Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 19, 2015 - Art Bell

02:19:29

Art Bell MITD - Jim Sanders & Bill Birnes TWA Flight 800

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Alright, I dug this up from the Anomalist, bless your heart, theanomalist.com, and we've got it up at rbl.com right now.
	A video that's taken the internet by storm, and deservedly so.
	I guess the Anomalist was chasing links all day, all afternoon trying to get a copy of it, but there were copyright issues, said they, but Good for them, they got it.
	They got a mirror sight, and then we finally found it up, I think, on YouTube.
	This is an alien.
	It's not really an alien, but it might as well be.
	I'm going to try and pronounce it.
	It's a Stygomedusa gigantea.
	Maybe.
	I might have got that right.
	I might not have.
	It was floating near an ROV in the Gulf of Mexico.
	It has been seen before, but I don't think we've ever seen this good a picture of it.
	I don't know what you'd call it, but it's not anything that looks like it comes from Earth.
	That's for sure.
	So you can take a look at it if you want.
	It's up at ARTBELL.com and it will blow your mind.
	And then this other item caught my attention today.
	Hackers say they have exposed unfaithful partners across the world.
	There's this cheating site, a website Ashley Madison, where you know if you want to cheat on your partner.
	I guess what happened is somebody hacked into it And the hackers said, look, either you take your site down, stop doing what you're doing, or we're going to dump this data.
	Well, dump the data.
	Apparently they did.
	They accused people using the site, the owners, of deceit, incompetence.
	Said the company had refused to bow to their demands to close the site, so?
	They took matters into their own hands, and there's a lot of information out there, which includes names, addresses, credit card info, those who were part of it.
	What a mess that's going to be.
	And what a mess we've got on our hands tonight, in two, more than one way.
	By the way, on behalf of Keith Rowland, he is going through some renewal jitters.
	That's, I guess, the way I would put it.
	Some of the people who joined, I don't know, like a month ago, are getting notices that they're expired.
	Don't worry, you're not expired.
	Well, I mean, maybe they technically think you are.
	It has something, Keith tells me, to do with the difference between West Coast time and Greenwich Mean Time.
	And that's all I know right now.
	Otherwise, I know.
	Don't worry.
	Don't email Keith.
	He's already having little digital babies.
	So, OK, in a moment, we're going to do something awfully serious.
	And it really, really is awfully serious.
	I like doing lighter shows, but you know, the ultimate, the question is, would our own United States government shoot down a civilian airplane with 230 passengers and crew by either, well not intentionally, you can't, even I can't imagine that, would they do it by mistake and then cover it up?
	I guess we're going to find out tonight.
	A lot of new stuff is going to be here.
	Coming next is Bill Burns.
	A New York Times bestselling author, the creator, consulting producer, writer, and lead host of History Channel's UFO Hunters, and one of the creators and guest experts on History's Ancient Aliens, he is currently featured as a commentator on Discovery's Unsolved NASA Files and the upcoming Reelz TV, Dr. Feelgood.
	Byrne's forthcoming books are The Life and Times of Mickey Rooney, in October.
	Psychiatric Criminology in January, UFO Hunters Book 2 in January, and Edison's last invention, the spirit phone, coming this spring.
	Fascinating stuff.
	Burns holds a PhD and a JD, was a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow, and is co-host of the Dark Matter Digital Network's Future Theater with co-host Nancy Burns on Monday nights from 10 p.m.
	Eastern.
	With him will be Jim Sanders.
	Just so you know, Jim joined Seal Beach Orange County Police Department back in 1966, straight out of college.
	Specialized in accident investigation for a majority of his career.
	Medically retired in 1977.
	Completed his BS degree at Christopher Newport University, Virginia in 79.
	Worked in politics 80 through 85.
	Ran a primary congressional campaign against John McCain.
	Was the first executive director of the Virginia Legislative Caucus.
	Began investigating federal lawlessness because of a conversation he had with Wall Street journalists in 1986.
	Soldiers of Misfortune was his first book, co-authored with Mark Sauter.
	In 82, The Men We Left Behind.
	93, The Downing of TWA Flight 800.
	1997, Altered Evidence.
	Flight 800, 1997, Altered Evidence, 2000, First Strike, co-author Jack Cashill, 2003,
	co-produced a documentary with Jack Cashill in 2004, very prolific, huh?
	Currently working on the definitive book on TWA Flight 800 and a second book that will
	for the first time...
	Give the factual story of the behind-the-scenes war between White House extremists and a secret American military intelligence unit tracking the communist influence surrounding FDR and the KGB's monitoring of the military intelligence unit.
	Now, again, to me, the whole thing comes down to would we, if we did by mistake, shoot down an aircraft with 230 people on it?
	Passengers and crew, would we hide that?
	Would we cover it up?
	By the end of this night, I guess you will know.
	That's what they tell me.
	So coming up in a moment, Bill Burns and TWA Flight 800.
	Bill Burns and Jim Sanders.
	Bill and Jim, welcome to Midnight in the Desert.
	Thank you.
	You know what I just did?
	Just to start this out here, I googled TWA Flight 800 just to see what came up.
	just see what is what came up in nineteen ninety six p w a flight eight
	hundred were shot down south of long island
	the government of the united states despite the embarrassment of having been
	caught in court rigging lab tests and lying in its reports is still officially attributing the disaster to a spark
	in the center fuel tank while government spokespeople insist the witnesses
	who saw a missile hit the jumbo jet are all drunks And that's it.
	Anybody want to react to that?
	Well, amazingly, they managed to sell that to the New York media, and of course the gray lady, the New York Times, ran with whatever the FBI sent them, and NBC ran with whatever the NTSB sent them.
	But to believe that the news media of the United States would believe that New Yorkers... I mean, I'm from the West, so I'm willing to believe a lot about New Yorkers.
	Yeah, when they see something going up, it's actually something coming down.
	And it was just pathetic.
	And of course it went on into the residue that I got a hold of and how can a thermite
	product be glue used by airlines?
	All right, well let us begin at the beginning and that would be July 17th of 96 when it
	And by the way, I want to tell everybody, go to artbell.com.
	You're probably already there looking at that sea creature.
	If you click on the picture of tonight's guests, you will then notice something else loads, and that's going to be two things.
	Two still photographs and a video that you can see.
	You know, you don't have to be a rocket scientist, I mean that quite literally, to look at what you guys have presented, particularly the video, not that it's great quality, but what is there, I mean, clearly shows the trail of a missile going up.
	Not down, not fuel spilling down, and that's the old story I heard.
	It's something going up to meet that aircraft that then explodes.
	Well, the human mind does a funny thing when it sees that.
	It goes, well look at that, a missile, and then an airplane getting destroyed.
	Am I right?
	You're absolutely right.
	That's what happened, yeah.
	This person who shot the video was, it was a beautiful night.
	The sun was setting, the moon was a crescent moon, I think Venus was between its points.
	Beautiful night, and he's filming that.
	And then all of a sudden, out of the corner of his eye in a different direction, he sees a contrail, a missile going up.
	Right.
	And he focuses the camera on that, and he even says, it looks like a rocket, and he and his friend are looking at this thing, and then there's an explosion in the distance.
	And the FBI sees that video, took it from this person, locked it away for 19 years, and it was Jim's ability to wind his way through the System of Freedom of Information Act and mandatory disclosures that eventually pry that video out from the government, and it's sitting right here, and it's declassified.
	Can I ask you a question about the video?
	Yes.
	Was it shot upside down?
	No, it wasn't shot upside down, but it was shot by the world's worst amateur cameraman.
	All right, well, I'm sort of half making a joke.
	It's not a joke at all.
	The only way that could not be a missile going up would be if the whole thing was shot upside down.
	And finally, the camera wasn't drunk, was it?
	No, the camera wasn't drunk.
	And to add to that story, I first picked up on it from a Fox News team that was out on Long Island that night trying to buy that video from the cameraman.
	I remember that!
	I remember the report of that!
	Right, right.
	And it actually was bought by someone that we believe was NBC, but we can't prove it, but we do have I hate to do this to you too, guys, because I've got to.
	All these years I've gone around talking, people swear they actually saw it once and
	they were glued to the TV the rest of the night and it never showed up again.
	All right.
	I hate to do this to you two guys because I've got to.
	On my Facebook, I announced we were going to do, sort of blow open the whole TWA 800
	story.
	And inevitably, somebody popped in and wrote, what's TWA 800?
	So, you know, enough time has gone by, guys, that we've got people who don't even remember this.
	So tell them where that flight started, who was on it, where it was going.
	Jim, go ahead.
	OK, it started out of JFK Airport.
	It took off about 20 minutes after 8 p.m.
	out of JFK on the 17th of July 1996, before a lot of your audience was probably even born, and was headed for Paris.
	So it comes out of JFK, kind of sweeps around and heads east.
	It's south of Long Island, over the water, but it's only about nine miles out over the water.
	So people standing on the shoreline, and it's at dusk, but there's plenty of light out there, I know, because I went and stood where some of these the key eyewitnesses were at the same time that they saw
	what they saw.
	You can very clearly see a 747 as it's climbing out into the sky.
	I'll just use witness 73, a lady from Madison, North Carolina.
	She had her tootsies in the water and was looking, and she'd been in the travel business,
	and she sees the 747 level off lower than it should have leveled off, which is exactly
	what happened.
	She goes, Oh my God, I wonder where they're going, and I wish I was on board.
	And then shortly thereafter, she goes, well, maybe not.
	Because out of the corner of her eye, or her testimony, she sees a missile sweeping up towards Flight 800, right side.
	It looks like it's going to fly by it on the right side, and it makes a sharp left and comes in and hits the airliner right where the leading edge of the right wing fastens to the fuselage.
	And it was in an upward angle and came, you know, and went up through the fuselage in the business class and out the top.
	She saw that, and the FBI has refused to believe that she actually saw that, and we don't understand why.
	And the CIA, let me just wrap it up with this one, on Witness 73, I filed a FOIA with the Freedom of Information Act with the CIA to get their paperwork Saying why they do not believe her.
	Can I back you up and ask you one question about the testimony?
	You said, she said, that it leveled off before it should have.
	And it did.
	Okay, what do we know about that?
	It leveled off at flight level what?
	13,000, just over 13,000 feet, because there was other traffic that they had to hold for.
	Okay, so it was ordered to do that by aircraft?
	It was ordered to do that, correct, by ATC.
	Okay, good.
	Right, and so the CIA sends me a thing back, kind of a hate letter, which that's kind of the norm for me and them, and says that they simply do not have the ability to find such paperwork in their files, and it would be too burdensome for them to try to manually find it.
	That's their excuse for not being able to tell the world of their genius interpretation of what she clearly said, and we have her exact statement.
	Okay, so they didn't actually send Bob a letter saying, by the way, we really hate you.
	Ah, well, no, but things get really pissy, and I hope that's not too much of a swear word.
	Between me and the FBI and the CIA and the Justice Department, when they found out that I had, for some reason, I don't know why, because I got it legally, they didn't know I, apparently, didn't know that I got a hold out of their files legally, this visual of what actually happened and they have really been uh...
	let's say not happy since then
	hard that he'd be noed of a no doubt the truth is out there but the reason
	that flight eight hundred with the air and this is important to is that
	that was a military operations area That's Whiskey 104 over southern Long Island.
	And that went hot because there was a test of this program called the Cooperative Engagement Capability that night.
	That was scheduled.
	What happened was there were thunderstorms over Chicago that night, and the connecting flight to Flight 800 was held up at O'Hare.
	So Flight 800, which was an international flight, was held up so the connecting flight could get into JFK.
	That's why that plane was late going through Whiskey 104, not knowing the area was hot.
	How late was it?
	And the Navy was warned.
	How late?
	About 30 minutes.
	Yeah, about an hour.
	An hour?
	That's a long time.
	My wife worked for TWA and at that time they would hold up planes, international in particular, they would hold them up a long, long time so that people wouldn't miss their connection.
	I get it.
	Is it Whiskey 104 or 108?
	105.
	105.
	Come on guys, get your numbers right here.
	Whiskey 105, okay.
	And tell me what Whiskey 105 was, a military exercise area of some sort?
	Right.
	The Cooperative Engagement Capability Program, which was a trillion-dollar program, literally, to take the United States military into the 21st century, was tested because the Navy was the primary on this.
	And there was all these zones that were south of Long Island for doing different sorts of tests.
	And I got out of NASA, of all places, the paperwork proving that there were six days' worth of CEC exercises going on, starting that night, when TWA Flight 800 Well, I was shot down, and there's little doubt that CEC was involved in this.
	So what kind of assets, if that's the right word, would we have had in this area?
	We had destroyers and cruisers that were called AEGIS, Aegis Destroyers and Cruisers, that were connected, that CEC was part of that.
	All of these radars, they could be massive, Interference they could steam in this this was supposed to be the final sign off so that a CEC could go into combat and it had to be signed off by September 1st per Congress.
	Otherwise, they're going to defund it.
	So they had that all every ship that the Navy had that had the Aegis on it was out in those waters that night.
	and then you had a submarine and you had the seawolf and the seawolf was doing insure exercises
	on uh...
	anti-aircraft exercises and it was a literal which meant that's what the navy thought it would be
	fighting insure
	types of engagements supporting marines supporting the establishment of airfields
	And the Seawolf, which was not yet commissioned.
	So when the Navy said we had no sub there that night, they were right.
	It was not yet commissioned.
	But the Seawolf was there undergoing testing in the CEC program.
	And it had a unique weapon system on it.
	It was the first American sub to be able to, from underwater, launch an anti-aircraft missile.
	It all connected into CEC, because the Seawolf was supposed to go into the littoral warfare, which is shallow water, is what it means.
	They go in first, and they're there, and there's other CEC-capable subs once this thing gets going, and they then protect the fleet as it comes in.
	It was a $2 billion dollar sub, which was a lot of money back in the 1990s.
	It was a tremendous amount of money.
	And Congress wasn't going to fund it anymore unless it proved its ability in the littoral warfare.
	Guess how much money Congress spent on it after July 17, 1996?
	How much?
	Zero bucks.
	Yeah, so Congress unofficially knew that The truth about what had gone on out there.
	Not everybody in Congress, but the people at the very senior levels.
	All right, so there were all kinds of things out there in this Whiskey 105 area.
	How big an area was it?
	I can't give you the exact amount, but it was huge.
	It's huge.
	And CEC goes all the way down to Virginia Beach, Virginia.
	And all the way up to Long Island.
	All right, is there any indication that the U.S.
	military had Any sort of, oh I don't know, target vehicles that it was going to fly over the area for a test?
	In other words, was anything like that scheduled or could you find out?
	Yes.
	Yes?
	Linda Cabot, well two things.
	One, I have documents saying that they were going to use two different types of drones.
	And the other is, there was a lady named Linda Cabot, was at a Republican meeting near the shore, near West Hampton.
	And she didn't even know it that night, but she, while she was taking photos, took a photo of a drone that was over land.
	And that's important, because one of the things the Seawolf has to do, and the CEC has to do, is to be able to track, in civilian airliners, you have all the clutter of land, and they're supposed to be able to track that drone.
	Well, here's the drone over land, and it's on her 35mm camera, and the FBI refuses to give me When was this?
	photos of that. When was this? What time? This was, well it was approximately, you
	know, cameras in those days didn't have the little gizmos that generally show up
	on pictures these days, but it was about, you know, an 830 time frame, just a few
	minutes at best before flight 800 went down. Oh God.
	The radar signature, I mean, Aegis is pretty good stuff even today.
	The radar they've got is extremely impressive.
	You know, a 747.
	It presents one hell of a radar signature, right?
	Yes, it does.
	Yes.
	So, are we concluding here that somebody on the ground, is this your conclusion, that somebody on the ground thought that they were firing at one of these drones, these targets, and mistakenly fired at a commercial airliner?
	Is that the bottom line here?
	The thing you have to remember is in CEC there's no human interaction, it's all computer.
	That's the whole point.
	A robot fired the missile.
	An algorithm fired the missile.
	Really?
	No human intervention.
	Exactly.
	And since Flight 800 was not supposed to be there, essentially what happened was the missile was targeted, it was launched, a platform was designated by a computer, Do you know what kind of homing mechanism this state-of-the-art, at that time, missile was using?
	flight 800 flew through and then had to settle down at 13,000 feet because there was air
	traffic overhead.
	And the missile, which was semi-active radar, homed in on a plane that wasn't supposed to
	be there.
	Do you know what kind of homing mechanism this state-of-the-art, at that time, missile
	was using?
	They had four possibilities, so we're making our best estimate.
	Alright, hold on guys.
	Hold on.
	what it was they were using and off the top of my head I cannot recall but they had four
	possibilities before the Seawolf which I believe was the launch vehicle of the first missile,
	the smaller missile that was seen by two absolutely critical witnesses as it was launched and
	shortly after launch.
	And then the one that witness 73 saw.
	Alright, hold on guys, hold on, we're out of break.
	For Dark Matter News, I'm Leo Ashcraft.
	Deadly Portuguese man-of-war jellyfish, with tentacles as long as five London buses.
	People have been reporting these sightings all around the English coastline, prompting fears of invasion among conservationists.
	Normally living far from land and the ocean, experts from the Marine Conservation Society say the Society's survey team has received many reports of them near the shoreline this year.
	The venomous jellyfish, which can reach 160 feet in length, can be deadly.
	Even with their massive size, swimmers and surfers are not always able to spot them before they are stung.
	And a single touch from these massive monsters can be deadly.
	Last month there were 30 reports from locals in the southern English counties of Devon and Cornwall.
	Experts are saying that data suggests that a significant recent rise in the numbers of some jellyfish species in the UK seas is underway.
	But why is this happening?
	Some suggest global warming is to blame.
	Researchers so far have been baffled.
	In 2013, there were 1,000 reports involving hundreds of thousands of jellyfish in England.
	Last year, the number of reports increased again to over 1,400.
	And by July this year, the survey had already recorded over 1,000 reports.
	August is usually a peak month for jellyfish sightings, and so 2015 looks to be another record breaker.
	The creature's venomous tentacles can deliver a painful sting, similar to a cut with a knife, with rash-like symptoms developing immediately.
	The Marine Conservation Society said the rise in the number of jellyfish around the British coast can be no longer ignored.
	A rare fire rainbow appeared in the sky over South Carolina on Sunday evening.
	Social media eagerly shared images of the fire rainbow, which appeared in wispy clouds over the Isle of Palm, South Carolina.
	Some people on Twitter said the rainbow looked like angel's wings, while others likened it to a whale tail.
	For a fire rainbow to appear, the sun must be at an altitude of at least 58 degrees above the horizon.
	In order to produce the rainbow colors, the sun's rays must enter the ice crystals at a precise angle to give the prism effect of the color spectrum.
	Fire rainbows are neither fire nor rainbows, but are so-called because of their brilliant pastel colors and flame-like appearance.
	A circumhorizontal arc is an optical phenomenon, an ice halo formed by the refraction of the sun or moonlight in plate-shaped ice crystals suspended in the atmosphere.
	These are typically found in cirrus or cirrostratus clouds.
	In its full form, the ark has the appearance of a large, brightly spectrum-colored band running parallel to the horizon, located below the sun or moon.
	Dark Matter News!
	A creepy doll, known as the Camera Shy Doll, was previously in one of the most haunted houses in the world, the home of wealthy Captain Jack Geiger and his twelve children.
	Located in Key West, Florida, a number of spooky sightings and weird sensations have been witnessed in this house.
	But no stories are more terrifying than that of the camera-shy doll that lived there.
	When a cholera epidemic was sweeping town, many sick children were brought to the nursery, where they would spend their last days in this room, hidden away from the fearful residents.
	The house was opened as a museum in 1960, and that's when this doll was placed in a toy box.
	Ghost hunters and passerbys have witnessed ghostly children laughing, crying, and playing in the nursery.
	The captain himself has been seen walking with his daughter Hannah in the gardens.
	The doll is said to have belonged to Hannah, whose strange eerie portrait still hangs in the house.
	The doll is said to have walked out of the house on its own.
	The museum manager was constantly being called to investigate alarms being tripped by movement in the house.
	The activity would always be from the doll's room.
	Security frequently reported seeing something in the window, but when they went to investigate, there was never anyone there.
	Whenever visitors tried to take photos of the strange-looking doll, they all experienced problems with their cameras.
	The house is said to be one of the most haunted in the world.
	I'm Leo Ashcraft for Dark Matter News.
	Okay, my guests, Bill Burns, Jim Sanders, subject TWA 800-747 Jumbo Jet.
	747 jumbo jet 230 total passengers crew on board After 8 o'clock at night leaving
	New York about an hour late headed for Paris Then we've got the military out in what is described as w
	105 with all kinds of Aegis stuff submarines Destroyers that kind of thing
	We've got drones that are in the air, presumably to do some sort of test with all the W-105 stuff.
	And we've got this jumbo jet leaving New York about an hour late and leveling out way below what would ultimately be cruising altitude.
	Then we seem to have a missile.
	I think that all of you before commenting should go up and look at this video.
	No question about it.
	It is A missile.
	And it's going up.
	Not down.
	It's a missile.
	The question is, whose missile is it?
	Well, gentlemen, welcome back.
	One shot in the dark here.
	If this had been somebody else's missile, as in any foreign power anywhere, we would have been all over it immediately.
	Right?
	Absolutely.
	Correct.
	Remember, that is not a little tiny contrail of a shoulder-fired missile.
	So, man-pads is what they're called.
	That's out.
	As soon as the FBI saw that, they knew beyond any doubt this was a big stompin' missile.
	And it ends up, this is the backstop missile, the second missile that was fired to take out the first missile that was going awry, and we don't know exactly what went wrong.
	But the test, in the test, that missile had was supposed to intercept something when there was civilian traffic around and was supposed to the drone was supposed to come out of a landmass which it did we got photos of it over the landmass and for some reason it locked on to the wrong target and so this big missile that you see in the video is the backstop missile the second missile that did all the damage on the front and left front side of the 747
	Okay, question.
	It is my understanding that if the military is going to do something like this, they send out a notice to airmen, I thought.
	Now, maybe they did send out a notice to airmen, so it was sent out.
	Yeah, it was sent out, and for some reason, the folks at JFK, the air traffic controllers, ...didn't alert the plane that W-105 had gone hot.
	There was an exercise going on.
	The plane never knew.
	The plane never knew.
	They never knew.
	The air controllers never knew.
	...supposed to be notified, actually, when you think about it.
	Because this is supposed to be something that they can do at any time, and civilian airliners can fly through it, no problem, anywhere in the world, and, you know, everybody will be safe except the bad people.
	Okay.
	All right, I saw the, actually I've seen any number of programs in which they explain, standing usually in the center or what's left of the center fuel tank, exactly what happened with a couple of wires, they say, delivering some sort of voltage to, you know, the fuel that was remaining in there.
	There was residual amount of fuel.
	So it really made a big bang.
	That's their excuse of what happened, right?
	And there's not one shred of evidence backing that up.
	If you read their documentation, the final report in particular, they will say, well, if we had found this part, we would be able to prove this.
	And if we had found that part, we would have been able to prove that.
	And they keep doing that for a while.
	Then they go, therefore, with the evidence we just presented, we declare it to be.
	Yeah, they never found the wires.
	They never found the wires at all.
	In fact, years later, years later, we were doing an episode of UFO Hunters out in New Mexico, and there, before the hangar where we were filming, was a 747.
	Why the 747 at this old, old airfield?
	So there was an engineer there, and I asked him, what are you doing?
	He says, well, this is the test.
	This is one of the test craft.
	For figuring out how the center wing tank blew up on flight 800.
	I see.
	And I said, well, did you guys ever find out how it did?
	And he said, no, the center wing tank never blew up.
	And this was an FAA guy.
	Yeah.
	And let me, uh, let me tell you the most important thing in this is by virtue of being indicted, the judge, the one good thing she did was gave me three hours and allowed me to bring two attorneys to defend myself.
	Indicted?
	Indicted?
	I was indicted for investigating the investigators who were covering up the downing of TWA Flight 800.
	Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	How do you get indicted for investigating anybody?
	Well, there's a good question.
	You're not supposed to, but as the book will outline, it's a long story.
	We can't do a long story, but give me the short version.
	I really want to know, how did you get indicted for investigating?
	Because the government set aside its own protocols for investigating a journalist.
	Jim was a journalist for the Riverside Press Enterprise, a credentialed journalist in the state of California, and the government Knowing that the two previous books that Jim had written that put him on the Defense Department's radar, The Men Who Left Behind and Soldiers of Misfortune, basically saying that we left behind soldiers in World War II in Korea, and then of course it was full course that we did the same thing in Vietnam, and the Defense Department knew this.
	So they knew that Jim was basically a pain, and what the government did was They ignored the fact that Jim was a credentialed journalist, and seized his mail, and seized a whole bunch of materials that they shouldn't have done.
	Then they went back and they argued, and they went back and they argued, oh gee, we didn't know he was a journalist, even though he came to their attention as a journalist.
	That being done, they then claimed that Jim was at the center of a criminal investigation.
	Not a journalistic investigation, but a criminal investigation for suborning the theft of material from a federal crash site.
	And that was the linchpin they used to, A, try to prevent Jim from writing the book in the first place, and B, trying to take Liz Sanders, his wife, as a hostage to prevent Jim from writing the book.
	And that's how this whole thing got started.
	Oh my God.
	Right.
	The story that broke that were the FBI and the Department of Justice and the White House and everybody else figured out, oh, it's this guy.
	My name, it was in the March 10th, 1997 front page, Riverside Press Enterprise.
	My, when they found my name, where it said James Sanders, just to the left of it was investigative reporter James Sanders.
	Throughout the entire four years of the case, they refused to acknowledge that they could see those two words, investigative reporter.
	Yes.
	And if they couldn't see those two words, Then everything they did in seizing all the stuff, my phone records and FedEx records and everything, that allowed them to find one of my most significant source.
	That would have all been illegal and they'd have had to throw it out, but if they simply couldn't see those two words in that newspaper, we even took it into court and then my attorney takes it up to the judge and points out, see judge?
	Right there!
	And then the judge, so what?
	So that's the kind of stuff that we Had to deal with, including the purging of the jury of anybody who was smart enough, which doesn't take a lot of brains to figure out that the government may cover up, and the judge intensely interviewed everybody.
	Threw out more than half the jury pool on her own because she only wanted jurors who believed that the government couldn't engage in a cover-up.
	She said, I will not have a jury in my room in which any juror believes that the government is capable I'm doing such a thing.
	You know, guys, once I... I would say that... Hold on a second.
	I would say there was a day in my life, and I'm pretty old now, 70, there was a day in my life when I never in a million years would believe the government was capable of a cover-up.
	In fact, when the FBI would come out and, you know, do their little speech as they used to do in the older days about who they just caught, I bought every, you know, word, hook, line, and sinker.
	The government, I mean, this was America.
	They're our government.
	They can't do any wrong.
	So there was a day like that in America for those of us who were old enough, and that day is not today.
	Yeah, Bill and I are both your age, and I know for a fact that's exactly the way I was brought up to believe exactly what you're saying.
	And if I hadn't first gone through investigating an old, old cover-up from World War II, having to do with prisoners of war, and hadn't seen how they come after you, me, as a journalist, when you're doing something that old, why would they do such a thing?
	If I hadn't had that in my background, I doubt that I would have been able to slog through this.
	Um, all right, so how solid is your proof that their mechanical failure story just is, you know, absolutely not true?
	It's 100% solid.
	You have a missile going up, and unless you have 100 geese, fat geese coming down, you've got a plane coming down.
	That video is in the FBI files.
	It was hidden there.
	It took me 19 years after I was told that such a thing existed To slowly gather the paperwork, the paperwork trail, as the FBI, when they put out thousands of pages, you know, just massive document dumps to different people, I would go through there and I slowly built my little inventory of paperwork until I finally came up with a file number where it was and exactly what they had done.
	They had sent it down to Quantico, Virginia for an analysis and it came back.
	You know, I have all the paperwork for that.
	It came back and then it was stuck in this file.
	And when I filed my mandatory, I got it.
	So now you start the story with that video out of their files and they declare that there is no other paperwork attached to it.
	So we've got them cold.
	That's in their files.
	It's not that if, in fact, they thought, well, gee, maybe somebody manufactured this or maybe, you know, some other missile going up and some other plane coming down, that paperwork would be there.
	Right.
	No, no, no, no.
	That's the real McCoy, and there's no mistaking what it is.
	I hope everybody goes to artbill.com, click on these two gentlemen, and then what's below it includes this video that we're talking about right now showing a missile going up.
	I mean, that's all there is.
	It's going up.
	Well, I remember the night it happened, guys.
	I remember the night it happened, and I remember the media going around interviewing all kinds of people, and I remember then that these people, some of them got interviewed by the FBI.
	The FBI never even bothered to talk to some of them.
	And discounted so much of the eyewitness testimony, and there was a lot of it.
	Boy, in the early days of the coverage of this, my God, there was a lot of eyewitness testimony, and it just all got squooshed.
	The FBI and the CIA collaborated with each other to alter the key witness statements.
	The Mike Wire, which we have a transcript of a meeting between the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA and the FBI, and why they have a transcript of it, I don't have a clue, but they did, and they said, well, Mike Wire, witness 571, standing on Beach Lane Bridge, boy, if his First statement, if it's accurate, that was a missile.
	But we went back and re-interviewed him.
	We didn't want to leave a stone unturned.
	Honest to God, this crap's actually in these things.
	And Mike goes, oh man, I should have had a V-8.
	No, I didn't see that missile like my statement said.
	I didn't see anything until it was 20 degrees up in the sky.
	Well, I got to know Mike Weier.
	And Mike Weier is the most straight arrow guy in the entire world.
	And Mike Weier says, That never happened.
	I never changed my story and I never talked to him again.
	It was all made up.
	And they made up another story for Witness 73.
	And they hid Witness 740 who backs up Mike Wire.
	And it just goes on and on and on.
	They altered, not just Witness's statements, that reconstruction where you were talking about the guy standing in the center wing tank, massively altered.
	And I can prove that with photos.
	I have pre-altered photos and post-altered photos.
	They altered that so that the missile that Witness 73 saw come up the right side, it was a thermite warhead.
	Intense heat damage was on the right side.
	And there is, in fact, intense heat damage before they covered it all up.
	And there's physical trace evidence from the seat backs in business class.
	Yeah, that I want to ask you about.
	There was some kind of residue there apparently, right?
	There was.
	What was it?
	It was a red residue and it was from, it took me months after, I just need to say this, preface this, it took me about six months after the article came out on March 10th, 1997.
	Before I actually knew it was from a thermite warhead.
	A missile scientist who knew about warheads, because he worked on them, was the one that he actually called up a lawyer friend of mine.
	I go to Virginia Beach, Virginia.
	I sit down and talk to him, and he says, Sanders, what you've got here is a thermite warhead on top of a solid fuel missile.
	So you're right, it's consistent with solid fuel, but it's 100% consistent with a thermite warhead.
	And that happens to be unique to the United States Navy in 1996.
	Nobody else had one.
	Nobody else could have fired one.
	Okay, well there would have been a unique chemical signature, right?
	And there was.
	And there was.
	And what did they call it?
	They called it glue.
	They called it adhesive.
	When you say they, you mean the government?
	The government.
	The FBI, the NTSB.
	And they just started screaming from the rooftops that it was glue, it was glue, it was glue.
	And my best response at that time was it was consistent with a solid-fuel missile, which is partly correct, but not entirely correct.
	If I'd have had thermite on my lips then, I'm not sure what they would have said.
	But anyway, they used that.
	They went to Congress multiple times and told Congress, oh, there's red stuff all over every crash that there ever is, and it's just glue.
	And what it is is, you know, it's this intense heat thermite stuff.
	So they're saying D.W.A.
	used thermite glue.
	And there was smoking in those days in passenger planes.
	So every D.W.A.
	airplane would have burned up.
	I remember.
	I smoked in them.
	It was nice, actually.
	So, I mean, where do we go?
	Where does this go now?
	If you prove That this was shot down.
	The video seems to prove it.
	The official investigation would have to be all bunk.
	You seem to be showing that.
	Yes.
	So where do you take this?
	I mean, you know, the bottom line conclusion, if all this is true, is we shot down our own civilian aircraft.
	Right.
	And then the story takes a whole other turn.
	Because what happens is, After Jim's article, after Jim was referred to in the Riverside Press Enterprise saying he actually was in possession of the red residue of swatches of seatbacks with red residue on them, then the FBI turns its attention to Sanders and to Sanders' wife.
	And there begins a long process in which they literally say to Sanders, Give us the name of the person who gave you that material from the hangar and we will not indict you.
	In other words, you're a journalist.
	Reveal your source.
	Yeah, I got it.
	Do it.
	Right, Jim.
	So they wanted the name of the person.
	Somebody did give you that or gave it to your wife.
	Is that right?
	No.
	Well, my wife knew who it was because she introduced me to him.
	He was a 747 pilot and she was a instructor for TWA and a flight attendant.
	as well and because of that thin line right there
	when i went face to face with the government along with my attorney at
	that time jeff schlanger and told him we're not giving you anything and they go ok
	tough guy we're gonna
	we're gonna target the white I got that they, well, okay, even threaten your family.
	But you did, in fact, receive this red residue.
	It came to be in your possession.
	That's all I'm asking right now.
	It's evidence of their criminal activity.
	That is accurate, right?
	That's accurate.
	All right, then this is a good place to stop.
	Hold it right there.
	Hi again, everybody.
	Bill Burns and Jim Sanders are my guests.
	And we're discussing the downing of TWA Flight 800.
	I've got a bunch of messages here, and I want you guys to hear these.
	I'm going to read a few.
	Kingslayer says, absolutely chilling stuff.
	I remember being young, too young, worth mentioning, and listening to your original broadcast of the disaster and feeling absolutely betrayed.
	That was my first brush with cynicism.
	It's been a long road.
	Oh, me too.
	Jeff says, hi, great show.
	Sorry if I missed out.
	Could you please ask your guest where the video came from again?
	Who recorded it, please?
	Jeff.
	Well, it's easy.
	It was an amateur cameraman.
	We don't yet have his name.
	I'm working as hard as I can to get it.
	I'll either have it before the end of the year or we won't be able to get it.
	All right, so this got pried from the hands of the FBI.
	Yes.
	Jim knew where the file was, where this video was located, and basically asking about that file, making a mandatory request for material in that file, that's what brought her out of the FBI's hands.
	And it was already declassified.
	Alright, Michael in Virginia.
	Art, I want to know more about your guest indictment.
	What was at charge?
	Misdemeanor or felony?
	Was he found guilty?
	Was he sentenced?
	Thanks.
	It was felony for conspiracy, aiding and abetting.
	The conspiracy was, even though I did not ask for the residue, but merely received it from Terry Stacey, 747 pilot who was assigned to the investigation, who over a period of weeks, we talked about it.
	And he goes, well, you're a retired cop and they're refusing to tell us what the FBI is refusing to tell us what that red residue is.
	So I give you a piece, will you test it?
	And I say, yes.
	I had first amendment lawyers that were paid by the press enterprise out in California to monitor my actions.
	And they said, perfectly legal.
	It's within the case law that, you know, in 1996, Without any problem at all, as long as I didn't say, go in and get it, but he voluntarily brought it out, then I, as a journalist, was home free on it.
	So, that was the case law.
	Attorneys were monitoring it, but they did have this one proviso.
	The attorney out in California said, now, this is all assuming that the FBI and the Justice Department is not running a program that they I can't remember the word he used, but basically, if they are running amok, they're going to run over you.
	And that was his final statement on that.
	All right, well, to finish answering the question, did they run over you?
	In other words, were you convicted?
	Yeah, we couldn't put on a First Amendment defense.
	We were not allowed to defend ourselves.
	And I already told you about the jury.
	And we couldn't put on a defense.
	How do you not get convicted?
	You see, what the whole case turned on was, A, there was no conspiracy.
	Since Jim never asked for the residue in the first place, no two like minds conspired to commit a crime.
	Look, it's just like somebody mailed me supposed parts from the crashed UFO in Roswell.
	Remember that?
	Exactly!
	Right!
	It's just like that.
	It's like somebody hands it to you and says, okay, check this out for evidence, and then you're doomed.
	That's piece one.
	Then piece two is when Jim and Liz, through their attorneys, Go into court and say to the judge, well, this was a whole journalistic enterprise.
	I'm protected under the First Amendment.
	The judge then goes into contortions to throw out a First Amendment defense and say, well, you're really a souvenir hunter.
	You're not a journalist.
	You're a souvenir hunter.
	You're telling somebody to send you souvenirs from a plane crash.
	And so you get no journalistic defense.
	So she actually throws First Amendment out of the court.
	And so, once you throw First Amendment out of the court, when you're a journalist, where is your defense?
	And then she taints the jury pool so nobody believed the government could engage in a conspiracy.
	So you can see what kind of a trial that was.
	So you're saying that in Guavere, they actually made it a point that the juror would have to believe that the government could not possibly engage in a cover-up before they were on the jury?
	Absolutely.
	I mean, it took hours for her to do this.
	And can you imagine?
	I'm sure the audience has probably already imagined what kind of a jury you get who believes that their government could never... Actually, I can't imagine that as a disqualifier for a juror, actually.
	Yeah.
	It was something to behold.
	And I want to tell you, the New York Times had a reporter in the audience.
	Not a word of it was anywhere.
	And NBC had a reporter there, and when we came out for a break, the only thing the NBC reporter said in a question to my attorney was, why didn't Mr. Sanders just give the residue back?
	That was NBC.
	Seriously?
	Honest to God.
	Okay, so the answer is you were convicted.
	Yes.
	Somebody in Vegas asks, has any mainstream media shown the video with the contrail going up from the ground to the flight, and if not, why not?
	From where does the pressure come that prevents a network news show from showing the video that we've got up there right now?
	Well, tonight is the first time it's ever been shown publicly.
	I just got it in April, and you know, you're trying to line up your ducks.
	The one thing you have to understand, if you just willy-nilly piecemeal throw stuff out there, nothing, nothing is going to happen.
	So we're trying to get lined up, the book, the documentary, start getting it out on radio and get it out on TV.
	So it's breaking right here.
	Right here, right now.
	Yes it is.
	First time.
	Absolutely.
	Oh my God.
	Well that'll probably, that'll end us all up in court probably.
	So I'm going to go back and watch this again, but it seems to me there's no question.
	I do want to ask you a few questions about the video if I can.
	For example, there is this breakup I mean, it's within the video.
	I can't put my finger on what kind of breakup I'm seeing.
	Can you?
	Well, first of all, it rises in about the first third, and then it goes to white, and then we don't know why that is, and then back to the gray contrail, and then it looks like it kind of edges over And after that you can't really tell what it's doing until you see things coming down.
	Are you talking about the 747 coming down?
	Well, I'm talking about the whole video itself.
	During the video you see, what's the right word, it almost looks like digital breakup in a little What the cameraman is doing is he's trying to adjust his lens.
	And this is a 9kix video.
	So what you're seeing is this depixelation.
	The image is breaking up as the cameraman tries to figure out what he's looking at and why this object is coming up out of the water.
	So it's close, it's back, it's close, it's back.
	And he's shooting in low light.
	So the camera is struggling very badly.
	Okay, there is a pixel, you know, it pixelizes.
	Those are pixelized squares.
	It doesn't take... That's why we went to the stills that we lifted off of there.
	Well, that's right.
	It doesn't take anything away from it.
	You can so clearly see what's going on.
	I just was curious because this is a gotcha video.
	It's a gotcha video.
	Right, and there is, of course I couldn't back in 1997, I couldn't figure out what the government was going to say on the red residue, and they obviously couldn't either because it took them about 72 hours before they go, well, we can't lose it, we don't have anything better, and they ran with it.
	My belief is they were softening up the dominant media to take that line of nonsense, but that's just me.
	Yeah, so we're probably headed for trouble here, huh?
	Yeah, well, it'll be interesting.
	At least you'll see your tax money at work, and hopefully they'll come up with something really, really clever.
	But, since they can't produce any document out of it, because they asked for you, I've got the documents saying, from the FBI in New York, from the TWA 800 investigation, we want an analysis of what this is.
	So, the analysis came back.
	I can prove it came back because I've got the documentation proving it came back.
	I just don't have the documentation itself, and I asked specifically for it, and they closed out my request.
	When you close out a request, it means that's all there is.
	There ain't no more.
	And that's when I filed the appeal.
	And they have until the end of October to either produce it, say they Aren't going to give it to me, or they can't find it.
	Has this film been privately analyzed?
	A retired Air Force intelligence colonel viewed it, and we just did that bill, and we did it just so that if somebody asks us, we can say that perhaps, we're not accusing you of anything here, but this is what we expect from the government.
	You two are too stupid to analyze this thing, but we have a real expert who analyzed it for us.
	And Bill Scott looked at the film, too, because I sent it off to Bill Scott.
	And we all know Bill Scott from Aviation Week, a very famous guy.
	And he said, boy, you know, this thing looks like a missile.
	There's a missile contrail.
	That's as far as he would go, because we weren't close up to the plane.
	But yeah, he took a look at it.
	Send the TWA files.
	Has the government said anything yet about this?
	Or are they seeing it tonight along with me?
	Yeah, they're seeing it tonight along with you.
	I don't expect them to To say anything unless it gets into a major news cycle or the internet goes nuts over it somewhere.
	Oh, the internet will go nuts over it, alright.
	I say take Keith Rowland.
	Take him now.
	I have nothing to do with it.
	Poor Keith!
	He's suffering lots of slings and arrows.
	He might as well go to the pokey.
	Yeah, this thing is awful.
	It's really awful.
	And I think now that people realize this is the first time that this is being seen, There's going to be a sort of a period of time now that's going to go by.
	People are going to rush up there by the gazillions and watch it and come to their own conclusions.
	But I'm not a rocket scientist.
	I look at it and I, I know what I'm looking at.
	Right.
	And the disc itself stamped on the disc is the word declassified.
	So this isn't even a top secret video anymore because the government itself declassified it.
	Right, and all the code numbers that are required to, you know, for it being part of the Flight 800 investigation, that code number's on there.
	The code number for my mandatory request, that number is on there.
	So, that is a legitimate Video, and there's just no way for them to wiggle out of that.
	Okay, real quick, Jocko says, Art, did he appeal the conviction?
	I mean, if true, the judge ought to be disbarred.
	There's no way to lose that appeal if what he said is true.
	Yeah, it was appealed in the Second Circuit, and amazingly, Judge Sotomayor, before she was in the Supreme Court, was the only actual member of the Second Circuit there.
	The other couple of retired old guys, who were there and they altered the transcript of the trial in their opinion otherwise they would have had to let Liz go.
	So they altered it so they didn't have to.
	So it was sent up to the Supreme Court and a beautifully worded piece by the Reporters Committee, the attorneys, was put in there and of course the Supreme Court uh... said no uh... the supreme court in the seventies uh...
	literally destroyed uh... freedom of the press and they were about uh...
	do anything to undestroy it in uh... the late nineteen nineties
	so but yeah i know she uh... the current uh... was probably her reward
	for uh... doing it uh... sotomayor uh... they literally altered the transcripts
	And our attorneys, of course, wrote them politely, because attorneys have to keep making a living up there.
	They act frustratingly nice to each other, instead of calling a spade a spade, so to speak.
	But anyway, they politely told them, hey, that's not what it says.
	Here's what it says.
	And they essentially give you the middle finger by ignoring it.
	I'm familiar with how attorneys are.
	In court, they fight like dogs, and then when they recess for lunch, they bite each other's drinks at lunch or whatever.
	I've seen that a million times.
	I'm Mark Bell.
	This is from an airline pilot named Greg.
	Cesar, as an airline pilot myself, flying the majority of my career in the New York area, are there any other pilot reports, in other words, other pilots in the area, while flying, witnessing the shoot-down?
	Yeah, two National Guard pilots, Bauer and, I can't remember the guy, Myers, Fritz Myers.
	They were both officers in the National Guard.
	One saw The backstop missile and one saw the primary missile.
	They saw it, you know, those missiles converge on what was flight 800 and they were so close to it, they had to back their helicopter up.
	I think it was Apache attack helicopter.
	Anyway, whatever it was, it was a very sophisticated helicopter.
	They had to back it up to get out of the way of falling bodies.
	Oh my God.
	Do either of you recall that Pierre Salinger held a press conference apparently or allegedly to reveal evidence that had been shot down by a U.S.
	missile and that was within this... Karen from Toronto thinks it was a day or so after?
	Yes, and boy do we, because here's the back story on that.
	Pierre Salinger basically had radar.
	He had satellite imagery that showed the plane had been shot down.
	And his son was a producer at HBO.
	So, as the book is coming out, Pierre Salinger's son, this is incredible what the FBI did, Pierre Salinger's son contacts us and I actually set up a deal for an HBO movie with the producer who purchased the rights the day after Roswell.
	So it was that company that was going to make this motion picture with Pierre Salinger and Jim Sanders.
	Well, the FBI, because it was seizing material from Jim's mailbox, gets a hold of the contract that was FedExed out from HBO.
	So what they do is they subpoena the motion picture producer.
	Now, this is a major guy at a major law firm.
	In Century City.
	So they basically sit this guy down, read him the riot act, and I had to walk into his office the next day.
	This guy is furious with rage.
	I never want to have to go through what I went through with the FBI again.
	This deal is dead.
	You and Pierre Salinger can go anywhere else you want to.
	Yeah, I get that reaction.
	I understand.
	That movie guy called me up that day and said, I'm in the entertainment business, not the confrontation business.
	I'm sending you a letter cancelling all of our contracts.
	There went hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that I desperately needed at that time to keep my fight going against the Feds.
	But they muscled in there, and the guy backed out as was reasonable.
	I can't say anything bad about him for doing that.
	But I've got to say, I got to know Pierre fairly well for a period of time after all the dust settled on this.
	And he is now deceased, so I can tell you something that he told me then, but I couldn't tell you while he was alive.
	He said his evidence, his best evidence, came from Mossad, but he could not say that publicly.
	Wow.
	One wonders how the Mossad at that point would have had any evidence at all of what was going on just off our shore.
	But the imagination runs wild.
	Satellite imagery you say?
	Yeah, Pierre Salinger said that he had satellite imagery from Mossad and he also said that Mossad investigated the crash because there were a number of Israeli citizens on that plane and as a general rule I think this is fairly well-known, but if it's not, then this is a disclosure, too, that when there's an incident in which there are Israeli citizens involved, Mossad, at least in the past, always investigated that, and it investigated this, and it was their conclusion that the Navy shot down the plane.
	You know, in the alleged internet nonsense the FBI said that he showed, you know, and that's what they used to discredit him, I took that Internet and alleged internet nonsense that I actually got from Aviation Week, and I called.
	It wasn't internet nonsense.
	These were guys from the FAA, and I can't remember one other organization within the federal government, and their phone numbers and names were right on.
	I called them up and got the story from them, and I asked them, anybody, you know, major media, you know, any of the bigs call you up?
	Nobody's called me up.
	You're the first person to call me up.
	What Pierre was showing you was internal stuff within the federal government about the shootdown of Flight 800.
	At any point in this horrid saga that you've described, that you went through, did you consider or did you get an offer to drop it here and things might be okay?
	Well, the government did that, yes.
	If we'd back out of it, Uh, just give up the source.
	They'd prosecute him, put him in prison, and we were home free.
	That was the offer.
	And what the government did was they used Jim's wife, Liz, as the bargaining chip.
	Right, right, right.
	Yeah, they said, we're gonna arrest her.
	We're gonna detain her.
	Unless you give up the source.
	So it was like they were holding her hostage.
	But it was TWA.
	Now, this took place over a period of months.
	So Jim is writing the first.
	So the way we're doing this is Jim is writing the chapters, the raw chapters on the road because he can't go home.
	The FBI is there.
	So he is he's the fugitive, the enemy of the state on the run.
	Liz is also an enemy of the state on the run, both in different directions.
	While PWA is protecting Liz, when FBI shows up at an airport where one of her flights is departing, instead of letting her off at the gate, they let her off at another hangar at another part of the airport.
	She deplanes, goes on her way, and she doesn't get off the plane.
	And so that kind of stuff is going on.
	Okay, well, now that we have done this, now that we've blown this guy high, as it were, what do you think will happen?
	I'm not optimistic tonight, unless the public gets behind this thing, and it would literally have to be by the millions.
	Yeah, but what would they do?
	Over an extended period of time, nothing will happen.
	What would they do?
	This is the roadmap of what the government does.
	This isn't a unique experience.
	Got it.
	Got it.
	Again, though, what would the public do?
	Assuming they look at your video and say, oh my God, it really is a shoot-down.
	We're going to have to give it some direction.
	That's all I can tell you right now.
	Well, if part of the major media picks it up, and the book is published, and the pictures are in the book, and let's just say that the New York Times, somebody at the New York Times reads this and says, okay, I'm going to take this seriously.
	They open an investigation.
	The Washington Post looks at this and says, and I know people at both of these papers because they cover my books, and I intend to write to them.
	So let's say that a Howard Fineman at Huffington Post or a Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post picks this up, basically says, well, I'm going to make an inquiry.
	And they get stonewalled, but they actually have the physical photos.
	And they begin writing.
	Well, that's going to create some kind of a stir in the media.
	So there are two things that are going to happen.
	One, since this is falsification of evidence and obstruction of justice, somebody has to account for that.
	So they're going to look at the people where this whole cover-up started.
	Then, this is going to be 2016.
	So who are they going to look at?
	Who's the president who's sitting in the White House?
	When all this thing is going on.
	Well it's obviously Bill Clinton.
	So is this going to be an issue in the 2016 campaign?
	Because this is a perfect issue for anybody who's running against Hillary.
	Hey!
	Look what you guys did!
	Is this true?
	Is it false?
	Is this another mail server?
	Is this Benghazi?
	What is this?
	So those are the questions that are going to be raised.
	Where will it go?
	I think somebody's going to have to be accountable, whether it's Louis Freeh at the FBI or somebody else, accountable for who ran this cover-up and why.
	Well, this is Benghazi.
	He should get pardoned.
	Yeah, it's Benghazi times 100.
	Yeah, exactly.
	personally believe that the audience that develops off of this is going to
	have to bang away at Fox. Fox is the only network that didn't get dirty over this
	and fuck it was brand new It didn't even hardly exist at that time, and they gave me the lead that led me to the video 19 years later.
	But even Fox, because I worked the right side of the street when I was in politics.
	I was a Republican, and I worked professional politics.
	So Fox, as far as I'm concerned, where they're 40% of the audience, is the one that people should really need to be banging away at.
	All right, hold it right there, guys.
	When I get back, I think we're going to open the phone lines.
	And if there's holes to shoot, pardon me, it wasn't really a pun, I know the audience will shoot them.
	If you agree, if you've seen the video, if you have comments, you're welcome to make them.
	I'm going to open the phone lines and we'll see what we get for these gentlemen.
	Bill Burns, Jim Sanders.
	Dark Matter News.
	I'm Leo Ashcraft.
	Google says four successive lightning strikes on one of its cloud infrastructure facilities in Europe last week permanently wiped out some customers' data stored on disks.
	Google called the incident exceptional and apologized to those affected.
	Google said this series of unlucky strikes happened on August 13 at its data center in Belgium.
	The lightning briefly knocked out power to systems that host customers' data and allow clients to run virtual machines in the cloud.
	Google says the lightning struck a local utility grid, and as a result, the grid lost power.
	Lightning did not strike the data center directly, according to a Google representative.
	A video shot in early August of 2015 appears to show a human-like figure, or humanoid, flying in the skies above Los Angeles, and it has gone viral.
	The sight was captured by not one, but three different cameras as a part of a UFO channel research group's event.
	In the three videos, you can see the same sequence.
	The UFO was recorded at the same time, but through different angles.
	Video quality varies from each camera and it appears to be real and not CGI.
	And maybe a humanoid sky anomaly that appeared to everyone at Sequoia Park that day.
	People can be heard in shock in the background of the videos.
	It appears to have separations in its spacesuit and a visor that you can see its face, which makes you wonder if it indeed is a humanoid inside.
	While Dark Matter News is unable to verify the authenticity of the video, the fact that it was shot by multiple people from different angles and on different cameras certainly makes it worth watching.
	Take a look at the video yourself.
	Let us know what you think at darkmatternews.com.
	Dark Matter News continues in just a moment.
	OpenMinds.tv is reporting that an Oklahoma witness near Tulsa reported watching and videotaping a cigar-shaped object descending in the western sky.
	This testimony comes from Case 69200 from the Mutual UFO Network.
	The witness says they were driving home from work on Highway 169 northbound.
	They say they noticed it slowly descending in the western sky during the sunset.
	It was falling slowly enough to catch their attention.
	They pulled out their cell phone and took a photo and began recording video.
	The case was investigated by Oklahoma field investigator Eugene Zavente, who closed the case as unknown.
	He states in a report that it appeared to be cylindrical with axis vertical, the length about three times the diameter.
	The top end of the object was not sharply defined.
	Because the video was taken with the car moving, it is not possible to tell if the object was moving other than it was slowly descending.
	The object was behind scattered low clouds, indicating that it was a considerable distance away.
	The witness lost sight of it when it descended enough to slip behind buildings and trees.
	And in another unrelated UFO story from OpenMinds.tv and MufonK69530, an Iowa witness at the Iowa State Fair wants to know what the object was following the presidential candidate Donald Trump's helicopter about 1 p.m.
	on August 15.
	In the photos you clearly see something dark and black behind Trump's helicopter.
	The weather conditions prevented the witness from looking too closely at the photo immediately after taking it.
	He said it was hard to see the helicopter because of the glare on the screen.
	But later that day, as he was sitting in the shade, he said he got his phone out to see how the picture had come out, and that's when he noticed the object in the photo.
	The witness said he didn't see the other object while taking the photo.
	Iowa MUFON is investigating.
	The object could be a number of things, from a second helicopter to a bird.
	Photoanalysis should be able to pinpoint exactly what the object is.
	This is the speech that Trump was making at a fair that was offering rides on his helicopter to children, and one in which he called himself Batman.
	That Trump.
	For Dark Matter News, I'm Leo Ashcraft.
	Alright, Bill Burns and Jim Sanders are here.
	And they have submitted a video which we have at Artbell.com which appears to conclusively show a missile rising to shoot down TWA Flight 800.
	Now you've heard the back story, what they've gone through.
	If you have a question, here we are and available.
	The public number, my number, is area code 952-225-5278.
	Again, 952-225-5278.
	Or call us on Skype, feel free.
	We are, if you're in North America, America or Canada, MITD51.
	That's actually what you put in Skype to call us for free.
	M-I-T-D-5-1.
	If you are outside of North America, it's M-I-T-D-5-5.
	That's M-I-T-D-5-5.
	All right, gentlemen, welcome back.
	Are you ready to take some calls?
	Sure.
	Before we do, there's another confirming person for this whole event, and that's John Callahan, who is the FAA Chief Investigator.
	We all know John Callahan from the JL flight that Bruce McAbee has written about.
	It was a UFO encounter, and McAbee was the guy who had all the radar tapes.
	The CIA walked into a meeting about this event and really took the radar tapes away.
	Well, we spoke to John Callahan at the National Press Club.
	And he basically said, yeah, it was a missile.
	It was a Navy missile that shot down the plane.
	OK.
	Are you now ready?
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Let's do it.
	We think we are.
	All right.
	Bill Burns, Jim Sanders and somebody on Skype named Scott.
	Hello, Art.
	How am I coming in?
	Fine.
	Fine.
	Go right ahead.
	All right.
	Great.
	I just want to tell you that for everybody that is on Let's listen to you, and they do tweets also.
	They wish that you had a fourth hour.
	Maybe Phil Hendry could do the fourth hour if you didn't want to do it.
	Yes, maybe he could.
	I know a lot of people with four hours.
	I have a quick question.
	Yes, go ahead.
	I'm very glad to talk to both of your guests.
	I was wondering, from 1996 to the year 2001, do both of your guests, do they believe that the United States technology has advanced so much that 2001, you know, the 9-11, the bombings and the crashings into the buildings, were those advanced technology From the year 1996 to 2001.
	I don't get what your question is.
	You're talking about two different things here.
	Well, it's simply just they were able to cover up in 1996.
	Right.
	1996 right but in 2001 It was most obvious
	listening to your two guests Well, I've listened to them previously on other
	Media, but have you seen the video?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Absolutely, and it's obvious.
	You know, all of it is obvious.
	Okay, well, I'm sorry, I didn't get the... I guess it was a 9-11 kind of question.
	In other words, could they have faked 9-11?
	I think that's... I think I can answer that because of what my next book, which I won't go into, Tonight, except to say that the United States government has been doing these massive cover-ups since World War II, and they have become more professional and more professional as the, you know, they learn by their mistakes.
	Our media has not kept up with it and are now, as far as I can tell, I don't know.
	I don't have time to go into anything but what I'm doing.
	So I guess I better ask you straight out the question. I don't think that 9-11 was a cover-up.
	I think I did see airplanes crash into the buildings. No, I'm asking you. Is it your view it was a cover-up?
	I don't know. I don't have time to go into anything but what I'm doing.
	I'm just saying, if there was a critical national security issue that was going to get them unseated from their
	positions of power, then yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, you know, I know where that caller was trying to go.
	So I went there for the caller.
	All right.
	Somewhere in Virginia, you're on the air with Bill Burns and Jim Sanders.
	Hi.
	Hey, in 1996, I was a Marine radar technician working on F-18 aircraft.
	Across the flight line from Air Force One on Andrews Air Force Base, which, by the way, is a 747 aircraft.
	If that was an electrical spark, then why, and what is the FAA's excuse for not grounding that entire fleet of 747s as is their standard operating procedure?
	Pretty good question.
	You're absolutely right.
	Hold it, hold it guys, one at a time.
	Okay, go ahead.
	No, I was just going to say that the 747s had been in service for decades, and if the center wing tank, on its own because of a spark, exploded, Then you would think this would not be a one-off accident.
	There'd be other accidents like this, and you would think, as you just said, they would have grounded the entire 747 fleet and replaced whatever it was that caused the crash.
	They didn't, and still haven't.
	Good point.
	I know for a fact, because of people I knew at that time before we got run over by the Feds, I had a pretty good working relationship with some people that had a good answer for this and the fact is nobody believed the NTSB on this one.
	There was absolutely... because there was no reason to believe them.
	They never presented any fact.
	So you're saying the fleet wasn't grounded because nobody there believed all this?
	Yes, and don't you think Boeing would have turned itself inside out to assure the American public that you can fly 747?
	This was a Boeing.
	They never did.
	All of this is really good.
	The video is devastating.
	Absolutely devastating.
	Caller, anything else?
	I'm glad they addressed it.
	Thank you, Art.
	You're the best in the world.
	Thank you.
	Take care.
	Let's go to, I don't know where this is, Osborne something.
	Hello.
	Hi, this is Ron, and I'm out in Colorado.
	Okay, Ron, please extinguish whatever's playing the program.
	Yes, I got to do that right now.
	You do indeed.
	Is that good?
	It's good.
	As long as it's off, it's good.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Okay, well, I want to know if you're a gentleman there.
	I was in Houston at the time, and I had personal friends who were working with TWA.
	And they came home with the rumor from TWA, what was it, the scuttlebutt in TWA, that there was another TWA airplane on the runway in front of the Flight 800.
	And it was taking off, and it was loaded with high-ranking It pulled to the side, the other one took off and took the hit.
	Now, I don't know what that says, but... I kind of remember something about that.
	Gentlemen?
	Flight 800 pulled to the side because Flight 800 was a lifeguard, I believe, flight.
	It had human body parts for surgery over in Europe, and that's why that happened.
	I followed, exhaustively followed those trails, and nothing ever came of it.
	Okay, well, sounded like some pretty stink to me, but anyway, thanks a lot.
	Have a good night.
	Agree with that.
	Okay, let's go to Skype and Ben, Ben, wherever you are.
	Yeah, come on, Washington.
	Okay, excellent.
	Hey, so I might have missed this, but why is this video only coming out now?
	Okay, obviously late to the program.
	I caught it from the beginning, but maybe I wasn't listening.
	Okay.
	Why is it only coming out now?
	A good question.
	This was wrestled from the FBI when?
	Bill Burns and Jim, I'm sorry.
	It was 19 years, but it took until April of this year.
	Okay, April of this year is when they got it from the FBI, caller.
	I appreciate it.
	Thanks, sir.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	So it's new.
	I guess you could have released it back in April.
	What's held you up?
	No, you really can't.
	If you just release it, then it has a little, tiny reaction by people, and it goes away, and it's the last chance of using this issue to make the people responsible for the answer for what they've done.
	And to bring it out, and as far as I'm concerned, the most important issue here is to show the people that this is just a road map for how the government operates.
	Well, that's sure frightening.
	Alright, you're on the air on the phone with Bill and Jim.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Sorry.
	Turn it off, please.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Turn it off please. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Anyway, so I was working as a jet engine assembler a few years before that
	happened. Mm-hmm.
	I knew a guy who was a guy that I worked around was a his wife and two children were on the KL 007.
	Right.
	I followed that TWA 800 very closely at the time and wanted to ask Jim If he knew that the senior software designer for the Aegis Missile System was on that plane.
	No, I did not know that.
	If I knew it, I would have forgotten, but I don't think I would have forgotten something like that.
	Well, maybe it was false.
	True.
	I thought I was aware of that at the time.
	Also, are you familiar with the book Unfriendly Skies by Rodney Stith?
	Oh yeah, Rodney, yeah.
	You know, years ago when that happened, there were people located directly across the shoreline from when that happened, and people saw the flash in the sky.
	You know, and there were people that took pictures of it.
	I think in Long Island, people took pictures.
	Well, once again, sir, have you seen the video up there now?
	I haven't seen it.
	I've seen the video years ago.
	No, you haven't seen this video years ago.
	I haven't seen this one, but I saw one years ago that showed what looked to be a missile going up there.
	Okay, well, their story back then, I think, gentlemen, unless I'm wrong, was that what they said people were seeing was fuel streaming out of the aircraft after the explosion had occurred.
	Not a missile going up, but rather fuel streaming out down toward the ground on fire.
	Is that right?
	That's what the federal government tried to tell the New York people.
	So, you know, clearly, when you look at this, it ain't that.
	That's correct.
	So, people need to look at this video and realize what it means.
	Kurt, you are on the air with Bill Burns and Jim Sanders.
	Alright, hello.
	Hello.
	Hey.
	Good to hear it in.
	Which one of you mentioned, was this another email server scam?
	Are you blaming the Clintons for doing this?
	How could you do that on the air?
	Just throw that out there like that.
	And you watch Fox News, you're the worst program on the news.
	They lie like dogs.
	And who the heck do you think you are blaming the Clintons?
	Is this another email server problem?
	Are you just making a fool of yourself, or do you actually have something to say?
	I think it's the former.
	You say other than I don't trust them now that they like Fox News and the related...
	What Bill Burns said was that Bill Clinton was president at that time.
	I believe that's a correct statement, Bill.
	I'm pretty sure you're in the ballpark.
	Not only was he the president at the time, but consider when this event actually took place during his term in office.
	This is 1996.
	He's up for re-election in a few months.
	Dick Morris had been caught in flagrante delicto with another woman, not his wife.
	And this came after the Branch Davidian business.
	This came after the attack on the World Trade Center.
	This is right about the same time that Eric Rudolph put the bomb at the Atlanta Olympics.
	This was very, very important.
	So let's say that you wanted to argue that Bill Clinton took no responsibility for this.
	He was not responsible for this, which is Partly what I believe.
	This was a weapon so incredibly secret, so highly classified, that not even the President of the United States could disclose its existence.
	It's a weapon in which a computer, a robot, killed 230 people with no human intervention.
	There's a reason you would not disclose this, because it's so highly classified.
	That's on the benign side.
	On the malevolent side, it's totally political.
	What idiot is going to say, I just shot down a plane full of 230 people, and this was after the Branch Davidians, after the World Trade Center, after this and after that?
	So you can look at this from two perspectives.
	The only thing that I'm saying is that Bill Clinton was president at the time, at an event at this level.
	Had to go to the White House Situation Room.
	There is no way to avoid the White House.
	Well, you gave what that caller had to say way more credence than I would have, but fine.
	Let's go to the phone.
	You're somewhere in Colorado.
	I think you're on the air.
	Hi, this is Kevin, Colorado Springs.
	Hello.
	The one comment I've got is that the lesson the government has not learned yet is that No matter who the president is, Republican or Democrat, if they would just tell us the truth, it was a computer error, there was a mistake made, the American people would have made a fuss over it, but they would have realized mistakes happen, let's not make the mistake again, and that would have been the end of it.
	Instead, the government covers it up.
	Well, right.
	Right, but it wouldn't have been quite that easy, and they wouldn't have been quite that forgiving, frankly.
	But, he's right.
	It could have been over long ago.
	You know, there could have been compensation to the victims, all the rest of it, and it could have been over long ago.
	Very quickly, outside the country somewhere, I think it's Mark.
	Mark?
	Going once.
	Going twice, Mark.
	You're not there, huh?
	Okay.
	Goodbye.
	We'll dispense of Mark, and we'll go to somebody on Skype very quickly.
	Hello?
	Hello on Skype?
	No?
	Somebody named Sushi Dog?
	On Skype.
	Going once, going twice, going three times, gone.
	How about on the phone Roswell line?
	You're on.
	Hold on.
	Let's correct that and say Illinois.
	I'm sorry, you're on the air.
	Hello, Illinois.
	Going once.
	This is a lot in a row.
	Going twice.
	Gone to Bakersfield.
	Hello.
	Hello, Art.
	Good to hear your voice again.
	Good to hear a human.
	Go right ahead.
	Here I am, not far from Edwards Air Force Base and China Lake Naval Weapons Center.
	I have a question about the veracity of the video, the pixelation and the digital breakup.
	When you have an original source of video, it looks a certain way.
	What we have seen on your site, there's an added element.
	Like what?
	Another video.
	Another video source.
	Another video single.
	An original video can break up in only so many ways.
	And what is appearing is something from another source, not from that original video.
	And you will see little faces and things that have nothing to do with it.
	What happened was, this was a section to answer how How this video came to be.
	This was part of a 15 minute video where the first long period is literally photographing the moon.
	I mean, that's what this guy standing on a rooftop is filming.
	This beautiful summer evening, beautiful moon.
	He films a sunset, he films the moon, and he's traversing the sky with his camera back and forth.
	Then at the very end of the video, That's when he sees the contrail.
	What a video lab did was it cut off the first part of that, because you're not going to spend 15 minutes downloading a video.
	Listen, we've got to break.
	We've got to break.
	Gentlemen, hold on.
	Caller, do you want to hold on?
	All right, back now to our guests, and I think our caller was in Bakersfield, right?
	Philadelphia Freedom, two minutes after the hour, Sir Elton John.
	Anything else?
	Let me talk.
	First of all, I'm native from Bakersfield, graduated from EBN in 1963.
	And let me take this.
	I get the video from the FBI April of this year.
	When the FBI seized it, it was a CD-ROM.
	And so somewhere in the process, they had 10 copies of that CD-ROM made.
	I do not know whether the DVD that I got was from The original or number 10, but we have, and from there they then lifted 49 more stills off of it.
	So when I get it, I don't know where in that process of original plus 10 more, so 11, which one of those was the one that was put on the DVD.
	I get the DVD.
	I take it to a company here in Las Vegas where I live that has done great work for me over the years.
	And as we're going through it, they're saying, you know, this is the worst government in the history of the world here.
	And, you know, nobody's going to sit through that and accept a news organization if they're trying to prove it.
	We have in our possession the one that I got and all the documentation, and that's what any news organization would get to do their own analysis.
	In order, what you have is they suggested at the studio was that we take the last contrail that could be seen, and the first of the plane coming down
	and that would give an abbreviated uh...
	moving visual
	of what happened and then i have had probably about twenty stills lifted off
	of there that are really highly revealing that's the process we're going through now
	what i'm talking about having spent thirty five years at all the big
	tv networks you can pixelize a video in
	an original i'm seeing on the site is an additive a different stream
	either the camera operator had a dirty tape
	and with the previous story but the pixelization has nothing to do with that
	original image it's something else all right well christy uh...
	is on the computer saying uh... art your caller's wrong
	I live, uh, video production and post-production for 20 years now.
	Your last caller saying, saying, let me finish, let me, let me finish, let me finish or I'll just turn you down and finish.
	Your last caller saying the distorted pixels are a second source is wrong.
	Now, now I'm finished.
	I see a little Hawaiian girl.
	So, for what it's worth, we've got two people claiming they're both experts, one saying it's a second source, the other saying wrong.
	Well, who do you trust, Art?
	I don't know anymore who I trust.
	Okay, I'll send you my VITA tomorrow.
	Okay, well, do that.
	Yeah, and great to hear you again, man.
	Thank you.
	I'm not saying I don't trust you, I'm just saying...
	Or I guess answering your question, who do you trust?
	I have no idea.
	I am not an expert in video.
	I just gave you a second opinion on the spot.
	We'll go over here to this Skype and say, Lee, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hey, good morning, John.
	How are you doing?
	Doing fine.
	I'm glad to take, thanks for taking my call.
	Sure.
	I have a question about the two minutes that are missing from the video.
	Two minutes that are missing from the video?
	Yeah, and the time, as you can see though, still goes up.
	You're going to have to get closer to your mic because you like dropping out or something.
	I am so sorry.
	I'm on a headset.
	That's better.
	OK, so there's two minutes in the time code from missile goes up and then the plane's coming down, but you don't see the impact.
	Okay, that's right.
	Gentlemen?
	Right.
	Exactly.
	Because the cameraman didn't know, apparently didn't know, there were quite a number of times when he swept left and then he swept right, in which you can see what's the contrail going up, but it's towards the last contrail.
	He doesn't focus on it until After it had finished climbing, but by lifting the stills, you can see the progress of the missile.
	And then, yeah, you're right.
	It's about two minutes before, about halfway down, you don't see the strike, and you finally see, about halfway down, the 747 coming down.
	That's because he's sweeping back and forth, and does not focus on the contrail, so we don't see the hit.
	There's no missing two minutes anywhere.
	We have what for us is the original, but it's not the original.
	It's the best one that the FBI gave us.
	We don't know if it's number 11 or number 1.
	We have that to give to the media along with all the documentation when they start asking for it.
	We're giving the audience a view.
	Sure.
	Nothing's been cut.
	So you're seeing this first, folks.
	First.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Outside the country somewhere, Mark, hello.
	Yeah, hi Art.
	Hi.
	I want to let you know that I was living in Switzerland in 1996 when this event occurred and I followed the The press, Swiss press, French press, was all over Pierre Salinger.
	And what I recall is that the US simply disregarded his claims without providing any evidence whatsoever.
	You know, I vaguely recall that as well.
	Gentlemen?
	That's right.
	That's exactly what happened.
	I mean, that's why Pierre Salinger was so angry.
	And he had his son contact us.
	Right, and the way they marginalized him was, you know, he had a piece of paper in his hand, and the FBI said, well, that was just internet chatter.
	truth and the government simply marginalized him completely
	right and the way they marginalize it was that you know he had a piece of
	paper in his hand and the fbi said well that was just internet chatter it
	wasn't it was
	email between people inside the FAA on one hand and NASA it was one of the others and there was a third one in there
	Their names and phone numbers were there.
	I called these people.
	That wasn't internet chatter.
	That was within the government chatter.
	Okay, caller?
	Yeah, Art, I wanted to say the reason you didn't get me before, I was on a Swiss train that went through a tunnel, and now this is your first call from a Swiss street tram through the city of Bergen.
	Thanks, Art.
	That's incredible.
	All right, thank you very much, and take care.
	That's really amazing.
	Technology today is really amazing.
	Magus, I believe it is, outside the country yet again.
	Where are you?
	Hello again.
	I'm in Romania.
	Okay, Romania.
	Go ahead.
	I have a general question for all of you.
	Yes.
	Because the government allows discussions and talk shows about conspiracies that people are less likely to give them a second thought.
	Do you think people just like living in denial of certain things?
	What a really good question, actually.
	Yeah, that's an excellent question.
	I think that there's a psychological reason behind it.
	And the psychological reason is that there is a framework of reality That people share, and that framework changes from, let's just say, community to community.
	And things outside that framework tend to get marginalized.
	And so, when you talk about various conspiracies, 9-11, JFK, UFOs, Roswell, when you talk about them, you have to figure out where in the scheme of things that conspiracy fits in terms of a frame of reference.
	and the frame of reference changes. So people with respect to Flight 800 and that shoot down
	didn't really grok or understand the magnitude of this because the media just turned away.
	Now they either turned away willfully because of access journalism or they turned away because
	they couldn't even comprehend the fact that the government could do something of this magnitude.
	I think it's the former and not the latter. But that's the reason that conspiracies sometimes work.
	Let me jump in here real quick because in 2004...
	I got a hold of a major work that DOD was doing in the 2004-2005 time frame.
	It was a study and a paper on how to handle the internet news services that seemed to be taking over from the traditional news services, and because there were literally dozens to hundreds of them, they were coming up with a program In terms of they had to be credible, and it says they had destroyed the credibility of their opponents.
	Well, they sure went to work on you.
	Yeah, they did, and that is what the government has learned.
	They have really learned by their mistakes, and government isn't as universally dumb as people think.
	They learn by their mistakes, and our side of the fence, whatever that is, you know, the news media simply hasn't.
	All right.
	Ahuna, I believe it is, on Skype.
	You're on the air.
	Hello?
	Going once.
	Going twice.
	I guess people aren't ready.
	You've got to be ready when you're going to call on Skype.
	Cortland, New York it is.
	Hello?
	Yes, this is Aaron.
	Hi.
	Hi, I want to know what they think of what the repercussions would really be if the truth ever came out as far as, you know, public security, national security.
	And also, I would love to know if you are going to do another Halloween episode this year.
	I will take my questions off.
	All right, you'll take your answers.
	My answer is yes, I will.
	Gentlemen.
	I'm sorry, gentlemen.
	Yeah, well, if we get on top of this, if we get to ride the wave, I can't tell you what the result will be, but I can tell you that there will be political turmoil like we haven't seen probably since the Nixon era.
	And consider that the Nixon era Hey, how's it going, guys?
	and going into the Democrat national headquarters. And here we have 230 people that got taken
	out and our civil rights went over, and little minor things like that. So only if we manage
	to ride that wave will you see that, but if you do, it will be stupendous.
	Okay. Hilo, Hawaii. You're on with Bill and Jim. Hi.
	Hey, how's it going, guys? I just wanted to say, Jim, wow, this is incredible information
	It kind of is overwhelming.
	I just wanted to say there's other things that are happening around the world.
	I just wanted to share some quick information.
	Are you guys aware of CERN and the CERN facilities?
	Yeah, you're totally, we are aware of CERN and we'd love to do a show on that, but if you don't have a question for them on flight 800, we're going to move on.
	Okay, real quick.
	I just, everybody searched On Google Maps, September 23rd, 2015.
	Yeah, I know.
	That's when they're going to fire up CERN.
	I know all about it.
	Thank you.
	That's a subject for another show.
	All right, I'm going to try it one more time with a, who know, I believe it is on Skype.
	You're on the air.
	It's Arjuna, Art.
	Sorry.
	Hey, welcome back.
	Thank you.
	I just want to relay a story that my brother-in-law told me all those years ago when TWA 800 was shot down.
	Both he and a friend witnessed the flight being shot down by a missile and they both contacted the FBI.
	No one ever called them back and they did this repeatedly.
	They just didn't seem interested.
	Gentlemen, that's very common, right?
	A lot of that went on?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, and when it went, as we've said before, when they got an actual really critical witness report that they couldn't deal with, they just altered it.
	Okay, and Juna, I tried to come to you a little while ago and you didn't respond.
	I didn't realize you were saying my name.
	It sounded so different.
	Well, it's A-G-U-N, A-J-U-N-A, right?
	Yeah.
	It's Arjuna, just like the classic Indian myth.
	I thought that might have been pronounced with an H. Sorry.
	That's all right.
	Okay, I'll try and do better with names.
	So that was pretty common, right guys?
	In other words, people reported, people called, all kinds of people wanted to be witnesses, so they were either grudgingly listened to or ignored completely.
	This is a story that Nick Pope once told me when we were talking about FOIAs and files and UFOs and things like that.
	Nick Pope said that it was a practice among the British Ministry of Defense, and he assumed that it was also a practice in the United States Department of Defense, that if inconvenient information was coming into an agency, and the agency didn't want to have the problem of recording the information, taking it, logging it, saving it, and then having to disclose it, they simply ignored the information.
	Because then they don't have to worry about having to disclose it.
	Well, that's kind of like on the street.
	Let me just give you a warning.
	I'm not going to actually write this up, because actually I've got lunch coming up real soon.
	All right, gentlemen, hold on.
	We'll be right back.
	All right, gentlemen, we're back, and we're going to go to somebody in Phoenix, Arizona.
	Hello.
	Hi, Art.
	First time caller, long time listener.
	Thank you.
	Both counts.
	It's so good to hear you're back.
	I've got a question for your guest.
	Sure.
	In this video, I just got done watching this video, has anybody ever noticed the beginning is the end and the end is the beginning?
	If you look at the end, you start seeing blue skies, some sunlight, simple stuff, but at the end it starts getting really dark and hazy.
	That's just part of when they're scanning left and right.
	What you're getting is kind of a synopsis of what you're going to see.
	It's almost 20 minutes long.
	It is incredibly boring.
	And you get most of the way through before the good stuff starts to happen.
	So the studio in Las Vegas said, well, it would be kind of nice if you could kind of give them what would be a summary of what you're going to see.
	That's what you're seeing.
	You're not seeing the whole video.
	You're not seeing the original version of it.
	That's what you're seeing to show you without having to wait through 20 minutes of the worst photography or camera work in the history of the world.
	Sometimes that 20 minutes does make a big difference.
	Well, the 20 minutes is for the media, if they decide they want to get involved in this.
	We will personally, either Bill or me, with the one that's original to us, the documents that are original to us, we will carry it to them and they can analyze it from now until hell freezes over.
	What the videographer was doing, what the videographer was doing, was this is right about it sunset
	and he's panning from the moon which is gorgeous all the way to the setting
	sun on the other side of the horizon
	and he's and he's swinging the camera back and forth And there's nothing really going on.
	He'll focus on some lights.
	He will do a digital close-up.
	And so everything gets defocused because he's focusing on some lamppost somewhere.
	So it looks like the sun is just coming up into the lens.
	Then he unfocuses it again.
	And so that's what's going on.
	Sun Digitals will enhance the light, even if there's a little bit of sun left still out there.
	Absolutely.
	You're absolutely right.
	But when you start really looking at the end of that video, you start seeing like a sun dog in the center.
	Well, I've seen the whole video, all the 20 minutes of it, obviously, as well as this.
	And what you're seeing is this pastiche of this guy swinging the camera back and forth.
	And believe me, we saw some videos on UFO Hunters that you would fall on your face laughing because the person actually didn't even know which end of the camera to look into when he was shooting the video.
	And that's what consumer grade hand cameras do.
	This is a CD-ROM from 1996, too.
	You've got to remember this.
	This wasn't a professional camera.
	It wasn't a professional cameraman.
	It was amateur work and an old technology that, again, whether it was the original or
	number 11 that they had copied that I got a copy of, it's the original to us that
	you're seeing something that the outfit here in Las Vegas thought, and I thought was
	a good idea, to get something that kind of shows a summary of what the—
	It just kind of looked funny because when you're watching that video, like I said,
	it looks like the end is the beginning because still you have the blue skies, you still have
	all that, and the end, the beginning on—from the video, it's the end.
	You're right.
	That's because he's panning the camera back and forth.
	Yeah, that's because he's panning the camera.
	Yeah.
	Because I know it's also been cut so many times, and that's why I thought it was kind
	of funny to actually show that.
	Well, that's why it looks that way because on the one horizon, it's black.
	On the other horizon, you see the sun setting.
	It's in its glow now.
	Right.
	Yeah, and that's why I thought, like I said, I thought it was kind of funny to see it like that set up.
	Usually you just go, okay, this is the beginning, so let's show the beginning to the end.
	Instead of going from the end to the beginning.
	Right.
	Right, and on the counter that's on the film, that is not a second.
	You know, one second, two seconds, three seconds.
	The video people pointed that out early on, and we didn't go into the detail.
	We're not going to worry about it until somebody wants to analyze it that's, you know, the proper type of people, you know, media people to analyze it.
	We'll figure out what fraction of a second each of those counts is.
	Well, if they're listening to our bill, everybody's going to analyze it.
	You'll analyze it to death, that's right.
	All right.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	All right.
	Take care.
	People say, are you okay?
	You sound irritated.
	No, I'm not irritated.
	I just want people to stay in the same universe with us.
	That's all.
	If you have a question, you know, 9-11's a lot later.
	If you have another question about CERN, that's like another universe, and I'm happy to talk about it, but not at the moment.
	Let's see.
	You're on the air from somewhere.
	I have no idea where this is.
	Hello.
	Hi Art, this is Lucy Dogg from Sacramento, California.
	Hey there.
	Yeah, you pulled me up on Skype.
	I did and you weren't there.
	I was here.
	I have to work out the bugs, Art.
	Okay, work on the bugs because when I answered you, you weren't there.
	Okay.
	Well look, I'm 64 years young and I remember this very, very, very well.
	Look, Um, I think anyone who should be indicted for conspiracy should be our good friend James Hallstrom.
	I believe James used to be the FBI director in the past, but I may be wrong on that.
	The other thing is, is that that submarine had a crew.
	And I'm wondering, since it was not commissioned yet, therefore the submarine was not Technically there, but can you file a FOIA for the crew of that submarine?
	And if so, I wonder why nobody from the sub, the crew, has come out or maybe that person may come out after this has been exposed.
	But my biggest thief is James Halstrom and I knew This guy was lying like a dirty rug on the floor when he was trying to explain away the accident.
	Let me just jump in with one thing.
	Right after the accident, there was a provision for whistleblowers in the military to come forward to tell their stories.
	Right after the accident, the Clinton administration basically extinguished Also, you know, we've got a break coming up, but it begs an even bigger question.
	to the other part of the question about people on the sub, Jim knows that story.
	Also, you know, we've got a break coming up, but it begs an even bigger question.
	If this happened, if we shot down one of our own civilian aircraft and then tried to cover
	it all up, The size of the secret and the number of people that were involved would be absolutely enormous.
	I'm sure you agree with that, right?
	Yes.
	Alright, well then we'll talk about that when we get back.
	Dark Matter News!
	I'm Leo Ashcraft.
	Well, what do you do with a defunct salt mine that dates back to the Middle Ages?
	Well, obviously you build an amusement park in it.
	At least that's the concept behind Salina Turda, a museum and a tourist attraction located in Transylvania.
	That's right, Transylvania in Romania.
	And it's built into what began as a salt mine in the year 1075.
	As a mine, it was fully operational for several centuries until 1932.
	At that point, it was being used to store cheese.
	Then in 1992, the man-made cavern was converted into a subterranean amusement park, complete with fairground classics like mini-golf, bowling, a ferris wheel, and a carousel.
	Even an otherworldly underground lake for visitors to paddle around in rowboats.
	Tourists enter the park via an elevator built into centuries-old vertical shafts that used to transport miners and are slowly lowered 120 meters into the earth.
	On the trip down, they can admire the eerie beauty of the mine itself.
	The shimmering, marbled texture of the cavern walls, stark lighting, and futuristic design give this mine the space-age look of a colony built inside an asteroid.
	The cavern has a constant temperature of 53 degrees and 80% humidity.
	But the air in the cavern is also some of the cleanest on Earth, because the surrounding minerals keep it free of allergens and bacteria, making it an asthmatics paradise.
	Fun for you and your wheezy friends.
	Forget LSD.
	Eyes are the new high.
	Of course, we're not talking about consuming eyeballs, but rather staring intensely into a pair of them for a prolonged period of time.
	Apparently, this can make people enter an altered state of consciousness.
	Says researcher Giovanni Caputo from the University of Urbino in Italy.
	But this isn't his first staring contest study.
	A few years ago, the scientists recruited some 50 volunteers and got them to gaze upon their reflections in a mirror for 10 minutes in a dimly lit room.
	For many of them, it took less than one minute to start experiencing something trippy.
	Their faces began to warp and change.
	taking on the appearance of animals, monsters, or even deceased family members,
	a phenomenon imaginatively named the strange face illusion.
	But it seems the bizarre effects are even more dramatic when the mirror is swapped for another person.
	Each pair sat in chairs in a dimly lit room and positioned about three feet apart.
	Half of the pair sat opposite one another, gazing at each other's neutral expressions,
	while the others sat back to back staring at the wall.
	After ten minutes, participants then filled in a questionnaire about their experiences in the room, which revealed some rather intriguing effects.
	According to the British Psychological Society, those in the group that faced one another described higher levels of attenuated color intensity than controls.
	With noises seeming louder than they should, time seemed to slow down and they felt spaced out.
	Additionally, almost 90% of them said their partner's face appeared deformed, 75% saw monstrous beings, and 15% even saw traits of a relative's face emerge on their partner.
	He hypothesizes that these hallucinations, so-called strange face apparitions, could be a consequence of snapping back to reality after entering a disassociated state brought about by the lack of sensory stimulation.
	If you're looking for Milepost 420, you won't find it in Idaho.
	Idaho transportation officials say the mile marker has been replaced with 419.9 signs to curb thieves eager to own a number associated with the marijuana enthusiasts.
	Turns out Iowa isn't alone on this problem.
	States like Washington and Colorado have also replaced 420 signs with 419.9 after consistently having to replace them after thefts by supposed sticky-fingered stoners.
	I'm Leo Ashcraft for Dark Matter News.
	If I were one of these two gentlemen, I don't know what I'd do at this point.
	I really don't.
	Bill Burns and Jim Sanders are here, and they sort of have blown the lid on TWA 800.
	It's a lid that doesn't... Isn't that really hard to come off when you look at the video?
	It's a newly released video.
	People are asking where.
	HartBell.com.
	When you see the picture of Bill Burns and Jim Sanders, click on that.
	It will set up down below and you'll see two still photographs and you'll see a video as well.
	The video is...
	Conclusively damning.
	I think that's the right way to put it.
	So, gentlemen, welcome back.
	Thanks.
	We were talking about secrets and how you could keep such a damning secret for so long, for example, from at least part of a submarine crew, if not all, or whoever fired the missile, and then so many more that would have had to have been involved in the cover-up, right?
	I can answer this question real easily.
	Give it a shot.
	Let me start with Bill Clinton signs Executive Order 12958.
	He signs that on March 11, 1997.
	That's the day after it's revealed that the red residue is outside their control.
	12958 removes whistleblower status from a very select number of people.
	It's the people working on CEC, and only them.
	Well, after this thing is signed, a group of Navy officers get together.
	They're CEC Navy officers.
	They go to Washington, D.C., and they hire a law firm.
	I knew somebody in the law firm who kept me informed on what was going on.
	They were trying to find a way to get around the executive order so that they, as a group who knew exactly what happened, could become the whistleblowers that blew the case wide open.
	But they weren't willing to give up their careers and risk going to prison.
	Well, it was a very good Washington, D.C.
	law firm, and they tried and they tried and they tried, but they could not come up with a legal way to get around that executive order.
	So the officers scurried back and shut their mouths and hunkered down.
	Over the years, Jack Cashel and I have talked to quite a number of people in the Navy, from submariners to just Navy people who were aware of what went on that night.
	Understandably, they aren't going to go public, but they do give us stuff on background.
	So there's no lack of people out there, but they're smart enough to understand what's going to happen to them, because there is no one person that can stand up So what do you do now?
	unless it was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs or somebody of that magnitude that can stand
	up and not be destroyed when they stand up.
	So what do you do now?
	You wait for a knock on the door from one of the networks or somebody?
	No, we're so busy doing stuff.
	We're so busy doing stuff, trying to get prepared for the battle next year.
	Bill, you take it from there.
	Well, yeah, well the book is going to come out next year, so there's going to be that fallout.
	But one of the things that I'm going to do is, I'm friends... Donald Trump helped us with the Mickey Rooney book that we have coming out in October.
	And he's been very friendly and forthcoming about this book.
	And so I'm simply going to get him this material.
	We know his assistant and I'm hoping that he'll take a look at it and talk about it because I think this is the kind of thing Less politically, but more, this is what happens when a political imperative actually sets aside the United States Constitution, which is the other, which is the whole other part of this story.
	That the government literally, that this secret was so big, so deep, so phenomenal, that the government literally sets aside the Constitution and prosecutes a journalist And then, in the process, taints the jury pool so that the outcome is determined even before the trial takes place, simply to keep a secret.
	Horrible.
	On Skype, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Michael, I think it is.
	Yeah, Roswell's from Virginia Art.
	Hey there.
	That's Michael.
	Hey.
	Great show tonight.
	Awesome show.
	Thank you.
	My question for your guest is, if the official National Transportation Safety Board explanation of the TW-8 at 800 crash They did.
	They did as well as TWA.
	But, and Jim can take it after this, but Boeing has much deeper ties to the government than simply this 1747 and this one event.
	Boeing is a prime defense contractor.
	And the one thing they're not going to do is jeopardize their relationship with the Department of Defense.
	over this one incident and the other company was TWA which went out of business directly as a result
	of this accident and they too were raising protests against the government but the
	government made it let's put it this way it was an offer they could not turn
	down gentlemen you know other than your video which is
	blockbuster stuff and is gonna blow the lid off this The other thing that I heard that really impressed me tonight was, why didn't they ground the fleet until they knew what the hell happened?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Bowling, they were a powerful, powerful company, and still are of course, and they finally kind of, my interpretation is they kind of finally had it up to here on there, and they growled very loudly To the defense attorneys and to the government, if you knock off this crap, you don't knock off this crap, we are going to have, go to court, and we will have a missile defense.
	And at that point, everybody came to terms.
	TWA, a very weak company, particularly after the shoot down, they had the goods on the federal government.
	Every night, their number two legal person met with my informant, And other people that were TWA within the NTSB investigation, and they tracked the cover-up.
	They tracked all of the alterations and everything that they were doing.
	So they had basically a criminal case going against the FBI and the NTSB, but they were too weak To growl and make anything happen.
	And they were basically forced out of business.
	And the other piece of evidence too, which is important, is the actual debris field, where the crash material came down.
	And what Jim found out, again as a crash scene investigator, is that the records of the debris field, the official NTSB records of where the debris Was lying on the bottom of the ocean floor.
	That was altered after the fact to comport with a mechanical causation for the crash.
	The big thing that comes down first from the aircraft is the number three engine, which if the center wing tank exploded, the number three engine wouldn't be knocked off the wing.
	I mean, and they altered those records.
	All right.
	Let's go to somewhere in Massachusetts, I believe.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Great show, as always.
	Thank you.
	My name is Bob.
	I'm calling from Lawrence, Massachusetts.
	And I have a two-part question for your guests, please.
	The first part is, was there any debris of the plane wreckage found at the crash site?
	And the second part of the question is, if there was, and it could have been analyzed by an independent private Science Group, could it have been determined whether it was a missile or a spark that caused the crash?
	Right, that's an easy one.
	Part of SEAL Team 6 was in the area that night and no other divers were allowed into the area for the first 72 hours.
	I had a Coast Guard source who was at the dock, part of the guard detail, I don't know where the dock was, but when all of these missile parts were brought up and brought in by a Coast Guard cutter, loaded onto trucks, and taken off, and this guy said, and I got this from his best friend, not from him directly, that they were lined up, that detail was lined up and told that if any of it began to leak, they were all going to Leavenworth, and their pensions were gone.
	And the other thing that was going on was during the reconstruction, to answer your question, the reconstruction at the Calverton hangar, the FBI was going into the reconstruction room and removing parts of the plane that basically were telltale signs of an external event causing the explosion of the plane.
	They were removing those parts and they were manipulating the actual wreckage, turning floorboards upside down to recreate To reverse-engineer, basically, a mechanical causation for the crash.
	Yeah, I have the photos.
	I'm the only guy that could get the photos, because when I was indicted, the judge gave me three hours there, and so my little 35mm camera, I recorded the areas where major pieces of upward-bending metal from the floor of the center wing tank had been cut away.
	And then, The rest of it was put in there to make it look like it was internal to external instead of external to internal.
	And the other thing too, an NTSB investigator finally came forward last year, I believe it was, signed a notarized affidavit confirming that the alteration of the debris field happened.
	Alright, anything else, Collar?
	No, I just appreciate you giving me the opportunity.
	Thanks very much.
	You're very welcome.
	Take care.
	Let's try Marty somewhere else out of the country.
	Hello, Marty.
	Hello.
	Do you hear me?
	I hear you.
	We tried you before and it didn't work.
	Sorry about that.
	Some technical gremlin.
	Try again this time.
	Pleasure to speak to you all this morning.
	Considering the scale of the cover-up, Are your guests not concerned with any possible repercussions for bringing this to light, Matt?
	Oh, it's a really, really, really good question.
	In other words, do you fear for your lives, gentlemen?
	I don't think so.
	I'm 70 years old.
	You're 70 years old.
	Bill's 72 or 73 years old.
	We've been through this.
	And Bill got run over, too.
	He just didn't get indicted.
	No, no, no.
	The FBI subpoenaed me.
	But look, I have to tell you, after what I went through on UFO Hunters with Guys following us around and threats and what happened in Europe when we were filming the Nazi UFO episode.
	After that, I'm really not afraid anymore.
	Just get used to it.
	Get used to it over the years.
	Unbelievable.
	We had some border guard tracking us because we were so close to the border when we were in Poland and he was threatening us.
	We had a CIA guy who was tracking us wherever we went.
	I mean, I'm just... We had the NSA shut down one of our episodes, so I'm really not that worried anymore.
	All right.
	Skype brings Woodrow.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	How you doing, Art?
	Fine.
	Great to have you back, and gentlemen, I appreciate the interview tonight.
	I'm a 25-year airline pilot.
	I flew Boeings for years.
	At the time of TW-800, I was flying the Boeing 727.
	And you know, Boeings all have the same setup.
	They all have the center fuel tank with fuel pumps in there.
	And when TWA went up and the explanation was given that the center fuel tank had exploded, I immediately knew that was garbage.
	Because all Boeings have the same fuel tank setup.
	And other airplanes too.
	Airbuses too.
	It's really only just now that we're getting to the point where they're starting to put fuel tank inerting systems where they pump an inert gas into the fuel tank to mitigate the fuel fumes from supposedly detonating.
	But, you know, it's silly, really.
	If it was that big of a problem, why is it taking this long to have these systems installed, and why were not 737s, 727s, 707s, all blowing up with the same fuel tank setup?
	It's just, it was ridiculous to me then, and the more I've heard from all you folks doing the research, the more concrete it becomes.
	And as a pilot, isn't it true that if something awful like that happens to a 747, that they ground everything for a little while until they actually figure out what really happened?
	Absolutely.
	We saw it with the DC-10s.
	The DC-10 fleet was grounded when there were problems with that.
	737 fleets were grounded for a period of time due to rudder actuator problems.
	This is something that generally happens.
	And I wanted to ask a question, too.
	Now, I remember, and I can't remember, it's been a while, I thought I heard someone talk about, while the investigation was ongoing, some individual, and I was about, I got into the interview tonight about an hour late, so I'm sorry if this has been covered, but some individual just showed up and basically pontificated that, yes, this was a center fuel tank explosion and this is What you're going to say, and this is the end of the case, is that truly what happened?
	Well, some of my sources on the inside lay that off on Dr. Berkey, Dr. Mered Berkey, who did in fact do that, but he wasn't the originator of it, he's one of the underlings that did it, but apparently he was a little louder than the rest.
	But yes, the NTSB, this was their thing.
	And their top people would go right into the middle of the room and stand there and loudly pontificate on what the latest mechanical center fuel tank thing was going to be.
	All right, gentlemen, we are officially out of time.
	So if you have anything final to say that you want to get across, say it quickly.
	Go ahead, Joe.
	Well, no, basically, this is the story.
	This is the proof.
	The proof is on the website.
	We will have a book coming out.
	Read the book.
	But this is the story of the shoot-down of Flight 800.
	All right.
	Well, I'm glad you were here to tell it, both of you.
	Good.
	Thanks for having us on.
	Thank you very much.
	Thank you both, and good night.
	Good night.
	Well, there you have it.
	The story of Flight 800.
	I wish you all, in whatever time zone you reside in, to have a good night.
	Don't have nightmares.
	And yeah, I guess they don't always tell us the truth, do they?
	Good night Searching for the truth we make it to tomorrow
	Midnight in the desert I'm a less than
	I'm a less than you I'm a less than you
	I'm a less than you I'm a less than you
	I'm a less than you Meow, meow, meow
	Meow, meow, meow Meow, meow, meow
	Midnight in the desert, and there's wisdom in the air.
	I've been looking for the answers, all my life I've found you there.
	As the world we're living against Are we heeding all the signs?
	Have we lost our intuition?
	Are we running out of time?
	Midnight in the desert And we're listening Ooh, we're listening And we're listening

▲