April 25, 1996: UFOs - Richard C. Hoagland

To the Roswell Museum acquiring um alleged Roswell wreckage. To my acquisition of alleged Roswell wreckage. Which you can see on my webpage, of course. At www.artbell.com. W dot artbell.com And I will tell you this this morning, uh that wreckage is now in the hands of an independent And there will be spectrographic and uh many other tests performed on it and I don't know when we'll have the results. My guess would be sometime next week, maybe. So it's been one revelation after another.

I thought it would be a good time since I know he has comments on all of these things going. Uh to catch you up on what uh this Ingstrom Science Award winner Press conference holder, s uh prior science advisor to Walter Cronkite in NASA.

Richard Hoagland, uh, from New York, once again has brought himself out of the sleep state at about two o'clock in the morning back east or now after and is here with us. Hello, Richard. Good evening, Art. How you doing? I'm awake. Yes, well that's a beginning. It certainly is an interesting time. The Chinese, you know, have this curse. And uh I think we are all being cursed. Oh. Well, may you live in interesting times. Well, we uh I don't know if that's a curse. I you know, some days it is.

Well that's how the Chinese termed it. And I think it's because at a time when that I don't know whether it was Confucius or somewhat later, but promote the human history, at least the human history that we have been given. the normal state of affairs was nothing changed. Mm-hmm. And if things changed, they usually changed for the worst. So the co the concept that if you lived in interesting changing times it was a curse.

was because most changes were of an of an ill variety. Negative nature. In this case, I I really don't know whether these changes bode ill or good for us. Um Considering if the status quo has not been good for us, I think change is at least Got a fifty fifty shot of you know, boating better for it. So I'm encouraged by the developments, particularly the fact that you're gonna get a chance to talk to Doctor Mitchell directly tomorrow night, which I have been unable to uh to achieve.

And obviously I have a couple of questions I would like to pass along for you to ask him on my behalf. So uh if you had doctor Mitchell here and now, what would you ask? Well, the key question of course is we have evidence equivalent to the document discovered in Hillary's library. Which despite protestations to the contrary, everyone asks how could it get there without her knowing about it? Well, we have photographs of doctor Mitchell standing on the moon.

They're on your website. They're going to be on hours within hours. um showing the good doctor standing underneath some remarkable structures on the lunar surface during the nineteen seventy one Apollo fourteen mission, what I would ask him is simply Why are you claiming the government is concealing evidence of a crash fifty years ago, half a century ago in an isolated part of the New Mexican desert? And you would have us believe that they're being totally forthcoming.

as you are on what was found during the Apollo missions when there is photographic evidence to the contrary. Well, let me give you a what if and tell me if this could not If uh the American public is being prepared to assimilate information that has been held secret for a very long time. Might it not be easier to begin by suggesting to them they assimilate

uh something that occurred, you know, many years ago, like in nineteen forty seven, first, which is sort of a non threatening assimilation. Um to be told that uh for example that there are structures on the moon, Mr Hoagland is right. Uh would be a little much all at once. Well you see I think that's exactly it if you'll pardon the expression, ass backwards. My take on this and that of my colleagues, people who were with us in Washington at the press conference, anthropologists, geologists,

sociologists, you know, psychiatrists. I mean we've consulted over the years with a large number of people starting with the Mars problem, starting with Sidonia and looking at, you know, what this would do to the human condition, what this would do to the human psyche. This was even before

Brookings, you know, this report. The one that I that I believe is accurate and you don't believe is accurate. Well I I mean the the accuracy is is unquestioned that this document was written with the document. In other words I I believe in this Let let us uh educate the audience. I get a lot of I've got so many new listeners. Uh Brookings basically said that if we were uh to suddenly encounter a superior

um intelligence from elsewhere there would be a societal breakdown. Now that simplifies it but that's kind of what the Brookings report said. And I I happen to believe it's true, Richard. You know what I've been getting called lately by uh several callers? The devil's mouthpiece. That's what they're calling me the devil's mouthpiece for even dealing with this kind of material. And that anything uh that would purport to be from elsewhere would be of the devil.

And the devil's work. Now Yeah, even though it was Jesus himself who said, In my father's house are many mansions. I mean Many can play this game of of calling people names. That's that's neither here nor there. Here is my point. Free from the beginning, even before we found Brooking. thought that if we if we really were looking at ruins out there It would be very non threatening to everybody for the following reasons. One is they're dead and gone.

Mm. The stuff we're looking at is millions if not hundreds of millions of years old. It is ancient and it is abandoned. There's nobody home. So that's the first point. The next point is we found it. We meaning the human species. It was a proactive act on our part as part of

you know, uh the kind of extrapolating of the Western frontier to space as part of the great, you know, Kennedy New Frontier. We sent these spacecraft, unmanned and if Apollo is correct now manned out there And boys and girls, we found this ourselves. So it's very proactive. We're in the driver's seat. We can control. Remember the old outer limits?

We control all that you see in here, we control the information. Well, we meaning whoever went with these spacecraft and found it on behalf of the American people, could control the flow of information and We always thought, those of us who'd given this a lot of of of care and and and thinking over the years, that the most non threatening way to unveil that the human species is not alone would be to start with a bunch of dead ancient ruins.

Where there isn't a living soul, nothing can harm us. The only thing that can come back is information. Just one little kink in that scheme. Well, let me let me finish my thought. Well no, let me kink it first. Uh and and then you can answer that if you want. I mean a lot of the religious faithful, Richard, will will tell you without question and with utter faith that um

All of this is no more than six thousand years old. So man's not b well let's assume they're only six thousand years old. They're still not born yesterday. Yes, but I know, but that will uh certainly challenge the biggest thing.

Yeah, but y you know look, a ruin is a ruin is a ruin. You and I can argue'til the cows come home how old they are. The fact is that there's nobody home. By definition the stuff we're looking at is battered, ancient, smashed in in ruins. It's not a thriving metropolis right now.

Right. So here's my problem with Mitchell and with Cooper and with the fact that you've been given, you know, snippets of something allegedly from the Roswell crash and apparently according to your own promo on the show tonight, the Roswell Museum itself has gotten a separate

you know which is also undergoing testing by the way. Yes, and and here I should tell you, Richard, that the people who got the piece in Roswell and those people who are testing it, whose names I will not reveal Uh think also that something is going on right now, that there is an intentional feeding of misinformation or disinformation And that that piece in Roswell and the piece I have may well be part of it and that of course could easily be. Well, all right.

um sincere when he claims that the US government has been hiding this. Let's claim that Gordon Cooper, who I know by the way uh is going to say some pretty stalwart things because I was able to act as a kind of a catalyst to put him in touch with the borderline or borderland folks. I see. Because of a luncheon he had with one of our associates Weeks before the press conference. where he in fact revealed that

A Roswell existed and B they meaning the government had a real problem because they don't know how to come out of the closet without being fried by the American people. Oh yeah. Well, from that conference at lunch with my friend several weeks ago to May seventh or to when they taped the show, which I guess was a couple of weeks ago, something has transpired, some event has taken place and suddenly we have astronauts willing, gleeful, to unburden their soul. About everything.

what is waiting on the moon for us to confirm or is waiting on Mars. Now this is my question. They have chosen whoever is masterminding this plan, this unveiling, this this controlled slow leak of information. And there's other data points we can fill in as the evening progresses.

They have chosen not the safe route, which is ancient ruins, whether they're six thousand or six million or six billion years old, you know, take a number and and wait your wait your turn. They have chosen the hotbusan incendiary very precipitous, uh very fearful to some people, live aliens.

that fell to earth only fifty years ago and you know of course that there's reports that there's folks still around. I've heard that see once you open the door to aliens and spaceships who have come here, you can never close that door. Because if they could come once they could come again. You bet. And again. And again. So what I'm seeing if this is a government program to get us used to the idea we're not alone, they have chosen for reasons that are extraordinarily inexplicable

the most incendiary route as opposed to the most diffusing route. And this I find fascinating and I have a couple of thoughts as to what might really be going on.

Uh let's back up a little bit. You uh raised a very interesting point with me the other day on the phone. You said that uh there was a program, I believe, with Michael Jackson down on my affiliate K B C in Los Angeles. That's right.

uh in which uh certain individual um was being interviewed. Well Carl Sagan who in in a former life was a was a friend of mine. I mean we did a lot of interesting things together. I invited him on some of my cruises you know, the Stotendom, the Q E two, he helped us uh go through the South Atlantic during the last Apollo mission to the moon.

He and many other interesting people, Catherine Ann Porter, Hugh Downs, uh Norman Maylor, uh Robert and Ginny Heinlein, uh quite a sterling uh cast were assembled and and Carl and at that time his wife Linda Sagan. came as as my guest and we had an extraordinary adventure both in spirit and in mind and in body, cruising for two weeks through the South Atlantic during the Apollo seventeen, december nineteen seventy two final journey to and from the moon.

And I've known Carl a long time and when I really got fastened on the Mars problem on Sidonia, it pained me no small end that Carl chose to be on the other side of the fence, that he deliberately chose

for reasons that are still quite inexplicable, to tell everybody that there was nothing there, that he could see nothing. He even went so far as to um take a look intensively one afternoon on Capitol Hill in the mid nineteen eighties at a set of enlargements that we had produced as part of the first SRI investigation of the Sidonian material from Viking.

in the presence of Tom Rotenberg, who was then director of our study at the University of California, Berkeley, and Dr. David Webb, who had just been appointed to President Reagan's Space Commission. And at the end of this extremely intensive investigation, which also was accompanied by doctor Lewis Friedman, who is then and is currently the executive director of doctor Sagan's Planetary Society, who refused

absolutely refused to even look at the Sidonia pictures. It was a little bit like the Cardinals who refused to look through the telescope. I can't see that. They kept trying to call him over to look at the pictures, Sagan tried to get Friedman to look at the pictures and and Friedman refused. At the end of this rather remarkable session on Capitol Hill. Which had been occasioned.

by Senator Spart Marks Matsunaga from Hawaii calling a uh congressional hearing on the concept of a joint US Soviet manned expedition to Mars. Remember, this is before the Cold War was ended, mm-hmm and Sagan was championing

to everybody's stunned amazement, a joint US Soviet manned mission as a way of bringing East and West together and creating a geopolitical um you know cooper cooperative venture that would surmount the the the Cold War and and perhaps serve to diffuse the threat of of World War Three, nuclear war. During all during the height of this this uh hearing he was looking at these Sidonian images.

And the most amazing thing, uh which I report in in in monuments in my book on this, which has been attested to recently again by doctor Webb, is that is that Sagan called Webb to one side. as the political representative of the administration, of the Reagan administration. And he said that under no circumstances at that time would he ever admit

that that meeting had ever taken place, that he had ever intensively looked at the Sidonia photography or found any of it interesting. So that was a situation that obtained circa nineteen eighty four, eighty five.

when Billy Cox, who was the reporter for uh Florida Today who Ed Mitchell a few weeks ago asked to be interviewed by, uh, as I'm sure you will come up on the show tomorrow night, when Billy Cox got on this story in um the late eighties, eighty eight or eighty nine, and call Sagan on this issue because I'd mentioned it in monuments Sagan absolutely categorically denied that the meeting had ever taken place or he'd ever taken Webb aside and claimed he would deny the meeting had ever taken place.

Webb, when Cox reached him for comment, said doctor Sagan is mistaken. The meeting did take place. He did say the things he said and I will stand by my statement that Hoglan is correct. He claimed that he would deny that that meeting ever took place, that he ever had actually examined those photographs, and in fact he did. So now we have last Thursday afternoon, or Thursday morning I guess, a week ago.

We have Carl Sagan uh plugging his latest book, which is called The Demon Haunted World. Science as a candle in the dark. Yes. That's a perspective on how Carl views planet Earth, you know, right now.

Um saying to a listener who called in at the end of the program uh asking about me and the Sidonia work and all that, saying after the usual diatribe about eggplants and Richard Nixon and lookalikes and faces being seen anywhere He suddenly says to Michael Jackson's stunned amazement, but I could be wrong. there could be something there and then he called for intensive re photography via the new missions that NASA now has going back, leaving later this year

for intensive re photography all of what we thought from Mars Observer when the missions arrive in the next year or two. Specifically of Sidonia. Of Sidonia. And Jackson, who was stunned'cause he was giving this kind of supercilious Home home Pia we got a face in the parking lot and that's our our station manager. He said, Doctor Sagan, you're not serious. And Sagan said in that kind of wry way he has, I could be wrong.

Now, what I am asking everyone tonight to think about is what has changed in the last thirteen years. Carl Sagan has been maintaining that this is nonsense, this is idiocy, this is lunacy, this is you know, seeing faces in p potato chips, uh, you know, Richard Nixon on eggplant. All the demeaning spurs against both uh science and character and and and and the usual. Suddenly Within days of our press conference in Washington,

Carl Sagan is now saying publicly that he could be wrong on this issue and Dick Hogan might be right. All right. Dick Holdland, uh hold it right there for just a moment. We'll be right back to you. So that's what happened on uh K A B C some days ago. I would ask what has changed in the last half year or so. The dominoes are beginning to clearly fall. I wonder what direction they're headed in. We'll be back.

After eating dinner, we all settled into the living room, began talking casually. I was itching to ask him about the Hogland findings and other hot topics on that subject. When I found a segue, I went for it. His response was most interesting. Paraphrasing the conversation went like this he said that in his opinion, the next logical steps after landing on the Moon were to send a man mission to Mars and to start the process of building a base on the Moon.

I then asked him if he thought the reason neither of these things ever happened was due to the structures Hogland claims were found on the Moon during the Apollo missions. The astronauts responded. was affirmative. He added that it is highly unlikely that NASA or the government will ever come forward and share this evidence with the public. When I asked him about UFOs and the crash at Roswell, he said that it seems more likely than not that indeed there was a crash there.

Though he said all these statements were just his opinion. It was evident to me and everybody else that he knew more than he was saying the way he stated his opinions. Seemed more like he was stating facts. His eyes would get wide when he responded to questions. He knew the answers too, but couldn't give, instead he'd just give his opinion.

The conversation just reinforced my belief. There's something to all the allegations of Hogland and others. Hopefully, this gentleman and others in his position will decide to share what they know and So the truth can be finally found. Robin in Houston. There you go, Richard. Interesting.

Well I think the wall is crumbling and the question as you praise it before the break is in which direction. Yes. We can paint two scenarios. One is that like cattle we are being guided into a chute, not of our making, and herded in a direction not to our liking to truth not of our, you know, uh apprehension.

The other possibility, which I prefer tonight to maintain is is at least possible if not likely, is that there is an inevitability here and the folks on the inside who obviously know everything we don't know They know how much there is left for us to find. And what they're seeing is a trend curve which is rapidly building in this direction in our face. And so what you see is the phenomena of what we used to call the rats on the sinking ship. It's every man for himself and

And the smartest are getting out in front and claiming, well it was those other guys. It wasn't me. Um they've been hiding stuff but not me. Mhm. Okay? And again you won't have a sterling opportunity. Mr. Bell, tomorrow night to put one of these people under a microscope. Remember, this is a public servant. This man went to where no no no large number of people have ever been before at taxpayer expense.

If he is to maintain that the photographs, the data, the evidence we have, the testimony of people like Ken Johnston is all made up And that the government that he claims is lying about everything else vis and UFOs and all that, is being truthful when it claims that it put him there and he never knew what was around him. Then he's a better man than I, Gungadin, but I frankly don't think that he can maintain that very much longer. Well um how would he approach

Changing it. I mean just a flat statement, uh here it is. Um I Well looking at the what's the what's the worst that will happen? The question you need to ask him point blank is, Ed, what are you afraid of? Are they gonna cut you off to Leavenworth? I mean give me a break.

This is not going to happen. This is not a realistic scenario. The American people, to any astronaut who was put in jail or attacked by the judiciary or the Justice Department, or Janet Reno, for breaking security oaths would be surrounded fifteen million deep in the morning by angry citizens who would come to their defense as American heroes who are as much a prisoners of a system as the as the hostages in Iran were.

This is not a realistic projection. These people will suffer no fate because there is a higher calling here. It's called the Constitution of the United States. It is legitimate for individuals the Nuremberg trials affirm this to basically contravene unlawful orders when the common good dictates in their own conscience that they disobey those uh illegal orders.

In fact, if these astronauts, military individuals, have been being the good soldiers and maintaining the party line because they were told to, it's time they did a little thinking on their own and looked around this landscape and realized that this country is in dire straits because for thirty years we've been living without this priceless knowledge that we paid forty billion dollars in nineteen nineties dollars now to send these men to the moon to find, to return, to bring home.

I find it fascinating that as we're having this conversation, a few miles away from me here, maybe a mile or two, there is an auction going on at Sotheby. Jackie Kennedy's personal uh possessions are being parson parceled out. Enough money to go back to the moon. It that's almost what I was gonna say, all right? And when I think what her husband tried to do and how he was cut down in the prime before it could be accomplished, and how his vision now, very apparently to me, was hijacked.

by a tiny handful of very venial and selfish people who have used this information for their own ends. If Ed Mitchell wants to get on the side of the angels That side is the American people and a higher calling to the constitution under which this republic was founded. And he needs to be forthcoming and say, Yeah, not only have they been hiding Roswell on you.

But by the way, we saw some very interesting things when they sent us where no one had gone before, and I want to tell you tonight what we really found. If Ed Mitchell would do that, he would be such a hero in the eyes of the American people. But instead he seems to be trying to have his cake to eat it too, claiming they've been hiding, you know, real aliens coming to us

But they haven't, you know, been hiding the uh apparent ruins in which he and Alan Shepherd landed almost thirty years ago. Well You're gonna have an interesting interview. he will say. Just uh a little prediction. What do you expect? Well, I d I I I I don't want to supersede the conversation. I think that this is going to be you appealing to Ed Mitchell's higher nature. Ed Mitchell has a higher nature.

Many years ago when I was setting up one of my ship things, Ed Mitchell was involved in helping me craft it, the voyage beyond Apollo. Um, I learned a great deal in working with Doctor Mitchell. He has become very good friends in recent years of someone that I worked very closely with, Carol Rosen, who was uh Werner von Braun's protege.

when she was at Fairchild Industries. When when Werner left the space program he went to private industry before he died of cancer back in the mid seventies. Mhm. And he developed this this teacher, Carol Rosin, who when when he passed on turned and um collaborated on some very interesting projects with doctor Mitchell. I know that Ed believes that the human species needs to advance, it needs to evolve, it needs to reach and transcend its limits.

And all I would say to him if I were in your shoes is, Ed, you got one hell of an opportunity here Go for it. The American people are ready. They're past ready for the truth. All the truth. Not spin doctor truth. Not leave me out of it. I'm not to blame kind of truth.

But all the truth. We're adults. We can take it and we deserve it. All right, let's talk again about the photograph that you've got of Ed Mitchell. Well, it's more than one. I mean we only put one up on the website, but we've got dozens. uh photographs of him and shepherd under the structures at Fraumaro. I've now been looking at the landing footage. You know, each of the lunar modules carried a variety of cameras. Still cameras and and sixty millimeter cameras.

The sixty millimeter cameras during some parts of the mission were mounted on brackets in the windows, in those big triangular windows of the lunar module as they came in for the landing. Literally in preparation for tonight's show a couple nights ago I took some of the frames of the landing footage from the lunar module Antares as it came down for the landing at Fraumaro.

and I rectified them and I enhanced them. And you can see in this footage, which we'll put up on our on our website, and we'll get to what I mean by that in a minute. You can see the remains of ruins at the landing site as the spacecraft came in before the landing. It looks like you were landing in the middle of Hiroshima after the bomb had hit. You can see rectilinearity, you can see square craters.

Have you ever known craters to be square art? No. No, they're not. Do craters have walls, ramparts? Do they have lineations? Do they have crinolations on them that go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth at right angles? Like stair steps? Well they ha craters have sides, right? Well they are they're s they're round explosion holes. Yes. impact of hyper velocity objects moving at several miles per second that strike the surface and then explode.

smooshed out area as opposed to a perfect hole, which would mean a direct impact, right? Actually the experiments that NASA conducted years ago with AIM uh and at Johnston indicate that most impacts even at shallow angles will create a circular hole. It's because the velocities are so high. We're we're not talking about bullets into, you know, furniture or or concrete. We're talking about objects that are moving at miles per second.

If if something is moving at miles per second, when it strikes a solid object The the impact is faster than the speed of sound in the object. Therefore the dynamics of the resulting conversion of kinetic energy into potential or potential energy into into a thermal energy is very, very, very high.

um it creates a round explosion crater. It's it's like a bomb goes off, even at a very shallow angle. What we're seeing in these approach shots And we will put them up on the web so people can see them. We are seeing the lunar module anteriores landing in what if I showed this to an anthropologist or an archaeologist would look like an aerial photograph taken in the mid east of some of the um Sumerian or Babylonian or Assyrian uh tells and berms and uh

and ancient cities drifted over by by desert sand. All right, let me tell you what a lot of people say, Richard, because this is important. They look at your photograph. and our NASA's photographs, enhanced by you. And they say, but look, this is all... Pixel stuff. Uh we're down so far into the pixel range and magnified uh so much that you could it's almost like a giant space row shock test and you could see anything in this. But they're wrong.

Well, all they have to do is the size of the pixels is far below the size of the structures. I mean this this is not it uh this is not even up for debate. This is simple numbers.

You know, if these people are claiming we're looking at things at the pixel level then they haven't looked at these pictures very carefully. It's what they come up with. Now that's a different a different tale.'Cause you're right. A lot of people don't know what they're seeing. The reason a lot of people don't know what they're seeing is because a lot of people don't know what they're seeing about everything. We have bequeathed our birthright, our our destiny to experts.

In most areas of human activity we do not make our own decisions. We wait for someone to tell us what reality is. One of the interesting process problems of this investigation has been we're laying information out before people who do not know.

have even a modicum of expertise to know how to look at pictures and make decisions. They have to go through a learning experience. Mm-hmm. And what I've seen, which is on the beneficial side, is a lot of people because they care, they want to know the answer. They're doing their homework to learn what pixels are, to learn what gamma curves are, to learn what contrast enhancements are, what high pass filters are.

You know, the reason that we we have the gallery opening here in New York and the pill photographs are still up is that I wanted to show to photographers Professional photographers. Remember our conversation tonight about how half of New York is made up of photographers. Sure. Um what these photos, some of them look like untouched by any computer at all. directly from a negative out of Houston to a large piece of photographic paper to a to a wall, you know, in a in a gallery in New York City.

And at the end of that evening, surrounded by a lot of photographers, not one of these professionals could should demonstrate to me that they knew how this stuff got on these pictures. It's not blemishes, it's not reticulation, it's not bacteria, it's not sun glints, it's not diet. scratches, it's it's nothing that they'd ever seen before. All right. The last time you were on, you did impress me. You said, look, we've now got two frames

looking at the same object from different points uh in as the craft orbited uh the moon. And that was impressive, showing the same object um uh at the same height above the moon from a different angle, right? Uhhuh. Now that is impressive because uh that argues against photographic anomaly, not in two photographs, not from a different angle, not with the same size object, no way. Is that about right? Yeah, and we have more than one example of this kind of redundant redundancy of data now.

But the objects we're talking about twenty miles or more above the surface of the moon um It's just it's impossible, it seems, that the astronauts is there any way that the astronauts could not have seen These objects. There's no way. There's no trick of light nor the fact that they were basically um a nearly clear, made of glass. No right. In the beginning when we were looking at the orbital stuff.

I was holding out as one possibility that in fact, you know, as in many human endeavors, which you have a huge enterprise, a huge undertaking, a huge operation like D Day All kinds of mistakes can be made. Right. It was at least theoretically possible because of the alien nature of what we're seeing. Because of the unexpected, the stunningly unexpected psychological impact of what we're seeing. the fact that I spent years before I went public. Remember I did not go public with the moon data.

until years after we started looking. It was the phase on Mars and Sidonia region for for you for a long time. And I didn't talk about that in public until for f for five years until we published monuments. Until

I'd wrung every possible explanation other than the one that we're driven to out of the data that it could be anything but E. T. artifacts, extraterrestrial design structures. Well with the moon Because of the learning curve with Mars we're able to collapse five years into about two, two and a half years.

But it was two, two and a half years before I said anything to anybody other than people coming looking quietly at this data here, both in analog form, the photographs, and in computer form, among members of the of the Mars mission team. And it was only at Ohio State that I felt confident enough to lay out in that four hour presentation for that group of people there in in in the auditorium, what we were beginning to strongly believe that there were in fact data on these NASA images

that could not be explained by any conventional geological explanation. Now I have since talked to a lot of geologists I had one sitting in the audience in Memphis the other night. I went down was invited down to present to the auditorium at Memphis State University in Memphis, Tennessee, and I spent six hours on a stage going through, you know, a couple of hundred pictures.

and I had a very technically minded crowd in that in that auditorium. I had a lot of computer people, I had some photographers, I had some geologists I even had some skeptics. I have one skeptic in particular who the the um my host had tried to get to look at this data for months and months and months and months and they were always given a cold shoulder. Well that night they came I guess basically to laugh, you know, as some people have been wont to do.

At the end of the evening this one skeptic came up to my host and said he was incredibly happy he'd been invited because what he had seen had tipped him over the edge. He now understood there was a real problem here, both politically with NASA

and scientifically with a geological interpretation of a moon that cannot allow for things such as we're seeing in this data. All right, hold it right there, Richard. Uh relax for a few minutes, we'll get back to you. Uh since you mentioned Memphis Uh of course I have an affiliate right there in Memphis. a WMC, the mighty WMC. And I would like to invite anybody who attended that

uh particular talk, uh to give us a call right now at one eight hundred eight two five five zero three three. If everybody else would be so kind as to hold off. Uh one eight hundred eight two five five zero three three. If you happen to be one of the people that were in the audience there in Memphis. That would be a useful um

Bit of input to get from you as we continue this morning with Richard C. Hogland, Science Advisor to Walter Cronkite, Angstrom Science Award winner. There'll be more coming up next.

Hiart, after hearing Richard Hoagland explain that because of hyperdimensional physics, nineteen point five degrees latitude on a planet, any planet, has special qualities, an article in the current issue of Aviation Week in Space Technology caught my eye. The article concerns Project Pathfinder, which is going to land on Mars and send out a rover to explore the surface. Guess where they're sending it? That's right. It'll land at nineteen point five degrees north latitude on Mars.

The landing site is an oval area located in an outflow channel near the mouth of the I is it Aries Valley, nineteen point five degrees north, thirty two point eight degrees west. The site was selected for its position near the equator which provides a higher level of solar energy. and for its relatively low elevation.

The elevation requirement necessary to provide sufficient time for For the twenty four foot diameter parachute to slow the entry vehicle to terminal velocity and to give the radar altimeter time to acquire the surface and begin making reading. Would you please ask Richard Hoagland about this? Richard? Yeah, it's all true. What's even more remarkable is the spacecraft, which is a uh twenty two pound mini rover powered by solar cells. It has a flat panel on top that will recharge batteries.

that will then drive electric motors so the rover can go well, some distance from the landing craft. The landing craft after entry and and being set down by parachute is a tetrahedral shaped capsule. Hm. It has three panels that will fall out at one twenty degrees. The rover is attached by clamps to one of these panels and then it will literally drive off the panel onto the Martian desert.

You know, the whole the whole thing is about the size of a coffee table. Uh the uh the rover, the twenty two pound rover. Mhm. And the spacecraft itself is slightly bigger. But they're sending a tetrahedral shaped spacecraft to nineteen point five degrees on Mars, which if you put a tetrahedron in a sphere, that's where the touch points are. Nineteen point five degrees.

And these folks claim that we're crazy. They claim that they know nothing about we're talking about. Yet Carl Sagan has broken ranks now and claims that well after all these years, maybe he's wrong and maybe I'm right. What is going on or nor the other way around? Maybe I'm wrong and maybe he's right. Uh yes, I I don't know. Um I know that Carl Sag doctor Sagan is um has a probable terminal illness now.

And uh we're all mortal beings, Richard, and it may be toward the end of your life that uh you begin to rethink things and review everything you've done and I don't know what I'm saying here but things I'm sure change for you, uh, as you realize your own mortality.

Could that be it? Well, I mean that is highly speculative. He claimed on Michael Jackson that in fact he is in pretty good health. Uh he doesn't look well, but he is you know, he's not he's not saying anything, he's saying in fact he is in good health. Um he is

Carl is a very bright person. I can say that because I've known him a long time. I have been pained that he does not looked at this data and been honest and forthcoming. When when McDaniel did his report, his voluminous report, the McGanner report. He spends an entire chapter as an independent referee simply looking at Carl's uh behavior vis a vis Sidonia. He and and and Sagan are peers, you know, they are in the academic club. Remember I am not in the academic club.

It may be and again this is speculation that some of the severe criticism of Carl from Doctor McDaniel in the McDaniel report, which was hand delivered to NASA headquarters hours before Mars Observer disappeared a couple of years ago. Some of that criticism has found its way home. And that what Carl is attempting to do is to maintain a really objective perspective for historians.

such that no matter how this comes out, Carl will be on the side of the angels. Carl will come out looking like he wants to look, which is he wants to look scientific and objective. And so in future years, d regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, Carl can always be viewed historically as someone who tried to maintain objectivity and who, although he held one point of view, said objectively

in the latter decade of the twentieth century that in fact he might be wrong. Let's try the same thing out on you same test, Richard. We've seen the photographs, we've heard you many of us many times. Could you be wrong?

You know, I have spent a lot of time, thirteen years trying to find the answer. I have not sat and pontificated and said up until yesterday, I can't be wrong. Well it'd be interesting. Doctor Sagan has maintained he is emphatically infallible until one week ago. He never said he could be wrong on this. And my question is, what has changed? Richard, my question is, how could you be wrong?

How? Yes, sir. Well, I mean there's a whole variety of ways. Um we're we're looking at at a different planet. You know, we're looking at the possibility of a totally incomprehensible natural process that can throw things up twenty miles. We're looking at very ancient photographs. Maybe theirs has been, you know, emotion creep in those years. I mean, there are lots of little picky ways that we might be wrong, but the same as Carl said, it's a very low probability that he thinks he's wrong.

I happen to think there's a very low probability that we are wrong. But the acid test is not our opinions. It's it's going back and checking what's really there now. And it is reasonable to ask why we have not done that. Oh, there was a little satellite that orbited the moon uh

What was it, about a year ago? Uh two years ago, called Clementine. Yes. Took two million pictures. Yes. I've had people fax me and email me and whatever telling me that these pictures are available on the web and then they tell me that they're of horrible quality. In fact, one person went so far as to claim that they were of deliberate horrible quality. Well where the hell are they? I mean by now, two years ago we should have pristine photographs. That's right. We should. So where are they?

A that's a good question. And you should direct that question to the DOD, not to to me, because I don't know. I have seen a handful of leaked images which we have procured from sources. And they show stunning things on the moon. Who paid for Clemence?

The American people. Who owns the pictures? The American people. Well then why can't we see them? Because they weren't done under the Space Act under NASA. They were done under the military and they really are beyond anybody's uh right to to to to see. Unless there is some kind of executive order from the president declassifying them. Wait a minute, why wait a minute. Why are they classified? Exactly. Good question. Ask Bill Clinton. Don't ask me.

Why do we send a military mission to the moon? Why do the S DI people, the Strategic Defence Initiative people, the Star Wars people, now called Ballistic Missile Defence Organization, BMDO, why do they suddenly two years ago or three years ago now Uh at about the same time that we were beginning to look at the moon, seriously, why did they suddenly craft onto the Clementine mission which was an unmanned deep space

throw a projectile at uh at a at a an asteroid kind of mission. Mm-hmm. Why did they craft on the beginning of that mission? a lunar uh probe. Why did they decide suddenly to stick this thing into orbit about the moon, take two million pictures, and then leave from the moon and go off to the asteroids? In other words, the moon the lunar part was an add on. It was an ad hoc sudden

change an enhancement of the previously defined deep space mission called Clementine. Well on the one hand, you could say it's been all those years since we've been back to the moon. Yep. They would say, well that's because there's nothing interesting to see on the moon.

So they sent a space track to go and take two million images. That we can't see. That we can't see. Right. And the president of the United States, the night that Flementine departed for the moon, happened to be giving that night, january twenty fifth, nineteen ninety four.

and addressed to the nation, the State of the Union, uh, from the well of the House of Representatives in Washington D C. I recall. And in his entire speech, he quietly neglected to tell anybody, Oh, by the way, boys and girls, we've gone back to the moon tonight. Mm-hmm. just kind of missed his attention. It's absolutely true. Here is a young man uh I believe in Memphis, Tennessee. Is that where you are, sir? Right, correct. And you saw Richard Hoagland's uh presentation not

In Memphis or was it in Memphis? It was in Memphis, not at Memphis University, it was at State Technical State Technical Institute. How long ago was that? This was two weeks ago. Is that right, Richard? Were you there? All right. Well this young man uh had an opportunity to see what a lot of people in the audience haven't seen and that is your full presentation. Uh so I thought I would ask him what did you think of it, sir?

It was impressive. I've seen the pictures that are up on the the web page and you can't get a grasp of it from the Well okay. That's that's the reason I brought you on because I get a lot of people who send me email and they go up there and they look at those photographs. And they say pixels, fuzzy, can't tell, don't know. I take it that you came away from uh the in person presentation with a different view. Completely. How um

solid did it all seem to you. Uh there's one film series, one film sequence that he has with the Earth rising over the moon to rise. And it's of obviously the end um obscured by some something on horizon. And it's just undeniable. Undeniable. You agree with that, Richard? Well, I'm slightly prejudiced, but yes of course I agree. This this film is from Apollo ten. Apollo ten. This is from the from the uh lunar module. It was taken by the sixty millimeter data acquisition maur camera.

handheld in front of these large triangular windows And uh the gentleman is is is absolutely right. As the earth rises over what should be a sharp, knife edged, airless horizon about two hundred miles out in front of the camera, in front of the lamp. It is the most distorted, elongated blob you can imagine. As though you're looking through miles of some refractive substance which is distorting it uh vertically but not horizontally.

Um we have a a comparison photograph which we're going to put up on our webpage uh in the next uh few days or a day or two showing Skylab photographs taken of the moon. At the horizon of the earth is the during the nineteen seventies as it was rising over the Pacific Ocean. When will all of this uh uh by the way, young fellow in uh Memphis, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um I wanted and anybody else in Memphis who would like to s uh comment uh one way or the other.

It's one eight hundred eight two five five zero three three. Uh Richard, you do have a new uh website. Apparently you went to Keith Rowland who does my website. Keith Rowland and Myron McLeod. That's right. Who have have done yeoman service in uh accommodating our our guest privileges on your webpage. did such a sterling job in organizing material, you know, long distance and through Extreme, you know, short short time frames.

Um, they also, by the way, tonight acknowledged on on our website that it's my birthday tonight. Happy birthday. Thank you. Anyway, um they we have been discussing for some weeks the possibility of them taking on the not insignificant responsibility of doing for us what they are doing and an excellent shape and fashion for you. Uh pretty active for a sixty eight year old guy.

who is a sixty eight year old guy. How old are you, Richard? Thanks a lot. How old are you actually? Any I don't think I'm gonna tell you after that. Fine. Anyway, oh I'm old enough to have been Walter Cronkite science advisors. Think about that. Anyway, um so we were t talking back and forth and and we have reached an agreement where uh Myron and Keith uh will operate and maintain uh the Enterprise Mission website. Mm-hmm. Uh and it is officially launched tonight. Tonight. On my birthday.

It is up. I w I got a call before we went on the air from Keith Rowland who said uh to Susan, tell Dick it's up. It's it's it's running. I'm not had a chance to look at it. But what we're gonna do to start with is to move everything over from the guest site that you had provided. Yes. And in the next uh you know, a few days we're gonna add a lot more interesting things, a lot more images. And part of what I want to do is provide a lot of ancillary explanation. Um

We've got geologists that are going to be adding comments. We're going to have analyses by geologists of what you're seeing. We're going to have photographic, interpretive, almost mini courses of how to look at pictures. Um we're we're gonna we're gonna expand this thing to where the gentleman that called in from Memphis

you know, who said that after six hours he he he got it, he saw it. Yes. Uh how people on the web can can see the same thing. I am determined this web is going to be useful for educating people on how to look at this data.'Cause the data's there. If people aren't seeing it it's because they don't even know

how to begin to look. They're expecting McDonalds. All right. They'll r uh people not McDonalds, folks. Right. We've got we we get about a half a million uh many weekends hits on my website. So there there'll be a uh people who know how to get to my website can still go there There will there will be a link and a transfer and I'm I understand a page which points the the way to the Enterprise Mission. Good. The address is www dot enterprisemission. All one word. Enterprise mission.

Lowercase dot com And so you can get it get to it directly that way or you can directly or you can go through the Bell website which I would recommend. And we will have a link set up from our site back to yours. All right, good. In terms of uh both uh particularly the political developments because I'm extraordinarily intrigued as you obviously are aware with astronauts now claiming that the government has been lying about part of this. But not all of this.

That as my grandmother used to say, when that pancake stands on end all right, I'm in I'm intrigued to see how they think they can get away with this because once you open the door it it it's like Carl. The fact that he claims that the probability is low that I could be right is irrelevant. For most people all they hear is and it's been going around on the web for the last week, Sagan says he might be wrong, Hogan might be right. That's all they wrote.

Carl is sophisticated enough politically to know that if you want to stamp out burning ducks, you cannot allow one duck to survive. So you by opening this door, something has been set in motion. My question again is where are we going and why and who is at the helm?

What new photographs will you have on the website and when will you have them there? Well we'll we'll start putting them on tomorrow. Uh they asked me tonight if I wanted to do it and frankly tonight was my birthday and I took the evening off. I had to get ready to do this show.

Yes, of course. So I took a a little a bit of a nap and and I figure that people will um uh you know, take uh twenty four hours to make the transition and by tomorrow we will start uploading some very interesting new things that we've been working on, including some stills from this from this Apollo ten film.

showing earthrise over the horizon. Are these good, clear Oh they're stunning. Oh they are. They're they're absolutely stunning and we have the film. We have the actual film as opposed to just video. and we're making film transfers in the computer. Sure. So you can really see that this is distorted and what what what's remarkable and what I was able to show is that Bob Thiertek who is one of our architects who is with us in Washington.

um was able to do um a mathematical model. In other words, what he did was assume there is a dome over the edge of the moon where the moon is com where the earth is coming up. Assume the dome is made of X number of layers of glass of a certain refractive index. then what would a a s a round earth look like distorted through this dome if the dome was shattered and smashed and degraded by meteor erosion and bombardment from the top down?

And with some very basic assumptions, very simple assumptions in the mathematics. He was able to create a slide that I was able to show in Memphis that we will put on the web. showing a synthetic earth side by side with the real earth and showing how he mathematically can model the distortion. Alright. Hold it right there, Richard. We'll be right back to you. Uh my guest of course, Richard C. Hoagland.

And you're in Memphis? Yes, sir. And you attended the lecture Richard gave? Most fascinating lecture I've ever been to. And uh your impression or what you would say to people who look at these photographs and say pixely nonsense. Uh, absolutely not. It was uh the clearest pictures I've ever seen and the reflections in the face mass of the astronauts was so clear

that I don't see how anybody could mistake it for dust or anything else but something unknown. So when Edgar Mitchell is here tomorrow night, you would suggest I ask him straight out. Ask him what was in the reflection of his face mask. I mean he was standing right next to it. Ed Mitchell is the wide angle photo showing him putting up the T V camera underneath this remarkable geometric bluish structure which arches overhead.

Also, um, I was watching a video the other night of Infinity and Beyond, uh narrated by Patrick Stewart, which also shows the distorted Earth coming up over uh the moon. There was a small section in there that you might want to look at. Since Richard's right here, you don't have to be nice to him'cause it's his birthday. Um you know, did w were the other people uh at the uh talk uh do you think they were equally impressed with the the clarity, uh, once they understood what they were looking at

Uh because I really do get a lot of email from people who say, Gee whiz, I can't see anything. What about balloony? Absolutely. The Clementine the Clementine pictures was I mean you you c the you saw the parallel parallel and vertical lines running across and forth and Mr Holdman talked from seven to twelve thirty and he still had a full audience and they stayed another half an hour asking him questions. And the only way that he could get out of there was just say, Hey, I gotta go

I believe in giving people what they uh what they pay for, yes. Mhm. Well, judging from the people I'm hearing from, uh one has to be educated at what they're seeing or they're going to uh they're really going to come up uh a very serious skeptic. If you see this and and so Art this is not anybody's fault. We uh our educational system is abysmal.

In that we are not taught how to view the world. Mm-hmm. We are taught to accept other people's opinion of that world. And since this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of starting from basic. You know, this is what what babies do when they're crawling around the floor and they come to a stairwell, why do you think more babies aren't killed falling downstairs?

It's because they have an intuitive understanding of geometry and vertical lines and gravity and they know enough to stop most of them, all right? And those that don't learn how to stop, they wind up falling downstairs and they're not with us anymore. And so the gene pool is purified. That's right. Now what happens in school is that instead of continuing this abstraction process where we learn to generalize about the world.

where we ch learn to realize that parallel vertical structures don't normally occur on alien landscapes without trees. Right. Right. That biology on Earth creates parallel vertical structures. that are, you know, either growing in forests or are phone poles which are forest once removed, all right? In other words, with people ask me why doesn't it clear, why isn't it sharp? Why doesn't it look like McDonalds? It's because they don't understand

how to look at the way light falls on something, they don't understand basic geometry, they don't understand about gravity, they don't understand about a vacuum, that there should be nothing sticking up above that horizon. Absolutely nothing. And that when people claim as the Washington Post claimed that we're, you know, showing people scratches, mm-hmm, that is to absolutely insult the intelligence of the eight other scientists who were on that panel.

as if anybody in their right mind would stand up in front of the world and willingly be laughed at for something that any five year old kid before other factors set in. can use simple reasoning to realize that you don't see things standing above an airless horizon on a planet where there's nothing.

Unless somebody built something and is a physical structure that's very, very ancient and very old. All right. Uh try this one out. Are at the face and the pyramids in the Sidonia region of Mars have obvious terrestrial analogs. In other words, these things. Uh and the pyramids at the Giza Plateau which are strongly suggestive of a possible ancient connection between Earth and Mars.

Could you please ask Richard if he has uncovered anything on the moon indicative of a similar possible connection with Earth? Well, is our f is our friend from Memphis still with us? No, he's not. Oh, he went away. Okay. Well, about four hours into the presentation I got around to the mathematics of the moon. And we're going to put that up on the website as well. We have found structures now which are arrayed in the same geometry, the same equilateral triangles, the same hyperdimensional grid.

that we have found at Sidonia and we found in the ancient sites here on Earth. So the answer is yes. The answer is yes. We further have found that this is tied to the very measurements of the moon itself. Have you ever wondered art why you can take the moon and put it over the sun and they're just the same size and you have this extuning

Extraordinary coincidence that produces a total eclipse. That is interesting. It just uh when you have a total it exactly and precisely covers it. Mm-hmm. We will demonstrate in the next week on the web But in fact it's looking now as if that may not be a coincidence at all. Really? Yes. That's how big this is. That's how stunning this is. That's why NASA blinked thirty years ago and did not know how to tell us. When Neil Armstrong

Who by the way is not gonna be on the uh uh UPN show is you need to correct you need to correct that on your webpage. Well, I didn't put it on our webpage but we will we'll make all the corrections. Daniel Brinkley on your show claimed it was Neil Armstrong. Gordon Cooper, yes. Um Armstrong has said other things that can be interpreted as uh

you know, giving assent to both Mitchell and to to Cooper. And one of the things he said in the East Room of the of the White House during the Apollo, you know, twenty fifth anniversary ceremony two summers ago was first he compared himself to a parrot, which I have found is elegant an elegant way of basically saying, Don't believe anything I say, I'm telling you what somebody else wants you to say wants me to say.

Then at the end of his presentation he said that there are places to go beyond belief. Well there are. And we've been there and they're called the moon and Mars. Yeah, I said that in the White House. And the reason they're beyond belief is because they totally threw into a cocktail everything we ever thought we knew.

And they make people who are into power feel about three microns high. I mean, can you imagine orbiting a world where when you look down an awful lot of what you see is manufactured stuff? And it is so ancient that the very solar system itself has changed since somebody put it there. That must have been such an ego uh problem for these supermen and the people who sent them there, that for their own sanity

they could not very easily tell us. Which of course now when you look at the history of some of the astronauts, particularly people like Aldrin, uh Buzz Aldrin, who got into a knockdown drag out fight with one of my friends the other night over our press conference. And when my friend in the middle of this pre Apollo thirteen uh uh You know, Academy Awards party. uh spent about an hour defending the science and the integrity of this investigation. Aldrin got increasingly obstreperous

and then basically told my friend to turn to people like Gordon Cooper and Ed Mitchell to set him him him right. At which point he was able, my friend, to to bring out Gordon Cooper's testimony. at that luncheon I referenced a while ago, which is now gonna be seen by everybody on UPN in what? It's uh one week from tonight. No, it's two weeks. No, it's a week in one day. Uh on ma on May on May seventh. Right. The point is that there are cracks in the facade.

The point is that these astronauts, Aldrin in particular, when they came back, went through hell. And in his own book he describes how when Jay Barbary, uh, in a in a post Apollo landing kind of two year retrospective, asked him what it felt like to walk on the moon. Aldrin reports in his own book that for some inexplicable reason he got violently ill and was forced to go out into the alley and throw up.

Now this is very peculiar for people who have gone through an extraordinary, stunningly high experience. It is a positive experience. No it is. And it brings to mind the possibility that these men are under very elaborate constraints. to report what they physically have seen. And what they're attempting to do in terms of pointing fingers at the Roswell incident is to open the back door.

because that in fact is the more politically and and psychologically vulnerable uh uh you know area. When you're dealing with real spacecraft and real aliens ostensibly crashing on real estate owned by the United States just a couple of three decades ago, that may be more of a trigger politically to get honesty in the system.

than than basically claiming that there are photographs of alien ruins on the moon. Bearing in mind, Richard, we've got a lot of new listeners. I know this is like throwing red meat to a pit bowl, but could you please give us the short version of what Hyper dimensional physics in yeah, I know.

Uh what i there has to be a short version to this. There has to be. Yeah, there has to be. Hyperdimensional physics that stumps a lot of people when they first hear it. They don't know what you're talking about. Well first of all, physics. What is physics? Physics is our perception of how the universe works. Yes. The laws and rules and all that. Sure. What is hyper dimensional physics? Yes, that's it's a physics that transcends our familiar three dimensions.

It's a physics that explains the visible universe, the visible workings of reality. by recourse mathematically to a set of invisible realities that are only reachable through mathematics. Invisible realities. How how do you Well let me let me give you an example of an invisible reality which can be made visible by technology. Right now, through you and me and through everybody listening, there are invisible waves moving through space.

You can't see them. You can't taste them, you can't touch them, you can't feel them. You are modulating them at this very moment. But by speaking, I and you are modulating them, we call it radio. Yes. There's an even more complex version of this invisible unseen reality. Which if you build the right kind of box and put the right kind of stuff in it and put the right kind of glass screen with phosphor on it, it turns into television.

There's another version of this reality which if I, you know, do the right things, it turns into a computer. In other words, we're we're looking at a technology that can make the invisible visible. Yes. That can pick a signal, information out of the dark, out of the out of space, out of time, out of nothing, as it were. That's clear. and turn it into something that is tangible and you can actually see shapes and images and right

format you can see three dimensions. However, in with with our traditional physics, this energy may be measured. We mu we understand how it is generated. We understand by our physics. We understand we excuse me. We understand how it is propagated. We understand how it is received. You talk of a physics that measures something that we cannot see. No, no, no, no, no, no. That we don't let me let me correct you. All right. When you said our physics can explain television, you're absolutely right.

But the physics of two hundred years ago could not explain television. That's true. All right. To that physics it was an impossibility. It was magic. Magic is any as Arthur Clark says, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Mhm. To which the Holden corollary would be any any sufficiently advanced science. Alright? Because science is cientia, knowing.

All right? Science is merely knowing. It's organized knowledge, organized knowing. Technology is the engineering that comes from that organized knowing where you put it together as a gadget and then you sell it to somebody to do something useful. So hyper dimensional physics is to current physics the way current physics is to our physics of two hundred years ago. It is a physics that mathematically can describe now certain visible characteristics of the world, of the universe.

in ways that that reach out to causes that are not immediately apparent in three dimensions. like invisible radiation, ultraviolet or infrared is not immediately apparent to the unaided human eye. Yeah, stop there for a second and I'll give you a little uh bit of information uh when I was talking to Doctor Mitchell the other day. One of the things he said that he wanted to discuss was zero point interview.

Right. Zero point energy. Okay. Now that is energy that is uh allegedly derived from some material that we can't prove is really there in space or in a vacuum. Exactly. It's energy out of nothing. Energy out of nothing. Yeah. Dr. Mitchell said that. Now it's another it's another term for hyperdimensional physics. Uh huh, that's what I thought. All right? That's what I thought. All it is is the mediating transfer medium. The ZPF, the zero point function, the zero point energy.

is the boundary, the the the interface, the layer between the invisible hyper dimensions that I'm talking about and the visible reality of physics in the universe that we all can see. Why do all these energy events occur at nineteen point five all over the solar system? Yes, why do they? Because of the mathematics of hyper dimension mediated, transferred through the medium of the zero point energy. I mean if you want to get technical.

So really Mitchell and I are saying the same thing. Now what Mitchell will not tell you unless you push him is this is not new stuff. James Clerk Maxwell. Remember James Maxwell, I talk about him a lot. Of course. He a hundred years ago was talking about hyper dimensional physics.

What he said it's Maxwell talking now, not Dick Hogland. Maxwell said the physics of the universe that we see Electromagnetic radiation, light, radio waves, things that make stars shine, that make atoms decay and all that is really coming from an invisible set of forces in dimensions we can't see coming through a medium called the ether. What Mitchell is re is calling the zero point medium or zero point energy is really ether by another name.

Does it have any relationship to Tesla's work? Yes, it's intimately connected to Tesla's work. Tesla's Tesla was not only technologically working with hyperdimensional physics. But he also was creating a terminology. that is mathematically linked to hyperdimensional physics. We've talked on on your show a lot about a certain numbering system.

And from time to time you'll hear me say, Oh, that's a tetrahedral number. Yes. Or that's a tetrahedral expression. Yes. Well, would it surprise the audience out there in radio land, invisible radio land tonight, to l to hear? But every time you turn on a light.

you are working with an active display of hyperdimensional physics bequeathed to you by Nikola Tesla. Because in your electric light bulb or in the circus powering your radio or your television or your computer, if they're on the on the grid, on the electrical power grid that knits this nation together tonight, they are functioning according to a sixty cycle wave. That sixty cycle wave or that sixty hertz frequency was bequeathed to us by Nikola Tesla as a vital clue.

that in fact his alternating current and the physics and the technology he produced was in fact ultimately hyperdimensional. Why? Because the key number sixty is the the code key to hyperdimensional physics. All right. That's where we'll pick up when the news ends and we begin once again. Key number sixty. As in here comes a break and we'll be right back. This is C B C

'Cause they weren't spirits. Nick. Tesla. Uh-huh. I mean A C will work at any frequency. What Tesla did was to leave us a clue See a lot of these people, people who are ahead of their time, people who have figured things out, when they meet a certain amount of opposition, and of course Tesla was

treated to extraordinary opposition, particularly in the latter part of his life. Oh yes. When he tried unsuccessfully to get Morgan to fund a global free power system. Where do you think that energy was going to come from? When you look at some of Tesla's old books, which we did many, many weeks ago, and the reason we're looking at them is because of the tethered satellite experiment. you'll find that the the plans for his, you know, free energy global generator looked awfully similar.

In terms of the actual hardware produced. to this tethered satellite which had a large um uh you know charge collecting sphere at one end and a long rod or wire to tether uh at the other. for the uh for the discharge. Right. In other words, just schematically, what Tesla was working on, you know, se sixty, seventy, eighty years ago and what NASA put up in orbit, you know, a few weeks ago looked eerily similar.

The difference of course was scale, because they were in space, NASA could produce a a a a Tesla system that was thirteen miles long. The one at Colorado Springs was only a few hundred feet high. The uh the uh tower that he tried to produce over here on the island was, you know, gonna be a couple of hundred feet high. But located on Earth at exactly the same latitude as the major pyramid of the Sidonia complex on Mars, forty point eight six eight degrees north latitude.

So you begin to beg to perceive that there were people giants in physics and engineering in the last century and earlier in this century. that had either figured things out, had put the pieces together, had decoded ancient documents from a long time ago and tried to bequeath us this extraordinary stunning advance in unified field theory in hyper dimensional physics in the way the universe works.

And something happened. When Tesla died, the story is told that the FBI moved in before the body was even cold and literally confiscated all his papers. Why? What could they possibly have thought was in those documents that would have affected national security in nineteen forty two? I think that's when he died in forty two. Of course maybe they didn't know. Or maybe they just suspected and it was playing its sake. Um why

Uh the the the the the why questions come out. My my point is that when you talk to Mitchell, what you will find in in his discussion of the zero point energy of the vacuum are concepts relating to ether, to the idea of space as a medium, as a mitigating medium, as a transfer medium. from energy from somewhere to here mm that are very similar to the ideas of people in the last century, Allah Maxwell.

before the Einstein Rev relativity revolution destroyed the idea of an ether in space between the planets, between the stars, between the galaxies, between everything. And in fact what it's now appearing is if we're going to be returning to an ether based physics, no matter what you want to call it.

that produces better results and is geometrically based and ultimately is based on a concept that there's more to reality than the familiar three physical dimensions of length, width and height. All right. Um let me take you off track for a moment. Uh this is from Aviation Week in Space Technology, April eighth, page fifty seven. Quote. Japan's Mitsubishi Corporation has become the first corporate sponsor of Lunar Corporation's planned commercial mission to the moon.

Uh Loon apparently hopes to land a pair of teleoperated robotic vehicles on the moon surface in nineteen ninety nine. Do you know about that? Yep. I've been trying to get the Lunacorp people interested in our stuff for s uh couple three years and what I find interesting is is is there any dollar value mentioned from Mitsubishi's grant to them? In the article? Well, let's see. Uh they're trying to raise a total of what eighty one million dollars.

uh toward two hundred million dollar uh uh two hundred million dollar mission. Uh no, I don't know the specific amount of money uh being donated by um Okay, no, they are holding that very close to the vest. What's interesting of course is that the Japanese uh have funded their own unmanned missions to the moon uh a couple three years ago, even before Clementine. Mm-hmm. The first return to the the moon after the US manned mission, the Apollo mission.

in nineteen seventy two in December of Apollo seventeen was an unmanned uh mission that was sent in nineteen ninety, I believe, by, among others, one of the Japanese car companies. All right. Yeah, I I I've there are lots of questions about that. The rovers it says here will begin at the Apollo eleven site travel a thousand kilometers to visit the wreckage of the Ranger eight probe and the Survi uh Surveyor five.

Spacecraft. Okay, here's what's interesting. Lunacorp, which is composed of ex NASA and D O D people, officials, all right? Yes. In a kind of a loose confederation. uh, have been trying for the last couple three years to get funding for this idea. Why? Well, they claim it's for tourism. They claim this will break the barrier of private enterprise in space. They claim that this will allow students to drive these rovers via tele operated, you know, computer controls from theme parks.

And that there's money to be made and them that are playing. And that this would launch a new wave of of of a of a renaissance of the so called second age of space, which is my terror. All of that is thin to me. Let me let me finish the point. The point is Art they've been trying for years unsuccessfully to raise a dime. They have not had a dime. When did Mitsubishi suddenly decide to give them a grant of unknown proportions for their idea?

You know when this took place? No when. Three days after our press conference. I rest my case. Well, What is on the moon? Carl Justice. I know. Um but this is all following a set of events. Let's assume that What you're saying is correct. No, all I'm giving you is the title. No, no, for the sake of what I'm about to say, assume that all the structures are there as you suggest. Mm-hmm. Surely the government cannot allow a private mission to go back to the moon and find all of this.

We live in a police state. Well what do you mean they can't allow you just what I said. Uh in other words, at that point if they let the qualifying but if they let the private mission go ahead, then they will be revealed uh as liars. Is it possible that that's what Ed Mitchell and Gordon Cooper and Carl Sagan are getting out in front of? It's possible. In other words, at some point

Look, in the in i in the past history of this planet, we've got about six thousand years of recorded history, right? Yes. Most of that time people have lived under despotic, tyrannical, incredibly abusive governmental strictures, right? Yes. The idea of individual liberty. New. It's a new idea. Brand new. It is a two hundred year old

absolutely heretical ideas both politically and religiously and in many other ways to a lot of people who would prefer that we shut up and never be heard from again, right? Absolutely And we stood in Washington and and in the full withering fire of the Washington Post We basically said, Okay guys, this is what's out there.

And within days Carl Sagan is saying on ABC that Houghland might be right about Mars. And Ed Mitchell is saying the government's been hiding UFOs for fifty years. I know. Do you begin to think maybe we're part of a coming trend? So when people say they'll never let you get near the moon hoglin, I say to them, watch our dust or more appropriately, our rocket exhaust. Right.

That doesn't give them a lot of time. I mean i in nineteen ninety nine is when they're talking about this. Well that's what Lunicorp is talking about. Yeah, that's right. Um I we're on a faster track. What do you expect? I mean, as you point out, I've received this supposed wreckage. They've got it down in Roswell as well, some different wreckage or the same, I have no idea. Uh we've got astronauts coming out, as you pointed out. Uh statements being made by all kinds of people.

There's a lot going on. It's hot right now. Where where is it going? There's an even more intriguing data point that you're probably not aware of. Well I'm asking where it's going. Okay. Well let me give you one more data point and then we can talk about where.

In the midst of you getting, you know, samples and Mitchell coming out of the closet and Sagan saying what he said and all this Um there was a economic conference held at Princeton the other night by some friends of ours who we are working with quietly on terms of this physics. We have established a crucial relationship that will allow me in the next few m weeks and months to begin to announce

some major verifiable breakthroughs on the physics front, on the hyper dimensional physics front. Mm-hmm. And that was consummated at a meeting on Friday last prior to the Saturday meeting at Princeton, uh and the and the dinner convocation and keynote speech by former Prime Minister of England, Lady Margaret Thatcher.

and sit in the front row table and listen to Maggie Thatcher talk about the twenty first century and unfortunately I was ill, so they they represented the Enterprise Mission in Miami. They carried a tape recorder with them. Yes. Maggie Thatcher, in her opening remarks, looked right at Carrie. and said the most significant development of the twenty first century will be the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence. No kidding. Do you?

And I'm gonna send you the Sagan tape and the Maggie Thatcher tape back to back on the same tape You don't have it so you can play it there, do you? Well, I could drag the phone over to the speaker. Could you really? Well actually there's there's people up we were in a townhouse and I'd have to turn it up so you could Oh I see. You know. So I I can't really maybe in the commercial I'll think of a way to do this.

The most significant uh development of the twenty first century is going to be the discovery of extraterrestrial life. That's a quote from Maggie. She says of present researchers. And then she says, but we'll have to wait for that. Not like it may never happen, but we'll just have to wait for that. Uh-huh. Like she's somehow determining the curve. Yes. Or knows the curve. Or knows the curve. My point is all of these apparently uncorrelated, unrelated events, I believe, are deeply correlated.

All right. Well that that brings me back to my question. What does it mean? How much time do we have to talk about this? Where does the curve go from here? Well I w if I want if I if I get going on a roll I don't want to be stopped by a commercial or a break or something. Commercials always stop you, Richard. Oh dear me.

I guess I'm asking how much time before the next break? Five minutes. Five minutes. Okay. Well we can start at five minutes. You can do it. Um What bothers me is that there apparently has been a decision made. and designated, you know, hitters put out on the landscape to soften us up for the quote revelation

that we are not alone. It's not like even playing Monopoly where you do not pass go and don't collect two hundred dollars. We're not going through the Martian doorway or the lunar doorway of ancient and safe ruins. We're going directly from everybody tonight on earth. Most people think they're alone. They're it. They're the cat's meow. That's right. And at some point in the next few weeks or months or year maybe, I would give this maybe a year. At the rate of this trend curve.

The the officialdom is basically gonna say, Okay boys and girls, we're not alone and they are here and that's the problem you gotta face. And we're not going through any safe decompression window of playing around with ruins and ancient structures. We're going directly, you know, for go and for two hundred dollars. And we're being led there by a diverse group of of people. People like Sagan, who now say, Well, maybe I'm not right here.

Or Mitchell, who is uh, you know, uh founded Noetics and has been a kind of a out there astronaut anyway. People like Cooper, who was always a rebel, who's been saying these things at the UN and behind the scenes for years but has never gone public with what apparently he's gone on UPN and is going to talk about, you know, next week. Yes. And people like Maggie Thatcher.

All right? Who is the last person I would have expected to lead off her speech by saying the most surprising and interesting to her discovery is going to be extraterrestrial intelligence. I mean that that's really one for the books. All in the same tight time frame. Oh and by the way, the same time frame where you were getting metal samples ostensibly from the crash site at Roswell. So then how would you respond when I say but Richard then?

Uh who's to say that Richard Hoagland and Art Bell with his samples, art's parts I call them now, uh are not essentially just useful idiots for promoting the the uh the the curve accelerator. Well the difference between you getting samples and us looking at pictures is that somebody gave you something and no one's giving us anything. We have to fight for every image, every frame, every data bit, every

Every uh I know but the sum the sum in total though, the sum in total of your information or mine or however it generates is to promote the acceleration of this curve. Well, not true. Not true. Because we're on two different paths. I am firmly convinced that the the worst thing on earth or off earth would be if the government were to come out tomorrow and admit that there are aliens running around in our neighborhood.

And the reason is not because I'm afraid of aliens. You know, I I I I don't really have much, you know, for or again aliens, all right? Never met an alien. Yeah. My problem is distraction. The human race is so easily distracted. I hold up for Exhibit A, the O. J. Simpson trial. Can you imagine how people like the m the mongoose mesmerized by the dancing weaving cobra

How people will be mesmerized and distracted to the S degree by even the plausibility of real bona fide aliens running around in spaceships. Sure. To the point where they may not pay crucial attention to the physics of what's powering those spaceships.

or what's powering the planet or the solar system and the other physically based events that we have discussed on the show in previous weeks and months and years. Alright, well hold it right there. We'll come back to you after the break. When we do come back what I want to ask you about is the science of tetrahedral physics. In other words, if tetrahedral physics is a science one that can be proven, that is the nature of science, right? Things you can repeat.

and prove and the numbers and the mathematics are irrefutable, then why are more scientists not looking at these numbers and simply confirming So mull that one over and um we will uh we'll be back to you in a moment. Richard, you're listening to the American C B C Radio Network. Don't forget internationally, get the USA Direct Access Number or the ATT operator, and then call us at 800-893-0903.

Uh, when was that? You tell me. That was roughly last weekend or Monday or so. I am a little groggy when I had made that call. I had just woken up. I work at night shift at the LAX airport. Okay. So my memory is a little shot on it. But I can confirm it though because uh Mr Hulman received the facts from me And my screen name is AJ UFologist. Oh, okay. And and this It w it was a week ago t uh this morning, all right. It was last Thursday morning. Correct.

Now you a reason why I had done this was I just happened to be looking at your book, Mr Hogland, and I remembered, uh, from reading Cosmos, uh his for Mr Segan's first book, that he was openly uh as you said, objective about life on Mars. Now all of a sudden in your book he's not. This you know, and then now when I ask him on the radio, then he is. And back once again he's back to objectively being open about it.

Yeah, what's changed. Yeah, what did well okay, so how did he answer? What has changed? That's that's that yeah, that's the interesting question. You know, if if NASA wanted to cover this up Maybe they did some kind of uh pressuring with his uh publicity or something on that line. So pressure him in a way to kind of h get him to

at some point. I too believe in conspiracies. Um also. I don't won't go into details of that with you. But I just want to again wish you a happy birthday, Mr Hopeland. Thank you. Glad to see you. Glad to I cannot believe that I am directly responsible for making a turning point in this whole thing.

Well if you read if you read Carl's book, which I recommend to everybody, um, you know, The Demon Haunted World, which I think is a remarkable title given a lot of the things we discussed on your show are Um there is a section, it's chapter three in his book, where even prior to your question, Carl officially says at the end of this chapter called The Man of the Moon and the Face on Mars

after taking Sidonia apart, you know, giving every every possible reason why it can't be real. It's idiocy, lunacy, projection, you know, eggplants, you name it. He then pauses in mid flight, and he says in a stunning line, in print. I could be wrong. And then he goes into all of the criteria, all of the testable criteria. that he would expect if we could get new high resolution imagery of Sidonia either from Mars Global Surveyor leaving later this year or from the Mars Pathfinder mission.

He even goes so far ar as to say, as I have said from the beginning, that unlike the UFO phenomenon, this is objective testable scientist.

And it stopped Michael Jackson fairly cold, I guess. Yeah, uh the thing is though that um earlier what you stated about the uh uh about the other s I didn't catch that I guess'cause uh when I was listening on Um apparently I guess they brought another guest right away. I don't know w that's uh that's question mark. I'm gonna call for KBC and get the uh transcripts on that. I wanna find out to be sure. I'm not doubting you mister Hope.

More than likely he did say that and I finally missed it. Make I do recall something, but again I kinda had woken up in a quick hurry. And I said, Well what all this, you know, and punch trust them uh and push my uh trusty speed valve number. All right. Well we're glad you got through and we're glad you got to ask the question and I wanted to give you credit for it.

uh since you had faxed me. So thank you, uh, Aaron and stay on the alert down there. Stay awake. Uh nothing is too um, is there a chance I can get a transcript tonight? Uh there's well transcripts we don't have. Uh you might be able to get a copy of the tape. That tape is uh always available. So I'll see what I can do, Aaron. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And um so there you've got it. Now let me circle back. Uh I thought you'd just enjoy hearing from the fellow that uh That posed that question to

uh Richard. Now let's talk a little about tetrahedral physics. If it's a science If the numbers work, then they've gotta work for more than just Richard Hoagland or is there some point in tetrahedral physics where you've gotta take more than a look at numbers, uh a le a leap of faith? No no no no. No no no no. Well then any scientist ought to be able to look at it and clearly understand it and prove it. Well look, you've just had a gentleman on

Ask Carl Sagan a question that Carl could have answered objectively thirteen years ago. It's only taken Carl thirteen years to get his ego out of the way and say, Well, I could be wrong and we should look. Fair. Well, it's only been since nineteen I'm trying to think when we first discussed hyper dimensional physics in public. Uh at the UN, nineteen ninety two. Now given that Carl is one of the brighter guys, all right, and he should be ahead of the curve.

Then if you extrapolate thirteen years for a for a Sagan type, a Sagan physicist from nineteen ninety two, we should only have to await until scientists in the mainstream begin to talk about hyperdimensional physics till uh what? nineteen ninety nine? Mm-hmm. I am being a little facetious. Yes, I understand. In fact, there are physicists who are in discussion with us

And we're going to be putting their papers on the website. This is this is what now comes from having our own enterprise mission website. We're going to begin to provide not just data on the moon and Mars. but also on all of these collateral areas of interest. We're going to put on papers, references, commentary, discussions with real scientists on the real cutting edge, and we're going to bring up very important questions, conundrums.

mysteries like why is the gravitational constant currently different than it was when you and I learned physics in high school art mm and why are current cutting edge labs in New Zealand In Germany and here in the United States, Los Alamos all getting different values when they're trying to measure this most fundamental of constant.

by which, by the way, NASA uses every time it calculates how to send a space probe or a spacecraft anywhere off the planet. It has to use this constant of proportionality as part of its It's iterations of motions of the solar system. Right. Well, it's changed. All right. Now it may be that NASA inadvertently conducted a rather remarkable experiment in hyperdimensional physics that was well publicized back in the nineteen seventies and nobody realized at the time.

And it has to do with the flight of Apollo thirteen. Have you seen the movie? Several times. Several times, okay. What is the key mystery about Apollo thirteen? uh beyond what happened to the spacecraft. You know, what what caused the damage? Huh? The physical damage. Yeah, beyond that. What's the most interesting mystery of that whole real life saga?

Which I lived through with Walter Cronkite when the mission actually took place, all right? The amazement of how they made it back at all. Well, not quite, but that's that's up there, all right? What was the one theme that was recurrent through the film? really underscored that to this day has never been satisfactorily explained. I'm I'm not gonna be good on this one. Why? Okay. The spacecraft was consistently not where they thought it was.

Remember the strange shallowing of the trajectory? Well I recall Rig and roll as they were coming back to get'em on a course they said, Oh my God, we're in the wrong place, we're gonna burn up. Well, what what was happening was that the the trajectory, the fall home. was shallowing. Yes. The trajectory was moving up I recall that. Away from the center of the Earth. Yes, sir. And if the angle is too shallow when the spacecraft intersects the atmosphere burn up or miss.

It would be like skipping a stone off a pond. Sure. They would bounce off the air at twenty five thousand miles per hour, bounce out into space and not have enough fuel to get back before they ran out of air and they died. Right. And they tried several trajectory corrections where they would fire the engines and there's some very dramatic, you know, scene setting that Ron Howard has them go through.

You know, the jittering earth and the window and all of this, you know, where they fire those engines and they're eyeballing it and they're using the sun and all kinds of of makeshift mechanisms to do what normally a guidance system would have done. I recall. And they get it back on course and then the guys down on the ground are watching the the the plots, you know, the the trajectory plots from the radio track.

And they say, Well how are we gonna tell'em? It's shallowing again. It's it's going higher, it's it's it's leveling out, it shouldn't be doing that. This is the recurrent mystery all the way home. Where did that energy come from? Uh, you are go to the head of the class, Mr. Bell. More appropriately, why was gravity for Apollo thirteen

different than for any mission prior or after the Apollo thirteen flight. And the answer is? The answer is, and this is the first time I've discussed this anywhere. Apollo thirteen. All right. Let me let me get to give you what the conventional answer is and why the conventional answer cannot be right. Remember that the problem with thirteen was that there was an explosion. Yes. In a in a in a in a in a basically a gas uh sphere, a titanium sphere of oxygen.

When you open a sphere of liquid in a vacuum The liquid will boil off, right? Sure. The boiling off through an orifice through a hole is a jet. Is a jet. It's like a rocket. So after a reaction there's an equal and opposite reaction. You'd expect that the spacecraft would be pushed opposite the jetting motion. So is there an argument that it was this uh venting that was causing the challenge? That's what the conventional NASA explanation was that there was venting. But here's the problem.

The spacecraft was never stabilized in one direction. It was rotating. called the barbecue mode, you know, set up so that it would spin gently in sunlight, so that it would warm and cool all sides of the spacecraft uniformly.

And there was lots of discussion about setting up the barbecue mode and I remember vividly sitting in the in the studio in New York during this the harrowing final hours as uh Jim Lovell literally so cold his teeth were chattering was describing to f to to uh the ground how he could see the earth moving past the window and then a few m minutes later the moon moving past the window and he would say whether it was higher or lower, indicating that the rotating motion was conning, was processing.

So that they they were rotating. Right. Now if I have a jet on a rotating spacecraft which is m turning around like a water sprinkler Then what will happen is that the jetting action, assuming there's any fuel left in those tanks, any oxygen, after days, Yeah, I would say that that that would be quite a uh a supposition that there would be anything left at all to be All right. Alright. The electronics were cooled by basically uh boiling water into space.

But that too, if you're rotating the spacecraft system in a in a circular motion, that jetting motion will average, all right? Or should average, yes. Well it has to. Assuming the the eventing were occurring a which I would think it would have to if it were even still occurring at an even rate or relative. They found it was still shallowing. Well, here is the quintessence of the predictive model of hyperdimensional physics.

Because what no one has ever thought about because they had no reason to think about this until they go back and look at Maxwell a hundred years ago. Or look at De Palma, the experiment I talked about at the UN. Right. The spinning bowl. What was one of the first things after they rounded the moon that the flight directors had them turn off in both spacecraft to save electricity and water? They powered down everything including including

what are called the inertial platforms. Right. The spinning gyroscopes. Right. The Apollo thirteen spacecraft was the first and last spacecraft we have ever sent into space where there was nothing spinning in the spacecraft. That's true. At all. And I will make you a prediction. So in other words, you're saying that if I've got this correct, that uh normally spacecraft have spinning gyroscopes to maintain attitude and so forth and so forth.

That's right. And although they're very small mass out of hell, so their total angular momentum is significant. So without this artificial um thing on board, the tetrahedral physics uh is the energy that that caused the shallowing effect as they came back.

and a non spinning ball in a gravitational field. Right. Apollo thirteen was a projectile flying back to Earth without anything spinning. It And it uh it acted as if the equations for gravity were different than for any other spacecraft, which had active spinning inertial platforms, gyroscopes in the That's the solution to the mystery of Apollo thirteen and that's by the way how I know Apollo thirteen had a problem. Because nobody in their right mind could create such an elegant hoax or fake.

with such a subtle detail that can only be explained now by application of this physics. That's what we're here for. Absolutely fascinating. All right, uh off we go into another area, back into an area we've been in. Uh and again it's important for me, Richard, uh I'm gonna read this because of the number of communications I get after we do a show and people go inevitably to my website or now your website through my website um and see the photograph.

Good morning, Art and Richard. I have seen the photos on your webpage, Art. I think I can give an explanation why so many people can't see what's right in front of their noses. Our government, our school system has spoon fed us for so long that

that a lot of us do not have any common sense to make rational decisions from what we see with our own eyes. Even at the college level, we're taught by Opinions from books and professors, instead of these professors giving us the facts and letting us make our own conclusions by common sense and rational thinking, it never ceases to amaze me how the younger generations cannot make a rational decision

On their own. Uh so that really says just what you said earlier, doesn't it, with regard to people looking at these photographs and just going, Ah, pixel madness.

You know what I find interesting is that people who have gone through a real educational system, meaning people who were in their sixties, seventies, eighties, nineties If they can get to the internet, all right. They're the ones who see this first. Not the twenty something or the thirty something. Yes. It's because the older folks know how to think. to reason, to see.

And that's the key. Without reasoning people, you know, uh Well without without those people you're able to you're able to hide things in plain sight. And that's why the educational system of the United States of America is a disgrace. It's in someone's interest to keep it a disgrace. Because you can't have thinking people if you educate them or or unthinking people.

And we now have a whole bunch of people who basically take their reality from CNN or C SPAN or any of those media that don't allow people to think that basically tell them what reality is. You know, we have a president come on, he says certain things, then we have people who tell us what he really says.

He didn't say what we thought he said. No, he said this. He said this. He said that. All right, listen he meant this. We're coming to the top of the hour. I wanna uh we've got to get to the phones, but I wanna read this to you. Art sixty is an interesting number. For other reasons. Remember the twelfth planet. We have sixty seconds per minute, sixty minutes per hour. That would be thirty six hundred seconds per hour, sixty cycles of sixty cycles. Hmm, thirty six hundred. Yep.

Uh man is onto it or woman. Well it well it not only makes lots of sense, it it it is the sense, all right? The timekeeping system, the angular system, it turns out the fundamental metrology systems metrology, measuring things. that we have grown up with that go all the way back to Sumer. You know, Kramer out of the University of Pennsylvania, it all began with Sumer. Yes. It's all tetrahedral. We are surrounded by these clues.

And this of course gets into how do we currently have a cultural system predicated based on immersed in this physics without recognizing that that's what it all refers back to. And the answer may be found in Graham Hancock's work. Oh, there's another We are not the first. Yes, I'm going to be interviewing Graham, as you well know. Terrific. All right. Hold on, Richard. We'll be back to you when we come back. We'll be opening the lines.

opening the phone lines uh for any questions, hard ones if you want. They need not be softballs. If you have hard questions, now is the time, so get on the phone. We'll give you a rendition of the numbers when we come back. You are listening to the American C B C Radio Network, I'm Art Bell.

And then the nation's first completely international toll free line, which is eight hundred eight nine three zero nine zero three. And it will be for you toll free from any point in the world eight hundred eight nine three zero nine zero three. Now this might be fun as we go back to Richard Hogland. Ard let's drive Richard Hoagland nuts. Just suppose, he says, our government back engineered some wreckage or whatever and produced flying craft that utilize zero point um energy.

If the government admits Roswell, it would naturally lead to more stonewalling on the research and development. If the drive system of UFOs for our craft is zero point technology. These secrets must prevail as long as possible. Why? Well, if some unnamed third world nation should figure it out.

We'd be dealing with weapon systems a thousand times worse than our present nightmares. The whole thing would be a Pandora's box no matter how you look at it. That's an interesting perspective, and I'm sure it's true.

Isn't it? Yeah, no, I think he's absolutely right. Which of course then asked the question again, why is Ed Mitchell saying, you know, that Roswell is real and the moon stuff is not? And talking about uh zero point energy. Yeah. Well you can be sure I will ask him these questions. Alright, now there's another thing you need to ask him. Um Ed Mitchell became a kind of an iconoclast even during his astronaut days when he conducted a so called ESP experiment. Yes. En route to and from the moon.

the familiar Rhine cards and all that. Well hyperdimensional physics now provides a perfectly logical scientific explanation for all of these so called metaphysical phenomena. From telepathy to ESP, from precognition to clairvoyance, it all falls out of the equation. It falls out of the woodwork. And the way it works is very simple. If you're looking at multiple dimensions, you know, from three dimensions on up. The analogy is It is equivalent to from three dimensions on down. Right.

Uh and and this has been done before. It's done in Mishu Kaku's book Hyperspace, which I heartily recommend to everybody. That's the New York University professor of physics who's written a pretty interesting book on hyper dimensional physics. From an historical perspective up to and including things like superstring theory, which is current contemporaneous physics attempt to grapple with hyperdimensionality.

The interesting thing is that the current physicists claim that hyperdimensions exist, they just claim you can never see them, you can never taste them, you can never prove they exist. And our difference is we think it w we w that we can and we go back to Maxwell who claimed that he could. And that's gonna be an interesting thing in the coming years, you know, who is ultimately proven right by the data, by the prediction.

by the physical phenomenon like Apollo thirteen, which we can explain elegantly and much better than any other theory going. Toward the end of the program last time, uh Richard, we had a question that was not uh answer because there was not enough time. One of the preeminent people in physics today being Stephen Hawking.

Um this person would like to know if anyone has gotten him any information on hyperdimensional physics theory because this faxer thinks that uh Mr. Hawkins could probably do a great deal to verify what you're saying. Unless he's too far into the Einsteinian relativity trap. Um and again there's always these political considerations. Science and physics is not objective, you know, to wit Carl Sagan's demeanor over the last thirteen years.

In terms of who's gonna maybe make Stephen aware of things that he already knows about but or maybe has forgotten or has not given a high priority to Uh in about a month, uh I and some colleagues are leaving for England for a a set of presentations in London and in Leeds, at Imperial College University in uh in London and at the University of Leicester at Leeds. with uh Graham Hancock and Robert Bavall.

I intend to in my three hours, because it's a whole day presentation, from eleven in the morning to about seven o'clock at night, divided between me and Hancock and and Laval, with a couple of surprises. I intend to not only uh lay out the artifacts which are the cornerstone of of our investigation, but the physics

at Imperial College where, you know, Newton held the chair, uh, that are I think the cornerstone of what we've now found. The really important thing that I keep coming back to of all of this work, our work, is not the artifacts, it's the physics. Because the physics give you a handle on how to move the universe. That's what life is really all about. How to control more and more your environment so things you want to have happen will happen and things you don't want to have happen don't happen.

Let me ask you, I've received these supposed artifacts from Roswell. Richard, if the original big bang theory is correct, by the way, do you subscribe to that? No. You do you don't no, no. I think that uh the question just went down the tubes then. No, I think that the steady state universe of people like Fred Hoyle and others is much more elegant and much more in keeping with the kind of unlimited possibilities that hyperdimensional physics is showing

than a limited universe that had a beginning and a middle and an end. Well then uh you gotta always ask the question, Art, if there was something before the Big Bang, what was it and why did it change? Well that that gets in God's country, I think. Well, but that's but we're grappling with here. It is uh big stuff. would be made of elements uh just like the ones we have here, which according to the scientists that tested what was brought back from the moon

I think they they found nothing particularly more elegant than we have on Earth. Oh not true at all. We'll put it up on the website, all right? We will actually lay out the elemental analysis. of what were brought back in the Apollo samples from the moon. Well that was a common belief that uh that they were wrong.

But but look, Arent, the common belief is among a lot of people is we never went to the moon at all. Well, okay, no problem. The common belief is that we should have been in Vietnam. Yeah, but I don't want to talk about it. The common belief you know common belief I believe we went to the moon

Richard, I have no problem with that. My point politically is don't hold out the common belief because most people believe what they're told. All right, shatter it for us. What did they find on the moon that differs uh in in any measurable way from what we have under It's not that it differs, it's of a different variety. All right. Remember there's elements and there's uh uh chemistry and then there's alloys. There are very strange alloys that were found.

Samples, for instance, we have we have something on earth called rare earths, which are things like europrium, diprosium, samarium, things like that. In the lunar samples in the papers that we have, the abundances of these so called rare earths uh go up and down by a factor of a million from grain to grain within the same so called rock sample. Hm. And that can't happen.

I mean just naturally what would cause one little grain to have a million times more europium than the grain next to it in a piece of rock? Unless the rock was really a shattered computer. bashed and battered by umpteen years of micrometeorite and larger meteorite bombardment and the element segregation of these rare earth elements which are very useful for making electronics.

was because what we were really looking at is the chemistry of shattered technology, welded and re welded and welded again by random impacts and the heat and fusion caused by these impacts. And that's why you have weird, bizarre radioactive abundances that go up and down by factors of about a million as as as well, only in certain parts of the moon. Not all over the moon, but only on the western side.

where Apollo twelve landed in the Oceanus Procelarum site. Mm-hmm. And there are other strange things, like half the weight of the lunar sample. turns out now to be in the form of glass. Mm-hmm. Remember the films of the of the moon where you see the astronauts bounding around on the surface? Oh yes. Remember how many times they fell down? Yes.

Did you ever wonder why they were clumsy? Why under one sixth gravity, where you have time to correct yourself I bet you're gonna suggest they were slipping on glass. They were. They were slipping on these little tiny beads of glass. It's like they were walking on on on pulverized beaded screens. Have you ever tried to walk on glass beads?

Mm not recently. Well good. They're very slippery. And half the lunar regolith, half the soil, that gray powdery stuff that coated them was glass beads. Now where do the glass beads come from? The conventional crowd, the geology crowd, will say, Oh, when you have meteors bombarding the moon it makes glass.

The Hogan crowd, you know, the crowd that says there's stuff there, mm-hmm, is basically saying, Look, this is the shattered fragments of the domes, dummies. Help me out with this, Richard. Uh when we first went to the moon, wasn't there some school of thought? that the uh lunar module would disappear into the uh deep dust on the moon's surface. No, this was Tommy Gold's idea. Tom Gold is a very bright uh astronomer at Cornell.

He is probably best known by those who know him at all as the successful proponent of the theory that Pulsar These enigmatic, very rapidly pulsing radio sources in deep space out in the galaxy are in fact the spinning cores of burned out neutron stars. Correct. Highly evolved ancient stars that have collapsed.

like the sun at the end of its projected lifespan. Mm-hmm. That's Tommy Gold's plan to saying. Well during the Apollo years, Tommy Gold was brought on on board NASA as a consultant. And he was very concerned that the moon would swallow the Apollo astronauts without a whisper

Because their lunar module would sink grandly into these very deep oceans of dust, cosmic dust. Right. Produced by eons of of impact and and and re distribution of of the material pounded and pounded and pounded and pulverized until it had the consistency of liquid flour and flowed back and forth on electrostatic fields

uh occasioned by solar wind and other influences from the sun. So how come it didn't? Because to Tommy's credit we was able to look at the data and admit not only were there no deep seas of dust, but there's very little dust on the moon at all. In fact, one of the peculiarities of the standard lunar model, if the moon has been there for billions of years, you know, like the Earth has.

And it's been subject to all this pounding and pulverizing of micrometeorites is why the astronauts found very few, if any, rocks with dust on top of the rock. They found rocks on top of the dust of the soil. But I have a paper in my files where Tommy Gold writes in Nature one of the amazing peculiarities is the absence of dust on the rocks or fillets of dust, you know, that are draped in the In the shadows or around the edges. Yes. As you'd expect if you had this fine sifting

of of material being redistributed by meteor impact from other places on the moon. You'd expect that at some point there'd be a mantling of dust on the tops of exposed surfaces. Absolutely. And in fact that did not occur. We have photographs of the astronauts uh puzzling over the fact that that that dust did not seem to be sitting on the rock.

Now that's a real weird question, because you'd expect somewhere that there'd be ample concentrations of dust on tops of rocks if the moon is as old and has gone through the kind of geology process that the classical guys, the NASA guys, have claimed it's gone through. But you see, the general public who always in America has a lack of a interest in details. They never have followed the details of the mysteries.

And if you don't follow the tales, you are forever trapped by experts who are trying to voice their view of reality. distilled absent details on you in place of the real joy of the search and the penetration of the mystery to what the real answers might be. Well that's why I enjoy you so much, Richard. Uh listen to this

I see if you can make sense of this because I don't fully. Arden Richard, here is a way to understand the energy force that Tesla was able to tap into. Electrical fields are observable only if the potential between two poles is uneven, in other words, a battery. If we lived inside the battery, we would see no voltage potential. If the entire universe had an electrostatic potential of one hundred and ten volts, nobody would notice surrounded by free power, but we can't see it or use it.

Tesla understood this and found out how to tap it. The term in particle physics is a scalar field. These fields exist all around us and only manifest themselves in their interaction with W and Z particles. At the far end of this discussion is the possibility of many alternate universes, each with its own law of physics or laws. When you study this field, it's easy to see how an entire universe might exist in a speck of dust.

If these fields are part of the generation of existence then the energy potential is staggering. Uh would you agree? Yeah, and basic the guy's on the the guy's right on. I presume it's a guy, but it may not be a Signed A H We will never know. We will never know. But but that is pretty much Tom Bearden for years has been talking about scalar field. Yes. Alright? In the original Maxwell equation.

For those who need a translation code, the scalar fields in the Maxwell equations is the key to the hyperdimensional physics I'm talking about. It's one and the same. The scalar fields were hyperdimensional. They were written in these hyperdimensional terms called quaternion. which are geometric operators that are multi dimensional in Maxwell's original work. Okay.

So it all hangs together. The Tesla work, the hyperdimensional nomenclature I use, and Maxwell's scalar nomenclature are all one and the same. Well that this all takes me back to what that other factor said, and that is All of this information if if what we're discussing regarding uh uh your physics is accurate, then it would produce weapons that would be our very worst nightmare and for other people, other smaller countries to get hold of this information

would be an outright absolute disaster. Yeah, but it can also produce defenses. that are the worst nightmare of the weapons makers. Well don't you don't you don't you go for as much time as you can to construct those defenses before you want to face somebody with that same uh Well look look, we the world now knows how to build H bombs, right? Oh yeah.

And there are a bunch of people running around the Soviet Union trying to sell weapons grade plutonium to the highest bidder, right? Yes, indeed. And the president just was over there having meetings with Yeltsin and and colleagues saying, Guys you gotta keep this under better

control because we don't want to face, you know, a kind of a truck nuke in the middle of Washington someday. Well not to mention the fact that I still don't think or I'm not aware of the technology we have to stop two or three incoming ballistic any Well, the odds of of of a random group being able to fire ballistic missiles is small. The odds of a random group being able to purchase black market plutonium

smuggle it in through let's say the Caribbean or the Mexican border or someplace like that mm or fly it into Mina, Arkansas. I'm being facetious, please. Alright? And then build the weapon here and take it in a rider truck to the middle of Washington. and that's a much more likely scenario if you believe any of this is a as a likely scenario. Well that's true. The point is that that technology is loose on the land. We can't stuff the genie back in the bottle.

Suppose I were to tell you that hyper dimensional physics can make it so that a nuclear weapon cannot explode. I would think so that the enormous amount of nuclear weight Which are which are huge and present danger tonight at every place from Hanford down to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, down to w what is it? Uh uh Barnwell in South Carolina. Mm-hmm.

All of that can be basically eradicated in a few short years. We don't have to wait too long. I don't yeah, okay, fine. I don't even understand hyper dimensional physics uh to the degree that you do, but suppose I were to suggest Anything as powerful as uh unlimited energy. uh which hyper dimensional physics to me even suggests would be available. Right. Could be used uh for destruction as well as protection. So uh the w wouldn't that be true? Going back to Tesla.

Remember what Tesla was talking about in the waning years of his life when the only people who would listen to him were the columnist for the New York Sun. Alright, we're gonna have to finish this after the bottom of the hour. Repeat after me, Richard. I promise to take phone calls and this I promise to take phone calls.

You heard it. Phone calls coming up. And uh we'll finish up on this and then I promise we'll get phones, everybody. Remember, if you want to get a copy of this program, you can call one eight hundred nine one seven four two seven eight. That's one-eight hundred-year-old. Nine one seven four two seven eight. We'll be right back.

happened and so on. So my question to Mr. Hogman is uh after listening to this very interesting program where he speaks about uh that he feels that things are coming more and more where we're going to have uh more revolution re a revelation of of the uh of the facts and the truths about uh other other life outside of what we know here.

And where you feel like um you're fighting an uphill battle that you can't get you know, whether you're not gonna prevail in. Well you know, i this is a very important question because an awful lot of people um How how do I do this gently? We we depend so much for our day to day existence. for i for the reaffirmation of people around us. And a lot of times I think we pay too much attention to a lot of people that we should not pay that much attention to. The people that we should be wanting um

approbation from, that we should be wanting respect and concern and and support. So be the people who care about us, people we love. uh people we respect highly for substantive contributions, people who are worthy of respect, not just a name, a celebrity, somebody who makes a lot of money. But someone who has who has done something of value, has given something of service, is worthy of of being respected.

And too many times, particularly in this culture We listen to what celebrities say, we listen to what people who are in the news say, we listen to what people who are politically uh up uh uh appointed or who we have elected say and we don't listen to ourselves. our own experience, particularly if we've done it the hard way, if we have come from the ground up, if we have if we have unique experiences that almost cannot be shared.

because they're not democratizable. They fall in the realm of an extraordinary personal uh set of of of experiences and and uh uh you know, fascinations or or or preoccupations. Those things you have to be you have to keep your own counsel. You have to stand on your own even when you're ridiculed. Now, as as a scientist, what I can say

Because I haven't experienced the structures on the moon. I have not experienced the structures on Mars. What I've experienced in my education and in my my work and my profession is a process whereby when I see this data, when I see these pictures I know that what I'm seeing does not accord with what the conventional experts are telling me should be in these pictures. My database says that if they're right

then the physics I was taught is wrong and the physics is right because I can test it myself. I don't have to depend on their words. So that means there's some flaw in the experts' opinion versus my opinion and the opinion of others I've reached out to, colleagues, professional, you know, uh, compatriots, you know, well wishers, supporters. fellow journeyers on this on this extraordinary adventure that we're all engaged in.

And so what keeps me going through the long dark nights when it can get kinda hot and heavy is the knowledge that the truth that we're working with is a truth that we have won through bitter personal experience and hands on process.

It's not been told to us, it's not been revealed to us, it's something we have earned by doing it ourselves. Well I'd put it just a little different way. Um Perhaps more simply and uh sh in in in a short way, I would simply say that if I follow in other people's footsteps, even people I admire, Rush Limbaugh, others who have done great things in radio, the only place I'm going to go is where others have been.

Uh and that's where you get when you follow in somebody else's footsteps. So I choose not to do that and you apparently choose not to do that as well. That's why the big trucks have a sign that says don't tailgate.

Yeah. East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland. Hello. Uh yes, hello. Uh huh. Where are you, sir? Uh the uh state of Florida, northern Florida. All right. Um Yeah, accolades and uh uh tremendous thanks to the excuse me, the both of you uh for putting together such a tremendous uh Well, array of uh of knowledge.

Shall we say. To make a quick quote of the Bible, um uh matter of fact I can't hear you right now uh only on the phone. The local affiliate is uh went to some other morning show program yeah, and it Oh, what's a frustration, my gosh. I should have got the put together the short way some time ago. There's here, one of the newer listeners is that uh one that uh been sort of uh studying the sciences for well

Well art just needs more affiliates. That's all. We're we're at two sixty two or three or something now, Richard. And climbing. And climbing fast, yes. Any anyway, caller, go ahead. Yes, yes. Um, is that uh uh you know Uh, Mr Hogland when you spoke uh it was in the previous hours over there I've got uh a good portion of it on tape I've got to relays and friends about the uh you know, in the past six thousand years living in somewhat of a tyrannical Uh every

uh civilization somewhat has been under some sort of tyranny tyran tyranny uh or you know, some despot, whoever be the case. And uh uh you you you have hit the a proverbial nail on the head, shall I say?

And it has certainly at times squelched freedom, true freedom of the spirit, not only the of the spirit, but of the um uh a acquisition of knowledge. Therefore is a is a quick quote of the Bible in Proverbs. It says, He that appreciateth knowledge getteth understanding. Another quote is of all you get in life is understanding. Obviously you are a very uh

knowledgeable if not wise man. Another quick quote is that well. I know there are other callers I have tried to call in the case. Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, thank you. Is that Um is one one other quick quote is that Uh a fool blurts out all a nose all at once, but a wise man holds his tongue. Therefore, in listening to your program, you have done so, see, and that by golly, uh, at this time there is certainly

uh time that uh like you say we're we're we're ready. There is another kind of tyranny though, Richard, and another kind of censorship. Uh even in our supposed free society today there is a censorship of omission. Yes. And there is a tyranny of um inaccurate information. Uh so while we have personal freedoms as the world may never have known before Um I don't know what good they do uh you without uh

Uh w without information, without real good information. Uh you you have no direction to go, but in the case. you know, in Far in in in Philadelphia, what kind of a government we had. And he said to her, Madam of Republic he also then added, if you can keep it The keep it part is you gotta do your homework. You can't turn this over to experts. And what we've done is turned over our

our our lives are reality to a bunch of experts. What I'm trying to do in this in this investigation, with the help of some very dear friends and colleagues and more growing every day. And now democratized through this marvelous new tool called the Internet, where we launched the Enterprise mission this evening, to boldly go where someone has gone before. Um we are trying to democratize a process.

It's not so much that we have wisdom, sir, it's that we have a process for ultimately, if we, you know, live long enough, acquiring a modicum of wisdom. Everybody can do this. This is not pardon the pun rocket science. All you gotta do is go back to basics and start asking questions of how does the world really work and don't listen to Ted Coppel.

A lot. Some. But not a lot. As a reference at least. West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland in New York. Hello. Hello. Um where are you? I'm near Seattle in Renton, Washington. Okay. And I listen to you on Como. Yes, sir. And my question is basically about a comet. I I heard some information previously by both an interview fr you know, uh you interviewed Mr. Hogwin previously and he talked about the Hale bot comet.

And it it gave off indications that it had been manipulated by an outside force. No. No? Well wait before we cut this channel off, it depends on what you mean by indication. Y it it had particulation which said that it had not been to this solar solar system previously. So due to the fact that it was not near this sun. No, not not quite. What I said was

that the that the the reports of course corrections as far as I can determine are totally erroneous. All right. Okay. This thing is on a trajectory as Keplerian as every other comet, alright? A body flying through space around the sun like the planet. What I said was unusual this early. which was two astronomical units

farther out than Jupiter, all right? And AU is the Earth Sun distance. That means two times ninety three million miles. So it's a hundred and eighty million miles beyond Jupiter's distance, which is half a billion miles from the sun. This thing was exhibiting such outgassing and such activity.

But the question I had was where's the energy coming from? What is making it hot out there, causing the gas to escape, causing it to be visible? That's right for the outgassing there was So I suggested a possibility. Remember, if Ed Mitchell is claiming now that guys are visiting the solar system, it means there's a whole bunch of guys running around out there doing all kinds of interesting mischief. See that's one of the implications of Ed leaping into the they're here.

You have they're here and they play games with us. Richard, I've got one for you. Uh the Japanese comet that made a fairly close pass not long ago. Can you pronounce it? Um I um Hayataki. That very very close, very close. Very close, yes. What I've noticed uh what I noticed was that there were sudden reports uh at its closest point to Earth of Emission of tremendous amounts of X ray radiation.

Well never previously looked for. Remember you can't find something unless you're willing to look and nobody in the astronaut community would have given a dollar to navy beans that a comet would be emitting x rays so until this close flyby, nobody ever looked. That's number one. Number two, they didn't have the equipment upstairs in orbit to look. You can't see X rays from the ground, you gotta be in orbit.

There was a specific satellite called the RORSAT for um I forget what the acronym stands for, but anyway it can see X rays. Right. It can make images of objects in space in X rays. Well it's soft. what the guys did was as a kind of a lark, you know, maybe in the middle of the night when nobody was looking, they just kind of turned it towards the comet and and took some data.

In other words, they acted as real scientists. They didn't they didn't have a defensible position in their back pocket that could say to anybody, This is why we think we might find something they just decided I mean good grief guys, they decided to just look. And because they threw away their preconceptions, they made a stunning Nobel level prize discovery when the prizes get around to be handing out.

They found X rays coming from Hayatake, this comet that flew by the Earth between march twenty fifth and april first. Why?

Why why is it emitting X rays? Well, this is where Tom Van Flammen and I had a wondrous discussion and you should probably talk to Tom. Get Tom back on your show because The X rays coming from Hayataki appear to be another confirmation of Tom's model that this solar system has gone through violent episodes and that comets in fact are fragments of an exploded planet or planet. in the past history of the solar system.

The way it works is as follows The comet that we see with an optical telescope or with the naked eye is a little tiny speck of something, presumably ice. Surrounded by a cloud of gas being emitted as the ice melts under the action of sunlight, right? Right. That's the standard model. Sure. In Tom's view the comet is actually a a a group of twirling objects all orbiting around each other. Think of a bunch of flying rocks or icebergs, all right? Surrounded by large quantities of invisible dust.

for which there is some melting and outgassing from the sun which causes the visible tail and stuff like that. In Tom's model, as this comet comes flying into the inner solar system at over a hundred miles per second. Think of it, a hundred miles per second. That's really moving. From from here to Washington, from New York, where by the way dawn

You know, dawn is coming again, guys, it's moving westward. Dawn has risen here on the east coast, I can duty report, live here at whatever time in the morning it is. In four seconds this comet could have flown from here to Washington, four hundred miles, all right? Mm-hmm. And in what? Forty seconds it could go across the country. Yes. All right? Four thousand miles.

Well, at a hundred miles per second, those little dust particles colliding with the solar wind, with the very tenuous outer atmosphere of the sun in which we are all immersed of hydrogen and helium ions boiling off the sun, the corona we see during an eclipse. Yes. At a hundred miles per second, he and I calculate that the energy of the collision In the solid dust particles should have caused the dust particles to emit X-rays.

And what was interesting in the observations by the Rorsat satellite, the X rays appeared to come from a surface that was kind of of crescent shape. Like they were coming from some kind of sphere, solid sphere. meaning that the X rays are being generated by an exterior and not from the interior of a gas cloud. In other words, they were coming from the dust particles closest to the surface

bombarded first by the solar wind, producing the emission of X rays. Fascinating. Richard And only a model of a broken up planet can supply that amount of dust To provide that amount of x rays that we wouldn't know about if the Rorsat guys hadn't just thrown caution and their peers ideas to the wind and simply gone for it and look.

All right. Your own path. Richard, we got a pause here at the top of the hour. You've come this far, you might as well go the whole way once again, right? Okay. We'll take the sun up a little further on the east coast. Stay right where you are. You're listening to the C B C Radio Network, the American C B C Radio Network. We'll be right back

I think. Are you still awake? I'm still here. All right. Uh you're a real trooper. I'll sure give you that. You really are a trooper. Let's go back to the phones, lots of people waiting. First time caller line, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland. Where are you, please? Uh Indiana. Indiana. Good to have you. Well thank you. Uh yes. My question was on transistors and Roswell, if there was

Any connection that has been looked into? In other words, uh okay, let me translate that. Roswell nineteen forty seven. Then the advent of transistors and a technological revolution at a pace that is hard to account for. In um any terrestrial way, that would be about a the proper translation of that question. Is there any connection do you suppose Well, I mean this is an interesting idea. It's certainly something that should be asked of people like, you know, Ed Mitchell tomorrow night.

Uh let me give you an an analogue. All right. We went to the moon thirty years ago and we're now seeing a series of rather remarkable technological developments in the normal thirty year duty cycle of example to mature technology. Let me give you two rather controversial, you know, in indications of that. One is the STS forty eight video. At the end of the UN tape, you know, we have photographs, film, video from NASA showing from the shuttle something remarkable which is controlled.

Darting about in the skies over Australia, leaping off, you know, tangentially to the Earth's surface at uh fourteen thousand Gs, you know, from a standing start to two hundred thousand miles per hour in, you know, a couple of three seconds. Is that the development of a technology that had its genesis in the bringing back of clues and a physics or parts of a library from the Apollo missions to the moon?

The time frame would be just about right. All right? Let me give you another much more mundane example. Okay. Candace Bergen. Candace Bergen? I am not im I am not implying. Now follow me guys here. This is this is maybe a leap for some of you. Candace Bergen before she got, you know, two hit shows.

um, was known for her sprint commercials, right? Yes. And the sprint commercials are known basically for you can hear a pin drop. Yes. The reason you can hear a pin drop is because we have developed the technology of ultra clear and pure optical fibers. But allow us with very few relays to send laser pulse signals carrying digital telephone voice you know data and other information from coast to coast with very few repeaters. the the the transparency of these optical fibers.

can only be appreciated if you look at the photographs we now are looking at taken of the moon.

Because the glass structures we're looking at. Remember the Memphis guy who was so impressed with the earth rising? I do indeed and distorted over the wait till you see this video, you're not gonna believe what you're gonna see, art. What's remarkable is that until the exposures are lengthened extraordinarily long compared to average exposure The glass causing this distortion cannot be seen.

as a as a scattering medium. I mean you know how dirty window glass you can see it in the sunlight? Sure. It it shows up as a as a as a as a fine film. Of course. Well this stuff is so transparent that if I were to put the numbers the only glass in our experience now which is as transparent over hundreds of miles is the glass in the optical fibers where Miss Miss Bergen is talking about in the sprint commercial. Now, is it possible since ATT slashed Bellcom

was in charge of the site selection for the Apollo program. You didn't know that, did you? I did not. But the phone company picked the landing sites, boys and girls, for the Apollo astronauts on the moon. Ask doctor Mitchell this tomorrow night.

And it's the phone company that suddenly comes out because they're all one. It's like there's only one network, all right? Sprint and MCI and AT and T, they all share the same executives and the same data at some level. The technology is really all the same. Is it not possible that maybe this is another example of a technological transfer from a very sophisticated culture to a less sophisticated culture, namely ours?

In the normal thirty year, twenty five year duty cycle of science to engineering to technology to making money to profits on the stock market? I don't know. But I've always thought if any one entity would take over the world it would be the phone company. There was a film, a stunning film with James Covert. I need to be nice. They've been very nice to me lately and uh so I can't say neither called The President's Analyst.

Yeah, I remember it. Remember the president's analyst? Of course. And it I mean th this was back at the beginning of the conspiracy curve. When it ultimately turned out that P P C was running the world. That's right. Well you can tamper with anything but the phone company. And T P C was the phone company. I know why. West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hogland. Hello. Yes, hello. Where are you, sir? Uh this is Paul calling from Los Angeles. LA K A B C. That's correct.

Um and uh I'm a writer and an actor. I was in the film Communion with Christopher Walken and uh I uh guest starred in the title role of a Ray Bradbury theater episode entitled appropriately enough The Martian. Uh and um I wanted to ask you, uh Richard, about uh the castle.

Yes, the castle. Um now I uh heard you say on more than one occasion that it was uh I don't remember the exact distance. It was how far above the surface? It's about nine miles above the surface that we can see. All right. Now uh Do you mean it's suspended the mouth? It is it is it is held in a grid. It it is held in in a matrix.

of this glass like material highly shattered. From the surface. From the surface, yeah. I mean it's it's like a fly in amber. It's not hanging. Okay, that's what I think gravity used to buzz up. And if you look at the enhancements, particularly at the two versions that are on the website, you'll see this panel of material, this this shattered material all around it, structurally holding it in place.

It is a fragment of something that was once much bigger and obviously a lot more splendiferous than the thing we're seeing now. Uh and it is not a castle. That is a metaphor, boys. Yeah, I got it. I had somebody write to me and say, Mr. Houghland, I really appreciate your work, but frankly I think the castle is much more technological. Uh Richard, have you read uh the Martian chronicles of course? Absolutely. In fact our first Mars investigation

At S R I International, the name of the computer conference that we put together to knit our merry little band of researchers coast to coast was called Martian Chronicles. Oh perfect. I'll have to tell Ray about that. He's uh a very good friend of mine actually. Uh and well it'll be nice to hear what his thoughts are on what we've been doing because the last time I talked with Ray he did not want to hear

about any of this from hunger. I am consistently disappointed at how the science fiction crowd, you know, the those you would think would be on the cutting edge. Really wanna be over in the NASA ballpark, they want to be more credible than NASA. Oh, I have arguments uh with uh uh uh with him all the time about this kind of thing. I mean you know he and Jerry Pornell and Larry Niven and all those people that I know so well and have called my friends for years

I'm really astonished at how conservative and anal retentive some of these folks are. Oh, absolutely. But that should not be an absolutely. Uh they are supposed to be our early warning system. It's all right, Reggie, that's good. Make friends with them. They well they are my friends. They know this is what I think. You know? Remember Carl was in saying terrible things and then the other day he said, Maybe I'm right.

Finally. It has nothing to do with whether your friends are. It has to do with where the politics are going. That's my point. This is all intensely political and it should not be. Hm. Something is wrong. radically wrong here with the people we've been looking up to. Yeah, I'll let's talk with Ray about this. He um uh as you may recall from the Martian Chronicles, he talked about their cities of glass.

Yes. Exactly. If this isn't prescient on the on the Bradbury model that we get to Mars and find ourselves I mean give me a break. Is this why maybe Ray can't look at this? Because it's too close to home? He'd have to ask himself where he got the inspiration deep in the middle of the night for that stunning series of novel S to turn into that novel? Good point, Richard.

Uh uh my other question is uh are you going to be pr putting out a new documentary which will uh disseminate all of this new information and photographic material? We have two tapes in progress, one from the Washington Press Conference, which will be two hours. We'll weave it together so that Sarah McClendon who was there, you know, is seen in her best light and all that. Um and the other one will be built around our summer excursion or late spring excursion to London.

and to Leeds with Graham Hancock and Robert Vival. Be great if you could get into these documentaries, one or the other of them, the the stuff about uh Sagan and Thatcher as well. If if there was any way of doing that. I think there might be a way to do that. That'd be terrific. All right, thank you very much. I know, but anal read can't have ridiculous. Uh East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland. Hello.

Am I really on the air? No. Uh can you hear me? I have a cold. Yes, I hear you fine. I can hear you so well I can even hear your cold. Thank you. Where are you, by the way? Well, I'm in San Jose, Missouri. twenty express country. All right. And I just awakened out of a deep sleep

And it just as though something said to me, Get up and go and try to call him again. I think that's a metaphor for the human condition. I've been trying to call. I wanted to tell you that I have I spent many calls uh trying to get the people to turn on uh mister Hogland's uh comments and things when he was at that conference, uh trying to get them to open up uh

some of the uh air channels and things so that it wouldn't be closed over. I don't know what had happened but I do know that we had some people here on T V and so forth make many calls. I assure you uh it was to some effect, believe me. I certainly hope so. And uh the reason I called tonight is first of all something awakened me. I am you spoke a while ago about uh learning when you were older.

uh about learning when you were young so that you could s keep learning when you were older. I'll be seventy five in August. You don't sound it. Uh well I certainly am. Uh but that's because of my training. When I was very, very young and my father was Greek. and I'm from the old world and the new world here. And I was taught many, many things and I just love hearing what um uh would say, art spoke about lying on a quilt, looking up at the stars and

when I was a child that was fun every night to go out and look up and my father would explain about all the constellations they put in. All the many the seven sisters and all the many things that were there. So I learned to think. And I was very lucky to be in a church where they would bring down doctor uh William Pentangale who helped write the footnote.

uh for the Schofield Reference Bibles and studied many, many things under him, both in the Old and the New Testament. And I remembered studying about the Tower of Babel. and about the when God and it said and we, whomever we were, uh, decided that they could not let this go on because it was not time yet for this reference cycle which I I think the

close to six thousand years. And so it had to be put down. I do not know t to what extent they were developed except we certainly are not to that stage yet. And I was thinking as you were talking, perhaps Uh, some of the glass that's around there is when this was destroyed, perhaps that building uh was made, those blocks were made of some kind of glass like material. And um in thinking of that everything comes together. And I've done many reading around the clock and

I do know that the wheel of life that I've been on has brought me directly right down the hut to where we're speaking of divine intelligence. All right, well ma'am, uh we've gotta hold it there. Uh I will the with reference to the glass, Richard, glass is actually a She was pointing out. Glass is a

uh a surprisingly proper building material given the conditions for example on the moon, isn't it? Well even con given conditions on the earth. Um would it surprise people to know that of all the schemes and I use that in the in the largest sense of the word that the federal government has considered and offered contracts to and and solicited requests from industry

for handling radioactive materials, radioactive waste. Right. The most viable technically is to basically put it in glass bricks and store it in a desert Where there's little rainfall. So there's no hydrochloric leaching or any kind of acidic attack of the glass and the glass will sit there for tens of thousands of years

with the radioactive material bottled up inside. It damn well better. Even on Earth. Now we know because of the new technologies that we discussed earlier tonight that this hyperdimensional slash scalar slash Tesla physics uh that is being discussed by people like Jean Maloff. You should have Gene Mailoff by the way.

on your show. Arrange it for me. Um he is he's asked me to to intercede. He is the former head science writer at MIT. I would like it. He quit over the matter of principle on cold fusion. and is now up to his eyebrows in hyper dimensional physics experiments and real technologies. Um I I want to ask you about cold fusion. And well it it's hyper dimensional physics. Does it work? Yeah of course it works

Yeah. More energy out than is coming in and Harold Abston, who's a physicist in England, actually is proposing in the literature an explanation for coal fusion, which is really not fusion, it's hyper dimensional physics. We've got it, they said, and then everybody took a look at it and they said no everybody didn't take a look at it. Well, a lot of people took a look at it. There was an intense political hatchet job carried out on these two gentlemen.

who are now very nicely funded by the Japanese in France by your leaves. Exactly what I heard, yes. Okay. And are are gonna make money for somebody else but not for us here in the United States. No, Jean Maloff who has impeccable credentials and more important and impeccable curiosity. would be a very valued guess for you to have and this is why. Because Jean will cite you chapter and verse of all kinds of stunningly credible institutions.

ranging from Los Alamos to to North American Rockwell, the folks that built the Apollo uh command of service module who are doing experiments now where radioactivity is mysteriously disappearing. by application of this physics in experiments that are confounding the nuclear scientists of this planet.

You gotta have gene on because it's another critical component to this broad front revolution which is sweeping the world. All right. This may seem like a silly question while I don't think the moon is made of blue cheese or whatever it is people said.

A green cheese I guess it was. Um is the moon hollow or solid? No. The Moon has a core, Gary Latham's seismic experiments taken there by the astronauts and left until NASA mysteriously turned off the network in nineteen seventy eight, reveal a structured planet like the Earth. What makes the moon act weird seismically, but makes it ring for four hours is all these glass domes lying around on the surface. Sort of like a uh tuning fork. Exactly, precisely. Take a wine glass.

Take your finger, dip it in the wine, rub it around the edge of the glass and you get this piercing tone. You got a resonance. That's a resonance. What happened is that when the when the various objects were hitting the moon and the seismometers were transiting the data back to Earth The moon rang like a bell and because the geologists were thinking of this as granite and basalt and rock, they had no model, no conceptual idea.

to incorporate into the data that would allow them to see what the truth really is. So how did they explain the the uh returns? Oh they have been talking about you know regolith and and deep soil and and and dislocated rock and fractures and all that and it makes absolutely no sense at all. Because if I have a a a uh a rock pile Any geologist knows that a rock pile when I when I hit it with something all those little bits and pieces like rubble collapse together are gonna absorb the energy.

not transmit the energy losslessly for hours around and around and around the moon. I bet that killed them when that began to happen. It did, and they have been flailing around for decades, literally decades, trying to figure it out. There was one guy up here at um uh Columbia University. a geophysicist whose paper I have it was published in nineteen sixty nine who came within a whisker of a correct explanation. He said the only way to explain the ringing of the moon was a high quality ceramic.

I. e. Killed in a head on collision on the George Washington Bridge. Coincidence, of course. All right, Richard, hold on. We'll be right back to you a half hour to go. You're listening to the American CBZ Radio Network. I'm Art Bell. Stay right where you are.

And I guess what it's like to walk on the moon too. I bet he's answered that five trillion times. Maybe we'll fish about for a different answer tomorrow night. Now, uh back to Richard Hoagland. Uh Richard, you're back on the air again. Yeah, I'm getting kind of spry here. Haha. Well, really uh still a mover for a man in his seventies. It's great.

All right then, it's back to the phones and to our first time caller line. You're on the air with Richard Hobland. Where are you calling from, please? Uh Antelope. Antelope California. California, all right. Very good. Yeah, hi, my name is Todd. I got about uh five questions. Five. Okay. Um one is greedy. One is okay, if even with Apollo thirteen

internal gyros turned off, wouldn't wouldn't the rotation of the craft like stabilize it? No, because it's a matter of balancing the angular momentum. If you look at the momentum between the large vehicles slowly rotating And the tiny gyros relatively small, spinning at several thousand RPM. It's the small gyros that have a much bigger effect. If we're right. Remember, this was over several days. It's a tiny effect that adds over a long period of time.

And you need to find a cause which is not linked to anything that was ever done on any previous or post mission. And the only thing different about Apollo thirteen was they turned off all the electricity and everything rotating in that machine stopped except for the craft itself, which very slowly turned into barbecue mode to expose all sides to the sun.

But it was relatively slow, very slow. Mm so uh the speed would have a big uh part of it. Absolutely. Okay, and uh another thing is I wanted to know is the gyros themselves, do they like were they just um for the like did they um did they affect the system like if one if a gyro if one of the gyros went off balance did it have a uh automatic like um

restabilizing effect like a with a thruster. I'm not sure, you know, I don't know how to No, no what what see what you have is in an IMU, an inertial measuring unit, is you have three gyros. Actually they have six, you know, three in the back up Orthogonally oriented, meaning they're on on three different axes, X, Y, and Z, length, width, and height. They're at right angles to each other in the three dimensions.

Are those were those dual rate or like we're or when I'm thinking of were those like um each gyro has two axis or are they only like single axis? They were each single axis, all right, but there were three of them and there was there were two sets. I spent a long time I've looked at the specs of the IMUs, the inertial measuring unit In the Apollo command module. The point is when you turned off the power, the gyros, because of friction, spun down. They stopped rotating. They were not spinning.

And that's what was different. And no one, of course, without looking at the De Palma experiments and the Maxwell stuff earlier, would have a clue as to where to look for that explanation. Fortunately because we've been looking, we we do have a clue and that's the direction that we think you know, what I'm hoping we can do in a few more weeks is to get some actual numbers where we can predict

based on the mass and the rate of spin of these gyros what the trajectory effects should have been compared to what they were. That'd be good. Well that's what science is and that's what having more people in the website and all that Which is w dot enterprise mission dot com or Art Bell's webpage and jump and then jump to Richard's if you have a hard time.

Okay. Yeah, I I agree with uh Tom Van Flanders in the uh planetary breakup, but another thing I wanted to know is the people who believe that the uh comet uh originated from like a what was it, like the Oort cloud or something? Yeah. Yeah. How how did they uh how would they get their velocity?

from just evolving in a cloud. It's a little bit more than the same way we all got our velocity, I guess. Well they're they're looking at what is called differential ejection. Mm-hmm. All right. Think of the solar system as a vast circular freeway. with multiple lanes, like a race track. And the inner planets go around faster than the outer planets, right? So the tidal forces on objects orbiting between the planets, little bits of flotsum and jetsum, will vary over time.

The idea is that what happens is that this nudges in a cyclic way orbits of the little bitty stuff at the expense of very little motion of the big stuff, because the little guys will move quicker than the big guys'cause of inertia. So you then wind up with orbits that cross the orbits of the big guys at some point, or other guys, and because of gravitational deflection some of these pieces are ejected from the solar system, others wind up smashing into planets.

And so what initially starts out kind of circular winds up very elliptical, so some of this stuff is ejected into very long orbits that then comes back in after several million years and that's what we see is first time first long period comets. That's the standard primordial model. What Tom says is that you had solar system formation, you had planet formation, and then you have some mysterious force that tends to blow planets up.

Which is unsettling to an awful lot of people. Think about it. We live on what? And that the pieces then come back in these long elliptical orbits and it's the pieces of blown up planets from past eras that we're seeing as asteroids and comets. If there are there are clear observational predictions you can make that should allow you to distinguish, to differentiate between these two radically different ideas. And in terms of keeping score, so far Tom's side is ahead.

Except the the the game is is rigged. The the other guys have they control the journals, they control the airwaves, they control the media, they control the conferences and so Tom and his people are way outnumbered and it ain't fair but that's science.

the way it's practiced in the latter part of the twentieth century. All right, caller, that's gonna have to do it. Uh that's your quota plus a little. Uh West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Richard Hoagland. Good morning. Uh good morning Art. Good morning, Dr. Hoagland. This is Gary Kelly. Not Doctor, but thanks anyway. Oh

Okay, where are you, sir? Uh Santa Rosa. All right. Okay, first I'd just like to say, Mr. Hobland, you are stretching my mind so far my hair is hurting. But uh the the the question I had was now um

Buckminster Fuller built an entire geometry around the tetrahedron. He certainly did. And he based that geometry on nothing but what he c uh i information he could harvest through his own eyes and and reliable information based on on uh science. Well he was a Renaissance man. Leonardo the space age doesn't begin to to That's right. Like the I the isotropic vector matrix sounds to me like the easy

He he was onto this. Of course. Of course he was. And read read his Synergetics One Two if you want a really good encapsulation of hyperdimensional physics from its geometric perspectives. Oh well I I

I um I ab absolutely thought so. He he himself said that contradictions in quantum physics could be eliminated by casting the equations in his um geometry. He thought uh the fact that you had to multiply equations by constants was real messy considering there's no that uh uh when nature makes a bubble you don't But nature doesn't use pie.

uh and that uh n nature knows just how many uh molecules to put in the bubble before it takes out the seven hundred to twenty degrees of uh angle and closes the system. Okay. Um Well that's uh oh and one more thing, the the um nineteen point five point where th if you t put a tetra heater inside a sphere, mm the nineteen point five uh what what relation is d uh between that particular um

uh latitude and the great circles on the sphere that you can trace out by by connecting the the edges of the tetrahedron. What what connection is there between the the circles and that Well the reference point is you have to put one point of the tetrahedron, which is a four corner pyramid, on on the point of the rotation of the sphere. Uhhuh. The the rotation defines latitude.

Uhhuh. If you put one point on the polar axis, the other three points will lie either at nineteen and a half north or south above or below the equator in this rotating sphere. So it's that one reference point that put the rot in other words the sphere has to rotate. Unless it's rotating there's no reference point at all and you could put the tetrahedron anywhere inside and there would be no magic nineteen point five. It's all in relation to the spinning rotational axis.

The physics is all key to rotation. Mm-hmm. That's why the non rotating gyros in Apollo thirteen are a major clue. Ah ah ah ah. All of a sudden that makes sense. Yes, rotation. Rotation. You know how the old maxima business You know, the three rules of business are location, location, location. That's right. Well the three rules of hyperdimensional buildings are rotation, rotation, rotation. You got it. Thank you. Uh rotation, rotation.

I'll remember that. East of the Rockies, you're on the air with uh uh Spry Man for his eighties, Richard Hobart. And growing older every minute. Hi, this is Steve from South Dakota. Hi, Steve. I just want to say what a great honor it is to talk to Mr Hoagland. I bought his videos recently and I'm just amazed and uh I've got uh we have uh you know Richard Hoagland parties here in South Dakota. I've been calling everybody in and I've been

Including the local newspaper uh he involved in some of his photographs. Uh I was interested in knowing if I could contact uh we downloaded some photographs from Arts Web on the Clementine photos. And there's an address here for the Enterprise mission. Yes. In Weehawken, New Jersey. That's right. Uh now I wrote them about a month ago and I hadn't received a response.

Okay. But we've had people lend literally volunteers mailing and and faxing and writing to their heart's content. So you will probably get a response this week. Super. Uh second of all, I have a book here by Sherrington. Uh it's called E exploring the moon through binoculars and small telescopes. Right. On page forty six there's a uh picture of the crater Gescende.

and the half crater Latron in the late afternoon light and and I put an overhead uh transparency over it just sort of curiosity. It looks to me like in the middle of that there's a equilateral type triangular type uh rays in the middle of the crater and on the edges of the crater there are three um I can't really know how to explain to me except little curves in the crater round.

Well those I think correspond to that wondrous dome we see in the Zahn three photograph where it's on the limb. Oh really? The Zahn Three lunar dome on the on our website and on our site corresponds to Cassendi. Which also corresponds by the way, ask Ed Mitchell this art. Why did the Bell people, Bellcom, pick and then reject Cassende?

F as the as one of the two last landing sites for Apollo seventeen before they switched up to Taras Litro. And why coincidentally does Cassende happened to correspond to the site of the Zon three lunar dome? Interesting. Alright, all right. I overlaid the my overhead and I drew lines to correspond to those three little curves in the uh you know, crater rim and

It forms like a star of David. Yep, and if you look at the Zom three photo, you'll see that you're seeing a three sided tetrahedral shape in the form of that dome edge on. Sure.

Okay, and uh you know lastly, uh is the uh Phobos moon of Mars in a solid orbit? Oh that's a that's a good question. There was a strange prediction made uh by Gordon Michael Skyin regarding Phobos recently

Oh, really? Yes, there there has been. And uh is so that is a good question. How solid is the orbit of Phobos? Well, it's all right, let me go back to the early part of the century. An astronomer named Sharpless And another astronomer named Douglas, working out of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff. measured night by night by night for years by photographic means, the position of Phobos as it orbited Mars.

Now because Spobos is a little potato shaped chunk uh potato shaped chunk of rock about eighteen, twenty miles across, it doesn't have any real gravitational field to speak of, and it has no atmosphere of course. Right. And it orbits six thousand of miles above Mars. So it was presumed that it would be flying around like clockwork. In fact, they found over the years that the predicted position of Phobos was slightly different than the observed position.

When we got to the Viking era, when the Viking spacecraft to leap to the end of the story went to Mars and carried out its own photographic measurements by means of i its cameras. And those were correlated with the Douglas and Sharpless observations with telescopes from Earth The discrepancy really became apparent, and it was obvious that Phobos is slowly spiraling in. to where in the next ten to forty million years I underscore forty million years it will crash onto the surface of Mars.

Now the problem we have with this is that this means that the human race essentially is living in the last few ticks of the clock of the lifespan of a natural moon of the solar system.

which is it just can't happen. Statistically it just doesn't make sense. Unless In our model, the technological civilization that came to Mars and put down the stuff that's doning other places we see also gently moved a couple of asteroids from the belt into orbit around Mars to furnish them the raw materials to provide the stuff on the surface that was needed.

Hm. And in that case, if you put the numbers in, it turns out that the rate of deceleration of Phobos Spiraling in due to tidal effects gives us a date when all that happened of about two hundred thousand years ago, which of course coincides beautifully with a number of other dates for when Sidonia died.

All right. First time caller line. You're on the air with Richard Hoagland. Yes, turn it down please. Uh Mr Hogland. Where are you, sir? Um this is Jim in KEX country. Yes, Jim. I'd like to ask a question. that you've asked mister Hogland three or four times on various shows that he's never ever answered. And that is can the Um structures on the dome be picked up from um the Hubble telescope.

Well no I it's not that I haven't answered. What I've said is that when we asked NASA, when one of our members wrote a letter officially to the Space Telescope Institute and asked NASA if they would turn Hubble toward the moon to look They claimed in writing that the moon was too bright for Hubble to look at, which is patently a lie. It's r is so that is untrue. It's untrue. It's false. Now I have a book by um uh Chason who was the chief public astronomer for for Hubble.

With SDI. Yes. Um at at Harvard. Uh called the Hubble Ward. And in the Hubble Wars there are photographs taken of Hubble, taken by Hubble, looking down at the Pacific Ocean, at the clouds over the Pacific. Now the clouds over the Pacific from two hundred miles down are numerically, you can easily do the calculation, ten to a hundred times brighter than the lunar surface looking at the moon from Earth orbit. That would make sense.

So if they can take pictures of white clouds over the Pacific, which they do routinely for what they call flat field frame. They can sure point at it so they blind to it. And we've caught them in the lie. It's not that I haven't answered the question, sir, it's that NASA, your friendly local space agency, taking your money, is not telling you the truth. 'Cause they don't want to point it to me. They're not dummies!

They know that if they started looking at the moon with Hubble they'd see all kinds of things and the people who were not bought, who were not part of the system, the honest people, would say, Gee whiz, look at cat and the cat would be out of the bag. Well, so they're not going to point Hubble at the moon unless we elegantly demand it. Why don't you get doctor Mitchell, use his influence to get Hubble to look at the moon and we'll give you a set of interesting objects to look at?

Well, that's another good question to ask'em. I'll never get all these in. Um The cat is slowly climbing out of the bag or maybe not so slowly uh anyway, Richard. Look, we're out of time. I'd like again? Yeah. Gosh how time flies when you're getting older. Uh especially into your early nineties, huh? Um give your website address again. Okay. Tonight we have launched. We have launched commit for the Enterprise Mission at www. dot enterprise mission one word lowercase.

Or to my website www.artbell.com and then jump right over to his or from his to mine there will be interlinks. There will be a link. You know, it's I'm I'm sitting here holding a uh a copy of a speech by John Kennedy I wanted to close tonight. Because I didn't realize this until very recently. People have asked me why have we changed the name to the Enterprise Mission. Less than a minute. Did you know that John Kennedy when he gave his joint uh uh

you know address in the house of the of the U S uh House and Senate in nineteen sixty one. Ennunciating the Apollo mission said the following. Now is the time to take longer strides. Time for a great new American enterprise. Time for the information to take a clearly leading role in space achievement which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth. He was enunciating that he believed that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal.

before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. Richard, once again it has been a distinct pleasure. Thank you, my friend. Happy birthday. We'll do it again, of course. Uh Edward Factor One. Rich Yeah, that's right. Richard, say it, you get the honors tonight. Say goodnight, America. Say goodnight, America. Uh, from the high desert. Good night, America.