a dog without a bone and actor out of love Writer's on the store
	There's a killer on the road His brain is squirming like a toad
	Take a long holiday Let your children play
	Radio Networks presents Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired June 12, 2001.
	Oh, this should be really, really interesting.
	Over the next couple of hours, we're going to have a debate between Grant Jeffrey, one of the world's leading authorities on the Bible Code, who's written about it, and Mike Heiser, who wrote a book called The Bible Code Myth.
	So you can see where the contentious side of this is going to be.
	If you don't know what the Bible Code is, hang tough, because we're going to have Grant Jeffery on first, I think.
	This is the best way to do it, I think.
	Have him explain to us what the Bible Code is.
	Then maybe Mike can hang around a little longer.
	We'll see how it goes.
	But I think that's the obvious way to proceed.
	If we're going to debate about the Bible Code, we've got to know what it is first, right?
	So that's what's coming up next.
	Now we take you back to the night of June 12, 2001 on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Now, this is Art Bell.
	Here we go, and this should, as I said, really be something.
	Grant Jeffery is internationally recognized as a leading author writing about Bible prophecy.
	Apologetics, privacy, and technology issues.
	His research and prophecy, as well as apologetics, has been recognized by numerous authorities and authors.
	More than 4 million readers have read Grant's 17 best-selling books.
	17!
	As well as many who've enjoyed his videos and audio tapes during the last 13 years.
	Very well-read in the area that he's going to... well-written, I guess I should say, in the area he's going to speak.
	Mike Heiser, you probably know, he's been on the program before.
	He's currently writing his PhD dissertation in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
	Holton MA in Ancient History from an Ivy League institution, University of Pennsylvania, major fields, Ancient Israel and Egyptology, I think you get the picture.
	Again, Mike Heiser is author of the Bible Code Myth, Grant Jeffrey is one of the world's leading authorities on the Bible Code, and I thought it appropriate... Well, first of all, gentlemen, good evening.
	Good evening.
	Good evening, Art.
	Okay, I thought that we'd start out with Grant, and I don't know why I think this, except that I don't know a lot about either one of your Okay.
	professional uh... in endeavors gentleman i don't know a lot about the
	bible code and so grant it made sense to me that we would start with
	you of those are right uh... what can you tell us uh... grant
	his bible code one oh one what is the bible code okay
	first of all the bible code is something that i heard about ten years ago
	in israel during the trip that uh... some israeli mathematician the tibetan university were analyzing the hebrew
	text of the old testament and they had discovered a fascinating
	phenomena of equidistant letter sequence where
	they would find particular meaningful in their mind hebrew words
	spelled out by skipping let's say every twenty five letters
	Every 50 letters, maybe every 7 letters.
	And they applied computer programs and statistical analysis and convinced themselves that this was not accidental.
	But it goes really much, much further back.
	All the way back to the Zohar 2,000 years ago, there are references that Jewish rabbis believed that there was something strange about the text, especially of the Torah, the first 5 books of the Torah.
	Old Testament.
	Yes.
	They believe that God had somehow placed key words related to future events within the text of the Torah.
	And they said, another way, a secret code from God.
	Right.
	Let's imagine a spy.
	He has to send a secret message to his commander.
	He writes the letter to his wife, but the commander, when he gets the letter, knows that by prearrangement he's going to circle every 12th letter And then he finds the secret message that there are 20 cannon in the fort and 500 soldiers.
	This type of code has been used throughout history.
	Simply by skipping an equal number of letters, you find the hidden code words.
	Way back, about 600 years ago, Rabbi Bacchia was examining the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and he discovered that there were things that were quite strange to him.
	For example, beginning with the first letters, and words of the book of Genesis.
	He found the word Torah spelled out at a 50 letter interval.
	He discovered many other codes.
	Once or twice or ten times or what?
	Well, once at the beginning of Genesis and Exodus and then in Numbers and Deuteronomy he found it spelled in reverse every 50 letters.
	When the sort of rumors or legends of this began to develop and were written and discussed in the Talmud, This really remains something that only a few of the rabbis were aware of.
	But when computers were developed, the Israeli scientists were able to test this.
	They were able to analyze the entire text of the Old Testament, the Tanakh, as the Jews would call it, by putting in an electronic text into the computer and basically trying various assumptions, various skip distances.
	What has happened in the code research that's been done in the last ten years?
	There's really two types.
	One is done by mathematicians and scientists, statisticians using computers, analyzing, looking for statistical significance that cannot be explained by random chance.
	The other type of code research that has been done by many people like Yakov Ramsel and myself has been done, sometimes in the case of my friend Yakov Ramsel, actually manually just looking at the text and counting off the letters Looking at a very specific text that is of interest to us.
	For example, Isaiah 53 is a very famous prophecy that Christians have believed is a prophecy 700 years before Jesus was born that clearly predicts the life, the trial, and the death of Jesus of Nazareth.
	And even Jewish scholars admit, many of them, that it is a messianic prophecy, although they would of course not Believe it or not, it points to Jesus.
	Okay, well let's take this as an example.
	When the code is found, what does the code tell us, and how many times does it say it?
	Well, in Isaiah 53, what is most remarkable is, you would expect in any sufficiently large text to find accidental ELS's, like the word bat, tree.
	Small words, if you skip it, if you try enough possibilities in any large text, 100 monkeys, you're going to find.
	What was found here is in a passage which specifically relates to the Messiah.
	My friend Jacob Ramsel and I were able to discover that there were 41 specific names naming the individuals who were at the cross, the disciples of Jesus, Three Marys, Pilate, King Herod, the name Yeshua, Yeshua is my name, 41 names.
	Now, it's obvious that if you only look for two or three names, Or if you only found two or three names.
	In any large text, if you allow yourself to skip a large enough number of letters, you are going to find accidental words that are just simply accidental.
	ELSs.
	They're not meaningful.
	Sure.
	But here we had a passage that begins in Isaiah 52, in the last couple of verses, and goes for 15 sentences.
	A very small portion of the Bible.
	And in that specific passage that dealt with the Messiah, here we find 41 names naming all these individuals and places connected with the event that was 700 years in the future.
	My, my.
	I have challenged on the internet, I've challenged in my books, for those who believe as researchers that this is accidental, that it's not meaningful, to find any other language, any other passage of literature, To find 15 sentences within which they can find 41 names about any other historical event.
	No one's been able to do that.
	You can find things like the word Somoza, the president of Nicaragua who was assassinated.
	You can find his name if you skip a large enough number of letters.
	And what you won't find, though, is what you find in the Bible codes where you find a cluster with fairly low skip distances, say less than 100, Many of them are less than 30 letters skipped, and a whole cluster of dozens, all together, all about one event.
	That's what we have never seen anyone demonstrate.
	I think the best attempt that's been done is that a group of seven words, very short words, about Hanukkah was discovered in a random piece of literature outside the Bible.
	All right, with respect to Isaiah 52.
	And you said 41 names, right?
	Yes.
	Of people who were there at the crucifixion.
	Yes.
	Now, computers are good for everything else, including trying to find this code.
	What are the odds of... I wonder if you know what the odds are of being able to find these many names, 41 names, of people who were present at the crucifixion in that much language.
	What are the odds of that?
	Well, I've been told by mathematicians that they're quite staggering.
	How staggering?
	Well, they're talking in the billions.
	Billions?
	The what?
	But it's more than that, because if you're just dealing with a short word, especially if it's a four, five letters, you're more likely by accident to find that.
	The question is, why would you find so many words all related historically to the events surrounding the cross in one specific place?
	But some of the researchers have recently discovered that there's actually some tests
	they've run where they've found a particular one that says, Yeshua is my name.
	And they've extended the code even further and discovered an actual long sentence that
	they say statistically.
	And again, I'm not a mathematician, but several of the mathematicians in a site on the internet
	called Bible Code Digest have made mathematical...
	It's what everybody asks.
	Why would God write a code to us?
	What is the point?
	The Bible seems very direct in every way, in every instruction and lesson.
	So why would God write a code?
	is what everybody asks. Why would God write a code to us?
	What is the point? The Bible seems very direct in every way and every instruction and
	lesson. So why would God write a code?
	What's the point?
	Well, I think if the Bible code phenomenon is real, and obviously many lessons will simply
	be accidental, but if we do determine that these particular ELSs are purposeful and cannot
	be accounted for by random chance, I think the reason would be that God knew that this
	generation would be perhaps the most skeptical, scientifically-minded generation in history.
	We would have computers.
	That's us.
	Bible code would demonstrate one thing and one thing only.
	It would demonstrate the supernatural origin of the Bible, because how could anyone, centuries and centuries before it happened, know the names of the disciples and all those people who are there at the cross?
	Or in the case of Bible code that dealt with Hitler, Eichmann and the names of death camps like Auschwitz, those kind of things, and there are literally hundreds of examples of clusters of codes to serve up the authenticity.
	It makes sense.
	In other words, 2,000 years passed since his representative was here, and it would make sense that, well, the people that, of course, were alive then, they have no problem bleeding, but after a couple of thousand years have gone by, Yeah.
	A little bit of doubt creeps in.
	People get pretty cynical.
	It's the modern technological world, and so here's a way of delivering the message to the new modern technological world.
	The Bible Code.
	Let me give you three cautions that I preface my book with, and I really believe we need to keep these in mind, because many people imagine that the Bible Codes actually are a message in and of itself.
	In other words, they imagine that the Bible Codes Spell out sentences which might contain doctrine or messages, etc.
	What we find are individual words like Hitler and Eichmann and Oshkosh.
	Not sentences.
	First caution, there are no secret messages in the Bible codes.
	God's message to mankind, I believe, is the surface written text of the Bible plus nothing.
	The message is, it's real.
	That's right.
	Second, the Bible codes cannot be used To enable you to become a prophet and predict future events.
	And let me explain why this is so.
	Because there are no sentences, but rather we find words like Hitler and Eichmann and Auschwitz.
	If we went back in time, let's say we knew about the Bible Code back in 1920, you couldn't find Hitler and Eichmann and Auschwitz because you wouldn't know what to look for.
	So it automatically applies to things that have already happened, right?
	And God forbids fortune-telling.
	And so this is consistent with that.
	And Michael Drosden... Has anybody gone through and looked for antichrists?
	I believe so, but again, it would not help you know anything, because one of random accidental ELSs that would spell out the name, you know, Tom, Bill, at any place, would mean nothing.
	The fact is, only after the fact could you interpret it to know what it meant.
	If you found the word Hitler back in 1920, you would have no idea whether it was meaningful.
	Sure.
	Only the event proves that it's meaningful.
	And last caution of the three, this has nothing to do with numerology.
	Numerology is an occult science in which people imagine that because the value of your name adds up to the number 9, that that has something to do with your future.
	It's irrelevant in the Bible codes whether we skip 5 letters or 27, It's just that it's an equal skip distance that results in, hopefully, a meaningful word that is then clustered with other meaningful words within a paragraph or two.
	Not that it's stretched out by skipping thousands of letters, or even hundreds and hundreds of letters, because that's much more likely to be statistically accidental.
	Grant, is there any doubt in your mind, personally, that the Bible Code is true?
	That it really is a fact.
	I believe that there are Bible codes that are purposeful and significant.
	There are lots of Bible codes, or ELSs, that people may think are significant, but probably are simply accidental.
	There are some that I think are absolutely purposeful.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	And again, the reason is interesting as well.
	Let's, okay, at this point, let's bring Mike on, and you've said quite a bit.
	Mike, welcome.
	Once again, and if you would, between now and the bottom of the hour, respond to what you just heard.
	Okay, first of all, it was a very good introduction.
	I think that was very helpful.
	A quick question for Grant, and neither of us are statisticians, so I'm not expecting precision here.
	Grant, how many letter differences do you think in the Isaiah 52 and 53 Well, it would all depend on the length of the particular words that are spelled out in code.
	If it's a small, let's say it's a small skip distance and it skips right over and the letter variant is simply one letter replaced by another, then that would not destroy.
	the existence of that code word.
	If, on the other hand, a letter was removed, then if a particular word was spelled out by skipping over that, you would lose that word and you would never know whether it was intended to be there or not.
	Right, so the important part would be letters that would be missing in the text.
	Or added.
	Missing or added, and not just different letters.
	Right.
	How many of those do you think would matter in those 15 verses?
	You know, we're not statisticians, but just... No.
	I have seen statements on the internet that tell us that there's, oh, about 17 different letter variations and one actual word that the Dead Sea Scrolls, the word light, that is added.
	Verse 11.
	I haven't been able to access, because my acrobat is not working on my computer, to access your full site.
	That's what you were claiming.
	But the fact of the matter is, it seems that most of the problem, or at least certainly a part of the problem you have with the phenomena, is that when you look at some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you find considerable textual variation from the Masoretic Text.
	The Masoretic Text, for our listeners, is the text that Orthodox Jews have been using for the last thousand years or so, and they believe it has been faithfully Copied out and handed down.
	Enormous care was taken by the Jewish scholars down through the centuries to literally count the number of letters in the book of Genesis.
	Count the middle letter.
	Count the middle sentence.
	Count up every one of the letters so that they had a control long before computers as to accuracy.
	And it is astonishing.
	Gee whiz, one would almost imagine from listening to this, if they were counting then, then counting may have been Critical.
	It may have been instructed at some point that counting was critical.
	And why would counting be critical?
	There's something we're missing here.
	What's that?
	They're counting during the Middle Ages.
	Yes.
	This is the era of the Masoretes.
	It had nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	And Grant, just on the possibility that your Adobe might not work, I posted what I'm going to be referring to in the next half hour.
	I posted it in picture images.
	If you want to go up and look at that, I would use Internet Explorer.
	But you said 17 would make a great difference.
	No, I said that... Somebody had written that there were 17, and three of them were actually in a word light.
	Right.
	In the next half hour, I'm going to show you 115 in 15 verses.
	All right.
	Hold it right there, gentlemen.
	Mike Heiser, author of The Bible Code Myth, along with Grant Jeffrey, one of the world's leading authorities on Bible code.
	Here tonight.
	And I'd say that, uh, who's right here is really important.
	Wouldn't you?
	I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 12th, 2001.
	Oh You
	You You
	Oh Oh
	You Oh
	Oh You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 12, 2001.
	So, the Bible code is not predictive material.
	The Bible code is only confirmation material.
	In other words, God knew that by the time 2,000 years had passed, mankind would be changing radically.
	That's a lot of time, 2,000 years, no matter how carefully text is preserved.
	God knew there would be doubters.
	And so, inserted in the Bible, in key places, are codes designed to only be understood when technology has progressed to the point That it can decipher them.
	That would be now, by the way.
	A very elegant explanation of why secret codes in the Bible are the best I've heard ever.
	That's from Grant Jeffrey, who's one of the world's leading authorities on the Bible Code.
	Also here tonight, Mike Heiser, who's author of the Bible Code Myth.
	both gentlemen deal in ancient texts and I'll be right back.
	You're listening to Ark Bell Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM, from June 12, 2001.
	Jim, in Santa Maria, California, says, Why not have Echelon go to work on the Bible Code
	They've got proper computers.
	I guess that would be right.
	Alright, gentlemen, welcome back.
	You both, I take it, to a large degree anyway, certainly agree on the validity of the original text that we're talking about here, right?
	We believe, I think, in our total agreement of the inspiration of the Bible that God inspired the writers to record precisely his intention.
	One of the things I'd point out, though, in this whole thing is that, for example, when you compare the Torah, the first five books, Genesis through Deuteronomy, there's about 304,805 Hebrew letters in the first five books of the Bible.
	805 Hebrew letters in the first five books of the Bible.
	Yes.
	Yes, I would have 300 and 4,000 805 letters According to dr. Jeffrey satin over there's only
	169 letters that differ in the Dead Sea Scroll text to the
	Masoretic text that is used by the Orthodox Jews for the last thousand years and that most of the Bible Code
	scholars use on the computer programs as well as manually When you compare it to the other major text, the VHS text,
	Uh, that is used often by Gentile scholars.
	Uh, there's 130 letters that differ out of the 304,805.
	Now, in the case of the Dead Sea Scroll variants of 169 letters, that's only one letter out of 1,803.
	So while the letters differ, I think Michael and I would both agree that what differs here is the spelling in these small differences.
	But the words themselves are not in doubt.
	You're saying that there are enough correct consecutive letters to properly be looking for a code?
	I believe so, and to the extent there was a mistake, a deletion or addition, you might miss that particular code word, or maybe several of them.
	But you wouldn't destroy the phenomenon.
	Dr. Jeffrey Satner is a mathematician.
	He has stated this, and he said, I'll just quote, in sum, the presence of a limited number of transmission errors will not erase the Bible code if it's really there.
	It'll simply sort of cause it to hobble a little bit.
	Mike, what about that?
	Well, with respect to Dr. Satinover, and he is a mathematician, he is not a text scholar, and he is dead wrong.
	The spelling differences are absolutely critical.
	They're not critical for meaning, and Grant and I would agree about the nature of the text, the nature of the Bible, and I'm quite sure that most of our theological positions would be the same.
	But this business of there only being less than 200 in the Torah simply does not account for spelling differences.
	It doesn't account for scribal notations of suspicious letters.
	These are all things that I document visually in my book, The Bible Code, What Fat Nova is referring to are letter differences, not spelling differences, letter differences between the Masoretic text that such and such group uses as opposed to another one.
	The Dead Sea Scrolls are not used by Bible Code proponents.
	And I'm saying that this is a text, everybody knows this in the world, virtually.
	I have to say virtually because there must be somebody out there who wouldn't.
	The Dead Sea Scrolls are the most significant manuscript discovery, perhaps, in the history of the world.
	This is the textual material that is closest to the moment of inspiration of the Bible.
	This is the way the scribes wrote.
	When you're talking about letter differences of the Mazarites and all this stuff, you're talking Middle Ages, a thousand or more years after the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	What I'm saying is that spelling matters for a code.
	On my website, I know a lot of the audience does not have internet access, but we're going to try to play both sides of the coin here.
	There is a visual illustration I go through line by line.
	I have on the website the actual script in the Dead Sea manuscript, so if your listeners have not seen what a Dead Sea scroll manuscript looks like, this would be the place to go.
	Below that, for readability, I type out the Hebrew letters that are in the Dead Sea script.
	And then below that I have the traditional Masoretic text that most people who do Bible Code stuff use.
	And visually I have highlighted in color, you don't have to know any Hebrew to see this, I have highlighted in color where the scribes at the Dead Sea Scroll area, Qumran, how they spelled every word.
	And you can visually see, and you can count, there are 115 different variations in spelling.
	One of the reasons I wanted to do this was not just for this discussion but what was for you personally.
	The last time I was on the show I had difficulty communicating why letter differences are important and simultaneously do not affect meaning.
	What we're talking about for those who don't have internet access are things like, think of British English.
	Which is the correct word?
	Color.
	C-O-L-O-R?
	mean anything in meaning but if you need to get a manuscript of a book
	fifteen verses and whatever in a letter string if you need the letters right to get his
	for a code every letter matters
	i would ask a question of the same thing in the video but i think that grants
	argument was that uh... even if there are errors uh... in the latter spelling of course of which
	Or whatever you want to call it.
	Inaccuracies from what originally was intended.
	How about if we use that phrase?
	It wouldn't destroy the Bible code, it would just perhaps cripple it a little bit, but you would see enough of the code... Not in this 15 verse sample.
	You take 115 Letter differences in the span of only 990 letters.
	Yeah, but have you used a particular area with what you consider to be high error rates?
	No, I just picked the passage out of his book, Isaiah 52 and 53.
	I used the 15 classes left in his book.
	Same stuff, alright.
	Sure.
	Michael, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are at least two and probably more copies of Isaiah, right?
	Yeah, there's the Great Isaiah Scroll, Isaiah A, and then B.
	And are there variants between those?
	Between those taxes?
	Yes.
	B probably favors the Septuagint a little bit more than A. But the fact that there's a variant there between the two, doesn't that argue that what you've got is error or variation that is occurring in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
	There's a lot of people who translated the King James Bible.
	Many of us from our tradition believe that God basically not only inspired the word, but was assured it was transmitted and carried down.
	Not necessarily that there's not a letter wrong anywhere, but the fact that in the Dead Sea Scrolls you have variant readings when you have multiple examples of a particular passage.
	Doesn't that argue that perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls, while they're Fantastic to confirm the basic text, the basic meaning, and it does prove that the words have been transmitted, the message has not been lost or even altered.
	That in fact, the variant spelling in that is not necessarily, that's the one you should go with.
	No, it doesn't prove that at all, because I think we're missing the point between errors as in manuscript differences.
	May I ask about a difference?
	Sure.
	Art, are you looking, by the way, at the example?
	Yes, I have a question.
	Rick, in Washington, Illinois, says, please let the audience know that Hebrew is read from right to left.
	Is that correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	People who are going to the page, I think, should understand that.
	The same scribes who copied the great Isaiah scroll used the same spelling conventions as the one who did Isaiah B, which is far less complete.
	The Great Isaiah Scroll is the one that I took the example from, and that is within the Masoretic Tradition.
	We're not talking about different text families.
	We're not talking about word disagreements between text families.
	is we're talking about letter differences, which is crucial for the code, and I think
	that the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly this example, is completely undermining the whole
	thing.
	Is your contention in the Torah that you've got a hopeless degree of variance between
	the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic in the Torah?
	you Yeah, they use the same spelling conventions.
	It's not... we're not talking about hopeless errors, okay?
	We're talking about spelling.
	Again, color versus, you know, O-R versus O-U-R.
	It's just a fact.
	But the fact that the Bible code occurs... Hold on one second.
	Let me interject something.
	If you took A British book, a contemporary British book, and it's American equivalent, and throughout the book, or in special places at least, there was a code.
	Is it not probable that there would be enough similar letters, or the similarities would be so much greater than the disparities, that if there was a code, you would see signs of the code?
	You could begin to verify signs of the code, despite the errors?
	Look, the way to apply your question is, let's say we took a British book and we did ELS sequencing to it, and then along comes a guy like me that says, wait a minute, take out all the U's from O-U-R endings and see what you get.
	Right, and there would be others.
	Every letter shifts.
	And here's the important part.
	These, you know, 90% of the visual example I have are either things that need to go in MT or not, you know, the Masoretic text.
	They're not letter exchanges, as Grant was detailing, and did a very good job earlier.
	They are things that are just not in the letter chain of the code.
	But my point is, even if you assume the worst, and we use the British book and the American book as an example, and assume the worst, with the same rate of error that we've been talking about here, you would still find areas in the book where the computer would begin to verify words.
	Well, what would happen is what Grant brought up earlier.
	When he said that the small letters, he admitted that the small letters can be found accidentally.
	And you can get that with any text of any length.
	The thing is here with this example, you can't go 50 letters without a letter insertion needed or deletion.
	It's the entire thing, and in only 15 verses, there's 115.
	If we extrapolated this out to the whole Hebrew Bible, Or the whole Torah.
	Again, all we're talking about is spelling style.
	But if you want a code and you think it's from God, then use the text that is closest to when God inspired the text.
	And there's just a vast, there's just a vast amount of letter differences.
	Huge.
	Why would the Bible Code Phenomenon be present, and basically no one argues that these ELSs are not there.
	It's just whether they're statistically and purposely placed there statistically significant.
	Why would they be there and not in the Dead Sea Scroll?
	Couldn't it be that the Dead Sea Scroll is not the most accurate text, but in fact that the Masoretic Text does contain the truest textual tradition, which is what was believed by those who did the King James Bible?
	You're making a mistake here of separating the Dead Sea Scroll text from the Masoretic Text.
	The Dead Sea Scroll text of Isaiah A is a member of the Masoretic family.
	It is a Masoretic text.
	Now, if you're going to make that argument, that the later text, the one that's medieval, that the scribes worked on, if you're going to make that argument, then what you're doing is you can't claim divine inspiration for a code, you have to claim medieval rabbinic inspiration for a code.
	And that's a separate act of inspiration, and personally my theology doesn't It doesn't allow for that, because if we're taking the text, the Dead Sea Scroll text, that is closest to the way it looked when it was originally written, and then we change it in the medieval period, the rabbis get to pull letters out and create the Masoretic text, because now they're using little dots for vowels instead of extra consonants.
	If we get to do that, then we have to give the rabbis credit for this code, and they're not divine.
	The King James translators, for example, were using the Masoretic Text.
	They were using a Masoretic Text that was medieval.
	And they believed that this was the inspired Word of God and they translated it to the best of their ability.
	And they were right.
	They were right because meaning is preserved.
	They were not looking for a code.
	Of course they weren't looking for a code.
	You're dichotomizing the two.
	Well, I'm just saying that, let's say the Dead Sea Scrolls had never been found, Michael.
	Then we would have the Bible we have.
	Right.
	We have the Bible we have.
	Okay, and we would have a Bible, but your argument is that the Dead Sea Scrolls, wherever they vary from the Masoretic Text, is in fact, you know, correct and the accurate in the Masoretic Text is wrong.
	No, no.
	Both texts are Masoretic.
	Okay?
	This is why when you read in books, and this is true, people aren't hoodwinking us, when they say the great Isaiah scroll agreed 98% of the time with the medieval Masoretic text.
	Right.
	Of course.
	That's true.
	Yes.
	That's true.
	And you know why?
	Because they're not talking about a code.
	They're not talking about a letter sequence.
	They're talking about the proper words that convey the proper meanings.
	I understand.
	So that is true.
	They're not hoodwinking their readership.
	But if you want to, again, say that God put a code in the text via the letters, then use the text that is closest to the act of inspiration.
	If you don't, you have to give the rabbis who took those consonants out and substituted little dots and dashes, the medieval vowel system, you have to give the rabbis credit for inventing the code And they're not divine.
	Mike, I have a question for you.
	Sure.
	And that is this.
	He said, Grant said, that the mathematical probabilities of finding, say, 41 names, Isaiah 52 and 53, would be billions to one.
	How do you refute that?
	Well, if you go with, if you insert or delete the 115 letter differences I'm talking about, the code evaporates.
	Now, on my website, again, I'm not a statistician.
	But I have some quotations.
	You go up to the website, and by the way, I have to mention this, since Art, you've been so kind to have me on again.
	I am practically given away the book.
	It's 50% off, but only to your audience, and only for two days.
	And you can't get it through Amazon.
	You've got to go through my site.
	Oh.
	If you go up there, there's a toll-free number, too.
	Oh, you better give that out.
	Yeah, I better give it out, or the new poet is just going to skin me alive.
	No, go ahead.
	2-4-3-1-4-3-8.
	1-4-3-8.
	If you go to Amazon, you're going to pay double.
	That's nice for me, but it's not nice for you.
	Right.
	Go to the website.
	The Bible Code Myth.
	Right.
	The Bible Code Myth.
	All the links are there.
	I have some comments by a guy named Dr. Randall Ingramanson, who is a computational physicist.
	He's a friend that I met after the first time I was on for this topic.
	He has taken my Isaiah document that I'm referencing you guys to, And this is what he says.
	He does all the number crunching there.
	He says, what this means, the text results in practical terms, is that just about any three-letter word you could name is essentially certain to be found somewhere in this passage at some skip.
	Grant would admit that.
	He talked about the accidental hits.
	For example, one expects to find a four-letter word, Yeshua, more than six times, strictly by chance.
	There isn't a stretch of even 50 letters without a deletion.
	And that means, this is his term, Virtually every ELS sequence in this passage, except a few short ones at small skips, are corrupt.
	Now this is a computational physicist.
	The numbers mean nothing once you look at the condition of the text.
	And this is my contention in the whole book.
	The entire enterprise is flawed because you are working with the wrong data set.
	Well, how can you explain, Michael, something like the Bible code found in Isaiah 53?
	It's got 22 letters.
	It's the longest one that I know of that has ever been verified.
	That's the one that begins at Isaiah 53, 5?
	Yeah, gushing from above, Yeshua was my mighty name and the clouds rejoiced.
	Wow.
	Now, Ed Sherman, who is a mathematician, has a... But not a text scholar.
	No.
	But, there are 63 letter differences.
	Alright, excuse me.
	That doesn't matter.
	Gentlemen, hold on.
	It certainly does matter.
	Hold on, gentlemen, hold on.
	It doesn't matter to what I'm saying right now.
	Time, time, time, time.
	What was that sentence again, please?
	Gushing from above, Yeshua was my mighty name, and the clouds rejoiced.
	That's also on my website, too.
	That's incredible.
	He calculates that.
	Alright, gentlemen, listen, we're out of break.
	When we come back, we'll pick up from this point.
	And we'll let Grant plug what he would like to plug if he has a book and he's written 17.
	He ought to have one, huh?
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 12th, 2001.
	Let's hear it for the band.
	American Reports dot org.
	American Reports dot org.
	This is a presentation of the Coast to Coast American Reports.
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 12, 2001.
	Good morning.
	Grant Jeffrey is here, one of the world's leading authorities on the Bible Code, along with Mike Heiser, who wrote a book called The Bible Code Myth.
	And we will continue with these gentlemen in a moment.
	Stay right where you are.
	Now we take you back to the night of June 12, 2001 on Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Alright, here we go.
	Gentlemen, this is a very, it's a pedestrian question, but I think I'll ask it.
	Randy in Pittsburgh, California asks, who exactly wrote the Bible anyway?
	Well, we have about 40 some individuals over a period of 1600 years were inspired by God, Christians and Jews believe, to record these 66 different books.
	So over a 1600 year period we have people from kings to shepherds to tax collectors, all of them individually claiming that they were inspired by God wrote The individual books that have now been brought together as both the Old and New Testament.
	But it was all individual inspiration?
	Yes.
	From God?
	From God, we believe.
	Mark, by that question, did you mean that the words were sort of fed into the person's head by God?
	Is that why you asked that?
	Well, that seemed to be the essence of the answer.
	Well, inspiration also involves writers using sources, too.
	For instance, Luke in his Gospel in the first four verses tells us that he used source material.
	So it's not something that is divorced from doing the work of a historian or a scholar or something like that.
	Those things are involved too.
	Actually, I'm not sure I'm satisfied I got the answer to the question.
	Who originally wrote the Bible?
	I thought Grant did a good job answering that.
	So it was no single person?
	No, it was no single person.
	I can tell you the modern scholarly view, which is a guess, is that around 450 B.C., roughly in the lifetime of Ezra the scribe, and a book of the Bible is named after him, he was a real historical person, most rabbis would say that it was during Ezra's time that all the manuscript data was gathered. And when I say manuscript data, I mean the
	pages of the individual books, if I can use a modern term like page, instead of scroll.
	And Ezra supervised the final editing and collation and getting it into a good readable
	form for posterity. So that, you know, if you want to put somebody at the head of a
	process like that, that's what most...
	And this was, this was, excuse me, 500...
	450 B.C.
	450 B.C.
	Now, the books were composed much earlier than that, and Grant and I would... Some of the books were composed much earlier than that, and Grant and I would certainly agree there.
	But as far as someone within the prophetic community saying, it's done now, and here's what we're going to go with, and here's what we want copied.
	When we go back to the land of Israel, they were in captivity, going back.
	Usually, people consider that person to be Ezra.
	And that may or may not be true.
	It's a scholarly guess.
	But it's a guess.
	Yeah, it's a guess as far as his work.
	But the actual composition of the books occurred, like Grant said, over a vast period of time, centuries.
	Boy, it seems amazing to somebody like myself that The preservation, in the manner that you described, and all those involved, that the preservation would be anywhere near accurate enough, now here I go tipping the other way, to support the translation of a code.
	Well, it is remarkable.
	I mean, Grant and I would agree that, let's face it, in the ancient world there is nothing like the Bible.
	You look at Caesar's Gallic Wars, there's a dozen copies of that or so.
	If you just take New Testament, let's just leave the Old Testament out of this, you take New Testament, there's over 5,000 copies.
	Now that could be the whole thing or it could be part of a book or some scrap of a manuscript, but 5,400, 5,500 verses, 11.
	There's just nothing like the Old and New Testament for the commitment to perpetuate the text.
	And the letter differences that we're talking about, when you get up to about Oh, 100 A.D.
	At Qumran, there's evidence for three different versions of the Old Testament.
	And again, it's not like one guy was copying the phone book and the other guy was copying the Old Testament.
	I mean, they're 98% the same anyway.
	But you can go across the board and pick a passage and there might be differences, three different kinds of differences, a word here or there.
	So, you know, we have evidence for three sets.
	And so about 100 A.D., the scribes get together, kind of like I wish people would do today, and say, there's 150 English translations, let's just narrow it down a little bit.
	And they said, let's pick a text that we want to go to.
	Now, that decision was motivated to a great degree by the Christian use of the Septuagint in their debates with the Jews over Christ and different things like that.
	The Septuagint was the Greek translation of a particular Hebrew text into Greek.
	But around 100 A.D., the rabbis thought, hey, let's settle on one.
	And they settled on one that became known as the Masoretic Text, which is very, very similar to, again, Dead Sea Scroll material, a lot of it, like we're talking about.
	So, you know, one's called Pre-Masoretic and the other one's Masoretic, but they're all in the same family.
	And so, from about 100 A.D.
	up through the late Middle Ages, they're copying the same text.
	In the late Middle Ages, they said, hey, let's take out these letters, these consonants, because Hebrew didn't originally have vowels.
	So what the Hebrews were doing, and they started this about the 7th century B.C., was they would use consonants to do double duty, to act as vowels in the text to preserve the correct pronunciation.
	And so in the Middle Ages, they said, well, let's get rid of this system.
	It's just kind of old and clunky.
	And let's put little dots and dashes in.
	And so they began removing these extra consonants.
	And that's what I'm saying is, look.
	Deadly.
	That's deadly to the Code, unless you want to give the rabbis who did that the credit for arranging the Code.
	And they're not divine.
	That's a pretty heavy item to overcome.
	Well, if the Masoretic Text that the Orthodox Jews used, well, all Jews used throughout the world, and was used primarily by those who translated the Bible, the King James Bible, for example, if it is Full of errors and changes.
	They're not errors.
	They're not errors.
	Errors vary.
	They're just spelling updating.
	Yeah, okay.
	Well, some of them would be errors, too.
	I mean, it's not as if everything's just a spelling change.
	There are manuscript disagreements.
	You and I both believe in an errancy grant.
	Yes.
	Let me make my point I've been trying to make for about ten minutes.
	Well, I don't think you should use the word error.
	Well, let him go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	The Bible Code scholars and researchers use is not the correct text.
	How in the world can we explain the discovery in Isaiah 53 of the longest Bible Code so far of 22 letters, gushing from above, Yeshua was my mighty name and the clouds were... Thank you for asking.
	Could I complete it before you rebut?
	Sure.
	The mathematician Ed Sherman has calculated that The chance of this 22 letter EOS appearing anywhere in the entire Old Testament is one chance out of 685 billion times 1 billion.
	That's anywhere, and they did not discover it by chance, anywhere in the whole of the Tanakh, except in Isaiah 53, which specifically is a prophecy about the Messiah.
	Just to put that number of 1 out of 685 billion times a billion in context, he uses the illustration that if you cover the entire continental U.S.
	with quarters stacked 450 feet high, and you took one of those quarters and painted it blue, and you set somebody blindfolded to go search for it, and when they think they're in the right state, the right county, they dig down as deep as they want, they'd have the same chance of finding that blue quarter.
	As this 22-letter ELS would have of appearing anywhere in the Tanakh, the Old Testament, let alone even more unlikely that it would appear in Isaiah 53.
	Alright, what about the blue quarter, Mike?
	The blue quarter, okay.
	Well, in that example, and this is on my website as well, just look for the 22-letter notation on my website.
	You can go to this page that I'll be referencing.
	First of all, that letter sequence begins in Isaiah 53, 5.
	And again, you can look at that on BibleCodeDigest.com if you want that code sequence.
	If I take Isaiah 53.5 and go to the end of Isaiah 53, there are 63 letter differences between that text and the Dead Sea Scrolls of that same passage.
	Now, Grant said before the break that it doesn't matter.
	Well, I would say if you dump 63 letters, Into that letter chain, you're only talking seven verses.
	The question is, why would it be there?
	It matters.
	I'll tell you why it would be there.
	Okay?
	Why does the code quote-unquote work?
	Generally, I would say the code works because it's not scientific.
	And here's what I mean.
	All right, here's an illustration.
	If you flip the coin a thousand times and record the sequence, you know, heads, tails, whatever order they're in, the odds that you would get The particular sequence that you do when you're done are, according to mathematicians, 10 to the 300th power to 1.
	But you and I both know that's no miracle.
	Why?
	Because all you did was flip a coin and write down the results.
	Now, here's what you need for a miracle.
	If you predict beforehand that the 1,000 coin flips would result in that particular sequence, then you have a miracle.
	Then you've got a miracle.
	Now, what Bible Code practitioners don't do is they don't tell us beforehand what they're going to get.
	They don't list the names beforehand that they're going to find.
	Not only that, but they don't decide on time.
	According to Grant, you would never know ahead of time.
	He made that case rather strongly.
	In other words, in 1920 we would not have known the names of the disciples.
	I know who the disciples were.
	who the disciples were.
	In 1920 we would not have known the names of the disciples.
	Right, but I know who the disciples were.
	I know who the disciples were.
	I know who the disciples were.
	I can list the disciples' names and I can postulate the scientific method, the hypothesis,
	Here are the twelve disciples.
	Here are twenty other people associated with the life of Christ.
	Here's the way their names were spelled.
	And you've got to pick your language.
	Grant doesn't do this in his book.
	He doesn't pick Hebrew or Aramaic.
	Aramaic was the language that was spoken during Jesus' day.
	He also doesn't pick Greek.
	That was the language of the New Testament.
	You've got to pick a language.
	And let's say it's Hebrew.
	The other problem is he doesn't The Bible Code Practitioners will use modern Hebrew vocabulary and count something as a hit, and then they'll turn around and use ancient Hebrew vocabulary for a hit.
	You've got to specify what the names are, how they're spelled, what language, what stage of the language, and then eliminate the accidental hits that Grant talked about earlier, the really short ones.
	Try to get something five letters or above.
	And then, finally, and here's where I come in, establish The right text, the right data set.
	If you can do all of that beforehand, and then out on the other end, you get what you hypothesized, that is significant.
	Okay, what we have is we have people feeding the Hebrew letter sequence into a computer, and then the computer spits out according to whatever parameters you put in, and then they go looking.
	They don't tell you beforehand what they're going to find, and how it's spelled, and what language.
	But Mike, even you, having said all that, Looking at a sequence as relevant as the one that Grant read.
	Well, I would say it's not relevant because I'm going to dump 63 letters in there and throw the whole thing apart.
	Nevertheless, when you first saw it, it must have taken you aback a bit.
	Well, it takes me back because it's so awkward.
	I mean, the first word, gushing, is the Hebrew shakak.
	If you look shakak up in a standard biblical Hebrew dictionary, Brown, Driver, Briggs, is the standard.
	And I looked, I did a computer search for this word.
	It's only used in six verses, and it never refers to cloud activity or rain.
	It always refers to terrestrial activity of animals, chariots.
	It means rushing.
	OK, so I mean, if you're going to just say, well, I got a cloud here in the sentence, and I got clouds rejoicing, OK, that's poetic.
	You know, boy, I need something for the first word here that pertains to this parallelism here, well, gushing.
	That's sort of the same activity as rushing.
	I think Bible Code practitioners of this sort are guilty of forcing translations when they need one.
	But the real issue is the letter sequence.
	You know, it's so awkward.
	If it doesn't conform to any of the rules of Hebrew parallelism, it would be chiastic, which means there's a hinge point in the middle.
	But there's no Hebrew parallelism here either.
	I take it, Mike, that if you could find The same code meaning in two different languages, that would give you some pause.
	What do you mean by code meaning?
	Code meaning.
	In other words, if you could come up with a code as significant as the 22 words and find that in two different translations, would that give you pause?
	Well, if you could eliminate the two and three letter words from this.
	This is 22 letters.
	You came up with the same meanings in two different translations, two different languages.
	All of the words in this sequence, and you can look at this if you go to my website, all of the words, there's seven words, all of them have at least two of the most common Hebrew letters in them.
	Except for ah, that's only a two letter word.
	So there is then the commonality.
	Common letters are common letters.
	You can't spell out anything without using the common letters.
	Right, but the point is, as you yourself pointed out at the beginning, you can expect, at no odds greater than chance, that you can get certain two and three, and you even said four, letter words, meaningful letter combinations that go into words.
	You can expect that by chance.
	But not 22 letters.
	Well, that is what is astonishing.
	Throw the 63 letters in there.
	You are using a rabbinic text.
	If you want to say that the rabbis divinely produced this code, I don't like that.
	Alright, gentlemen, I have an important question, I think.
	If we took the Webster's Dictionary Or one of my books.
	Or your book, Mike.
	The Bible Code Myth.
	That would be a really good one to take.
	And we went a searching for meaningful phrases.
	You'd probably get the.
	Okay, the.
	Sure.
	You'd get other three and four letter words that were meaningful.
	But again, would we find a phrase like, Mike Heiser's eternal soul is in big trouble?
	No, especially if you dump, especially in the space of a third of a page, or about seven verses long, if you dump 63 more letters into it, then you wouldn't get it.
	But would we find meaningful phrases?
	I'm sure.
	Yes or yes?
	Yeah, and in the back of my book I have an appendix where mathematicians have done this.
	Again, and it does include phrases, and it does include letters, you know.
	This, from a statistical point of view, again, and Randall Ingramanson's book is the book for this if you're a techie, okay, if you're a number cruncher kind of person.
	He says, and you should know, he's a computational physicist, that the hits that people are getting, okay, including this, because the letters in here are so small, And you get to divide them up, you know, how you want and all that stuff.
	Most of them are so small that the hits are not beyond chance.
	Well, could that be established by looking at another book or a series of books?
	Oh, I would think so.
	I mean, somebody's going to have to... Grant, in support of the Bible Code, has that been tried?
	They have tried.
	They've tried it out.
	Who are they?
	Well, people like Brandon McKay and that have tried it.
	And they have found that the best they found anywhere was seven words dealing with Hanukkah.
	And that was, at least on what has been published that I have seen, no one has ever found any more than that.
	And that just doesn't compare, that compares like an apple to an orchard compared to what has been discovered.
	Mathematically, it would be an apple to an orchard, I guess.
	Like, just for example, in Isaiah 52 and 53, that almost all scholars, certainly Christian scholars, admit is a prophecy of the Messiah.
	Here's what we find aside from that incredible long 22-letter one.
	You have Nazarene, Messiah, Shiloh, Passover, Galilee, Herod, Caesar, Caiaphas, Annas, the other high priest, three Marys, and there are of course three Marys at the crucifixion, the word disciples, Peter, How about Arthur or Harry or Mike or Grant?
	James, Simon, Mattheus, the phrase, let him be crucified.
	How about, how about Arthur or Harry or Mike or Grant?
	We didn't look for those.
	Well we did look for some of them, we didn't find those.
	You know we did do some random things of searching.
	Most of this was actually discovered, not by computer, I've verified it with computer, but most of that particular one, Isaiah 53, was discovered by Jacob Ramsel just manually looking at the thing.
	He doesn't even use the computer.
	Alright, gentlemen, listen, we're at the bottom of the hour here, we'll pick up when we get back.
	Mike Heiser and Grant Jeffrey are my guests and we're talking about the Bible Code.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 12, 2001.
	This is a song about a man who died in a shipwreck.
	He was a young man who was in a boat.
	Hear it in the sky, clear from the dark.
	When my dad, when he died, and the neighbors confessed, I'm gonna go to the place that's the best.
	I see trees of green, red roses too.
	I see them bloom for me and you.
	And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
	you you
	I see skies of blue and clouds of white The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
	And I think to myself, what a wonderful world The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky
	Are also on the faces of people going by I see friends shaking hands, saying how they do
	They're really saying, I love you I hear fingers around, I'm...
	Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired June 12, 2001.
	I'd say it's a pretty non-trivial debate, wouldn't you?
	Grant Jeffrey, one of the world's leading authorities on the Bible Code, and Mike Heiser, author of the Bible Code Myth, are on tap right now.
	We'll go to open lines at the top of the hour.
	It was a two-hour set debate.
	So, that's coming up.
	Stay right where you are.
	What a wonderful life.
	Oh, yes.
	Now we take you back to the night of June 12th, 2001, on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	you Now, Grant Jeffrey has written 17 books, and to be fair, I want to give Grant an opportunity to plug the book of his choice, or all 17, if you would like.
	What book, Grant, would you most like to have my listeners read?
	Well, I think The Signature of God, which deals with the Bible Code and other indications of the supernatural origin of the Bible, medical statements in the Bible, over 100 that are Literally thousands of years in advance of their time, but there are three chapters that deal with the Bible Code phenomenon.
	In fact, this was the first book in the English-speaking world, as far as I know, to really discuss the Bible Code, about a year before Drosten's book came out.
	And they can get it by going to the website grantjeffrey.com, and they can see all the various books that I've done.
	Alright, you gentlemen have one segment left, so bring out your big guns and go wherever you want to go.
	Well, there's a real interesting factor that really puzzled me when I first began looking at this, because I'm a skeptic, and I wondered why in the world there would be a code in the Bible at all, and it struck me in my research that there actually is another code that is acknowledged by most Bible commentators, and it's found in Jeremiah chapter 51, verse 41, and also in Jeremiah 25, verse 26, and here's what it reads.
	How is Sheshak taken, and how is the praise of the whole earth surprised?
	How has Babylon become an astonishment among the nations?
	Well, the commentators realize, and quote, the fact that Sheshak is actually a cryptogram, a code, where, if it was in English, A becomes Z, B becomes Y. You reverse the letters of the alphabet, and Sheshak actually translates into Babylon.
	And it appears that in the book of Jeremiah, in two different places, There's actually this code.
	They used the word Atbosh, and the Jewish Talmud talks about these kind of strange codes that exist.
	Even in the New Testament, you have something that's somewhat similar, in that the mark of the beast is going to be 666, the number of his name.
	And so it is intriguing, and it at least sort of gives you a context.
	so some of those on a market that's right now so in other words you're
	saying uh... the the bible code is not uh...
	uh... by itself that there are a few codes throughout uh...
	uh... i would reference your listeners uh... to go up
	to the website and about the uh... forty one encoded names and hits
	uh... the credit card about Good for people with computers.
	Good for people with computers, but again, just so, it's really there so people know I'm not making it up even though they really look at it.
	Sure.
	Or get the book.
	This is the kind of thing that's in the book.
	What Grant is describing is a whole lot different than ELF sequencing.
	You take the name of, the list of names here, the 41, if you delete the ones that we would both consider accidental, the short ones, You chop off 10, you're left with 31.
	Then you get to the problem of spelling of the names.
	Again, this is all catalogued up there.
	For instance, I think this might be a typo, actually, in Grant's book, but I do list here.
	Herod, for some reason, he has the O vowel in the wrong place.
	But there's a problem with the spelling of Herod.
	There's a problem with the spelling of Caiaphas.
	Peter, he's using the Aramaic, Kefah.
	In Aramaic, that's actually spelled completely differently, two letter differences.
	I go through every name, and once you weed out the spelling problems, you're left with 25.
	And then you get to what I call vocabulary problems, where sometimes it's biblical Hebrew vocabulary that's used for a hit, other times it's modern Hebrew, and I think you need to be consistent.
	There are words like for cross, halav, which does not even occur in the Hebrew Bible.
	It's a completely modern word.
	You delete those and you're down to 20, and then you're left with A very short list.
	You've got half the list left.
	And if you look at all the words there, every one of those words except one has at least two of the most common letters in the Hebrew alphabet.
	So I think it's far less spectacular than what is being conveyed here.
	I think you have to be consistent.
	You've got to be up front.
	What are we looking for?
	What language are we using?
	What spelling are we using?
	All that kind of thing.
	I guess if I could have one last question of Grant.
	Why is Grant not using the text that is closest to the time of inspiration, the Dead Sea Scroll text?
	Because if you use that text, all the work that's been done on code, I think, is just obliterated because of these dramatic, very dramatic letter differences.
	And I haven't even gotten to the notes that the scribes left themselves.
	Alright, good question.
	Would you agree it is the closest text to the To the time?
	To the inspiration?
	To the inspiration.
	The closest in time, yes, but certainly many Bible scholars would not agree that the Dead Sea Scroll text is always to be preferred to any other text.
	The Orthodox Jews, in fact Jews throughout the world who use the Jewish scriptures, they use the Masoretic text that is used by virtually all the Bible code researchers, without exception, and most of them would find I think they would find it kind of a puzzling argument that Michael uses, because they believe that the text they use in their Bibles is the inspired Word of God, and this was certainly until 1947, in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think virtually all Christian scholars would have said that the text that was used by the King James and subsequent, they felt that was inspired Word of God.
	How many of those scholars would say that now?
	Well, I think that most would still say that the text we have is inspired, and as Michael said, most of the differences are spelling differences.
	But because there are variants among the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves for the same passage, to take the kind of position that's almost implied, but I don't think Michael would say this, That the particular Dead Sea Scroll variants or manuscripts, they're the absolute perfect.
	No, I don't think he would say that.
	Here's what I would say.
	Here's what I would say.
	If the code is put into the text by God, and God had the prophet right, okay, the Dead Sea Scroll material is the way the prophets wrote.
	This is an archaeological fact.
	It is a scientific fact.
	These manuscripts are real.
	You can go to museums.
	They won't let you touch them.
	But you can see them.
	This is the material that most closely resembles what the prophets produced.
	May I ask you a question?
	Okay, and if it's given by God, why are we saying the rabbis are better spellers?
	Alright, may I ask a question, please?
	If we're debating here about the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls should have been used, what happens when you use them?
	Well, nobody's done that.
	That's right.
	To my knowledge, none of the Israeli researchers have done it.
	They're certainly aware of it.
	They're in Jerusalem.
	Wouldn't that help settle your argument?
	I think it would be interesting to have it done.
	Yeah, if there was a scientific... Let me just be clear.
	I'm not opposed, inherently.
	You know, I try not to put the word God and can't in too many sentences, all right?
	I'm not opposed inherently to the idea that God could have done something like this, like Grant is describing.
	The Dead Sea Scrolls are just one aspect.
	They describe themselves.
	Let me use one of the examples in the book.
	There are 33 letters in the Torah.
	This is in the first five books.
	They describe themselves who produced the Masoretic Text, who took out the consonants I'm arguing about, and they put dots over the letters.
	Okay, those dots signified that that letter was suspect and should be erased.
	Okay, there's another place where there are thousands, some scholars say 1,800, others say a little bit lower, of letters that are confused because they look similar.
	The scribes noted this.
	They're aware of it.
	They're constantly aware of it.
	They produce notes.
	They produce reams of material telling us that the people who do Bible code research don't incorporate any of this.
	I mean, nothing.
	Nada.
	They just used the modern Masoretic text, which was developed during the Middle Ages, a thousand or more years removed from the event of inspiration.
	My argument is, if the code is from God, you use the text that the prophets produced.
	I do believe that there are Bible code researchers that use the BHS.
	And what is interesting is... That's the modern text, built on the medieval work of the Masoretes.
	But it's a variant from the Masoretic text used by the Jews in their Bible.
	And what is interesting is that they find that there are codes, but there are less codes per section.
	Where, let's say, they find 12 codes about Hitler and the Holocaust in the Masoretic text, they find maybe 8 in the VHS.
	We've talked a lot about Isaiah 53, but just so our listeners get an example of some other types of codes that are fascinating, one of the most interesting ones, statistically, By the way, if anyone is interested on the internet, go to Bible Code Critic and take a look at the Holocaust Codes in Deuteronomy Chapter 8-12.
	I talked about them in my book, and here's what they found initially.
	They found the names Hitler, every 22 letters, Auschwitz, Belsen, another death camp, Berlin, King of the Nazis, Levi, an evil house rose up, Eichmann, and a people crime murder and slaughter.
	And there's a whole lot more they found that that particular internet site goes into it, and also a statistical analysis.
	I think you'd find it fascinating.
	And I would say the same criticism applies.
	You take those passages, look at the Septuagint, look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, look at the scribal notations there, work on the text, put the letters... Much less variance, though, than in your Isaiah passages.
	Well, you haven't looked.
	I mean, you were guessing, and to be fair, I didn't get this anywhere.
	I just did this in preparation for the show, so I'm not saying it's out there anywhere to find.
	But since the spelling practices are the same, the material comes from Qumran, they're going to spell consistently.
	We've had 50 years to study the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Malachi Martin's dissertation was on scribal practices, Art.
	This is a known fact.
	This is how they spelled.
	This is how they did it.
	British English to our English.
	It's the same kind of phenomena going on.
	It's everywhere in the Hebrew Bible.
	No matter where it is.
	I don't care if it's in Deuteronomy or Isaiah 53.
	This is how they did it.
	And I still don't think I've received a satisfactory answer from Grant that if the code is divine, why are we preferring a medieval text, medieval spelling, as opposed to what the prophets actually produced?
	Well, the fact of the matter is the research that has been done is on The Masoretic Text, and it has found codes that, according to some of the mathematicians, the long ones, like the 22-letter one, are of such improbability that it's billions to one against it happening by chance.
	And so the question, and there's lots of questions about Bible codes.
	I don't think anyone's got all the answers at all.
	But the question is, if the Masoretic Text is faulty because of spelling changes, why would such statistically impossible almost
	uh... codes be found uh... manager
	maybe they're involved maybe they're in the business and i have an expert
	looking at it is not easy and palatable that we believe him to be
	then would he not no ahead of time
	what languages we would use what changes we would make and where exactly we would
	be in the year two thousand one
	In terms of his intellectual capabilities, of course.
	Well, in terms of how we would have changed things, or how the inspired word would have been changed from little words to letters here or there, God would know all this, and the code would be intact.
	I would say the answer to your question is, of course, God knows.
	The problem is that we are not omniscient.
	How do we know?
	Which manuscripts to use?
	How do we know whether we should use a mixture of Dead Sea Scroll material with later material?
	How should we know if we should use the Septuagint?
	No, my argument was that he would know what we should use.
	He would know, but why hasn't he given us the list?
	Okay, here's the list of manuscripts that accurately produce the letter chain.
	Right.
	Why hasn't he told us?
	The problem is we're not omniscient.
	And to establish a secure letter sequence for the sake of a code, it requires omniscience to be sure that what you're looking at is the right data set.
	Well, the Bible does have phrases such as that, not one dot or tittle of the word of the law.
	That doesn't pertain to a code, Grant, and you know that.
	I'm not talking about code.
	I'm just saying that God has affirmed in numerous ways that all Scripture is inspired, given by inspiration.
	There are verses which strongly imply God's preservation, not only inspiration, but preservation.
	So why do we have manuscript differences?
	Well, obviously you get spelling differences.
	What about actual manuscript differences?
	For instance, the Book of Jeremiah is probably the most dramatic example.
	The Septuagint of the Book of Jeremiah is one seventh shorter than the Masoretic Text.
	How do we know whether the Masoretic Text is too long?
	Or the Septuagint is too short?
	The answer is we don't.
	And if you're talking about Jeremiah, which is 52 chapters long, one-seventh of that book, that is hundreds of verses and thousands, if not tens of thousands, of letters difference.
	And how do we know that?
	That only affects Bible codes, which are within that area or depend on... No, it would affect meaning if it's one-seventh difference.
	Now, I picked the most dramatic example, and quite frankly, nobody knows what to do with that problem.
	Because we're not omniscient.
	We don't know whether the Septuagint reflects the accurate text or the Masoretic text.
	In that place, it's a conundrum because there's such a wide difference there.
	Most of the time, it's just a word or two.
	So who cares?
	There are differences like this that are real.
	This is what textual critics do.
	Bible-believing textual critics wrestle with these problems and try to come up with the best solution.
	That is faithful to a doctrine of preservation.
	That's the most difficult example.
	How does the Dead Sea Scroll Jeremiah manuscript compare with the Septuagint?
	This is a generalization now.
	Most of the time, the Dead Sea Scroll material agrees with the Septuagint.
	Obviously, I just said most of the time.
	For instance, in Isaiah 53, I think the Masoretic text Where it disagrees with the Septuagint, I would go with the Masoretic readings on just text-critical study principles.
	But this is a generalization.
	Most of the time the Septuagint will side with the Dead Sea Scroll material.
	And there are places in Samuel that were complete gibberish in the Masoretic text and people had to guess what the meanings were.
	And then when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they validated the Septuagint readings and translators were able to you know, put that in and produce better translations. You
	know, I kidded a while ago about there being too many English translations.
	Actually, this is a worthwhile work because people are just struggling with this and
	Bible believers are really trying to make the best effort possible to produce the most accurate
	text in terms of meaning that they possibly can. And these guys are committed to them, to devote their whole lives to
	this.
	Gentlemen, I have a question and that is as follows.
	You said that the Bible originates from the Inspired Word of God, received by perhaps several, many, right?
	I get letters in the mail all the time, and email, that purports to be the Inspired Word of God.
	Laugh as you will.
	I don't have my name on it, Art.
	Indeed, but why shouldn't we wonder about the original inspiration?
	Why should we even have faith that it's other than something that's very, very old and has been passed down?
	How do we know it's inspired by anything?
	Well, there's a number of answers to that.
	One of the ones that I would give and gave in my book, Signature of God, is that if God as a supernatural being was the inspirer and ultimate author of the Bible.
	You would expect that it would bear his signatures, that there would be something about it that couldn't have been produced by a normal human being.
	and what i argue in the book is that there are a number of things after example there are
	hundreds of detailed prophecies
	made in the bible that have come true centuries after they were made with
	absolute precision mike i take it you would agree with that
	yeah then we have a we're gonna end then gentlemen on a note of agreement
	but i want to thank you both for being here tonight thank you
	thank you grant too thank you mike, enjoyed it
	okay well uh... we'll have you both back actually
	individually.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from June 12, 2001.
	2012-2001 I'm just beginning to see, now I'm on my way
	It doesn't matter to me, chasing the clouds away Something calls to me, the trees are growing near
	I've got to find out why, those gentle voices I hear I've got nothing but bad luck, since the day I saw the cat
	in the dark So I came in to you, sweet lady, to see if you'd be mine
	I saw the cat in the dark, so I came in to you, sweet lady And some interesting people called, crystal ball on the
	table She's just a devil woman with evil on her mind Beware the
	devil woman, she's gonna get you She's just a devil woman with evil on her mind Beware the
	devil woman, she's gonna get you from behind You got glittering on your finger, let me see the eyes on
	your hair I can see me a child, a stranger, killing you what you had in mind
	It's great to be here, and if you'll stay right where you are, we've got another hour of open lines directly ahead.
	June 12, 2001.
	It's great to be here and if you'll stay right where you are, we've got another hour of open
	lines directly ahead.
	Devil Woman and all.
	Now we take you back to the night of June 12, 2001 on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Back into the dark mist of the unknown of the night we go with unscreened callers who all should be turning off their radio when I say, good morning, East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Um, hello Art.
	Yes.
	Um, my name is Orson.
	Orson, uh, are you any relationship to the great Mr. Wells?
	Oh, I don't think so.
	Okay.
	I don't think so.
	I wonder if you were named after him.
	Probably so.
	I think my parents were fans ever since Citizen Kane.
	Oh yeah, he was something else.
	Oh yeah, Orson was something else.
	Anyway, Orson, welcome.
	Uh, thank you.
	I would like to talk a little bit about the Bible Code or something concerning the Bible Code.
	What about it?
	Um, I think that there might be something to it, actually.
	In my religion, it's a small church, but we're growing.
	In our religious text, the church is called the Loving Church of Bronson Pinchot.
	It's called what?
	The Loving Church of Bronson Pinchot.
	Oh, okay.
	And our text is called the Early Life and Wanderings of Bronson Pinchot.
	And in that text, using the same Bible Code technique, actually, in the Book of Tibet, in Chapter 3, we find the words, valky, immortal, oxman, And, coincidentally, Orson, all of these words having to do with our religious figure, Nelson Pinchot.
	Yes, well, that's remarkable.
	Well, I don't know.
	I'm going to say this again.
	I really would like to see some serious work done with other texts.
	In other words, modern texts.
	The Bible Code myth would be a good I was joking with Mike, in a way, but in a way I'm not.
	You take something that is written to disprove the Bible code and go through that, and I would wager you that we would find a number of meaningful words, if not perhaps a whole sentence.
	I don't know.
	I heard the debate, I listened to the debate, and I kind of went back and forth, which I guess says it was a pretty good debate.
	But I went back and forth in what I was thinking in my own mind about it.
	I first had very serious doubts about the Bible Code.
	But then listening to 22 letters in a row in a meaningful sentence, that's fairly impressive.
	I don't know, I kind of went back and forth, but I guess that means it was a good debate.
	Both sides, I thought, had good ammo.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Yeah.
	Art?
	Yes, that would be me.
	Oh, I got straight through to you.
	That's how it works, sir.
	Thanks Art.
	Turn your radio off if it's not off.
	I'm Tom from L.A.
	on KFI.
	You bet.
	Hey Art, I got an idea for a segment on your show.
	Maybe you could set up once a week a World Government Watch.
	One World Government Watch.
	Where people could report anything.
	What do you think about the One World Government?
	Oh, I believe it.
	I believe it's coming.
	Maybe it's a good thing.
	Well, biblically, no.
	Otherwise, biblical, probably.
	Probably, yes.
	Well, yes.
	In other words, one world means no more wars, right?
	Wouldn't no more wars be good?
	Oh, sure.
	Sure.
	Wouldn't people being fed be good?
	And having health care?
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Now, everybody, for some reason, always assumes that one world government would mean retraining camps.
	It would mean concentration camps, and Americans would be thrown into concentration camps, as seen by pilots flying over the U.S.
	And all of that kind of thing would happen, because not everybody would agree with the new one world order, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, anyway, I had one other thing.
	What do you think about that idea, that we could watch for that?
	Like give a report once a week or something like that?
	You know, like Lindsey does?
	It's a one world order moment.
	Yeah.
	It's just an idea.
	The other thing I wanted to ask you was, are you ever going to rerun any of those Malachi Martin?
	Of course.
	Good, I'm waiting for them.
	The one question I had, I don't know if you can answer it or not, or will, but Winslip House?
	Yes.
	Do you remember the first chapter with that Ritual that was in the Vatican.
	Yes.
	I won't talk about it.
	Do you believe that actually happened?
	Yes.
	Oh, my God.
	Oh, my God.
	I've called several talk show hosts on that and they don't believe it.
	But I wanted your opinion because you knew the man.
	Yes, I believe it.
	Yeah.
	Oh, boy.
	Okay.
	Oh, well, you got a great show, Art.
	Oh, by the way.
	Yeah, Art.
	If you were a big time official in the new one world government, what would you proclaim?
	What would you do?
	What would I do?
	I'd give everybody a copy of the Bible.
	Thank you.
	Give everybody a copy of the Bible.
	Don't you think that, see then we'd be back to war.
	Because all the Koran carriers, well, they're not going to like that.
	I wonder what would happen to the Taliban.
	Now the Taliban, they'd be really upset.
	They're already saying that women can't drive and have to wear veils.
	Oh, gosh, all kinds of things.
	So I don't think that'll go over too well.
	First-time caller line, you are on the air.
	Hello.
	Yes, this is Chris from Richmond, Virginia.
	Hello, Chris.
	You are a first-time caller, right?
	Yes, I am.
	Alright.
	You were talking about the 40 authors of the Bible.
	Yes.
	And if you take into consideration that it was written in three continents, Uh, different people at different times.
	And the fact that these people were all able to have the same basic message, to not contradict each other, to come in the same sequence, is amazing and unique in itself.
	Well, you know, the teachings of a lot of sacred texts, the Koran and others, have really the same basic tenets in them.
	Yes, it doesn't mean they're wrong, though, either.
	And it doesn't mean they're right.
	These are things that I think would occur to the mind of man, perhaps divinely, but to the mind of man, who was seeking some sort of pure thought.
	I mean, how to treat others as we would treat ourselves and, you know, these other basic tenets.
	They seem common.
	But don't forget that a lot of the authors and stuff were very much persecuted.
	Thousands were killed for what they believed in?
	Of course.
	People were killed over our Constitution and other important documents.
	Right?
	Lots of people died as a result of that.
	That's true.
	Okay, sir.
	I'm going to scoot.
	I appreciate the call.
	And I certainly understand what you're talking about.
	But why is it unreasonable?
	I mean, frequently in the world, for example, they say great minds think alike.
	Right?
	Isn't that something?
	They say great minds think alike.
	And frequently, Major leaps in technology, for example, are achieved many places in the world at roughly the same time.
	Ideas that you would not imagine would occur simultaneously do occur to people of great thinking ability.
	And so a lot of inventions have been argued over because, frankly, people have the same idea at about the same time and began developing these things.
	So there have been vicious fights about things like that.
	A wild card line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Well, thank you, Art, and boy, your audience is sharp.
	The bulk of them, at least.
	I mean, like I said, I'm trying to dial the hour.
	You're having the phenomenal debate, and that debate format is excellent.
	Yes, it wasn't bad at all, was it?
	Now, of course, the majority of the audience being sharp, it means probably that you agree Uh, with the majority of them, or they agree with you?
	Well, I was dialing, and I mean, when there was no chance to get on, I had no opposition.
	But as soon as there was a reasonable chance that you would pick up on the line, your line started to sizzle.
	They were so hot, I don't even know how I got through.
	Well, here you are.
	It's all chance.
	Which probably says that you should be out buying some lottery tickets.
	I should be that lucky.
	Anyway.
	Um, I'm disappointed.
	As many are, that the amazing Randy won't join up with that bait.
	Yeah, I thought his answer was a little weak, didn't you?
	I mean, I didn't tell any lies about him.
	I said, quack, quack, quack, quack, like that.
	Like, hey, chicken, come on on.
	But I would treat him well.
	I think most of my audience would attest to the fact that I treat my guests well.
	I attest you are very fair-minded with your guests.
	Very.
	So, I mean, his answer is just not a proper answer.
	That we tell lies about him, and he's not going to play our game.
	Well, we haven't told lies about him.
	On the Bible Code issue, I have not studied the Bible.
	In fact, I had three years, my first three years of school, I stayed in the parochial school.
	I studied the Bible daily.
	And I also have a heavy training in probability and statistics.
	So I would tend to support the Yeah, but as a Lutheran, we were taught that unlike other faiths, only the individual has the right to determine what the Bible really means.
	Well, I'm a Lutheran, too.
	We're a whole clan of cherry pickers, I guess.
	I appreciate the call, sir.
	A clan.
	Are you used to the Rockies?
	You're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	I'm now on the air?
	In all likelihood.
	I'm sorry, Art.
	First of all, I just think your program is wonderful.
	Well, it is different.
	And I love your point of view, especially with everything that's going on and the changes right now in the world.
	There are such complicated times in history.
	Please take good care of yourself and get good vacations so we don't lose you like before.
	Well, that's what I'm going to do.
	I'm going to take a vacation.
	Here's how it works out.
	We have survey periods, you know, times when, like on television, they call them the May sweeps.
	In radio, we have the equivalent.
	It's a survey period, and about June 21st, I think, the one we're in right now ends, and then there's about a week's, believe it or not, one whole week of time when there's not a survey.
	And so that's how I chose to take my vacation.
	At that one week of nobody out there asking, who are you listening to?
	Well, I think it's just great.
	I just don't want to lose you like we did before, because no one can do what you do.
	Well, yes, they can.
	No, they can't.
	Yes, they can.
	I tried to say that before.
	Yes, they can.
	Not with your finesse.
	Not with your fairness.
	Not with your intellect.
	That's very kind.
	But now I want to say something about the pebble coat.
	What I wanted to say is, Um, since this is a book that's so old and so well preserved in its content, I think that you had a brilliant idea when you said, God would probably realize that at this time in history, most books would be taken from the Masoretic text.
	And, um, thus, the use, he chose the use of that.
	Catherine Keating, and I think Father Malachi, has mentioned that there's a hidden book of the Bible that will come to light in the last days.
	And I think that this is the way God is trying to tell us, because the things that come up so often and seem miraculous are all these words about World War II and the evil that came to light through us, and the things that will come to light about the Antichrist.
	And there are words in there about the Antichrist that they didn't even get to tonight.
	I'm sure there are.
	Also, you know, this World War II watch, I'm for it.
	Not World War II, I'm sorry.
	New World Order watch, I'm really for it.
	I think that would be a wonderful thing for you to do.
	A World War II watch minute.
	No, no, no, no.
	I'm sorry, a New World Order minute.
	You confused me.
	New World, you know, one world government, which is the New World Order here, interchangeable.
	I think, you know, if you had a special line of some kind for that, it would be... Oh, it would be very fascinating.
	All right.
	And I think what we will lose by that is our freedom.
	All right.
	We'll lose our Constitution, and boy... Well, all right, but, you know, here's what I say to all the New World orderlies all the time.
	Suppose the New World Order embraced our Constitution.
	But it won't.
	Well, okay, but... If it did, I'd be all for it.
	You would?
	But it won't.
	There are all kinds of signs now, and bring guests on and talk about that.
	And the question is, what would we do with the people who didn't agree with our new constitution?
	Our new constitution?
	Well, I'm preserving what we have.
	The world's constitution.
	I'm assuming that it would be our constitution.
	Alright, fine.
	But it won't.
	It won't, especially with...
	The extreme left is going towards socialism and communism.
	Well, we couldn't have an extreme left anymore, thank you.
	We couldn't have an extreme right anymore.
	We could only have the New World Order, right?
	Whatever it would be, that's all we could have.
	There would be no extreme left, nor would there be any extreme right.
	All those people would be getting abrasions on their knuckles because of the barbed wire.
	Right?
	What's with the Rockies?
	You're on the air, hello.
	That switch... You know, this West of the Rockies button is going to have to... West of the Rockies.
	Now you're on air.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	I would like to suggest an opinion that can reconcile the two opinions on the Bible code.
	I didn't hear anybody mention that, for example, if I was writing a code that nobody could
	respond to, I would try to put some sort of forward error correction so that whoever decodes
	it can account for bits and pieces that are getting lost in the code?
	Well, yes, but if God was writing this, there would be a divine error correction, which
	would account for all the time that has gone between, what, 450 BC and 420 BC.
	and today.
	In other words, God would know what changes were made, and that would be the error correction, and so it would be held perfecto today.
	Well, they were telling... God's error correction, sir, is not like Microsoft's.
	No, by far not.
	But they were talking about differences in spelling and how letters here and there from the different spelling can change and offset the code.
	And if you have error correction, then differences in the spelling will probably not result in a change in the code.
	And that's a really big difference.
	I know exactly what you're saying.
	But again, God's error correction.
	Would be infallible.
	And it would anticipate all the changes, deletions, little dot dot dots that were in there, and all the rest of it.
	God's Error Correction would be delivering a totally workable text to us at any given moment.
	Because it would be God's Error Correction.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hi, how are you doing this evening?
	I'm alright, and you're on a cell phone located roughly where?
	I'm in the state of Oklahoma, headed towards Oklahoma City.
	Okay, and the second thing is, have you heard of the series Left Behind?
	Is that Left Behind?
	Left Behind by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins?
	No, I haven't.
	What's in that?
	Okay, it's an in-time series.
	It's a fictional portrayal of the Book of Revelations according to the interpretation of the authors.
	No, I'm not familiar with it, but it sounds pretty interesting.
	Okay, and I just thought I'd ask you about that and see how that was going and your motorhome.
	Yes.
	Can you tell a little bit about your motorhome on the air?
	Well, it's really hard to tell about.
	I'll do what I can.
	It's 37 feet long.
	It's a diesel motorhome, diesel pusher.
	And as I said, it's 37 feet long, and I've got some pictures of it on the website, and it's about to get some use.
	Instead of sitting out there, just sort of gathering a moss, it's about to get some use.
	The best way I think I could describe it is have Keith put a little, maybe Keith could put it up there, because I actually put the photographs up A long time ago, and I think a lot of you probably will never have seen them.
	So let me see if I can do that.
	Keith, could you possibly put a What's New?
	pointer to it, so everybody could find it?
	Why not?
	Let's do it.
	I took those photos a long time ago.
	I could take a fresh set of photos, I suppose, and I'll get those up.
	But I think the ones that I put up earlier some months ago would do.
	Keith, if you would be so kind as to put a What's New?
	pointer On the website to my motorhome pictures.
	And it's been kind of sitting out there.
	And every now and then I go out and I start it up and I roll it forward.
	And then I roll it in reverse.
	The most I get to do with it because of the pressure of the time, of course.
	To do this program.
	And so I am going to take a few days and we are going to escape in the motorhome.
	While we have somebody sit here and babysit the house.
	Which is what we've got to do because of who we are.
	But, I'll see if I can get Keith to get those photographs up for me.
	Keith, if you would please?
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 12th, 2001.
	This is a teaser for the new episode of Coast to Coast.
	I feel it coming in the air tonight, pull out my heart I've been waiting for this moment for all my life, pull out
	Can you feel it coming in the air tonight, pull out, pull out
	Well if you told me you were coming, I would not end the night
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from June 12, 2001.
	I've got to have the best webmaster in the world, Keith Rowland.
	During the last break, the photos went up.
	So if you go to my site right now, under what's new, you'll see caller asks for pictures of RV.
	And there are two pages of pictures of my RV.
	The only things that you don't see there, really, are the ham rig.
	Yes, I've got a ham rig in there and I can go on all the HF bands.
	In addition to that, two meters and 440.
	I've got a CB radio in there so I can talk to truckers.
	And there's a really cool instrument that, and really is cool too, that's a It will tell me to turn right or turn left, and it scrolls its GPS with a scrolling map, and it shows you as a vehicle going along the road, you know, and it shows all the little intersections and everything.
	So you don't see some of the electronics that are in there, but...
	I've done an awful lot to it, so there's about how many on there?
	Let's see.
	One, two, three, four.
	There's got to be about a total of eight photographs of it up on the website right now.
	So if you want to know what my getaway mobile is, that's it.
	And what we'll probably do is take a series of short trips.
	At any rate, should you see me on the highway or out and about, you'll know.
	Caller asks, it goes up during a break.
	Not bad.
	Good keep.
	Now we take you back to the night of June 12th, 2001, on Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
	And...
	Back into the night we go, and to our wild card line, you're on the air, hello.
	Hello.
	Hello, hello.
	Goodbye.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air, good morning.
	Yes, Mark.
	That would be me.
	Mark, in Nashville, Tennessee, 1510 AM, WLAC.
	That's the one in Nashville, yes sir.
	Yes sir.
	Several times for you, I don't want you to turn us out.
	You were mentioning Recent day literature that had tests run on the equal letter sequence distancing.
	Yes.
	The Gettysburg Address, it has messages in it referring to Abraham Lincoln.
	Moby Dick, it has messages in it referring to Ahab, I believe it is.
	Yes.
	And those vowel points that they talk about.
	Right.
	That is a toss-up.
	You can sort of read into that.
	Whatever you might want to.
	One example I heard, Kevin, was, uh, where it talks about, uh, when Rabin was shot, it says, Rabin, bang, bang.
	With the vowel tones, if you move them around correctly, you could say, Rabino, bang, bang, a hit man.
	He had two successful hits.
	Also, you were talking about what distinguishes, uh, the, uh, physical literature from the letters you get.
	Uh, physical probability and predictive prophecy.
	The birthplace of Christ, uh, T. Bethlehem.
	Here's the only problem with that whole theory, and that is that the letters that I'm getting today could be prophetic, but we wouldn't know that for four or five hundred years or a thousand years.
	So who's to say they're not prophetic?
	Nobody, until it happens.
	So what is written today, if a thousand years from now turns out to be prophetic, Uh, would be seen as divine inspirational material, wouldn't it?
	I think.
	What's with the Rockies?
	You're on the air.
	Turn your radio off, please.
	Oh, okay.
	How you doing, Art?
	Uh, better when your radio's off.
	Okay, it's off.
	Good for you.
	Uh, man, I'm sitting out here on my driveway listening to ya.
	Um, I had a suggestion for you, uh, maybe that could help Bugs.
	Okay.
	And, uh, what I was thinking was maybe to send him an edited, uh, Copy of the tape from the show the other night and put that in a player where he could put it out on his back porch or something and blast it so that maybe the Bigfoots could hear it.
	So they could hear it, huh?
	Yeah.
	You know, but wait, what if the Bigfoots haven't really known exactly that he was the one who killed Grandma and Grandpa?
	Once the show is out there, there wouldn't be any doubt left about it, would there?
	Oh, that's true.
	So, you know, we could find him and the tape machine all bent around a phone pole somewhere.
	Yeah, we wouldn't want that either.
	I appreciate the suggestion, though.
	Thank you very much.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello, our friend Colin, currently in Springfield, Missouri.
	I can barely understand you.
	You're on a cell phone.
	Yes, I am.
	I'm in Springfield, Missouri area.
	Currently listening to you on 1200 WGBO.
	That's a little better.
	W-A-I, I'm sorry.
	W-A-I, San Antonio.
	That's right.
	Yes, sir.
	First time caller, of course, actually, on this line.
	Been listening to you for about four years, so stuck with Coast to Coast during your little break there.
	Yes.
	Just glad to have you back and love hearing your show.
	Keep me going, many nights out here on the open road.
	I'm kind of curious, just in case I run across your RV out here running along the road, do you have a handle that you could buy on TV?
	I haven't picked one yet.
	Huh?
	No, I haven't.
	I'll try and pick one.
	I'll tell you what, I'll try and pick one before I leave.
	How's that?
	Okay, that sounds like a good idea.
	It would have to be something somewhat distinctive.
	No, of course.
	I'll figure out some.
	Okay, that'd be great.
	Yeah, I keep trying to get my better half to call you.
	She's got a really interesting shadow person story, but I don't know.
	I think she's kind of nervous, but I'll get her on here one day.
	All right.
	In any case, the question that I have for you, though, was I'm sure it's probably already been announced, but probably on a night that I wasn't able to catch the show.
	I was just kind of curious as to what did happen to Mike.
	Mike?
	You mean Mike Siegel?
	Mike Siegel, I believe, now is filling in, or is about to be, for Mike Reagan.
	Mike Reagan?
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I was just kind of curious about that.
	I wanted to let Paul let you know that I love your show.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, sir.
	Take care.
	Okay, you too.
	Right.
	That's, I think, his next appearance is going to be filling in for Mike Reagan.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	That's me.
	How are you?
	I'm fine.
	Okay, we don't have to talk about Bible code today, right?
	Open mind?
	No, of course not.
	You can talk about anything you want.
	Okay, great.
	Here's my question.
	Is it possible, if he hasn't answered it already, the next time you have Ed Danes on, or even the next remote viewer that you mentioned earlier, can you ask him if there's anything anybody can do to keep from being spied on by a remote viewer?
	I mean, now when I walk down the street and you get that funny feeling of being watched, I have to wonder, is there a remote viewer looking at me?
	You know, they're leaving invisible eyes in the sky watching what I'm doing.
	Well, no, but if you listen to programs done with remote viewers, it's not like they're watching you on a spy camera or something.
	Remote viewers take on targets.
	Now, I suppose that you could be a target for a remote viewer, but I don't think the information would be particularly specific.
	In other words, a remote viewer might be able to sit in Moscow and draw you.
	Or draw you doing something that you're doing.
	Exactly, that's what I'm worried about.
	I mean, I could be an anonymous person.
	Well, no, I couldn't be anonymous because they'd have to be targeting me.
	You know what?
	I'm a lot more worried about Echelon than I am, uh, remote viewers.
	But you're not a woman!
	You're gonna tell me that remote viewers can't be perverts?
	Oh.
	So... Oh, I see.
	Yeah!
	See, you're not a woman.
	You don't think like a woman, are you?
	No.
	I don't.
	It's great to have you back.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you very much.
	Take care.
	Aloha.
	Yeah, I guess it could be a detailed sketch of you in the shower.
	Or who knows, right?
	Yeah, I'm going to have a remote view on tomorrow night.
	I think I'll ask about that.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Yeah, Art, this is Dave from Las Vegas.
	Hi, Dave.
	How you doing?
	Fine.
	First of all, I got a question for you.
	Why does my phone only ring your number, say, 20 times, and then I get this operator coming on saying your party does not answer?
	It's part of the New World Order.
	No, it's actually, the phone company did that some number of years ago to ensure that people would not tie up their equipment Ringing numbers for days on end.
	You know, like, boyfriends trying to get hold of their girlfriends who aren't there, and so they just let it ring until they answer, even if it's 24 hours later.
	Every week later, huh?
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's the reason.
	Irritating.
	You'd think they'd go more than two.
	I mean, if somebody tries to call your number, there's no way.
	Well, I got through, but there's usually no way.
	Here's the way.
	Let me tell you how I look at it, alright?
	Believe it or not, even though this is not going to satisfy you, it's the truth.
	If you're out there dialing and dialing and dialing and trying to get through, your odds of making it through are just as good the way I do it as if I were to, for example, have some call screener who took all the calls and put them on hold and I just took one after another and somebody was on hold for 30 or 45 minutes.
	Right.
	Your odds are exactly as good.
	Sure.
	Sure, because I spent 35 minutes at least trying to call you.
	There you go.
	You bet.
	Hey, listen, this way you see, the bottom line is, if you're on one of the non-pull-free lines, you're not getting charged for ringing.
	Right.
	At least not yet.
	That'll probably be next.
	You watch, the phone companies will start charging people for ringing.
	I'll have to get a better job, I guess.
	For sure.
	We all will have to.
	Hey, listen, the reason I called you, I called you before about Chaff up in the air, a local newscast.
	This one was Black Mold.
	Black Mold?
	Yeah.
	Channel 5.
	Local station.
	In Las Vegas, yes.
	That's the Fox affiliate.
	Uh, yes it is.
	Uh, they had to move, I believe it was an elderly folks home, and they had to move people out.
	Yeah, this thing is no joke.
	And, you know, the answer you get from people when you ask them about black mold is, oh, you know, it's been around forever.
	Well, maybe.
	But you know what?
	It hasn't been, uh, Having buildings evacuated.
	This is going on throughout the country.
	It's real serious stuff.
	Well, they called it on the news.
	They called it deadly.
	Deadly, yeah.
	Is what they called it.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Deadly.
	And no, but they didn't explain what it was.
	That's right.
	I mean, they don't tell you anything.
	You know, where did it come from.
	That's right.
	What it is.
	You're absolutely right.
	And I don't remember when I was younger a whole lot of black mold stories.
	Do you?
	No.
	No.
	No, not at all.
	No, this is real recent.
	And I wish, you know, if you get a chance, you know, do a show or something, you know, because it's nationwide.
	I don't think it's just Las Vegas.
	Well, the problem is that when you consult the experts, they say yes, and they can identify the type of mold.
	But they act as though it's always been around.
	And I say... No, no, no.
	Bull stuff.
	It has not.
	Not at the magnitude we have it now.
	And what is it?
	And where did it come from?
	You know, those are real good questions.
	Well, uh, behind your fridge.
	This is a fairly recent phenomena at this scale.
	There's absolutely no question about it.
	I've had, I cannot tell you how many emails and faxes, people describing buildings that have had to have been literally torn down because of this mold.
	It's awfully prolific, and I think awfully new.
	Uh, wildcard line, you're on the air, hello.
	Email.
	I can't deal with that.
	First time caller on the line.
	You're on the air.
	Hello.
	Yes, this is Ray from Indianapolis.
	Ray, extinguish your radio, please.
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, go ahead.
	How are you this morning?
	Fine, just fine.
	I just started listening to you not long ago.
	I'm from Indianapolis.
	WIBC 1070.
	Right.
	There you go.
	And I didn't get to hear very much of your show this morning.
	Okay.
	But evidently it was very interesting.
	Very interesting.
	You have some very interesting shows.
	I try.
	Have you ever talked about the Bible?
	You know, just before we get to that, people always accuse me of that.
	They say, well, you're just trying to get ratings and that's why you...
	Duh!
	Of course we're trying to get ratings.
	This is a radio program and its advertisers and the network and everybody else likes ratings.
	So do television shows.
	So does all forms of media like ratings.
	And do we try to present interesting shows so we can get ratings?
	Yes, we do.
	No mystery there.
	So in answer to that accusation, I always say, duh!
	You know, they level it like an allegation.
	You know, you're just trying to get ratings.
	Hey, right you are.
	I definitely did not mean it that way.
	The way you take me out of context.
	Okay.
	I think your shows are very interesting, although I don't agree with everything I hear.
	Neither do I. You know, I'm a very open-minded person.
	That's the whole point.
	I don't agree with everything I hear either.
	Anybody who would listen to my program collectively and agree with everything should be examined.
	Well, there's a saying, uh, open-mindedness is mankind's ultimate virtue.
	Moreover, admitting his errors is mankind's most gorgeous achievement.
	And the detractors would say, and your mind should not be so open that your brains fall out.
	That's true.
	Anyway, go ahead.
	Well, uh, you know, this is, I'm a first-time caller.
	And I've only listened to your show maybe for a couple of months, but I really do like it.
	Thank you.
	Even though a lot of it I consider a little bit of mystical.
	But there's a lot of things we don't have the answers to.
	That's for sure.
	Your show this evening or this morning had something to do with the Bible and the Bible code.
	That's right.
	We had a debate among two scholars.
	A couple of years ago I read a book called Jesus the Man.
	Has anyone ever mentioned that to you by Barbara Thierling?
	No.
	Well, she's a theologian, a professor of theology at the University of Sydney, or she was for 21 years.
	Right.
	It's an exceptionally interesting book, and she studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, and several other things, and she has a Ph.D.
	Okay.
	And she came up with an answer and a theory about, there is a code, but it's not the code that the people are talking about on your show this morning.
	What is it?
	Well, it's a secret technique of writing.
	And it actually is an underlying way of writing so the Romans would not know what they were talking to themselves about.
	The message that was being put out, especially in the gospel era, the good news era, which is what gospel means.
	And I just think, if I get a chance, I'll call you back about this again and give you a little bit more information, but I'm just not prepared to do that at the time.
	Alright, no, that's fine.
	By all means, gather together and hit me again.
	And so the book is called Jesus, the man that was sold in the United States as Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	Oh, darn.
	And it came out in 1992.
	Well, you would need that title to go and find it on Amazon or wherever it might be.
	Yeah, Amazon.com.
	It's been out of print for a long time, but she wrote two other books, one in 1996 called Jesus and the Apocalypse, and then the last one in 1998 is the one I have in front of me here called The Book that Jesus Wrote, which is John's Gospel.
	All right, my friend.
	Thank you very much.
	Well, I don't know about Jesus writing it.
	If I heard everything correctly, it was about 40 divinely inspired people.
	Wildcard Lion, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hi there.
	Hi.
	You were looking a while back, while I was listening last night, for an explanation of a definition of time.
	Oh, yes.
	Well, how about Very simply, a progression of events.
	Calendar or... Okay, a progression of events.
	That's fair, I guess, but it still doesn't tell us about the nature of time.
	What I really want to know is, can we travel to previous... What would be the right word?
	Previous linear...
	It would seem to me that eventually we will be able to figure that out.
	presentation of events. Does the nature of time include the ability to move within it?
	It would seem to me that eventually we will be able to figure that out. However,
	it may take us a while. Well, but here's the hook. If we're eventually going to be able to
	figure it out, even if it's a thousand years in our future, then if the nature of time
	is like that, that means there are already people traveling back in time.
	Quite possibly so.
	Right.
	Even to our current time, right?
	Oh, even more to figure out and think about.
	Yeah, there would already be time travelers.
	So we only have to decide what are the rules for the time travelers.
	Can they mess around with events, or are they just forced by the nature of time travel to observe events, essentially being invisible in any time other than their own?
	Yeah, because if they were to happen to do something, In a past time, would they eliminate themselves in the future?
	Yeah.
	Or just change some little stupid thing that ends up being a cascade of events that changes eventually everything.
	Yeah.
	And or, if you listen to our modern physicists, they will tell you, no, they wouldn't change everything.
	What they would do is essentially create a new universe with the new events that occur while we go sailing off happily into our predictable future.
	Predictable?
	Well, sure.
	Predictable.
	In other words, there's no way you can change in this universe what's going to happen.
	But if you go back and change something, you essentially, according to Dr. Kaku last time he was on, would create a whole new universe where things happen differently.
	Listen, I've got a scoop.
	Show's over.
	Tell everybody out there goodnight.
	Goodnight to the world.
	That's the way to do it.
	And maybe once the New World Order is here, that'll be the only way you can do it.
	Good night to the world.
	Alright, well that is it for this night at any rate.
	Thank you all.
	Tomorrow night, don't forget, this is really important.
	You don't want to miss the first hour of the program tomorrow night.
	If you're curious about what lies under the water off the coast of Cuba, tomorrow night at 10 o'clock, Linda Moulton Howe has a couple of interviews that'll blow you away.

▲