All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 4, 2014 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:07:42
Edition 173 - Mike Bara

On this show... author and blogger Mike Bara - who co-wrote "Dark Mission" with RichardHoagland...

| Copy link to current segment

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 Unexplained.
Thank you very much for telling your friends about the Unexplained and for keeping faith with the show.
I've had an awful lot of new people emailing me over the last week or so, so you must have been spreading the word, and I'm really, really grateful.
I'm going to be doing a lot of shout-outs very soon, so listen up for those.
Thank you to Adam Cornwell, my webmaster, for his continuing hard work on the site and getting the show out to you.
Guest coming up is Mike Barrow, the man who co-wrote Dark Mission with Richard C. Hoagland, but he's a big name in his own right.
You may have heard him in the States.
I don't think you've heard of him in the United Kingdom.
You may have, but you'll certainly have heard of him after this.
So Mike Barra in California coming very soon.
The guest on the next show will be another big name guest with a big topic.
It'll be another 9-11 special.
I can't tell you anything about it right now, and it will happen either a couple of days before the anniversary or probably a couple of days after.
So watch out for that.
We've done a few 9-11 shows, and you know my track record that I covered it on the radio here on the day, and then I covered live from ground zero two anniversaries, so it's very much a part of my life and all of the people involved that I met.
So we're going to be doing that soon.
Shout outs.
Vitali in Australia, telling me about his strange dreams.
Thank you for that, Vitali.
Also suggests Dr. Charles Hall as a guest.
We had him on the radio show.
Need to get him on the online version.
You're right.
Darlene in Manitoba, hello Darlene, thinks that I should talk a bit less.
Okay.
But Marty, who emailed, thinks I didn't say enough to challenge Victor and Wendy Zamet about the afterlife.
So you see, you walk a very fine line when you do shows like this.
Some people think that you're saying too many things, and some people say that you're not saying enough.
But look, I'm not big enough or old enough to think that I can't take advice because I can always improve.
Thank you.
John Clasper in the UK, good to hear from you.
Scott in Kansas City, suggesting Greg Valdez.
Thank you, Scott.
Paul Tate, suggesting Michael Newton and his topic, The Space Between Lives.
I like the sound of that.
Karen in Barry, Ontario, great email.
Thank you, Karen.
Joey, who lives near Rendlesham Forest in the UK, of course, where we had that big so-called encounter, tells me a few things.
Can you email me some more details, Joey, so I can understand it.
Patrick liked the show about Richard M. Nixon with Roger Stone.
Dee, good to hear from you again and thank you for what you see.
Jimmy Gannon in Houston, some nice comments.
James in Coventry wants me to talk about the Black Knight satellite, which is something that has been widely debunked.
What I need to find really is a good and credible guest about that, James.
If you have any ideas, I'll be keen to know.
Logan G in Virginia made contact, he says, with Milky Blue Beings.
Well, I can't advise you about that, but I think maybe there are people who might say you could try regression if you want to know more about what you say you experienced, Logan.
Finley Beaton in Beijing would like a show on time travel.
Again, I really, I burn to do a show about time travel.
I just have to find a good and credible guest on that.
Adam Allen in Preston, UK, thank you for your much appreciated comments.
Wes, good suggestions.
Some of the people you suggested have been on already, the others I'll work on.
Sandy in Australia wants an update on the Canadian underground pyramid.
Neil in Tasmania wants me to talk about sinkholes and their extraterrestrial links.
Mrs. Daniels thinks that Victor Zamit had misplaced views.
Controversial guest.
Dan in London thinks Victor and Wendy Zamet have been his words taken in by mediums.
Andy in Western Supermare found Victor Zamet irritating.
Lisa Rostron, also no fan of Victor Zamit.
Darren, though, would like me to go to Sydney, Australia and meet with Victor and Wendy and test out some of these people they were talking about.
I would long to do that.
I couldn't afford it right now.
I can barely afford to go on holiday in the UK.
In fact, at the moment, I can't.
But I would love to go back to Sydney.
The last time I was there, I was working with Capitol Radio.
We were doing a Chris Tarrant show from there.
One day, I dream of going back, and I would certainly like to meet Victor and Wendy if I go.
Joe Hall in Sweden, did I ever follow up on the strange events in Malta?
No, I didn't, Joe, for the simple reason that I couldn't find out any more.
I heard from a friend of mine who went swimming off Malta that a number of people had experienced a phenomenon while swimming out in the bay at St. Julian's.
That's the place.
But I couldn't find out anymore.
If I do, I'll do a show about it.
Kevin in Bristol would like me to do more about Flight MH370.
Thank you very much, Kevin in Bristol.
Thank you very much for all of your emails.
If you'd like to send me your thoughts about the show, guest suggestions, whatever, go to the website, www.theunexplained.tv.
And there you can follow the link and send me an email.
Or you can make a donation if you possibly can.
Right, let's cross to Mike Barron now in California, USA.
Hopefully we'll get a good connection.
And Mike, thank you very much for coming on The Unexplained.
Thank you very much for having me, Howard.
Now, I thought that you were another one of these Los Angeles, but that's not entirely true, is it?
Well, no, I split my time between Los Angeles and Seattle.
I have a place up here and spending the summer up here with family.
I actually just had a really nice Labor Day holiday that we have here in the States with my family, with some cousins and some cousins' kids, which I don't know.
Does that make them second cousins to me?
I'm not sure.
It's all too complicated for me.
It is.
Haven't seen many of them in many years.
So there's some advantages to being up here.
And the summers in Seattle are just absolutely beautiful.
They're just perfect.
So you really can't ask for anything more than that.
Well, all I know is what I read.
And I hear that up in the Northwest, they have the big sky, the big blue sky.
We have a big blue sky.
We have green trees.
We have all of the beautiful white-capped mountains that still have snow on them generally in the summer.
And the thing is, the Northwest, it lures you in during the summer.
People visit in the summertime and they think, oh, this is the way it is all the time.
But it's not.
So you do pay for it in the winters.
And that's when I prefer to spend my time in Southern California.
Yeah, the same thing.
I have a love affair with Scotland here, which is way up north, as you know.
And it's fabulous.
They have the clearest air and the loveliest people.
But it's too cold for me in the winter.
I can't do it.
Oh, and it's so damp.
I mean, that's the thing here.
You know, 40 degrees here can feel much colder than sub-freezing Fahrenheit temperatures in the Midwest.
It's because it's so damp here.
It's just so wet all the time.
Well, that's the weather report and the location report.
So we've Got that done both sides.
You're a busy guy, much in demand.
Your television work and writing work.
Described by yourself, which is a real pleasure for me to be able to use somebody's description of themselves rather than have to fire at them some description that somebody else has written.
You describe yourself, born-again conspiracy theorist.
What is one of those?
Well, you know, I guess it comes from, you know, when I first realized that there were conspiracies.
I first had to face the reality of it when I was in my mid-30s.
And, you know, an event happened here in the United States, which was the destruction of TWA 800, the 747 that was shot down just off New York City in the summer of 1996.
And I, you know, realized the incredible cover-up that went on around that.
And when that happened, I kind of became, you know, I just wanted to finally face the fact that these guys were just lying through their teeth at these press conferences.
And when the final really ludicrous explanation that there had been a spark in the center fuel tank that had blown the plane up, which is, you know, absurd on so many levels, I can't even tell you.
And, you know, from my experience as an aerospace engineer, I knew that was absolutely a fabrication and a lie.
And it was simply designed to make the average idiot news reporter believe it, but not really anybody who knew anything about airplanes.
Well, that's the interesting thing, isn't it?
That, you know, I am an idiot news reporter and have been for many years, but I've started to see behind the news, but I had to get well into my 30s and really into my 40s and to start to question very seriously the stuff.
Because I'll tell you for why, in the news game, you see the same things coming around over and over again.
And when they come around three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten times, they start becoming implausible.
Yeah.
And I hear you.
And what I mean by born again is that at that point, I just kind of decided I had to tell people, you know, about it.
I had to try to like do something to actually get people to wake up.
And, you know, I kind of equate it to what we call in America born-again Christians.
They discover Jesus at some point later in life.
They weren't necessarily raised in the church.
And then they tend to be very aggressive proselytizers.
And they go out and they just have to tell everybody about Jesus.
You know, can I tell you about Jesus?
Not that I have any issues with Jesus.
I think he's an awesome guy.
But I kind of became that kind of a guy.
I just decided I had to go out and start telling people about conspiracy theories and things.
And that's when the shift really happened for me.
So that's when I became born again, a born-again conspiracy.
I think my moment when I started asking some real serious questions was 9-11, really, because I was telling my listeners at the top of this, I'm doing another 9-11 special soon on this show.
I covered it in London on air, and I had many friends in New York and was deeply involved in it then.
Then for the first and second anniversaries, I went to Ground Zero and I broadcast live from as close to Ground Zero as you could get.
And in the first instance, that was the Marriott Financial next to it all.
And it was then that I see things and hear things that didn't add up.
I was reminded, for example, that the passport of one of the hijackers was found in all of that carnage and rubble.
How can it be that the passport is found in amongst all of that when other things and people too are simply vaporized?
You know, I still don't understand that.
Never will.
Well, you know, this is we could get into some interesting territory here, Howard, because the 9-11 conspiracy theories, I'm not on board with.
It's one of the things that I'm yet to be convinced of any conspiracy.
There's a lot of good theories out there, or a lot of ideas out there, but I'm yet to be convinced that any of it is true by any of the evidence that I've seen.
And that's one of the things that's really not surprising to me because the truth is my dad worked for the Boeing company for more than 40 years since World War II and retired in the early 80s.
And he worked on material safety and crash investigations.
And it is absolutely common for wristwatches and shoes and things to be found unscathed, unscarred, intact, you know, quarter of a mile, a mile, half a mile away from the impact zone of an aircraft incident like that.
So it's not at all unusual for that kind of thing to happen.
So that alone would not have shifted me or changed me.
Even though this thing I'm talking about, a passport of one of the hijackers, was a pretty crucial piece of evidence.
I mean, if you're going to find something that attests to your particular view of why this happened, then that's the thing to find, isn't it?
It is a bit miraculous, but they did have airport security video of these guys actually going through airport security.
So I think that's, you know, for me, that was fairly solid evidence, although I'm sure that could be faked.
I just don't see any evidence that it was.
And the fact is, is that things like that do survive plane crashes.
I do know that from my dad telling me a lot of stories about some of the investigations that he went on.
I distinctly remember one time he had to go to Africa because of a crash of a Boeing aircraft.
And it actually turned out that what had happened was that they had not paid, the pilots were not paying attention to their charts.
And they essentially at night flew the plane right into a mountain.
I mean, their last words to each other were something along the lines of, you know, this crazy chart says we should be 3,000 feet higher up right now.
And the next sound you hear is the plane crashing into a mountain.
And he did told me stories of them finding wristwatches.
So they found one of the pilots' ID badges.
So these things do, what happens is they get flung out the front of the aircraft if it's a head-on impact like that before anything can scorch them or burn them.
It does happen.
Now, I will grant you finding the passport, having that be a key piece of evidence.
It is a little suspicious to me, but right now, all I've got with 9-11, for me, all I have is I have some suspicions.
I don't have anything I really consider very solid.
I mean, I think a lot of the argument, and this all, by the way, this always gets me into trouble on my Facebook page and my websites when I question whether 9-11 was a vast conspiracy by the Bush administration.
I always get into trouble when I say, look, to me, there's nothing unusual about the buildings coming down.
I believe they were going to come down from the minute I saw the damage.
building number seven coming down was nothing unusual.
There clearly was a plane that hit the Pentagon.
It was not a missile, as some people have tried to assert.
So to me, it's like I'm still waiting for the evidence to really convince me that it was a staged event.
Now, there are lots of things that were happening in the financial world at that time, which something like 9-11 would be the ultimate perfect precursor for.
But again, the links to me aren't there yet.
And the links that the things that people have tried to establish about 9-11, claiming that a plane did not hit the Pentagon and some of these things that kind of go off on a tangent, those are the parts that I question.
Yeah, well, I think you're right to question.
You're absolutely right to question.
Some of it is really wacky, but I have a certain amount of sympathy, although I haven't got the evidence to agree with.
People like Dr. Judy Wood, who of course worked in material science, and her book, 400 Odd Pages of It shows how a building like that cannot come down through the laws of physics in the speed of time that it came down.
It came down much quicker.
And she uses this word that the buildings were dustified.
They turned to dust in mid-air.
Now, I'm not a scientist.
I don't understand that.
But I think maybe they're questions that should be asked.
And I think we need to keep asking questions.
And that is very much what your work is all about.
So let us get to what they call the good stuff, Mike Bowen.
We can actually talk about 9-11 as long as you want.
You want to go on.
We've got two hours, right?
We've got plenty of time.
Well, we've got an hour this time.
Otherwise, my webmaster will hang me from the nearest yard arm.
Well, that changes things then.
Well, the great thing about this conversation is that we don't have commercials.
We don't have news.
We don't have those interruptions that I know about because I did commercial radio for years.
And I did this show on the only talk radio show station that was national in the UK.
And they were good enough to put this show on air before they went all sports.
But let me tell you, if you measure the amount of time you have talking about these topics versus the amount of time you have for commercial breaks and news and all the other things you have to do, two hours of this would be four hours of that, if you see what I'm saying.
Okay, let's get into it.
I made some notes last night on some presentations that I saw that you made.
A number of conferences.
You go to a lot of conferences, it seems to be, in a lot of different places.
Not nearly as many as I'd like to.
So if anybody in London would like to have me over, I'd love to come visit London again.
And I'm pretty good, you know, Howard, I can put on a good show.
So I'd like to get invited to more, but I do do them on occasion.
Well, you did.
There was one that I saw you on, and it was this year.
I can't remember what it was, but you were almost anchoring the thing, and you were a guest.
So it was very good, I have to say.
Now, one of the quotes that I took from you were that you believe that there have been ancient aliens on a vast scale.
What did that mean?
Ancient aliens on a vast scale.
What I think people don't recognize about, you know, the ancient alien TV show over here is a phenomenon.
I don't know how it's doing in the UK, but it's really a big deal over here.
And it's really changed the discourse in, you know, even in the culture.
It's a commonly accepted thing over here now that we talk about openly.
And what I think the limitation of the show is, not to criticize my own show that I've done many times, that they've recently broken out of, is the fact that, look, if aliens were here on the Earth at some time in the distant past, which I believe you can make a fairly strong case for, then logically they would be other places.
They would also have visited Mars, they would have visited the moon, they would have maybe visited Venus, depending on the condition that Venus was in at the time.
And, you know, there would be waypoints on the way to the Earth, it seems to me.
And so what I meant by that was that there's not enough scale to the current ancient alien debate.
We can debate about Pumapunku and the Ossyrian and Machu Picchu and all these other locations and who built the great pyramids and were they designed by aliens and all that stuff till the cows come home.
But if we can find even one pyramid or one clear artifact or one indisputable piece of machinery on the moon or on Mars, then the whole theory is proven because by definition it would have to be alien because as far as we know, the only place we've ever been to is the moon and we've only been a few, very few spots, six landings, you know, on the moon and only a few guys have actually walked the surface.
So there's, to me, that's like an amazing fascination of mine.
It's a fascination of mine because that's where we can really prove this whole ancient alien theory out is not by looking on the Earth so much, because you can always debate who built what when and whether it could be engineered by humans.
But if you can find one artificial structure on another planet in this solar system, then you have the whole theory proven out.
Just like me, you were captivated by what Richard Hoagland said about the face on Mars.
He was virtually the first person to put himself right out there on CNN and various other places.
And over the years, he's been much derided for it.
But I know that in interviews that you've given, that was a turning point for you, wasn't it?
Yeah, it really was.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Sorry, Howard.
I was pouring to Dr. Pepper.
You go pour right away.
It's a bit early in the morning for you for Dr. Pepper, isn't it?
No, it's 10.15.
I need it right now to wake up.
It's my one single vice, I think.
Diet Coke is mine, but that's another story.
Diet Coke, yes.
Yeah, it is.
You know, when I was a younger guy, I was looking, I was always interested in UFOs and all these different stories.
And I'd read, I'd seen In Search of Ancient Astronauts by Eric Mondanek in the film when I was a young man and actually a boy.
And all of it was great, but none of it could really be proven.
And especially UFOs and abductions, all that stuff fascinated me.
But again, there was no proof of any of it.
And then I happened to see a video that some coworkers of mine were watching at Boeing one time in the lunchroom, you know, on a TV set, a little old VHS video set up and stuff, and they were watching this UN speech by Hoagland.
And I was really attracted to it again because I thought, here is something that can be proven or not proven.
It's something that we can actually put our finger on, measure, we can go visit, we can take better pictures, and we can confirm the theory or not.
Because I believe very firmly that if you got good, clean pictures of the face on Mars or Sidonia, the entire area, you know, most people forget that it's not just the face.
There's all sorts of very artificial looking structures all around the face.
If we could just put our finger on that and get good pictures of it, we would have the proof that we needed to basically prove the extraterrestrial visitation theory.
And the problem is, is it turned out to be a much bigger, more difficult task to get really good pictures of the face than we ever expected at the time, or at least than I did.
Yeah, well, true enough about that, Mike.
And of course, over the years, and over time, we were all gripped by this Richard Hoagland face on Mars looks pretty convincing, eh?
And then, of course, you get more and more people coming forward saying, well, look, shift the light a bit or look at it in another way.
And here's an optical illusion and it's not what it appears to be.
And look at the scale of it.
That's totally not true.
I mean, basically, you can shift the lighting to any way you want.
It still looks like a face.
It still has primary facial characteristics.
It still has secondary facial characteristics.
It has architectural characteristics.
I mean, one of the completely phony criticisms that's out there about my books about ancient aliens on Mars and ancient aliens on Mars 2 is that supposedly I don't use any of the pictures from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is the super high-resolution spacecraft camera that's up there right now taking pictures.
And of course, they've taken many, many pictures of the face on Mars.
For an object that NASA claims they have no scientific interest in, they sure do take an awful lot of pictures of this thing.
I'll say that.
But again, it's simply not true.
When you get down into the details, it looks even more unquestionably artificial.
I mean, first of all, it's got this base platform, which is pretty much symmetrical and uniform.
You have two perfectly parallel lines on either side that are hundreds of meters long, parallel lines.
They're both rounded at the top and the bottom by arcs that are exactly the same arc.
And I don't know exactly what the radius is off the top of my head.
So you've got this base platform that is completely unique in terms of any kind of natural formation anywhere in the solar system.
There's nothing natural that has a base that's shaped in that sort of perfect formation like that.
And then you've got what Dr. Tom Van Flandern used to call secondary facial characteristics.
You've got what appear to be nostrils and the nose.
There have been at times on various instruments what look like teeth in the mouth.
And I think that's because sometimes they appear and disappear.
I think part of it is because there's some fooling around done with the pictures.
Also, I think that certain instruments are able to pick up these subtle features more, you know, better than other instruments are.
And you've got a very clear eyeball in the right-hand eye socket, which, you know, it's got a very human-looking eyebrow.
It's got a human-shaped eye.
You know, human eyes are not perfectly round.
They're an ovoid shape and they have a tear duct.
And this thing has all that stuff.
And there's a pupil right where a pupil would be if you were creating a representation of a human eye.
And that's really interesting because when you go back to the very first data set, the Viking data set, which everybody says, oh, it's an optical illusion, Vince DiPietro, who is one of the earliest researchers, did some research on that.
And he said, there's a pupil in the shadowed area of the eye socket.
And he predicted it would be there.
And all of the same people who today are making these fallacious claims that when you get better pictures of the face, it doesn't look like a face.
It's an optical illusion.
They all said at the time, you're overworking the data.
It's not really there.
It's an imaging artifact.
And lo and behold, the first pretty clear overhead view we got of the face on Mars, there was the eye and there was the pupil that DiPietro had predicted was there.
They were all wrong and the independent researchers were all right.
So consistently this has been the case as the debate over the face on Mars has raged is that the people who have done the independent research versus the NASA types, they have made claim after claim after claim, which has been falsified repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.
And what do you think is the difference between this big case and the little case reported in the British newspapers this very morning from a man I think in Berkshire who says that he's seen the face of Jesus in a wall tile?
Well, I think the difference is that you can actually, first of all, the face of Jesus in a wall tile, you could or could not do that.
But the difference with the face on Mars is that you can measure it.
First of all, you can make all sorts of measurements.
Again, the two parallel edges to the platform, you can measure the distance of those.
You find out they're almost exactly the same.
And except for a little degradation from erosion, they probably were at one time exactly the same.
You can measure those two radii.
So you have the mathematical measurements.
You have the sheer impossibility of a coincidence of natural erosion creating eyeballs, parallel eye sockets, nostrils, teeth.
And then you can look at the very specific high-resolution images where you can see, absolutely see without question, clear structural features on the face on Mars.
There is an area to the left side of the chin, I like to call it, just below the mouth, where there is an area about the size of a sports arena, which has a roof that has collapsed inward.
And exposed on the side, you can see struts and beams that were the support structure for this hollowed-out area.
And it looks literally exactly like a collapsed sports arena from New Jersey that happened in the 1970s.
I mean, you can, again, see the exact same sorts of beams and structures.
So again, you can clearly look at these things and see artificial structure.
There's thermal infrared images of the face, which show that it is not natural.
There are structural panels on the left side of it.
So again, there's all sorts of different things that you can go in and look at.
And none of them, none of them fit a naturally occurring object.
They are all consistent with an artificially constructed or modified object.
So if we're seeing a structure, I guess it can be one of two things, where it can be something that was constructed.
And you've already hinted this potentially for worship to venerate something or someone, or it's a message To us guys here.
Yeah, I think that, you know, it's a message.
I mean, I don't know that Hoagland and Errol Torren wrote a paper back in the 1980s called The Message of Sidonia.
And I think there's no question that there's an intent there of a message.
And, you know, the message may be as complex as they think it is, which is this whole theory of what they were trying to inculcate to us was this idea of what they called hyperdimensional physics, which is the idea that all the energy in this universe actually comes from a higher source, a higher universe, a higher dimension, or a series of higher dimensions.
Or you can simply look at it and say, we're going to build a human face here on Mars in order to remind people that we were here.
And secondly, to let them know that we were like them.
And if it's going to be seen, it's got to be big.
It's got to be big.
It's got to be huge.
And it also can't be in isolation because you can have, especially at low resolution like the early Viking stuff, you can have optical illusions created by light and shadow.
But it's only when you get many, many more pictures that you really can tell that, you know, decide whether something is artificial or likely to be natural.
Now, it's possible we could have seen the so-called face on Mars and just decided there was nothing to it.
I mean, if really, you're correct, if it wasn't for Richard Hoagland keeping this thing alive in the early 1980s, it might have been completely forgotten and never amounted to anything.
And yet it has this extraordinary message, I think, for humankind.
So, you know, they had to make it big and they couldn't make it in isolation.
So there had to be other objects nearby, other apparent monuments.
And one of the things I cover in the new book, In Ancient Aliens on Mars 2, is objects like the fortress, which when we got better pictures of them, it appeared that it might be a natural object after all.
But I think in re going back and re-looking at those pictures and studying them again, I think we can look at that and say that that is actually a collapsed pyramid.
It's a collapsed tetrahedral pyramid.
So they built all these other pyramids around it with the hopes that they would catch somebody's attention.
And I think that somebody that it was aimed at was us, because I think ultimately when you get into the, you know, this is a question for the end usually, but I think ultimately that they're our ancestors, that there's no question that we came from Mars.
At least that's my opinion at this point.
And the one thing that comes out of my many conversations with Dick Hoagland, and you know him as, you know, better than I do, but I've met him a couple of times, spent a nice day in London with him and with Robin.
We talked a great deal.
I was in Liverpool at a conference that I got him invited to.
So I know Dick Hoagland pretty well.
The phrase that comes out time and time again is regular geometry, Howard.
Look at the data.
Yeah, yeah.
And again, you know, Carl Sagan was the one who said the patron saint of debunkery, Carl Sagan was the one who said that, you know, the way you recognize an intelligent civilization from randomness is through the geometry of their constructions.
And when you look at Mars, there is a regular geometric pattern to a lot of different areas on the planet, including an area that has been nicknamed, you know, Parrot City, which is in the new book.
And I really go into that in depth.
And as we start to look, you know, the geometry is what attracted my eye.
And then as you begin to go and look deeper into the photographs, what you see very clearly is evidence of a vast but ruined civilization that once existed on this planet.
And again, that's how you separate it from just random background noise.
I mean, you know, there are pyramids in Elysium.
Carl Sagan was fascinated by Elysium.
He had these tetrahedral pyramids, which interestingly have never been really directly photographed by the better resolution cameras.
They've never really gotten good pictures of Carl's specific pyramids of Elysium.
But there's other pyramids nearby that are absolutely dead ringers for pyramids we've recently found in China.
And, you know, again, if you look at it on Earth and it's, you know, kind of isolated, and by that I mean not part of a mountain chain, and it has a specific shape and it's sagging and eroding along a certain pattern, and you see the exact same visual match on Mars, well, how come we know for a fact the one on Earth is artificial?
Why are we so reluctant to simply say, I bet the one on Mars is artificial.
Why don't we go take a look at it?
Okay, born-again conspiracy theorist.
This is where the conspiracy theories come in.
Do you think that there are people down here who know exactly what all this stuff is, but are just not telling us?
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
There's definitely people inside NASA and at JPL and at some of the private companies like the Arizona State University laboratory that has control of the Themis instrument, the thermal infrared instrument on Mars Odyssey, and people like Dr. Michael Malin down in his shop in San Diego.
They know exactly.
And I think, you know, this is interesting because it brings this up for me.
I was recently, just the other day, looking at some images of the face on Mars that were taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
And there is a mesh pattern.
There are areas of the face that are very, very blank in all of the stuff that comes from NASA.
And they're not so blank in some of the stuff that comes from the European Space Agency, but they're a little bit lower resolution.
So it's harder to tell what you're looking at.
But as you look at these blank areas, there's this mesh pattern that clearly, if the mesh pattern is real, then on the face on Mars, there is definitely an artificial constructed mesh of some kind.
If it's not real, if it's not really on the face, then it's an area that's been sort of whitewashed by NASA.
So there's no question in my mind that there's probably more to the face and more to all of these objects than we've actually been allowed to see, and that there are people on the inside who absolutely know, absolutely know for a fact what we're looking at here and that it's artificial, but they just, they're not allowed to bring it out at this point.
It's not something they can tell people about.
Well, here's an area that is a difficult area that I go to with a lot of my guests.
So I'm going to go to it with you, Mike, and see what you think about this.
What you just said, is that a supposition or has somebody or have other people, a number of people, told you things in confidence that might support what you've just said?
Well, I can't say that anybody has specifically told me anything in confidence that supports that.
So it is a supposition, but I did have an experience with Richard at a session that we did near JPL in Pasadena in the late 1990s after the Mars Pathfinder probe had landed.
I did witness something with a guy who claimed to be a JPL employee.
He came to the show during a break in the proceedings where we were going over the stuff that we'd seen on the images, or primarily that Richard and Ron Nix had seen.
He brought up these 8x10 color glossies from the Pathfinder probe.
He said they were from Pathfinder, and he showed them to Richard.
Anyway, I was standing right there, and they were so much better than the images that were on the internet.
It was almost laughable.
They were orders of magnitude better in terms of their quality and resolution than what we were allowed to see on the internet.
And they were definitely showing what was unmistakably mechanical objects in the near field of the Pathfinder landing site.
In fact, the guy said at one point, he said, we were wondering when you were going to spot this one.
And Richard said, well, it's kind of hard with what you've been putting out on the web.
It's not nearly as good as this.
And we're sure that they weren't bits of Pathfinder.
Well, no, they weren't bits of Pathfinder.
They were definitely debris in the near field because it was from the rover, which was off the Pathfinder lander at that point.
So there were shots from the rover and there were also shots from the Pathfinder mast itself.
So we're positive they weren't part of that.
But, you know, he claimed to be a JPL employee.
The photograph said JPL, NASA, on them.
They certainly looked authentic.
They looked exactly, you know, this, again, this was before Photoshop was really something that people were very good at.
There was very few people that were good at it, and I don't think he was an artist.
But then he said, hey, you know, I, sorry, I had, before I took these out, I had to have them, you know, they were stamped with my employee ID on the back.
I'm going to take a magic marker and I'm going to blot over that so nobody can trace these back to me.
So Richard handed him the pictures back and he went, you know, took out a magic marker.
And, you know, I was talking to Richard, talking to somebody else, and I turned back and the guy was gone.
Wow.
And Richard's, where'd the guy go?
And he goes, I said, he was here two seconds ago and he just left.
So that's the only experience that I've ever had that I could equate to some kind of contact.
So I think he gets it all the time.
But I think a lot of people try to convince him of a lot of different things and feed him a lot of information, not all of which I think is reliable.
Well, interesting, isn't it, that this guy, and pity that you only had one experience like that, but some of us never have an experience like that, was so keen to get his employee number off the back of the pictures.
Well, yeah, he didn't want them traced back to him, which makes sense.
But then I think he just probably had thought better of the whole thing and decided to just leave the room.
Or his sole purpose was to simply put these in front of Richard to let him know that, in fact, there were much better, much higher quality images from Pathfinder that nobody had ever seen.
But again, unless you finally leak those out, it doesn't really do any good to do that because then it's just a story.
But, you know, I mean, you know, the other thing too, Howard, is, you know, I've always kind of been a believer in and interested in UFOs.
And until I actually started doing the Uncovering Aliens TV show, I'd never had a sighting before.
And after doing the show, I've had two sightings.
So maybe in the future, somebody will leak me some information.
I've always said, you know, hey, you want to leak something through me?
Just by all means, let me know.
Send me the real stuff.
I'm glad you mentioned that, Mike.
I'm very, very, well, let's hope somebody's listening who's got some stuff to send your way because I think you'd be a very good conduit for it.
I saw you and heard you say on one of these conferences that, you know, as soon as you got involved in this and you were doing the TV show, you had two UFO sightings.
But on the conference that I saw, because you were talking about other things and there wouldn't have been time, you didn't describe what they were like.
So what did you see?
Well, the first one was, I guess, May of 2012.
We were actually doing what they call the sizzle reel for the Uncovering Alien show.
And that's where they get a bunch of candidates for the cast of the show together and they run you through some mock cases and they take, you know, take, do interviews with you and stuff and basically do sort of a raw cut of what the show might be like.
And they see how you interact with all the other members of the cast.
So, of course, at the end of the day, I was sitting at the, you know, the rooftop bar in Brooklyn, New York with the two female cast members.
And we were having a couple of beers, you know, and I was only on my second.
And we were sitting there.
And one of the people who I, you know, shall remain nameless said, one of the ladies said, hey, well, look at what the hell, what the hell is that?
What is that?
What is that?
And I looked over and I saw this thing.
And we were trying to convince Lisa, the other girl, to turn around.
And she was like, oh, yeah, right.
My friends do this to me all the time.
We're like, no, seriously, Lisa, there's something there.
So we all got up and we walked over to the edge of the roof top, and there was this spinning object.
It was amber and it was rotating very, very rapidly.
It was large and it was about a block and a half away and probably about two or 300 feet in the air.
And inside of it, counter-rotating was this aquamarine kind of color.
So it was like, it looked like a, almost like a ball of energy with counter-rotating stuff inside of it.
And it stopped and it hovered there for a while.
And then all the dogs, there was apparently a dog, like a dog kennel.
And then the thing moved off slowly a couple blocks over and then it just took off and went out over the city.
So it, you know, again, somebody tried to say it was a Chinese lantern.
And I'm like, really?
Yeah, Chinese lanterns don't stop and hover and they don't rotate.
And it was so, it was quite a unique, weird experience.
And I took some video of it, but unfortunately, of course, it's shaking.
You know, I tried to hold my hand as steady as I could.
And it's not really very worthwhile, but it's funny because you can hear my co-stars' reaction to it.
And one of them now denies that she ever believed it was anything but a Chinese lantern.
But I'm like, really?
So you always freak out when you see Chinese lanterns in the sky, right?
So that was the first experience.
And that was the first time I'd ever seen anything in the sky that I didn't recognize and could not explain.
And what you saw with the counter-rotating discs Is exactly like all of those fake videos you see on YouTube, but you actually saw it.
I actually saw it with my own eyes.
So I know it wasn't somebody doing CGI in the night sky.
So that was really weird.
I did ask somebody about it, and I was told that it was more of an energy device than an actual physical solid craft of any kind.
But then the other experience was when we were actually shooting the show in Sedona, Arizona, or actually we were in Gerald, which is a town near Sedona.
And we were up on a mountaintop and we were shooting some night vision stuff there for the show.
And the idea was just to get some footage and see if we saw anything unusual, because people have said that in that area, they do see unusual things.
And we had been watching aircraft, helicopters, light planes, jet liners, satellites had been going on for a while.
And our local guide, Melinda Leslie, said, well, after about two hours, it all drops off, especially the satellites, because then the sun's too far below the horizon.
It's not illuminating the satellites anymore.
So you're not going to see anything.
So we'd been there about two and a half hours.
And that indeed had happened.
There was no more, you know, no more stuff that was clearly satellites, no more illuminated stuff in orbit.
And we were about ready to pack up.
And Stephen Jones, who was one of my co-stars, said, he was an abductee, or at least he claims to be.
And he said, I'm going to go down and see if I can call them up.
So he went down there and he said, come visit us.
He held his hands out and it's exactly like you actually see it in the show and said, come, come appear to us.
And he says, and what's that right there?
And he looked up and I looked up and there were three objects that appeared out of nowhere, just in a triangle formation, dead stopped.
I whipped up the night vision camera on them and then they all began to move in kind of a crisscrossing pattern.
The top one went down, the left one and the right one went.
They all crossed in front of each other and then went off in directions in a very consistent rate of speed.
And they were very, very high up.
They were not low in the atmosphere.
They were way up there.
They were glowing, so they were self-luminous.
And, you know, it was just quite an amazing experience.
Do you believe that there are people who can, as you've just said, call these things down?
I'm asking you this for two reasons, really.
One, Art Bell, a while back, had a guy on called the Prophet Yahweh.
And I found him.
I put him on the air in London as well.
I was fascinated by this.
I was a big Art Bell fan.
And he said that he was going to do this and could do this at will.
And the other one was a well-known remote viewer who I used to have on the show a great deal.
And he said he was going to institute some kind of contact with another intelligence.
And these things, both of them, to my recollection, did not happen.
So, you know, your experiences of people who claim to be able to call these things down would be interesting to hear.
Yeah.
And, you know, in fact, I'm sure that there is footage.
It's on when do they want to show themselves and when do they not?
And, you know, if some people are, I don't know, I don't want to say charlatans, but not necessarily genuine or they have impure motives, maybe they're not going to make an appearance.
Maybe there was some reason they wanted to appear on national television at that particular time.
I don't know.
But there's no question in my mind that it was a real experience.
And it was kind of different because like I said, I went through the first 40 plus years of my life, never having had any experience of sighting a UFO or seeing anything in the sky I couldn't explain.
Now, some of my listeners will email me, and I love them for it.
And they will say, well, this guy writes books and he's doing TV shows.
Of course, he's going to perpetuate these things because it's good for business.
Yeah.
You know, they can say that all they want.
You know, the thing about it, Howard, is that if you're in the UFO business, you know that there's really not any money in it.
I mean, you can't, you know, the only guy I think who's ever managed to make a living talking about UFOs was Stanton Friedman.
And so that's just silly.
You know, I mean, I do this because I'm fascinated by the subject and I want to get at the truth.
And that's it.
And anybody, anybody who questions my motives for doing so, you know, there's a YouTube song called The Fly and Bono makes a statement, you know, it's not a secret that a liar won't believe anybody else.
So the way I look at it is when people call me a liar, first thing, you know, that's the first thing out of their mouth.
And I figure they're not honest people themselves.
So it's true, though, isn't it?
This whole field, the fields that you're in, and the fields that you've investigated, it does bring out some pretty intense emotions in people.
Well, it does, but again, that's because of cognitive dissonance.
I mean, you have this factor that basically what you're talking about is extraordinary information that shatters people's worldviews.
And, you know, NASA, when it was formed, actually created a study called the Brookings Report, which is now fairly famous.
And I think Richard was really one of the first people to bring it out, if not the first person, that said to NASA, if you are to find artifacts, evidence of a superior civilization on Mars or on the moon, you probably should think about covering it up because if you tell people, it will drive them crazy.
And that, in fact, is the entire basis for the film 2001, A Space Odyssey.
I mean, Kubrick was very clear about that in interviews that he gave in Playboy Magazine.
An interview, of course, I read the magazine only for the interview.
I did not read it.
Of course.
But, you know, and that's what I experienced, especially from people that work for NASA or that consider themselves scientists, because you're challenging their accepted theories and their accepted worldview.
You know, they have a particular worldview and they have a place in that worldview.
And, you know, really, people that work for NASA and do scientific research, their whole self-esteem, everything that they value about themselves is kind of based on this idea that they're superior to the rest of us.
They're smarter than the rest of us.
And if this stuff were to be true, if the face on Mars were to be proven artificial and accepted as artificial, if UFOs were proven to be real, then guess what?
They would have been wrong their entire lives.
And everything they invested their livelihood in, everything that they invested their self-worth in would be proven to be false, that they had completely missed the bigger picture.
Well, you know, Who's going to easily accept or acknowledge that particular set of facts?
They're simply not going to do that.
And again, the psychological term for it is cognitive dissidence.
And I experience that all the time.
And I can always tell when people just sort of get after me and attack me without any really good evidence, or they cite some stupid baloney thing that they read on the internet about me or something.
But again, there's nothing I can do about that.
I'm only interested really in talking to people that are actually interested in the subject that we're discussing.
People that have an open mind and don't have anything to lose by having the truth be the truth.
Well, here I am.
You worked on the NASA book, Dark Mission with Richard Hoagland.
An area that I've always been fascinated in and have never been able to get any evidence of is this whole idea that the people who went to the moon, the astronauts, national heroes, world heroes, all of them, actually came back knowing a whole lot more about what was really happening up there than we were ever told.
What do you make of that?
Well, I've heard these stories.
Again, I've seen some of the stuff that I think it was Maurice Chatelain was one of the ones who was really big on this.
And he supposedly quoted these radio transmissions.
And I've listened, I've read the transcripts of these supposed transmissions, and they just don't seem to be consistent with the way Armstrong talked, with the way the other astronauts spoke to each other, the way Capcom spoke to the Apollo astronauts.
So I just find them kind of inconsistent.
What I will say is that I have a friend named Ken Johnson Jr. who did work at NASA at the time.
And he told me that within hours of the landing on the moon, that the rumor was spreading like wildfire through NASA that there had been some private communication on the private channels that the astronauts had, that they had encountered something near the landing site, some UFOs or something along those lines.
So the fact that they were talking about it within NASA at the time of the event indicates to me that there might have been something to the story.
But in terms of what's actually been leaked about what Armstrong supposedly said, it just doesn't fit for me.
I don't believe it.
I don't believe that part of it.
But something may have happened.
And it seems like whatever it was, it stirred things up inside NASA.
Well, didn't Armstrong go on Not Friends?
I think he went on Fraser, didn't he?
And people were reading all sorts of meanings into what he said there.
Actually, that was John Glenn.
That was John Glenn.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And yeah, and I was one of them.
I actually wrote the piece for Richard's website about that.
And that's probably going to be in my next book, An Ancient Aliens and Secret Societies, which will come out next year.
But yeah, I mean, basically what he did is he went on and he, you know, there was a scene where Roz and Fraser get into an argument.
They go off into the control room and John Glenn's left there with the microphone and he starts speaking into the microphone and he looks into the camera at first.
In other words, not off into the distance, but actually into the camera as if he's speaking directly to the people at home.
And this is totally out of sight of the context of the show.
I mean, he basically just breaks off and says, you know, we did see things out there.
They forced us to lie about it.
We still see these things in our nightmares.
They won't let us talk about it.
And, you know, there's this stupid laugh track, but it's not funny in any way, shape, or form.
It's never mentioned again.
They come back in.
He says, last thing he says to Frasier is, I'm going to need that tape.
And really the thing about it is it's completely unfunny.
And, you know, if you think about it like this, imagine that you're John Glenn, American hero, right?
And you are a loyal American and you've been made a national hero and indeed probably a world-renowned hero by NASA.
So they submit to you a script in which you have to say that I personally, John Glenn, have lied to the American people.
NASA has lied to the American people.
And I see these things and they scare the hell out of me so bad that I see them now only in my nightmares.
Are you going to say yes to that?
Seriously?
Does anybody really believe that John Glenn would say yes to that?
Just as a joke?
Oh, ha, ha, ha.
Basically, he attacked the institution that made him a hero.
He attacked his own integrity.
He admitted that he was a liar, and he did all this just for a laugh.
If you were going to do that, you would call a news conference.
You wouldn't do it on Frasier and an edited TV show.
This is entertainment.
I always thought, and why, I don't know what reason I thought it was Neil Armstrong, because of course he was very reclusive.
Of course, it wasn't him.
I've always thought that anybody who says that there was more to that than meets the eye is just wrong because it's the wrong platform.
Armstrong did do something similar in 1994 on the 40th, 45th anniversary of Apollo, where he spoke at the White House and talked about uncovering truth-protective layers.
And I will disagree with you 100% that it's the wrong platform.
It's the only platform because if these guys did have to sign oaths where they could not talk about this stuff, then his only cover and his perfect cover would be, I did not violate my security oath.
All I did was go on and do a TV show and make a bunch of jokes and nobody would take that seriously.
So if they were under pressure, under security oaths, which I believe most of them are, then it actually is the right format because it's the only way you're going to be able to actually tell the story without getting yourself or your family into trouble.
So you think the men in black would slap him on the back and say, okay, you know, I understand it was only a joke, if there was anything in it.
Oh, I don't think that, but I think that it's not technically a violation of a security oath, which probably prevented him from saying anything in a public manner.
And remember, he said things in here like they were afraid of the war of the world stuff.
They were afraid that there'd be widespread panic.
So that's why we couldn't talk about this stuff.
And we believe them.
So, you know, I mean, I think it's a way to get it out there.
It's a way to clear your conscience.
It's not going to shift the argument one way or the other because the fact that it was on Frasier is plausible deniability, but it's going to get your own conscience cleared.
At least he can say to himself when he passes from this realm that, you know, I tried to tell him.
I did my best.
And actually, if I was the powers that be, I'd let him do it because for the simple reason that you and I are having this debate now about whether it was what some people have interpreted it to be.
In other words, shooting of JFK and everything else, people will be talking about what it meant forever.
Right, right.
And there's another factor in here, too, which is that I have a friend who is a very big conspiracy theorist.
And he said he's only a couple of times ever been approached.
But what he said was one of these people that approached him one time said, you know, Jordan, we aren't really worried about you because people are hearing you, but they're not listening to you.
We only worry about it if they start listening to you.
He goes, if people start listening to you, then you have something to worry about.
Otherwise, we don't care.
You can talk about whatever you want.
And I think that that's kind of the definition of the John Glenn incident, which is that even though people might have heard what he said, they're not really going to listen and it's not really going to change their perspective.
And if that were to happen, then I think you would begin to see more pressure on these guys.
And they're not listening on the level that you would need to for this to be a game changer.
You mentioned the name Jordan.
Is it the Jordan that I think it is?
It's probably the same Jordan, yes, the patron saint of conspiracy theory, Jordan Maxwell.
Jordan Maxwell.
Yep.
You have friends in high places then.
I'd love to get him on this show if you know him.
Mention it to him, will you?
I just do know him.
I didn't mean to mention Jordan's name.
So unfortunately, I guess I blew that one.
See, that's why I'm never going to get leaked anything because I can't keep my mouth shut.
I always F up and say somebody's name.
Okay, I want to talk about the moon.
It seems to me that in the era of the face on Mars, everybody was interested in Mars and everybody was looking at Mars.
And now we seem in that kind of sphere, if you pardon the pun there, to have gone back to the moon.
And now we're talking about what's really on the moon.
The moon is so close to us, I'm going to see it in the night sky in a couple of hours from now, right out of my apartment window.
It's near to us, and yet we seem to be speculating about what's really on it more now than we were, say, 30 years ago.
Right.
Well, there's more information.
There's more pictures.
There's more stuff online.
And also what's happening that's really important is people are now able to take really powerful, you know, 16-inch telescopes that you can get for the home, and they're able to take videos and so forth and post them to YouTube.
I mean, with the software we've gotten out to correct for the motion, we're able to get really, really clear videos of large features on the lunar surface.
And so there's been a ton of that stuff that's come up on YouTube.
And I think that that has stimulated a lot of conversation.
And, you know, appropriately so.
And I'm really thankful for that because hopefully it'll help me sell more copies of Ancient Aliens on the Moon.
What about all this talk about large glass structures?
I mean, really towering glass structures that are there, that are there right now.
Yeah, and I think, you know, I mean, there's lots of evidence of that.
There have been people that have tried to make really ridiculous claims that this is, there's, you know, suspended dust in the air and things like that.
It would have to be, it would have to be really rather large amounts of dust, which is kind of a hard thing to do when there's no wind to actually blow the dust up into the air.
But, you know, what's really coming through on that is that more and more people are taking photographs of the moon and they are recognizing that the moon is in fact very colorful.
There was recently somebody just posted a picture on Facebook of the moon, which I took and enhanced a little bit.
And you can see that it's pink and purple and green and all these really unusual, wide spectrum of colors.
And what would happen was, is that is if these things were real, if there really was this glass structures on the moon, what would happen is the light would pass through them.
It would be slowed down as if they were a prism and it would shift the colors, you know, either into the blue, into the red, and you would get all this multicolored myriad of colors.
So the fact is, is that the fact that people are getting these pictures of the moon and they are this colorful is a really, really strong supporting argument for the fact that the glass structures are really there.
And that's nothing to do with what may be going on in space or through our atmosphere or whatever between us and the moon.
No, no, absolutely not.
And in fact, if you don't enhance, you know, if you don't, if you just take standard pictures of the moon, it looks pretty boring.
It looks pretty bland, gray, white, kind of like NASA always wanted you to see it.
But all the pictures that are coming back from the lunar surface now are showing, including the new Chinese rover that's on there, on the surface.
Is it Japanese or Chinese?
I forget Chinese.
They're all coming back, and the lunar surface is very, very colorful.
In fact, the first color pictures we ever took from the surface of the moon back in the surveyor days came back really, really brightly colored with all these different colors of the rainbow on the surface of the moon.
And we thought there was something wrong with the equipment.
And it turns out now there's nothing wrong with the equipment.
In fact, that's really what the surface of the moon looks like.
And it's because the light is being scattered and bounced and refracted and reflected all over the place by these glass structures, which I think are over a very large percentage of the lunar surface.
There was a woman that interviewed you called Betty or Betsy or something, one of the shows that I heard you on while listening for material about you on the internet.
She was very transfixed by the idea that the moon was hollow and, of course, went back to that experiment that was done where a bit of a spacecraft was fired back onto the lunar surface and the thing rang like a bell.
And what did you make of that?
Well, not a Betsy, not a Betty or Betsy about the theory.
Oh, yeah, Betsy was downright sexy.
No, I kind of remember that interview.
I'm sure she'll appreciate me saying that.
Come on.
It actually, that's an interesting case.
I think it's from Apollo 16, but I'm not positive, where they actually, you know, had set up a bunch of seismic stations on the lunar surface through the landings we had done.
And they deliberately fired the ascent module, the ascent stage of the lunar module into the lunar surface, and they measured the impact.
And it did ring for something like 14 hours after the impact had actually struck the lunar surface, the impact of the ascent stage.
And that indicates that there were vast areas of the lunar surface or the lunar substructure that were hollow.
And, you know, that is something that you would not expect given the theories of how the moon supposedly has formed.
Certainly in the accretion model, if the accretion model is correct, there can't be these vast voids inside the moon.
And in fact, you know, it's pretty interesting when they did the mission a few years ago, and oh, God, the names of these missions escape me, but it was where they were going to fire, it was L-Cross, where they were going to fire basically a chunk of the spacecraft into the lunar surface.
And the idea was they were going to shoot it into this dark crater where there might be ice, and it would cause a plume.
And then the L-Cross, the orbiter, would fly through the plume and evaluate whether there was water ice there.
Yeah, I remember this one.
Hoagland was very, very, very keen on this one.
He called it La Crosse, I remember.
Yeah, and when they fired it in there, it just disappeared.
It went like, you know, like as if you were to throw a rock into a deep, deep puddle of mud, and it just went clump and disappeared.
And so they went back trying to find this plume, and they started enhancing and enhancing and enhancing the impact area.
And what they found was a bright spot, which they thought was the plume, which I don't think is the plume at all.
But what you could clearly see was that in the shadow area there, the lunar surface was actually pulled apart.
It was like skin that had been stretched apart.
And underneath it, you could see what was inside.
And what was inside was these vast dark areas crisscrossed by tubes and beams and what appear to be artificial structures, like virtually like the Krell ruins out of the old science fiction movie Forbidden Planet.
I mean, that's exactly what it looked like.
And NASA released those images and, of course, didn't comment on them.
But, you know, you got to give them credit for actually putting the images out because, you know, you look at it and indisputably when I look at that, I'm saying, okay, this is where the skin is split and torn apart.
And underneath, you've got the actual substrate of the moon.
And it does look like there are these vast empty chambers or partially empty chambers, which have machinery, equipment, old, again, you know, Krell ruins inside of them.
It's pretty astonishing stuff.
And all of a sudden, the moon becomes the Truman Show.
Yeah, exactly.
Very quickly, should have asked you this at the time.
Let's take it back to Mars.
A curiosity.
A year ago, all of us were completely transfixed by the images and trying to see things in them.
And I looked at them and I saw on some occasions, some of them I looked at and I thought, yes, they are regular.
They look like fragments of something.
And then I'd go back to the same picture sometimes the night after and I think, no, it's just rubble.
What did you make of them?
Well, I mean, I've seen, you know, there's a whole army of people that, there's several good groups on Facebook.
There's a whole army of people that go out there and look at these images.
There's one called The Mars Reality, which I really recommend.
And I've been David Paterno's Mars page.
And they have people that look through all these Sol images that come out every day and look for stuff.
And I mean, I have seen what is undeniably to me mechanical debris.
Now, you know, my professional career before I started writing full-time was as an aerospace mechanical engineer.
I was in mechanical engineering.
And I know what pieces of airplanes look like.
I know what sheet metal parts look like.
I know what basically what air conditioners and different kinds of mechanical bits look like.
And in the Spirit rovers, the Opportunity rovers, and now in Curiosity, you can see stuff scattered all over that clearly is, to me, it's not rocks.
It looks like artificial stuff.
My favorite is this thing I call the phaser, which looks like Captain Kirk dropped his phaser on the Martian surface and the tip broke off.
And it's just, it's a plastic, you know, there's like some sort of casing that appears to be plastic and there's tubes.
There's things that look like jet engine casings.
There's stuff with, there's all kinds of artificial stuff all over the surface.
And really all you have to do is look at it.
And I've actually passed a lot of this stuff on to a friend of mine named Kimberly Reck, who's kind of a gearhead who builds, you know, rebuilds and builds cars and stuff.
And she's like, oh yeah, that's a heat exchanger.
Oh, yeah, that's a piston head.
And, you know, I mean, I can show you stuff that's just absolutely extraordinary, absolutely mechanical.
And they've been discovered by all these people that are doing this independent research.
And there's also other stuff, too.
Robert Morningstar, you know, put out a picture of an object, a rock, that clearly is covered in moss.
I mean, it's just like, it's all fuzzy from the moss.
And when you enhance the color on the image, it's green.
And the only way to prove this stuff is to go there, isn't it?
Well, it would be to go there.
But you can, unless you think that all the photographs that NASA has taken are fake.
One thing I will say to the amateur sleuths, they're always so worried about somebody stealing their work, you know, and I've always tried to give full credit to anything.
As soon as I can find, if I can find who the discoverer is, I make sure I give him full credit.
But the thing you've got to do is you've got to give people a link back to the original image so they can go back and look at it.
I mean, I've even seen stuff that clearly appears to be fossils.
They look like very similar to very similar fossils to dinosaurs here on Earth.
There's long spines, things that clearly look like spines.
And I mean, the idea that this is, even though it looks exactly like fossilized remains on Earth, that they're not fossils because they're on Mars is to me just a logical, it's a logical dichotomy that I just can't make.
And so I just, you know, really don't understand the debunkers on this one.
They're just, to me, there's stuff all over the place.
And I've been fascinated by what Curiosity's spotted so far.
And I can't wait for it to keep going because I'm sure that there'll be more and more images of really extraordinary mechanical stuff.
So, you know, you're seeing things from orbit, big stuff like the face on Mars and the pyramids of Elysium.
And then you're seeing stuff in the mid-range, the medium range.
You see what look like dried up riverbeds and rather large cities and structures.
And then you get down to the base level, the ground level, and you see artificial mechanical stuff that clearly are not rocks.
And again, this is one of my presentations.
One of the things I like to do is take people through and show them mechanical devices from Earth side by side with stuff that's on Mars and just ask, why can't they be the same thing?
If it's mechanical here, why is it not mechanical on Mars?
Mike Barrow, keep asking the questions.
Are you working on anything right now?
What's your newest project?
Well, actually, yeah, I'm actually finishing up a screenplay for someone.
I actually do some fictional writing.
It's a cute little horror story.
If a horror story can be cute.
And then after that, I have a new book to write for next year called Ancient Aliens and Secret Societies.
And then I'm going to be doing things like opening the new MUFON in San Luis Obispo, California, a couple of other speaking engagements before the end of the year.
And I'll be doing Hanger 1, the TV show about the MUFOHON TV show.
I'll be doing a couple episodes of that this fall.
You luck.
I was going to say you lucky man, but it's a lot of hard work, so the hard work, what did some of I think that goes for you, Mike Barra.
Yeah, thanks.
I appreciate that.
And I like that to be the case.
So I'm looking forward to that.
If anybody wants to know about you, your work, where do they go online?
Well, you can just type in Mike Barra on Google, and my blog should come up.
MikeBarra.blogspot.com is the actual address, or you can find me on Facebook.
I am full up on friends on Facebook for my personal profile, but I have an author page.
So go to MikeBarra with one R, MikeBarra author, and you can friend me up there, and I keep that up to date as well.
And then there's YouTube.
I'm at MikeBarra33 on Twitter.
You can always follow me on Twitter.
I love Twitter feeds.
And then I have an Instagram account, but I primarily use that for personal stuff.
Bye.
That's comprehensive stuff.
Mike Barra, thank you very much.
And when you do the book about secret societies, when it comes out, let's talk again.
I'd love to do that again, Howard.
That'd be great.
I think you'd really like that book.
Well, I've talked about secret societies before, but I'd love that take that you're working on very much indeed.
So let's do it.
Thank you, Mike, very much.
You're welcome, Howard.
Thanks for having me.
Well, the thoughts of Mike Barra.
I'll put a link to his work on my website, www.theunexplained.tv.
Thank you very much for all of your support.
I couldn't do any of this without you being there and spreading the word.
You've said some very nice things, and your comments, whatever they may be, I always take on board.
And hopefully, I try to develop the shows and develop myself.
I might have been broadcasting for years, which I have, but that doesn't mean that I think that I'm God's gift to broadcasting in any way.
I can always improve, and I can only do that if I get your thoughts.
We have more great guests coming soon.
Like I said at the top of the show, we hopefully have a 9-11 special coming next.
Watch this space for that.
But until next, we meet here on The Unexplained.
And with thanks to Adam Cornwell, my webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool, stay safe, stay calm, and stay in touch.
My name is Howard Hughes.
I'm in London.
This has been The Unexplained.
Take care.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection