Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2013 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes

01:15:19

Edition 104 - Richard C Hoagland

Richard C Hoagland talks about his latest work on Mars, Torsion Field Physics and a hugelycontroversial 9-11 theory...

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Across the UK, across continental North America, and around the world, on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes, and this is The Return of The Unexplained.
	And on this edition, in February 2013, the return of one of our favorite guests here at The Unexplained, a man who's been a friend of mine for nearly 15 years, who supported this show from the very beginning, both on radio and online, and has been on radio with me in London, in many different places, talking about many different things.
	I'm talking about Richard C. Hoagland, American space expert, the man who was Walter Cronkite's science advisor, the man who's been responsible for a lot of controversial and groundbreaking research over the years.
	We're going to update ourselves on his recent work in just a second.
	Thank you to Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool as ever for getting the show out to you.
	And thank you to you for being part of the show.
	Many, many thanks for all the recent emails.
	I will get around to talking about some of those in a future edition.
	But just to say thank you to Jim in Washington State for your great email.
	Jim is a fan of Art Bell, as I am, and he sent me a really nice email.
	Thank you for that, Jim.
	And thank you to you if you've recently emailed your guest suggestions.
	I'm working on right now.
	I want to keep all of this short because we have to get to Richard C. Hoagland.
	We have an awful lot of ground to cover.
	This is going to be a big show.
	So please sit right back, draw yourself a cup of whatever you like to drink, and enjoy this show.
	Richard C. Hoagland in New Mexico, United States.
	My friend, it is really, really good to catch up with you.
	Great to have you on the show.
	Oh, it's my pleasure, Howard.
	It's been too long.
	Too long?
	Hey, listen, it's been nearly two years, Richard.
	Oh, that's nuts.
	Come on.
	Yeah, no, it has.
	It's been about 18 months to two years since you were last on the show.
	And the last time we actually spoke for any length of time about anything, it was about Phobos.
	I was just going to say, I think it's about Phobos.
	You know, there's been new publication which is nibbling all around the edges in academia that Phobos is hollow, cannot be explained, is a captured asteroid.
	I mean, they come up to everything except admitting somebody had to build the damn place.
	And, of course, they won't do that until politically it is at some level appropriate.
	But all the evidence for anybody who wants to take a look is there.
	There's no other way to explain this enigma.
	You cannot have an object that big with huge internal voids.
	It's not like, you know, a sand structure where you have little tiny crevices because the material just didn't pack down.
	This has got huge, you know, city-size block rooms inside it.
	And they're planning, apparently, I think it's sometime this year, 2013, to make a dangerously, that's S's words, close flyby within 30 miles of Phobos.
	And obviously, they want to do the internal gravity studies really close up and personal, because the closer you get, the finer the resolution of the gravity revealing those voids.
	And there's some danger, they say, of smashing into it and, of course, losing the spacecraft.
	Well, it wouldn't be the first time that's happened around Mars, would it?
	No, but actually, I think there's a little bit of hype in the ESSA announcement because the radio tracking of these spacecraft, even millions of miles away, is so incredibly precise that they will know the position of Mars Express relative to Mars, and more importantly, relative to Phobos, to within probably half a mile.
	Now, Richard, a couple of things about this, though, and let's clear this up right now in a few seconds if we can.
	I had Olivier Vitas from the European Space Agency on here, and he said, ah, well, the whole problem is one of translation.
	He said it was the word that you take as hollow, he says actually means Phobos is porous.
	It's not hollow.
	Hang on, hang on.
	See, that gets into this fine detail.
	You know, the devil is in the details.
	When you say something is porous, they're thinking of imagine you have two similar size objects.
	One is like Swiss cheese, which has got big holes inside it, and the other is like sand in an hourglass, where, yeah, there are voids between the grains, but they're really, really, really tiny compared to the grains.
	Now, you could actually adjust so that both objects were equally, quote, porous.
	But that's what he's trying to get away, you know, squishy language by claiming that Phobos is like an object full of sand grains where, yeah, there's little tiny spaces between the rocks, but that's so small compared to the size of the rocks that it's basically a natural accumulation.
	What the measurements show, and which you obviously were not able to press him, you know, to be honest on, is that the data, both the radar data and the radio tracking, which reveals the gravitational signature of the distribution of material inside Pogos, says we've got huge holes like inside, you know, a piece of Swiss cheese, not little tiny spaces between grains of sand.
	So he's being very, very, very clever with his language, and he's not being honest with the public, the taxpaying public who paid for the Mars Express mission.
	And just before we clear this up, they did have, or they're supposed to have had, some kind of big news conference not long after what you said and all of that went public.
	They were supposed to have had some kind of European Space Agency news conference specifically about Phobos.
	This is what the guy told me.
	And yet, I have to say, I was working doing other stuff on the day that this thing was supposed to happen.
	I didn't see it reported anywhere.
	And I haven't heard anybody talk about it.
	They didn't make any, you know, the same thing they've been saying, which is it's porous.
	Well, that's a slippery piece of language.
	As I just described, two different objects with the same, quote, porosity, but one can have huge spaces inside and the other can have little tiny spaces between the sand grain-sized stuff, and they can be, quote, equally porous.
	The data unequivocally, if you actually look at the Literature, and it's on the net.
	You just Google, you know, inside Phobos or gravity tracking data from Phobos or interior measurements of Phobos, and you'll get all kinds of hits.
	The stuff inside is not like sand, it's like huge room cavities with solid stuff in between.
	That cannot be natural because of the way that Phobos, you know, in any natural model, would have accumulated under gravity, particularly in the gravity field of Mars.
	I got him to specifically say, so I have it on the record and it's on the show recorded, that as far as he's concerned and they're concerned, there is nothing inside that that has the appearance of having been created by something.
	It's all natural, whatever it is.
	See, this is where it's very frustrating to those of us who are in the field outside, not inside the institutions, trying to get honesty out of these agencies.
	Because we live in a culture, and I'm talking now globally, not just in Britain, not just in the U.S., not just in Europe, not just in Asia, in Russia, whatever, where even if you publish data, evidence, unless an official institution or a guy representing an official institution makes a certain statement, a certain claim, nobody pays attention.
	It's like everybody has hung up their ability to do independent thinking and they're waiting for someone else to take the lead.
	And the reason, and this is a pernicious reason, is that academia, the experts, the scientists who normally would independently evaluate such a claim and say to the guy, hey, wait a minute, you know, you're using weasel words here.
	This thing has got huge cavities inside that the physics doesn't allow under normal natural circumstances.
	The reason that nobody independently stands up in the scientific community and says that, other than a few of us independent folks outside, is because they get all their money for their research from these same institutions.
	So they don't, as the American cliché goes, bite the hand that feeds them.
	And the lie continues and continues because ultimately, in the big scheme of things, how many people politically give a damn about whether Phobos is artificial or natural?
	Now, this was the point I was going to come to.
	If Phobos is so boring and if it is so unremarkable, why are they so interested?
	Exactly.
	It's the same thing we happen to have with Sidonia, which is the place on Mars, which many decades ago I wrote about in the Monuments of Mars, The City on the Edge of Forever, and all kinds of interviews and television shows.
	And the Enterprise website is full of papers devoted to this place on Mars called Sidonia, where we first found, back in the 1980s, artificial structures, huge enclosed buildings called arcologies, in the words of Paolo Soleri, the Italian architect, including the infamous space on Mars, like a monument sitting in the middle of an Egyptian complex.
	And the watchword about Sidonia has always been, oh, it's just a trick of light and shadow.
	If you don't press the scientists outside to be honest and free them up to be honest, they will never independently come to the same conclusion we have because their money depends on government funds, government foundation grants, government support.
	They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
	Yet, if you look at the pattern of NASA space missions over the last several decades, it turns out square mile per square mile that more spacecraft images by both the Russians, the United States, and Europe, the SMS, have been taken of Sidonia, that one little region on Mars in the northern hemisphere, than of any other piece of real estate on Mars.
	So we ask the question again, why the interest?
	If it is so routine and so boring and so...
	On the rocks, why the hell are you spending so many resources and even adjusting the orbits of these spacecraft so they pass over it when the lighting is good and they can take better and better and better imagery?
	In other words, their actions reveal the lie.
	You've got to get some unofficial to stand up and say it before anybody, besides your audience or Coast audience or the other audiences we talk to, will pay attention.
	Most people, unless an authority figure tells them how to think, will not think, which is the tragedy of the 21st century.
	We have this saying in the UK.
	I think you probably got it in the States too, that if somebody is talking about you somewhere, your ears burn.
	Do you have that?
	We have it here, too.
	All right.
	Your ears must have been burning a lot over the last month or two because I've been talking on this show a lot about the Mars Curiosity images, and I'm hooked on them.
	You know, sometimes I will go to bed with my netbook computer and I will look at the latest NASA images.
	That's exactly an example I was just discussing.
	There are artifacts, machined, ruined pieces of junk being photographed in high resolution, in color, in three dimensions by Curiosity all over this region of Mars in Gale Crater.
	And I'm utterly captivated by them because the more I look at them.
	The money is making a big deal of them because an authority figure associated with NASA or JPL or the universities like Caltech that are managing the program has officially made a statement.
	It's like we live in a society now where unless some authority tells you what to think, nobody knows what to think.
	That's true.
	I spend sometimes, because those images are so amazing, they are fascinating to me.
	I will spend 10 minutes sometimes looking at one of these images.
	And okay, the brain has this propensity to rationalize things that it sees.
	But nevertheless, some of that stuff looks like pieces of something.
	It is.
	It's smashed up pieces of technology.
	It's not rocks.
	You cannot get thin, flat sheets Of metal that are square with perfectly level bevels on both sides.
	You can't get half-to-form spheres where you're looking inside and you see all the guts of the circuitry or the engineering or the valves or whatever.
	You can't get multiple thin layering that looks like the air conditioner on top of a 15-story apartment house, if you took a close-up picture over and over and over again.
	It's not just one picture or two pictures.
	It's like in every panorama they're publishing.
	There's stuff all over the place.
	And the only thing that is preventing this from becoming the huge major number one story on the planet is we're all apparently conditioned that unless some agency says this is the truth, nobody has the guts to understand what they're looking at or to run with the story in the media.
	I mean, I did an interview, a two-hour interview the other night with a major national host, and I sent him some of these pictures.
	And he went on the air, and we were doing this live interview, and he was raving about the imagery in color, in 3D, showing obvious engineering destruction in a place where nothing like that, by any official proclamation, should be existing.
	At levels now where you can literally, if you had a VW sitting there as a junk pile, you could see the windshield washer blades.
	The imagery is that good.
	And yet there was zero reaction from the audience, from the media, from anybody listening.
	This is a show that has millions of people listening.
	It's like, well, he's just a radio host, so he's raving about what he thinks he sees.
	Who cares?
	It isn't the President of the United States telling me what I should think.
	It's appalling how we can no longer think for ourselves.
	You can only get agreement about that from me.
	We are conditioned to seeing things and not expressing any thought about it, perhaps not even thinking about it.
	And that is a great worry to me.
	If the images I sent him, remember that there's this autoche we have in the States.
	It only takes one white crow to prove all crows aren't black.
	Think about that for a second.
	One white crow, and suddenly they're not all black.
	That in itself, applied to artifacts on Mars, should be such a stunning revelation.
	It should turn out endless hours of discussion and debate.
	And yet, what do we do?
	We spend so much time on Lance Armstrong.
	We spend so much time on an NFL football player who got suckered into having a hoax girlfriend.
	We spend so much time on silly congressional issues in Washington that have no meaning for the general population or the general economy.
	We spend so much time all over the world in media on absolutely stupid, ridiculous, nonsense trivia that no one can apparently grasp the implication and meaning of artifacts on an official NASA mission that are showing up on a planet where they should not be,
	that look like something that was left after the 9-11 disaster in New York and has enormous ramifications for our future in the solar system, let alone our past.
	Let me put it this way.
	I was born, as you know, because you've been to Liverpool.
	A couple of years ago, you gave that amazing speech there that I was lucky enough to be part of.
	But Liverpool, in the 70s, as I was growing up, was a place that was being regenerated.
	It had been bombed a lot by the Nazis in the war from the air.
	A lot of that stuff was being rebuilt.
	A lot of buildings were falling down.
	They were being knocked down.
	But what I feel time and time again when I look at these images from Mars, and I wonder why people are not asking questions about it, is what I used to see on my way to school or going into Liverpool city center, back in the beautiful city now, as you know.
	But back then, there was rubble everywhere.
	And the rubble, a lot of it, looked like what I'm seeing on those images.
	What kind of weathering process, natural weathering process or whatever, or radiation process can create that?
	Well, you're exactly right.
	And what is so, as I said before, frustrating is that it's now blatantly obvious, which of course brings up the question, why is NASA putting out imagery which is so blatantly obvious?
	There's only one of two reasons.
	Either they know that culturally nobody has the guts to say outside of NASA or inside of NASA without their permission, this is what it is, so they're perfectly safe.
	And someday, if it's ever found out that there's artificial structures on Mars, God help us how that would ever happen if governments control all the space programs and they control the transportation and the rockets and the downlinks and the computers and have a total lock on the information, how could anybody independently get there and verify what we're seeing in the imagery?
	So they're doing that just as a kind of a hedge, an insurance hedge against the future, where if someone in the future did that, they could say, well, hey, we put out the pictures.
	If people were too stupid to know what they were looking at, we can't help that.
	Or, and this is even more intriguing, it's part of a conditioning process, Howard, where they're putting it out there to see who will salute, to see if there's anybody smart enough left in the culture to look at a photograph and understand what they're seeing and what it means.
	That's a great theory, but what difference would that make to anything?
	I mean, you stand up and say, I think that they're not natural phenomena.
	I have a feeling they're not natural phenomena.
	But they can turn around and say, well, you know as much as we know.
	We've done a bit of scientific research.
	We've got a probe up there, but all we know is what we see.
	Well, again, we're back to the official, you know, I mean, in so many other areas, we see a definite difference.
	Like, how many public figures in Britain are excoriated when they come out and make a statement and people basically say, you're lying?
	I mean, you have a very vigorous tabooed press in Britain, which up to and including attacks the royal family now regularly.
	They take sneak photographs of princesses wearing no clothes, and it goes on for weeks and weeks and weeks.
	There's all kinds of scandals associated with officials and government and pretension in positions of authority, which are attacked, which are counterclaimed, which are actually denied publicly, even though the official line is one thing, the press and the public say something else, and ultimately they force governments to admit that it's not the way they initially portrayed it.
	Why doesn't that happen with this, Howard?
	This is one of my big sociological questions, and I think I've got an answer, but let me hear what you might think initially.
	All right.
	Well, my thought about all of this is I have been just as perturbed and disturbed by you that people are not asking questions.
	Those images, and everybody's looked at them.
	They're on every mobile device.
	When they first started coming back, okay, there may be a bit of a boredom factor now, but when they first began to flood back from the planet, everybody was looking at them, but nobody was saying, boy, there may be more to this than meets the eye.
	So it is, number one, it is this conditioning issue.
	And I think people are conditioned these days not to ask questions.
	And I think this should be at the top of many agendas.
	I know budgets are tight.
	There's a recession in the UK.
	There's a recession in the US.
	God, there's a recession every damn place.
	But there is nothing more important than this kind of stuff, I don't think.
	So I am perturbed and disturbed and bemused by the fact that people don't ask the questions about this.
	But I wonder what will happen next.
	That's what I want to know.
	Hang on, let me stop you there because I'm going to make the statement that people are asking questions.
	They're just asking all kinds of questions about the stupid stuff.
	Like they want to know about Tao's mythical girlfriend.
	This is this big NFL football player in the United States who it turns out had a two-year running hoax girlfriend online that he never met that died online the same day as his grandmother and all that.
	And it all turned out to be a hoax, and he was a victim.
	He wasn't part of it.
	He was a victim.
	And then, of course, he was incredibly embarrassed, and he kept it going for a few more days after he found out.
	That has become the cause celeb of people asking all kinds of questions, first of which was, was he in on the hoax?
	Did he pull the hoax?
	They right away went to the victim and accused him of being the perpetrator.
	So people ask questions.
	They just don't ask questions about important things.
	And that's the depressing thing because you know that particular story, important as it might be today, 12 months from now, people probably won't even remember the person's name.
	It doesn't mean anything to anybody but that one person.
	Who cares?
	It's his life.
	It didn't affect anybody else.
	It's like entertainment soap opera.
	People are fascinated by soap opera and entertainment and fiction and novels and movies and anything away from, I guess, their drab, dreary lives projected on their actions.
	It's bread and circuses, Richard.
	That's what it is.
	Here's my theory as to why nobody's asking important questions about why NASA's putting out stunning images of artifacts on Mars and nobody seems to give a damn.
	It's because if they were to begin to ask questions, they would then have to ask the question, well, if this is so obvious to us, how come the rover team, the NASA scientists, can't seem to see it?
	And the obvious answer is, well, of course they see it.
	They're smarter than we are.
	So if they're seeing it and they're not talking about it, it means they're lying to us by omission.
	Oh my God, if they're going to lie to us about something as earth-shaking and incredibly important for the past and future destiny of the human race as this, something we have waited all our lives to find out, are we alone?
	Then what else can government be lying to us about?
	In other words, I think, Howard, that this goes to the heart of people's desperate need to believe in institutions that claim to have their welfare, their well-being, at heart.
	And if they lose faith in that last bastion of officialdom, then there is nothing left in their lives they can depend on, and they're totally in free fall.
	They're totally on their own.
	They would have to be suspicious of everything.
	And frankly, they don't want to be suspicious of everything.
	They want to have trust in something.
	Otherwise, they can't maintain their lives.
	Let's face it, life is very insecure for many people now.
	More and more.
	Look around.
	And so maybe it is tempting.
	People are desperately trying to increase security as opposed to decrease it, which gets back to thinking on your own, making your own decisions, or letting someone else do it for you, which of course is easier and psychologically is more secure.
	But I think that there's something, I mean, there's probably, you know, a million PhD theses here in psychology as to why people can see stunning evidence of things that blatantly cannot be rocks and yet officially are claimed to be rocks.
	And everybody goes along because if they threaten the claim, if they question the claim, then they will reveal they're being lied to, and that opens up a Pandora's box and a rabbit hole they simply don't want to go down.
	I hear what you say, but if I phone them up today, you know, it's still daylight where they are, if I phone them up and I say, look, I've looked at the pictures.
	Come on now, guys.
	It's obvious.
	It's obvious what they are.
	They will just say to me, where's your scientific evidence, Mr. Hughes?
	And you will not be able to find a, quote, scientist, because they're all bought and paid for.
	They're on the till.
	They're on the take.
	You know, it used to be that science was an independent institution.
	How is it independent?
	Well, you had colleges, you had universities.
	They were funded by millionaires and billionaires.
	There weren't very many billionaires back then, but there were a lot of millionaires.
	That's how some of the greatest scientific engineering achievements on the planet were built.
	The big telescopes were all built by private donations from private philanthropists like Carnegie and Hooker and Vanderbilt and folks like that here in the United States.
	Then you had World War II.
	And with World War II, you had a massive ginning up of government taxpayer-funded research.
	And after the war, that new institutional way of funding science persisted.
	So now all science is basically funded by the same people.
	And you know that if there's no competition and everybody's getting from the same trough, all you have to do to keep them in mind is say, uh-uh-uh, you break ranks.
	You talked about something we don't want you to talk about, and you will have no money.
	So nobody rocks the boat.
	Nobody rocks the boat.
	What I want to know though.
	Because their money, their livelihood, their kids' college education, their Porsche's, their body depend on it.
	All right.
	All over the world.
	But look, a lot of people now listening to this are looking to you because they know you, they've heard you before.
	And because of your science background, your space background, and the fact that you don't mind rocking a few cradles, you don't mind rattling a few cages.
	We don't get government money.
	Are you kidding?
	The monies we get are from sale of our educational materials, from public donations through my Facebook pages and Enterprise Mission, and lectures, and books, and DVDs, and God, do people howl about that.
	It's like the enemies of what we're doing, try to cut off those sources of funding politically by claiming that we're cheating people.
	But they can't stop you speaking.
	Richard, whatever they do, unless they cut your internet connection, they cannot stop you speaking.
	So with your scientific background, people want to know, what are you doing about this?
	How are you rattling their cages?
	I'm in the process of assembling what I hope is a compelling omnibus paper, which will include zillions of photographs, analysis, comparisons, so a five-year-old kid can look at this.
	And as you recognize ruins in Liverpool, when they were tearing down those old buildings, we can make point-by-point comparisons as to why these things have to be shards of mechanical, technological debris as opposed to, you know, eroded rocks on Mars.
	Then I, you know, have outlets.
	I have television.
	I have Coast.
	I've got millions of people who listen to me on this national radio show.
	I've got the enterprise website.
	I've got 50,000 people, fans and friends on Facebook.
	I am doing my part.
	But unless politically, I guarantee you, Howard, that unless politically some major authority figure comes forward and says, you know, Hoagland's right about this.
	It will go nowhere.
	Remember, I've been at this 30 years.
	And there's a huge category of people that know that NASA's lying.
	And so what?
	NASA continues to lie.
	These people know the truth.
	And never the twain shall meet.
	It's got to be a political resolution.
	And maybe I should run for president.
	Maybe you should.
	Perhaps you should start with Congress and work your way up, Richard.
	I'd like to see that.
	You certainly would rattle their cages.
	However, this is the problem.
	The problem, Howard, is that we're in a situation now where even congressmen and senators, if they make pronouncements, are not paid attention to.
	Like, for instance, look at the attacks on the senator who has been nominated by the president to be the new Secretary of Defense, Charles Hagel.
	He is being viciously totally eviscerated by his former friends and colleagues because he doesn't toe the party line.
	He broke ranks for the Republicans.
	He actually said the Iraq war was a disaster.
	And because of that, he is the outman, and he is basically fighting for his professional life, his background, his expertise, his philosophical position, his ability to assess situations, to not jump into war as the Americans have done for the last 10 years, is all boding well for a reasoned Secretary of Defense.
	But the click doesn't want him in there because the corporations won't make any more money and the rabid neocons will not have any more people to conquer, etc.
	So politically, he's the odd man out because he's, quote, only a senator.
	Hell, they've even been attacking our president because he thinks differently and doesn't pursue the party line.
	So unless you're part of the institutional mind, you know, think, you know, you are not very favorably portrayed in public as someone who is independent and who has your own, you know, thoughts and keeps your own counsel and actually thinks for yourself.
	All right.
	If scientists aren't allowed to be mavericks, if politicians are increasingly not allowed to be mavericks, how are we ever going to get anywhere?
	Isn't that the question, Howard?
	Isn't that the question?
	The question ultimately comes back to your audience.
	And when I say your audience, I'm meaning all the audiences all over the planet who look at what's going on, wring their hands, tisk, tisk, and go back to eating their corn muffins or scones or whatever you guys have for breakfast over in Britain.
	Because unless people get involved, unless the political process goes back to people taking responsibility and calling a lie, a lie, a lie, notwithstanding whoever it's coming from, nothing will change, Howard.
	Nothing will change.
	That makes you a dangerous man, doesn't it?
	Because you're calling for stuff that is, all right, it's not insurrection, it's not rioting in the streets, but it's challenging stuff.
	That puts you in the firing line, doesn't it?
	Well, I hope.
	And what I'm ultimately hoping for is we get, we assemble what I call a critical mass.
	You know how nuclear weapons work?
	You know, you can have two pieces, excuse me, two pieces of metal, and you hold them one in each hand.
	I wouldn't do it for long because they're radioactive.
	You know, uranium, thorium, whatever.
	And they're fine.
	You bring them together, and suddenly you have no hands, and you're not there anymore because there's been an explosion.
	It's called critical mass, criticality.
	What I'm hoping is that all the little people, and I don't mean that derogatorily, I mean individually, we're nothing.
	Collectively, we're everything.
	You put together all the individual people who know the truth, who are looking like you and me at these pictures and know that NASA's lying, know there's ruins on Mars, know there was stunning epics had to have been based on the evidence of civilization, know that the official people up and down the line are totally giving us the shaft.
	And at some point, Howard, either on your side of the pond or on my side, that criticality moment will be reached, that tipping point, that last straw that breaks the camel's back.
	And because of social media, because of the internet, all of us individual little people can get together and we suddenly become that critical mass and we can make the crucial political difference.
	But from your point of view, the difficulty that you've always had is that a lot of people delight in detracting from what you say.
	They delight in dissing you, don't they?
	A lot of people say, well, Hoagland, Hoagland's not a problem because Hoagland's just got it all wrong.
	I'm sure that I'm funding many, many people's kids going to college because they work full-time to try to discredit what we're doing.
	And you actually believe that there are people who are tasked with discrediting me.
	Robin years ago was in a chat room talking with somebody, and the guy admitted, he said, we're paid to do this.
	Really?
	Yes, in print.
	That's the arrogance of power.
	These people feel so powerful.
	But if you look around, the trend curve, Howard, is in our direction.
	How many major institutions are being assailed now by people who are waking up, looking around, and realizing they've been lied to and cheated?
	I'm thinking of the big banking crises all over the world, the fact that you're in your third triple-dip recession there in Britain because the authority figures say, oh, austerity, austerity, and you're sucking your own economies dry and people are out of work.
	And at some point, they will not permit and put up with that any longer.
	They'll realize they're being lied to on something which is literally taking the bread out of their mouths and out of their kids' mouths.
	And there will be revolution at a political level where people believe things matter.
	And as part of that revolution, the things that you and I are looking at and thinking about, which are bigger and longer range, will become part of the larger revolution.
	It's coming.
	I can see the trend curves.
	I can see it happening.
	I mean, for instance, to give you one stunning example, with everything assailed against him, with media, with overwhelming political attacks, with lies end to end, how did the first black president of the United States win a second term?
	Because honest people, looking at the evidence, realized this guy is a good guy.
	He's not a bad guy.
	He's actually trying to help me.
	And they re-elected him.
	Well, two points.
	Number one, it wasn't exactly a landslide.
	And of course, number two, they probably looked at the other choice they had and thought, well, if it's between him and that, we've got to go with Obama.
	And when you say landslide, we have not had overwhelming landslides, you know, like, you know, 60, 70% for decades.
	It was 53%, which in the United States politically is a landslide.
	Romney got 47%, by the way.
	All right.
	It's respectable, and it's good.
	But look, the problem is here, not our politicians, not Obama and what have you.
	It is this whole process that I totally agree with you.
	It's this democratization aided by social media, which you use so adeptly.
	And the fact is that people can change things.
	How do we know that?
	Here in the UK today, we've just got news that a bank boss didn't feel that it was right for him to accept his million pound bonus.
	So this guy, which would never have happened 10 years ago, this guy has said no thank you.
	That's part of the trend curve.
	Now, we've had a Senate election over here, and we've got now more women in the Senate and the House than ever before in American history.
	You know, remember, there's 435 senators and congressmen.
	Guess how many women we now have elected to elective office at the highest level in the United States?
	Tell me.
	20.
	Really?
	20 out of 435.
	That's progress.
	That's absurd.
	However, it's not necessarily the numbers, it's the quality.
	One of those women is a gal named Elizabeth Warren.
	Elizabeth Warren is an absolute bulldog when it comes to the banks, to consumers, to credit, to protecting citizen rights when it comes to money.
	She is now one of the key people on the Senate Banking Committee, which can bring these guys in because the Democrats, and she's a Democrat, hold the majority of the seats in the Senate, so the Democrats will run the hearings.
	She'll be able to bring bankers in and ask them the most important, embarrassing, in-depth questions as an authority figure, and it will get written up and covered on television, and their life is going to be a living hell because they've been getting away with murder almost literally.
	And now there is someone who we know based on past record, 10, 20, 30 years, has had a single-minded obsession, which is to get honesty out of these characters and to get them to basically be accountable.
	So the fun is about to begin over here in something where people's everyday lives are meaningfully impacted.
	It is my model that as more and more public figures are found to have feet of clay, to have been lying and profiting and benefiting off their lies to the public, that that will spill over into more and more areas and people will begin to say, well, if they can lie to us on this, maybe they're lying to us on that.
	Let's hope that happens.
	You know, we had a huge thing over here a couple of months ago that a lot of us were very incensed about to do with Starbucks not paying any tax here, not paying corporation tax, defraying their profits, moving it over to other parts of the world, you know, other parts Of Europe making sure they didn't pay a cent here.
	The public didn't like it.
	And the public, some of them, boycotted Starbucks and they got some really bad headlines.
	So what are they doing now?
	They're changing their procedures.
	You see, public stuff works?
	Now they were doing this.
	We have to say they were doing this quite legally, but it was just a lot of folks that give the campaign contributions.
	So, of course, it's legal.
	It's just not ethical or moral or the right thing.
	You have to separate legal from the right.
	Because legal many, many times is not right.
	It's wrong.
	But it's because you bought the law.
	Now, we've got to move on to another topic now because we've got a lot of ground to cover here.
	When you came to Liverpool, you laid out for the first time, this is what, the end of 2009, you did this, the model of torsion field physics, which I've never heard of, and I think the audience there was spellbound.
	You've continued to work on that, and you've even applied it to the Mayans in this last year or so, actually, last couple of years.
	And that's part of our catching up process.
	What have you been doing?
	Well, again, let me try to encapsulate the brief history, or briefly the history, of this research.
	When we realized there were ruins on Mars, one of the questions I had was, going back to Sidonia, this amazing complex there in the northern hemisphere, which has been photographed more by NASA and the other missions and countries going into space than any other piece of real estate on Mars, except they don't admit what they're really looking at.
	What I found was that the structures, the artificial structures, the buildings, the arcologies, the face itself are all part of a geometric mathematical pattern.
	And this is back in the early 80s, 83, 84, sometime in that time frame.
	Along with some colleagues, including an expert, a mapping expert at the Defense Mapping Agency named Errol Torrin.
	He worked for the U.S. government in an adjunct to the DOD, basically doing maps of the planet for the ballistic missile crowds so they could target targets in the Soviet Union better, know where to plump their H-bombs down without hitting the surrounding countryside.
	That's what Errol did for a living.
	What he did is he took his expertise in mapping, and he mapped independently.
	He got a copy of my book, The Monuments of Mars, and he read it, and he sent me a letter.
	That's back in the days when we didn't have email.
	You know, gosh, sounds old-fashioned.
	Sent me a hard copy letter, basically contesting certain things I'd said in monuments regarding the geometry of the layout of the structures at Sidonia.
	And I wrote him back, pointing out this, this, this, and this, to which he, to his everlasting credit, as a real scientist, he went back and remeasured everything I had measured and wrote me another set of letters saying, my God, Hogan, you're right.
	And that was the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
	I mean, this was the, you know, remember, he was working for the Defense Department, but he's working in his own time on something which his superiors are not concerned about.
	He doesn't have to, you know, get money to publish in a journal.
	So he can do this and basically, you know, talk to me about what he finds, and he finds that, yes, my measurements are correct.
	And then he finds a bunch of other stuff.
	And then we go back and forth, and I make more measurements, and I come off his measurements.
	But the bottom line was, we pinned down that the geometry and mathematics encoded in this site of artificial ruins on Mars was not just any old geometry in mathematics.
	It was a very specific geometry in mathematics relating to a whole field of physics so arcane, so deeply suppressed in the ranks of science that it had not ever been used really on a day-to-day basis publicly by scientists for over 150 years.
	And we began publishing in the fledgling internet.
	Back then we had something called CompuServe.
	We actually wrote a paper together and we published this geometry, what we call the geometric model for Sidonia.
	And we basically made some predictions that this mathematical geometrical reality we'd found in these structures on Mars was in fact a real physics and would produce real results in the physical world if they were applied currently by scientists.
	We fast forward the film now, and in the 1990s, the early 90s, the Soviet Union collapsed and the wall was torn down in 1989 in Berlin.
	And we had the big emergence of Russia and a fragmentation of the former Soviet Empire and a collapse of the censorship system, which kept scientific publications literally barricaded behind this iron curtain wall between the East and the West.
	And lo and behold, in the early and mid-90s, we discovered tens of thousands of Russian scientific papers, some of which were translated into English and again published on the internet, which really took off in the early 90s.
	And we discovered that Russians had been pursuing the same physics secretly behind the Iron Curtain, suppressed from public scrutiny by the KGB until the KGB collapsed with the collapse of the Soviet Union, that we had theorized had to exist based on the mathematics and geometry of a place on Mars that shouldn't exist called Sidonia.
	And that field that the Russians have been working on, they called torsion field physics.
	The torsion field is another name, a Russian name, for the ether, the classical ether of Cavendish and Michelson-Morley and Einstein and, you know, all your great British scientists who was an ether in the 19th century.
	The Russians have continued to work with this.
	They've got experimental data.
	I mean, when I got these papers dumped on me, it was around Christmas time of, I forget what year, it was somewhere toward the late 90s, early 2000s.
	It was like I'd received multiple million dollar Christmas presents because this was research that Errol and I had projected should be done in laboratories and done by space missions and done by experimentalists all over the planet that we could never have afforded to carry out by ourselves.
	Suddenly, we had this windfall, and we had major laboratories in the former Soviet Union, which had done all kinds of work and now published, and it was accessible to us in the West.
	And lo and behold, all kinds of stunning predictions that we had made in that paper, and I'd made in the Monuments of Mars toward the very end in the final editions, the fourth and fifth edition after Errol had come on board, turned out to be true.
	Now, again, fast forward the film, I was able to create a technology out of some breadboarded components that were put together back in the 70s by a departed physicist friend of mine named Bruce DePalma, who is the departed brother of the famous director Ryan DePalma, whose work I'm sure you've seen there in Britain.
	Oh, yes.
	Major films.
	Anyway, in fact, Bruce did a whole film called Mission to Mars, which embodied not only our work, astonishingly, about the face on Mars, but was an ode to his brother, his late brother's work in physics, having to do with 19.47 as a key number, and vorticular mathematics as another phenomenon that the expedition to Mars encounters, etc., etc.
	So De Palma did this ode to his dead brother's historical physics work, because what De Palma had done, which I found when he and I finally got together in the late 1980s, early 90s, was he had done laboratory work on this side of the Iron Curtain, not knowing what was going on in the Soviet Union, which also proved to be the foundation of torsion physics.
	So I put all this together and I took some of the instrumentation that Bruce had created in analog form in the 70s, and I digitized it with the modern digital revolution, you know, computers, digitized sensors, et cetera, et cetera.
	And I am now tracking all over the world with the aid of institutions like television networks.
	NBC helped me back in 2009.
	Conferences who provide me with speaking money so I can come to Britain.
	And in 2011, I tracked from northern Britain to southern Britain measuring ancient monuments, ancient stone monuments, to which, Howard, I invited you and you were too busy to join us.
	I know I could have come to Stonehenge and I always wondered what happened with those measurements you were doing there.
	That's astonishing reasoning, because it turns out, bottom line, I'm measuring with this instrumentation, that great line in Forbidden Planet where Dr. Morbius says instrumentalities.
	I'm measuring with this physics the ability of the ether to actually modify inertia, modify mass, which in Einstein's equation is supposed to be immutable.
	You're not supposed to be able to change it at all.
	Well, the ether is vibrating, and the vibrations are transmitted to vibrating masses, and the vibrating masses in the instrumentation I'm using change weight, they change mass, they change their inertia, and I'm able to digitize this and record it in a computer program.
	So you basically are looking at a graph with squiggles, and I interpret what the squiggles mean in terms of changes of mass.
	And none of this should be happening.
	Absolutely zero of any of this should be taking place, but it is.
	It's reproducible, which of course is the cornerstone of science.
	Can anybody do this?
	Yes, they can.
	Yes, they have.
	And I've taken it all over the world with the help of enterprise mission donations, with the help of conference donations.
	I've been able to do it in Britain, able to do it in Central America, been able to do it in the United States.
	We just got back from our expedition over the weekend of the 2012 end of the Mayan calendar date, December 21, to a place in Yucatan called Chitsa Nica, which is one of the most famous Mayan, ancient Mayan complexes known.
	And what I've been able to do is to measure at these ancient sites the fact that somehow the ancient, ancient guys, these primitive guys that didn't have writing, although of course the Mayans did have writing, they had hieroglyphs, that didn't have paper, that didn't have the wheel, that didn't have any of the accoutrements of a high-tech civilization, Howard, they were building these ancient sacred structures, and why did they become sacred?
	That's another story, another show, according to some condition, some prescript, some blueprint, which allowed them to assemble massive artificial mountains of stone,
	which then act as amplifiers, accumulators of this background torsion field, and amp it up to whether I can, with a handheld device and a laptop computer, can go in and measure on a screen stunning changes,
	which change according to astronomical alignments, which change according to the time of day, whether the sun is on the horizon or overhead at noon or in the west, which changed according to where the moon is, where the planets are, where we are in Relation to the center of the galaxy.
	In other words, totally proving by means of Western 21st century scientific modalities that the ancients knew amazing stuff about our surrounding ambient environment.
	And the measurements, Richard, it's important, the measurements that you took at Chitranita and you took at Stonehenge here in the UK, and I think you've also been to Egypt, haven't you?
	Are they all the same?
	Do they measure out the same in the places?
	I've not been to Egypt yet.
	That's on our list.
	I mean, politically, it's a little bit dangerous to go to Egypt right now.
	But it's on our list, and ultimately, someday we'll get there.
	I mean, I've got a lifetime career just going around the world measuring these places and correlating all the measurements.
	All right, Chitsanita and the UK, do they measure out of the city?
	Everything we're measuring.
	It doesn't depend on what culture.
	The physics is the same.
	We've got stunning readings of Stonehenge, stunning readings of Silbury Hill, rather iffy readings at Avery, but I think I was doing the measurements wrong at Avery.
	I've had some new insights that this stuff is not radially omni, meaning it doesn't radiate equally in all directions.
	On certain directions, you'll get it.
	And if you walk around 20 degrees, 30 degrees, you won't get it.
	So I've got to do circles around these monuments, which I have not been doing.
	I've been standing on the top of them or moving radially away from them, assuming that the radiation pattern was the same in all directions.
	And from some of our measurements, particularly Chitsunitsa, it looks like now that these things actually are aligned, which was backed up by similar measurements I got at Stonehenge.
	Well, I was standing 90 degrees to the stones at Stonehenge.
	Remember there's a thing called the Avenue and the Heelstone?
	If you stand on that little path over to the right, you get stunning readings.
	The guards would not let me go into the center of Stonehenge for some stupid reason.
	Let me tell you why.
	I was there a couple of months ago.
	The tourists were wearing it away, right?
	Oh, well, but one guy with guards going to one place to stand for a few minutes to take readings.
	Well, I think they should have let you in.
	But you're talking about there's a raised area, isn't there?
	And there's a pathway there.
	That's what you're talking about.
	Yeah.
	But on the right-hand side, outside the rope, outside the monument, you can measure.
	So I got as close as I could, and I got amazing, stunning readings.
	I went 90 degrees to that location over by the Heelstone, which has another path, you know, which is not, it's actually macadam.
	It's made of aslol.
	And we got nothing.
	So I know at Stonehenge, the readings are not the same in every direction.
	That tells me that these are ancient amplifiers that have a pattern, a beam pattern.
	For God knows whatever reason they were built.
	They were not built by primitive savages who didn't know what they were doing.
	Because in Maya country, with one of the famous kings, one of the Mayan princes who was buried at a place called Palenki, he was buried with a whole bunch of objects.
	And in going back in the literature and reading all the things they unearthed with him when they unearthed his tomb, he was buried with two key things, which are the equivalent of equations saying, I know hyperdimensional torsion field physics.
	And that will be laid out in the paper I'm working on to publish on Enterprise, hopefully in the next couple, three months when we finish reducing the data that we got from Chi-Sinitsa.
	Bottom line, we are now reconstructing an ancient physics based in these sacred sites, which are passive solid-state amplifiers.
	Look, Ma, no wires.
	They just work because there's enough mass there pile up to where they amplify naturally the background field and produce changes in their vicinity, which among other things, when we were discussing with our Mayan guides in Guatemala when we measured Takal,
	the Mayan guide, whose name was Francisco Florian, you know, he was hired by NBC to squire us around and show us, like every tourist, you know, what's there at Takal.
	And his demeanor when he initially met us was, oh, here's some more American tourists, you know, I've got to educate, right?
	We wound up on the top of some of the pyramids, he and I sitting side by side, our feet dangling over, you know, hundreds of feet of empty space below us, right?
	He's looking at my computer screen.
	He is absolutely awestruck and dumbfounded.
	And he says at one point, Richard, I'm seeing things my ancestors have talked about, but I've never known how to see.
	Wow.
	So he affirmed that the energies we're measuring, the fact that these complexes have real world consequences, what do they do?
	They change biology.
	They change life forms.
	They change the people.
	Like Francisco told us that back when Takao was inhabited, which was thousands of years ago, they had an elite superstructure, you know, the so-called 1% who lived in the complex and the city around these pyramids.
	And then everybody else, you know, the 99%, the farmers, the peasants, who basically grew the food so the 1% could live well, they lived out in the countryside, 10, 20, 30, 40 miles away.
	So for them, knowledge is power.
	The 1% who knew this stuff.
	The 1% who knew about this stuff were in the best position.
	I mean, you asked yourself, why did they expend so much energy culturally?
	Because these things were not built by super magic levitation.
	They were built by peasants breaking their back, lifting stones, organized by master architects to build these pyramids in pairs over and over and over and over again all across Maya country.
	Why did the elites, why did the nobles, why did the 1% get the 99% to do their bidding and do this?
	How did it benefit the culture?
	Well, it benefited the 1%.
	Because the 1%, the nobles, according to Francisco, they lived in the cities around the pyramids.
	Everybody else lived 10, 20, 30 miles away and did the farming out in the distant hinterlands.
	They would then bring their food, their grains, their produce, their, you know, what they were farming to the cities where they would sell it, where they would provide foodstuffs for the elite, the 1%, etc.
	The 1% lived in apartment complexes right around these pyramids.
	The peasants, the farmers, lived tens of miles away.
	They lived to be about 40 years and then they died.
	The elite, Howard, who were constantly exposed to the amplified torsion field around the pyramids, they lived to be over 100.
	So this is the elixir of life?
	It's exactly.
	It's the staff of life.
	It's the thing that makes life possible.
	Without the torsion field, there would be no biology on Earth.
	Do you believe this was happening at Stonehenge as well, Richard?
	Exactly.
	Of course.
	So how did these people, these disparate populations who couldn't have communicated with each other in any way that we understand, how could they all be doing the same thing in different places?
	That's an exquisite question.
	The answer is one of two things.
	There's a kind of a cultural, what's the word I want to say?
	Wave of fancy, kind of like a passing fancy, that says anything human beings know now we got from aliens, you know, the pyramids, ah, built by aliens.
	You know, any of the ancient super science we're discovering, ah, given to us by aliens.
	It's all back engineered.
	It's all from aliens, right?
	To which my one-word answer is crap.
	Okay?
	Human beings did this.
	If you look at the history of humanity on Earth, modern cultures, by modern I mean the last 6,000 years from Sumer on, what do we find?
	We find a history of cultures developing, rising, evolving, maturing, becoming amazing, and then they decay and disappear and vanish.
	Civilizations rise and fall, rise and fall, rise and fall.
	That's the history of humans on this planet in the last 6,000 years, right?
	Okay.
	Extend that to a much larger frame of time.
	We don't have to get into why it happens, just that that's the trend curve of history over and over and over again.
	Remember how back in the 19th century there was this sudden wave of publications of the lost civilizations of the Middle East?
	The Akkadians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Sumerians?
	It was the rage, you know, because they were digging into the dirt, in the sands, and they found these mounds, and they dug into the mounds, and oh my God, there were the remains of buried ancient cities with walls and pottery and cuneiform and libraries and a whole vanished past which had decayed and disappeared simply because civilizations rise and fall.
	Now project that on a much larger timeframe.
	Instead of a mere 6,000 years, let's take 60,000 years, 10 times that amount.
	Is it not reasonable that if in the last few thousand years civilizations have risen and fallen, that in a much longer time frame, again, just a spit in the ocean compared to the history of the planet, that we've got much bigger spans of time where much more interesting things in terms of civilization have risen and fallen.
	And because of decay, because of oxidation, because of the rapid erosive forces of all the things that go on on the planet, from vegetation to oxygen in the atmosphere to earthquakes to geological processes,
	volcanoes and all that, that over very large time frames incredible civilizations could have arisen and fallen, and there'd be almost zero evidence left of anybody but the last few thousand years, because the planet itself destroys assiduously the evidence.
	But, if these people were, look, If these people were all so smart, and now we've forgotten all of this stuff, if they were so smart, they would still be around today.
	Why?
	They would still be around today because they're using torsion physics and they're able to live to 100.
	They've got great technology working for them.
	Because you live longer doesn't mean you're smarter.
	Remember, we're talking human beings.
	And what's the one thing human beings do better than anything else?
	Well, reproduce, I guess.
	No.
	Thank God they do.
	Otherwise, we'd be gone.
	What do they do?
	They kill each other off, Howard.
	The opposite, yeah.
	We're the only species we know, except maybe ants.
	And there may be some distant kinship there because of the way we all act sometimes.
	You know, remember the mind control program we were talking about earlier in the show?
	We conduct organized warfare and we destroy each other.
	Now, the smarter we get technically, the bigger and badder our weapons become, right?
	In the 1950s, you know, I'm a bit older than you are, so you don't remember this, fortunately, but I remember something called duck and cover.
	Duck and cover, where we would hide under our desks in the illusion that during a thermonuclear war, where Russia was bombing the hell out of every city on the continent and destroying the continental United States, we little school kids could survive under our desks by ducking and covering ourselves during the moment when we saw the first flash.
	Idiotic.
	Insane.
	And a total myth proved by history, but it's what people wanted to hear.
	Now, unless there had been a political change for whatever reason, that trend curve of increasing numbers of nuclear weapons on both sides and implacable enemies determined to stamp out the other guy at the first sign that The other guy was going to get ahead, could have led inevitably to a global thermonuclear war, which would have destroyed in a night all evidence of high-tech civilization.
	And suddenly we'd be back to the 19th century using horses and plows, those of us left, with billions of people dying of radiation poisoning and obviously disappearing from the soil when their remains were ground to dust and eaten by microbes.
	So you're saying that's how this incredible knowledge died out.
	I can accept that.
	I'm saying that if we can extrapolate that trend curve from our 20th century history, and remember, we're still out of the woods yet.
	There's still enough nuclear weapons on the planet that something stupid like bombing Iran.
	Sure, so we could go the way of the Mayans or the people who built Stonehenge.
	That could happen.
	But extrapolate the technology curve.
	Suppose that nuclear weapons are not the ultimate destroyer.
	Suppose, as is embarried in these equations, in this physics we found on Mars and now found amid the ancient cultures of this Earth empirically in terms of what those sacred sites are still doing.
	Suppose there was also developed an active torsion field technology, which, because human beings do this with everything, was turned into a weapon.
	That kind of physics, my friend, can literally destroy and disintegrate matter if it's wrongly applied.
	And I believe, and this is where I got into really hot territory the other night when I did a show on Coast, I believe we have seen evidence of the application of this technology, this torsion-field weapons technology totally aimed at destruction as a demonstration on 9-11.
	That in fact what took down those buildings in New York was not C4, it wasn't the planes crashing into them, it wasn't the fires from the planes causing the steel to bend and ultimately break and then to fall down.
	It was the application deliberately of this super science torsion field technology held in the hands of persons currently unknown, which was applied for the first time in modern history for some reason, probably as a demonstration to our elites as to what was in the offing if they didn't do some things politically, culturally, economically as a consequence.
	And what we've seen is that since 9-11, the world has totally changed.
	We've given up many more freedoms.
	We live a lot more strictured lives.
	We are constantly looking over our shoulders and wondering what terrorists are going to do, what, to whom, all over the world.
	We've launched into a global war against a band of guys wearing turbans on the theory that they can be as efficient and destructive as a nation armed with 50,000 nuclear warheads, which of course is insane, because the fear has been ramped up overwhelmingly by our elites based on what happened and what they have again viciously, consistently lied about.
	So you're saying that we, in this day and age, demonstrated by 9-11, and I didn't interrupt you while you were saying that, but hugely controversial.
	Lots of people are going to say Richard Hoagland has finally lost the plot this time.
	Well, because they haven't looked at the evidence.
	Again, go back and look at the evidence.
	Remember, they're lying to us about structures on Mars.
	What would they not lie to us about if they'll lie to us straight-faced about that?
	So you're actually saying that on 9-11, the planes were a diversion, really.
	That was just a sideshow.
	They were like a movie cover.
	You've got to have, for people who don't understand how this science really works, you have to have an excuse.
	But if you actually look at the data, and there's a whole movement in the United States called the 9-11 Truth Movement of engineers and scientists and ordinary folks who looked at 9-11 and they've independently come to the conclusion that, wait a minute, the planes could not have done what they are being told was done by the planet.
	Most of them are not talking about torsion physics, are they?
	Most of them are saying that an explosive subject like thermite was used.
	That's what they're saying.
	Because that's in their universe.
	They understand, yes, you can bring buildings down by controlled demolition.
	If they were to do their real homework, if they were to delve as deeply into this as I and some others have, and I actually gave a detailed presentation of this model at a science conference in Amsterdam a couple of years ago, and there's, I think, a video on the internet somewhere with my presentation.
	If you look at the evidence, and it's all been assembled in a very important book, materials expert, a scientist in material science named Dr. Judy Wood, who has written a book, Google This, go to the internet and Google her book, Where Do the Towers Go?
	You will find her website, drjudywood.com.
	And what's in her book is available for free all over her website, which is page after page after page after page illustrated with detailed explanations and comparisons and equations and graphs and videos and analysis and documentation and first-hand reports.
	I mean, it's a stunning tour de force of analysis of 9-11.
	Her bottom line is the towers were brought down not by explosives, not by aircraft, but by what she calls directed energy technology.
	Directed energy weapons.
	So you believe that somebody on this planet has that technology that the Mayans had and we forgot because of the processes of time.
	Somebody's got it.
	I'm saying that there is a subset of the elite who have Developed this technology again to that level and have basically created it as weapons.
	Because the same technology can give us, I hate this term, but I'll use it, free energy.
	Remember, you're tapping into the ether.
	You don't need to burn coal or oil or natural gas.
	Okay, so these people have independently discovered it through their own research.
	They haven't been given it by somebody else.
	Hang on, hang on.
	Did I say they've discovered it?
	No.
	The model is if I'm able to go to a Mayan site or to Stonehenge and measure with scientific tools this energy, then with enough money and enough laboratories and enough engineers and scientists, I could recreate an active technology to make use of this physics.
	And I could do anything this physics would allow.
	Right?
	Or if I had secret records archived and preserved down through thousands of years by, we'll call them mystery schools, secret societies, you know, priesthoods that preserved ancient knowledge from their great, great, great, great ancestors, revered as sacred documents.
	When we get to the place where we reconstructed science to the level where these documents can be viewed not as metaphorical moral tales, but as metaphorical descriptions of physical processes, then if you put enough money and enough time and talent on it, you can recreate the science and the technology and come up with things that work again.
	And what we've got here, Richard, is the ultimate conspiracy theory.
	As ever, I've broken my podcasting record here, Richard.
	We've done 72 minutes now, and we could do another 72 minutes, so we've got to do a rematch.
	I think we've got to come back and talk some more about this.
	But I've let you talk.
	I've let you explain this stuff.
	If people want to know more about it, where do they go?
	You go to EnterpriseMission.com.
	Richard Hogan.
	All there for free.
	Thank you so much for...
	I'm going to shock you, but it's going to be 15 years this year.
	15 years that we've known each other was first of all 1998.
	I was at Capitol Radio.
	I'd started to listen to Art Bell.
	I'd started to listen to Art Bell, and I got my assistant, a lady called Jenny, who you remember.
	I got Jenny to track you down, and we put you on the radio in London, and it's 15 years ago this year.
	You're going to get a lot of feedback on this one.
	Yeah, I think so.
	Hey, please keep in touch.
	Thank you very much, Richard.
	Good to talk to you again.
	And likewise, Howard.
	And that's a man who's always welcome on this show anytime.
	Richard C. Hoagland, American space expert and old friend of the unexplained.
	Richard, thank you for that.
	If you'd like to go to his website, you can do that via my website, www.theunexplained.tv.
	And if you do that and follow the links, you can find out more about Richard's groundbreaking work.
	You can also send me some feedback on this show and others.
	Or if you'd like to, you can let me have a donation to the show because there's a link there.
	If you're listening on a device of some kind that brings you internet radio, you don't have to go to the website, but I really would like you to do that when you can.
	Please register a hit on the website and then I know you're there.
	Very, very important for us developing this show.
	Always grateful to get your input on our output here at The Unexplained.
	I love to get your feedback, love to get your emails.
	Let me know what you think about the show and how you think I can improve it.
	More great shows in the pipeline, more about those coming very, very soon.
	But please look after yourself through this February of 2013, whatever the weather may bring to us.
	Springtime is nearly here in the Northern Hemisphere.
	I know that's no joy for you in the Southern Hemisphere, but that's the fact I'm here.

▲