Project Camelot | Richard Hoagland transcript

Richard Hoagland:
Interview transcript - Part 2

_____________________________

Dark Mission : Richard Hoagland - Part 2
Albuquerque, New Mexico, December 2007

Start of interview

The problem with all this is we're trying to do forensics from outside the system. We don't have people inside saying, “This is where they're hiding this, this is where they're hiding that,” and even if we did, would we believe them? The lie is different at every level and they have their set of lies that they're being told, so to really do this you have to rely on the evidence itself.

And then you have to rank that evidence in terms of the political realities of the entire culture in which you live, i.e., the United States, or the larger culture in which we live, which is the world. And when I look at the world and I look at what's going on right now - I see the most intense, fractional confrontations. The reasons for more bloodletting, more slaughter, more pain, more suffering, more conflict on this planet than any other is the religious idea that my God is bigger than your God: in fact your God isn't anything, and you aren't anything either.

And when you look at the presidential debates, this year, what has come to the fore? Overwhelmingly, again and again and again, the religious background of the candidates. The founding fathers - that whirring sound you hear in the background is the founding fathers spinning in their graves because they tried to set up a political system where we separated politics from religion, politics from our metaphysical ideas of who we are, what we are doing on this planet, who our creator is, etc etc.

And what we're seeing as the 21st century evolves, even in these first few years, is a blending and a fusion of religious perspectives with the body politic. And you just look at what the schism is now that is confronting everyone which has given us the ‘freedom' - I'm using that in quotes – to create the Patriot subversions of the constitution to create the NSA eavesdropping.

It's all about religion. It's these bad guys, those nasty terrorist Muslims! The conflict of civilizations; that those people are basically out to kill all of us. You know, the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. Which, of course, is what the radicals on our side are saying, even though they claim that that's not what they're saying. So we're living within levels and levels of illusion where at the base it's all about religious difference, and religious intolerance, and religious obsession - that my God is the only God, and you deserve to be killed because you don't believe in my God.

Into that mix you introduce the idea, a la Brookings, this official NASA report, that when NASA went out into space it would logically find evidence of possibly more advanced beings. And it said, in the charter, you know, on the moon, Mars, or Venus. Well, advanced beings would have to be created by somebody, right? Whose God would create them? Was it your God? Was it my God?

So, when you go to the moon, like what I have here on the screen - and then as part of the Apollo program you find what appears to be the head of a robot, a sentient being created by something greater than humankind and lesser than the angels, and then you see that in our own fiction, in George Lucas' Star Wars, there is this stunning similarity in our popular cultural mythos, the question has to arise: Who in NASA knew what, when, and were terrified to tell us because of the religious implications?

Now if you look at ruins on the moon or you look at ruins on Mars, particularly if you have a mile-long face on Mars - a mile long, plus or minus - and it looks like us...

Remember, there's this key phrase in the Old Testament: “God created man in his image.” Now wait a minute. If that's true, then what is this mile-long face doing lying on Mars? Mars wasn't mentioned in the Old Testament. Who were the Martians? Were they created in God's image? Is that God's image lying in the desert?

In other words: you begin to get into such levels of discourse and such levels of potential controversy and conflict and people killing each other over their version of the truth, that Brookings said in 1959, and John Kennedy gave it to Congress in 1960, on April 18th, that it's better to leave all of this alone, to not let anybody know about this because all they'll do is kill each other over whose God is behind this new version of the truth.

And I think based on history, right on CNN, right now, that that's the ultimate reason - which has been used as an excuse incidentally because the lie is different at every level - it's the excuse based on some stuff going on in our culture that if in fact people were to know unequivocally that we're not the only conscious beings in the universe, the level of religious factionalism would rise to an hysteria.

And we would literally dissolve in whatever conflagration you can imagine. And that a lot of good people - remember there are good guys and bad guys - a lot of good people are going along with this because in their minds, to quote Jack Nicholson, “We can't handle the truth.”

Kerry: Okay. So NASA is out there to protect us from the truth because we can't handle the truth, the truth being that...

Hoagland: But according to whom? Remember, it's always according to who's writing the script.

Kerry: Okay, but according to what you're telling me, this is...

Hoagland: I'm saying some good people in NASA believe that.

Kerry: Okay, but you're saying...

Hoagland: Others believe other things.

Kerry: ...you're saying this is the main reason for the secrecy...?

Hoagland: I think it's the main reason they've been able to get so many people to go along with it for so long. Remember, everybody wants to be a good guy.

Kerry: Right.

Hoagland: Do you wake up in the morning thinking you're a bad guy? No. You think you're doing something positive. You're advancing humanity, doing these programs, putting it on the internet. You're trying to expose the truth because the truth will set you free. But what they have been told, is the truth will kill you.

Kerry: Exactly...

Hoagland: And they have believed it. That's the key pernicious thing here. They have ignored, in many cases, their own Bible. And they thinkby suppressing the truth, they are making us free.

Kerry: Okay, but let's get to this truth. What you're telling me, is the truth is that the ruins on the Mars and moon indicate that we are not alone.

Hoagland: Oh, that's not the issue. The issue is, are we involved. Are they our ruins?

Kerry: Are they?

Hoagland: I'm asking the question, are they our ruins? Did the great-great-great-great-grandmothers of the human race, created in God's image, put that stuff there?

Kerry: Right, well if they are our ruins, and they were created like us and they were us, our ancestors or whatever, then we don't have a religious problem because, hey, they're our ancestors.

Hoagland: Or, if they're not... and they were created by super alien beings who made us as a laboratory experiment and put us here to do what we're doing, which is not free will, not very good, then those guys become God. We're eavesdropping, we're trespassing, literally, on God's territory as you define God, which is not the big guy that I've been thinking of all my life since I grew up reading the catechism but something lower than the angels which basically is as fallible and as human and as mortal as all of us but has been someone playing God. Can you imagine...?

Kerry: Is this your premise, though? Are you investigating this when you look at these ruins?

Hoagland: Of course! I'm investigating all of this. The problem is how. It's very hard. It's really, really hard because you can't trust people who would tell you “the truth.” You have to find the original sources, and ultimately we've go to go to Mars or the moon and find the libraries.

But then of course it's like, whose going to read them? Who's going to translate them? How do we have checks on the translators? How do we know that the translations won't be cooked? That they won't be faked to abide with certain creeds, affirm that certain Gods are real, or a God, but the other guys are pretenders. You have to... I mean, this is not a simple labyrinth. This is down the rabbit hole, through the wormhole, out to the other universe, back through the white hole, into the other galaxy. (Both laugh.)

It is not simple. Which is why it has waited 40-some years for the beginnings of a ray of sunlight where people actually now finally, ultimately, want to know the truth. And that gets back to the numbers and success of Dark Mission. Because ultimately, what has been pacing all this, what has allowed the suppression of the truth to continue unabated for at least 50 years? People. You guys out there.

You have wanted it. You haven't wanted to know the truth. Because if you really had, you would have known the truth a long time ago. You are the problem as opposed to being the solution. And just now, those of you who are watching are possibly becoming part of the solution to finding the truth.

Kerry: Now I want to ask you, if you're investigating what we found on Mars and the moon, and you are, clearly; you've got documented evidence that you're tracing - you're tracing this incredible dome made out of - I don't even know what...on the moon that covers...

Hoagland: It's several domes made of glass. The simplest explanation is that it's made of glass. The reason is because when we look at the Apollo analyses of the stuff they brought back - which I by and large believe in because it's like, why cook those books? Which is the chemistry. Overwhelmingly it's silicone dioxide, which is glass.

It's also what the Earth is made of. You know, how do you make glass here? How do you make huge beautiful windows like this? You basically take the most common elements in the Earth's crust and you heat them up, refine them, melt them, you put them on these steel plates, press and roll them out and you make sheets of glass, plate glass.

So it looks like the lunar ruins are made out of the most common material you find on the moon which by the way when you make ruins, the structural buildings on the moon, they're twenty times stronger than steel.

And the reason is: there's no water on the moon. There's no atmosphere. There's no impurities that get into the glass that make it weak and brittle. So on the moon, glass is a structural material and it has - if you dope it with various minerals, metals, you can make it do all kinds of cool things. You can make it photochromic so that when it gets exposed to sunlight it gets dark like those sunglasses where they darken down automatically and then as the lunar night comes in it would open up. You can make it radiation-resistant, you can make it semi-transparent so only certain wavelengths come in and other wavelengths are blocked.

I mean, on the moon, on the front side if you're in a place called Sinus Medii, the Middle Bay, when you look up directly overhead there is this gorgeous Earth hanging overhead spinning on its own axis with clouds day after day, week after week, month after month. The best real estate on the moon to see the Earth would be right there and that's where we found our first amazing set of ruins.

In fact would you like me to show you what some of those ruins look like?

Kerry: Sure.

Hoagland: (whispers) Segue.

As part of our lunar investigation going back now to 1996, which is 11 years, I brought in a variety of experts in Enterprise [Mission] to look at various aspects of this impossible-to-believe story at first hand.

Namely, that Apollo went to the moon; the astronauts went there specifically chartered by NASA, by the president, as a mandate to go and find the technology, secretly, and bring it back and back-engineer it. And that the Apollo... the race with the Russians to get to the moon before them was a cover story.

And we know that now because we have memos, which are in the book, in Dark Mission: from the White House, from the State Department; we have testimony from Premier Khrushchev's own son, Sergei, who was a fellow, I think, at Brown University, who confirms that from the moment that Kennedy walked into the Oval Office in 1960, after he was inaugurated on that afternoon of January 20th, he opened a dialogue with Premier Khrushchev, attempting to get him to go to the moon together.

Now, logically, this is nuts. Because if we're told all these years that the reason we went to the moon was to beat the Russians, why were we going to the moon at all? Spending all that money at all? Doing anything out there if it wasn't to beat the Russians if in fact secretly we were trying to go with the Russians?

The only logical answer is there was something there that Kennedy felt was of overriding importance to humankind - to civilization no matter where it is on this planet - that we had to share with our arch-enemies in the Cold War.

And, ultimately, as we document in the book, it looks like they killed him for it. And then a few months later they imprisoned Khrushchev and kept him under house arrest until his death several years after that.

Kerry: But ultimately, behind the scenes, we may have gone to the moon with them anyway. Isn't this right?

Hoagland: We don't know. Again, we don't know. The gaps in the record are still big enough to fly the Enterprise through. What we do know is that we went. Apollo went to the moon. We had six missions. Incredible missions. We had one that didn't quite work the way we wanted it to - 13 - which in itself has interesting gaps that I'm looking at in my copious spare time.

But what we know now from the photographs they brought back, photographs that I've looked at in the NASA archives - physically held them in my hands - photographs now leaked all over the web, all over NASA websites all over the world for anybody to download and use a modicum of image processing like Photoshop or CorelDraw or whatever to basically turn up the gain, turn up the brightness, look at what's in the sky, which should be totally black, you'll find THIS.

Now, this is actually a perfect idealized version of what you're going to find. This is a grid created by one of our experts, an architect named Robert Fiertek whom we talk about in the book, who I brought into this in the mid-90s to analyze the photographs and tell us what was there from a structural, constructional perspective.

So Robert had created this grid in the computer, and then what we did was to look at some of the photographs. For instance, this is a Hasselblad image from Apollo 10. The frame number is AS10-32-4810. So you can go to the archive and go to the website and download this picture. You can see that there are hints that there is something in the sky, really classic lunar terrain below. All you do is turn up the brightness. Remember that song, Turn up the Volume?

Kerry: Mm hm.

Hoagland: Turn up the gain. And you see this stunning grid work in the sky. Grid work which - this is a close-up now - does not belong. It's three dimensional. It's rectilinear. It's girders up and down. It's stringers left and right. There's no doubt in anyone's mind who has anything to do with construction, who's even built a house, that this is real. It 's not scratches, it's not image weirdness in the chemistry bath from developing the film. It's real 3-D manufactured stuff.

Kerry: Okay, so what's your theory on who manufactured that?

Hoagland: Well... that goes back to the photograph I showed you a few moments ago, which was the head. Well, the head is kind of anthropomorphic, isn't it? If we believe in biological evolution, if we believe Gaylord Simpson who is the expert at Harvard back in the 1960s, who laid out this kind of Bible of human development, which Carl Sagan then ran with: human beings are totally unique.

The way we look. Our face, our features, our proportions, two arms, two legs, all that. If you were to run Earth's history again, you wouldn't get anything looking like us at all. And the reason, they say, is because if you look in the oceans, if you look on land, if you look at all the various species, if you look at all the extinct species, if you look at the fossil record - the only guys that look like us, we now know, are genetically related. The simians, the anthropoids, the apes, the monkeys. There's a family tree here. Darwin was right. There is a family from which we have somehow been derived.

Bill: And perhaps some of the extraterrestrial visitors as well?

Hoagland: We don't know that. Again, I'm dealing with actual data I can touch. I do not do UFOs. Because I have to depend on stories. If you're depending on stories, you're at the mercy of anybody telling you the story. If you depend on actual, documented evidence that's in an archive that anybody can download, you're in a completely different ballgame. And so, I listen to the stories, I try to cross-correlate them with the data, but we are data bound. That's what makes Enterprise different from anybody else trying to do this thing. We have data.

Kerry: Okay, so anthropomorphically, they look like us?

Hoagland: Yes.

Kerry: What has that got to do with what you're finding on the moon?

Hoagland: I'm getting there. I'm always trying to get someplace. So, back to the robot head. Why does the robot look like us? It could look like anything. It could look like R2D2. Remember, R2D2 did not look like us at all. He's cute, and almost like a little trash can, you know, with blinking lights and a beam, and all that.

See, he looks like C3PO, who was an anthropomorphic robot in human image. So the fact that Apollo went to the moon and all - Apollo 17, Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt may have seen that thing. They may have picked it up. They may have brought it back as part of their mandate. We don't know any of those facts yet, because they're not talking.

Kerry: Well, why do we a have photograph of it?

Hoagland: There are about 15 photographs of it.

Kerry: I know, but did they take the pictures?

Hoagland: They took the pictures. When you take a picture on the moon, remember they are not looking through a viewfinder. The camera was strapped to their chest. The fact is the only way you aim the camera was with your body in the spacesuit. And you're sitting behind the glass...

Kerry: Hasselblad.

Hoagland: Hasselblad. A very high quality camera, but they're not looking at the scene.
They're looking at the scene and they're taking pictures by moving their whole body so they might not have even seen this, it was so far away. It's in the bottom of a crater which is the size of a football field.

Kerry: Well, who found it?

Hoagland: I did.

Kerry: You did?

Hoagland: I'm the first guy to find it. Of course. What do you think? That's why you're here, aren't you?

Kerry: (laughs)

Hoagland: That's what we do over here! Read the book!

Kerry: (laughing more) You found a robot head in the bottom of a photograph...

Hoagland: In 14 photographs. It was photographed again and again and again and again as part of the panoramic sequence. We are trying now to go - we've gotten two copies of film - not just the web but film, (which is really crappy copies that were sent to us), and what I was able to do was a computerized robot comparison with C3PO.

I was able to take two of those images and superimpose them very carefully one on top of the other. This is a standard photo technique for amplifying signal and averaging noise. Because every photograph has noise.

If you do that, the mathematical equation says that you drive down the noise by the square root of the number of frames you can successfully carefully superimpose. Ultimately we got 14 frames to play with.

I need higher resolution, but I've done some playing around on the computer even with those frames, and you get very interesting results. The two frames that were actually film that we used, we were able to superimpose them and that's when the eyes popped out.

The round irises, the camera eyes, that tell me this is not a desiccated human being lying there on the moon, one of the lunar colonists that we were positing was there at one point. This is an artificial life form, a robot.

We've called it “Data's head.” It doesn't look like Data. It looks much more like C3PO. Which opens a whole doorway to, what does George Lucas know and when did he know it? And if you want I can go there, and really curl your eyebrows.

Because we have more data that Lucas is involved up to his eyebrows in this whole interesting story, and plot, and conspiracy. And that's why George Lucas is so successful with those films. It's not an accident.

Kerry: Okay, now, I do want to go there, but we don't have time to go there.. Bill?

Bill: I have a question, Richard, if I may, which I know has been asked by some other people. I could understand how Data's head could have been captured on film accidentally because it was quite a while back and they weren't focusing on what was there with their Hasselblads...

Hoagland: 14 times.

Bill: ...but with these very large structures that you've identified on your photographs, these would clearly have been in the background before the astronauts were taking those images. Why would they have permitted those images to be in the background when all they had to do was take the photograph the other way?

Hoagland: This is a photograph taken from Apollo 14. This is a photograph taken by Alan Shepard, who was the commander. Looking north, here is Edgar Mitchell, who I debated about all this on the Art Bell show in 1996. Here is Mitchell's shadow. Here is the incredible background dome arching over Mitchell that he is apparently totally oblivious to.

And here is an inset area where, because I have an original print of this priceless image saved from deliberate destruction by NASA, in 1971 I believe, by a gentleman named Ken Johnston, saved for 30 years and then physically handed to me in Seattle in 1995, where I was able to put it on a computer scanner (which was pretty primitive then compared to what we have now), scan it, turn up the brightness, turn up the gain... and bingo! Out popped all this astonishing geometry.

When I zoomed in on the print because I could scan it at higher and higher resolutions, I found a succeeding series of really amazing, detailed versions of what was on the frame. You can see that at the horizon there is this lateral scaffolding, that there are angled buttresses that come down at an angle from somewhere in the distance.

There is multiple leveled, three-dimensional cross bracing. There is something here that looks like a bullet hole in a windshield. Like I took a 45 and - so the glass is all shattered all around it scattering light. Notice the color. The color is real. This is buried in the blue emulsion layers of the multilayered Ektachrome of the original ASA 64 film that they took to the moon and shot all those pictures with.

They didn't make prints. They made transparencies. Then, in the dark room, they made intermediate prints, and in the darkroom, Bill, to answer your question, they took out all the good stuff. They simply erased it in the darkroom.

Bill: But they didn't have color film on the first mission...

Hoagland: No, they did. No, no, no, they had color film. In fact they had a super color film. Which is a whole other story. I actually knew the inventor at EG&G who invented it. I tracked using it. I actually had rolls of it to use myself.

When I was at CBS I went to the Cape and I had a huge gun camera built for me by one of the key photographers in the press corps. He was a freelance guy. He worked for AP, he worked for Newsweek, People Magazine, whatever.

He actually built this huge camera that looked like a rifle, and I would aim it, like that, with a trigger that would trigger the 35mm camera with this special film and I took photographs of the launch of the Saturn 5, on Apollo 8, the first mission to the moon.

CBS then flew me by helicopter from New York to Boston where the lab was and out to the lab and Charlie, my friend Charlie Wykoff developed, while I watched, that film.

I then took the helicopter back to New York and we put that film on the air to show what the Saturn 5 launch would look like with this incredible, super extended-range color film which NASA had developed secretly to take to the moon. They then destroyed the lab that was built specifically to make this film.

Kerry: NASA destroyed the lab?

Hoagland: Yes, NASA destroyed the lab. Well, Kodak at NASA's behest. Because Charlie was asked to give the film to Kodak as part of an evaluation for eventually putting it out in the marketplace so you and I could basically have... that's the Gold film now that is commercially available in drugstores.

That's a version of Charlie's super wide-latitude color transparency film. It was taken to the moon. They used it to take the first-generation pictures with those Hasselblad cameras. They then brought it back to the darkrooms in Houston and made intermediate generational copies and prints, and in the darkroom all the offending ruins were removed. This is why this print is so important. Because this is from a first generation, unaltered print without the things taken off.

Bill: It was the movie color film that I was referring to in Apollo 11 that wasn't used but it could have been. Am I right about that?

Hoagland: Well, they had a color camera and they had a black and white camera. They only used the black and white and they used it in a reduced sensitivity mode because if they had used it in the original design mode, built by Westinghouse, it would have shown the ruins behind Apollo 11. That's by the way why the original Apollo 11 tapes have “disappeared.” They dare not let them loose. With modern computer technology, can you imagine what we would find on them?

Kerry: Sure.

Hoagland: Except those shadowy figures dancing around on the moon. Where there, if you know what you're looking for, even on those pictures, there are hints. But there's this enormous element of plausible deniability. Because people can say, “Oh, that's just bad photography. Bad lighting.” So there's no proof.

This is now the inset showing Mitchell and showing where we did this and showing this stunning three-dimensional geometry of the glass. We call this “Mitchell under glass.” And yet when I talked to him on the Bell show, and debated him, he claimed to have seen nothing.

And I gave him a pass at that time because I thought that part of the problem had to do with the fact that he literally could not see. This is now a close-up showing what I call the bullet hole. Notice all the 3D geometry, this amazing three-dimensional lattice. You can see the stair steps of brilliant glass shining and the lunar surface is overexposed. Because remember, this is very dim. This is probably the consistency of cigarette smoke. It is so fine because it has been beaten and beaten and beaten to death by an incessant micro-meteoric rain. So after how many millions of years there's almost nothing left. But there was enough left to take pictures, and bring them home.

Kerry: Okay, but to piggyback on Bill's question, why would they leave any trace? Do they want someone to find it? Did they want you to find it?

Hoagland: Let me continue the logic train, and we'll get to that. This is a light curve of human visual sensitivity. Our visual sensitivity peaks onn what's called the yellow-green, which is where the solar spectrum peaks by the way, so that's probably not an accident. And as you can see, as we go towards the red end of the spectrum it gets really low down here. This is the sensitivity curve. This is 100%, and this would be zero. So it's really way down in the noise, and as you get towards the blue and the violet it gets very noisy. So you really don't see, at low light levels, much of anything in the blue and the red. You may see a little bit in the green.

But film, of course, has a very different sensitivity. So now we come to the astronauts. Each astronaut was outfitted, we were told, with a gold visor designed to protect them from ultraviolet light, like a sunscreen. Or Polaroid sunglasses, or whatever.

That's another NASA lie. I can prove it. Watch. If you look at the transmission curve of gold on plastic and you look at the spectrum and you look at the gold helmet, it turns out that the gold suppressed all the visible wavelengths of the bright lunar surface under shining bright sunlight - and amplified the blue.

Meaning: that those helmets allowed them to actually look out at the lunar surface and see the ruins of the domes, so they could aim their body cameras at any particular place to get the pictures of the ruins which are pervasive and all over, so there's no way they could point the camera where there weren't ruins.

Because they were inside an ancient shattered dome of glass, where for 360 degrees - this is a 360-degree panorama taken from one of the panoramas that Ken Johnston saved from the original prints - and you can see that most of the stuff is to the west, back-scattering. Notice the geometry here.

Then as you move the camera around to the north, this is where - this is Mitchell again, this is where the gridwork was which we showed in close-up - then you look toward the sun over here and toward the south there's much less over here. You can see that it's almost dark, the way it would be if there was no glass. And then finally back to the west again, as it begins to build up in what we call back-scatter, where that light is kicked back.

So this panorama, taken from an original NASA print, saved from destruction by Johnston 30 years ago - somehow this print knows where the sun is. And there's no way that any that any accident of chemistry, development, bad lighting, light leaks or whatever - I mean a light leak would be toward the sun, right? Why is the biggest portion of back-scatter in the sky directly opposite the sun as judged by the astronaut's shadow? In other words, his very body is shielding the camera lens from seeing any sunlight.

Bill: Now, I know that some people watching this will want us to ask this question, and they want to hear your answer. And that is: some people say that you've got hold of a conspiracy, but you've got hold of the wrong one. Because what you've got hold of here is evidence of back structures on a big screen in the Nevada desert, like on the Truman Show. And that's what was actually being kept quiet. Now, it's not a stupid question. But I'm sure you can answer it.

Hoagland: (laughs) We go into this in the book in great detail. In my mind there is zero probability - and I rarely use the words ‘zero probability' - that the lunar landings were faked. Given all the politics, given the Nazi back story of what they were looking for, given von Braun, given the Kennedy-Khrushchev thing. Why would we go if there wasn't something there to go for?

But the actual proof that this is not done in a studio and is actually for real, comes from an anecdotal story of my own eye-witness testimony. Meaning, I was at JPL when we made the transition from Downey up to JPL to cover the Mariner 6 and Mariner 7 missions. I was there as someone in the auditorium was being squired around by the head of NASA Public Affairs for JPL, named Frank Bristo, who was walking this guy around who was putting some little pamphlet on every reporter's seat in the auditorium.

And then he was led outside to hand personally a copy of this memo or whatever it was, to every reporter who was in the press room waiting for one of the press conferences to begin. So I got one and I read it and I was flabbergasted. Because here was a guy, being officially sponsored by a NASA official, handing out a document that said: “The entire Apollo 11 mission was just completed in a studio, a sound stage in Nevada, and the whole thing is a fake."

And I wish I had kept that document! We're now looking for some reporter who at the time, as a sidebar, like “isn't it cute what happens around these missions” actually published the story based on that two page mimeo handout. Because somebody had to have done it. Possibly at the Pasadena Star News, which is one place we're looking. Possibly even in the New York Times.

I haven't looked. I haven't had time to look. The point is that there were other reporters, both well-known and no-one-will-ever-hear-of-them reporters... a thousand people covering those missions in those days. Somebody had to have kept, just as an historical anachronism, a copy of that memo.

Now what that means, as I say in Dark Mission, is politically NASA itself was starting the rumor before Neil and Buzz and Mike Collins even got home, that Apollo was a fake. Why would NASA, in their wildest dreams, be starting a rumor that would mature 30 years down the road? The answer is: inoculation.

The answer is that if it ever came out that there was real stuff there that they were hiding, they could divert the conspiracy crowd to the fake conspiracy that we never went to the moon, by planting the seeds - by planting the meme in the culture - generations before. Which would then bear fruit, which it did on Fox Television. (Gosh, Fox television. That's interesting.) And it would divert those people from asking the real question, which of course, is: what did they find on the moon, and when did they find it, and when did they decide to lie about it for all these years?

Kerry: So the astronauts, even Mitchell, you're saying, had a visor that actually made it possible for them to see this wall of glass, or dome, or whatever...

Hoagland: So they could take pictures of the right stuff. Yeah.

Kerry: ...and photograph it. So when you asked Mitchell, and he said he didn't see anything, what is your theory on why he's lying?

Hoagland: [to camera] See, Kerry's like a good attorney. She knows the answer to the question. She never asks a question where she doesn't know the answer.

Kerry: (laughing) That's not true!

Hoagland: So I will give her the answer now, that she knows: I think Ed Mitchell is telling the absolute truth.

Kerry: Okay, now this answer I don't know.

Hoagland: Ah, so she didn't know the answer. Well, that's because she hasn't read that part of Dark Mission.

Kerry: That's right!

Hoagland: The resolution of this paradox is that Ed Mitchell has had something happen to his mind.

Kerry: Oh, that answer I did know. Okay... okay.

Hoagland: The astronauts, I believe, have been tampered with. There are all kinds of papers now coming out in the open literature about technologies which can selectively wipe out your memories on specific events. And I believe, and I have in the book, Mike and I carefully put in document after document after document of reference to all of the astronauts, at one time or another, have complained about not being able to remember what they did on the moon.

They come up with various rationales. Like some of them... Pete Conrad used to come up with a flip answer: "Oh, it was real super, gee whiz, golly, boy, was it great!" Which was a cover for the fact that he was very frustrated, in private conversations, on the record with certain reporters that he couldn't remember.

We had a conference in Wyoming several years ago. Wyoming is a hotbed of CIA and ex-Intel guys who were all bought big beautiful farms and ranches so that they'd keep their mouths shut. They were basically bought off. That's how they're bought off.

I was invited to present data on Mars by one of these former CIA big rancher types who had a very beautiful wife who happened to be a medical doctor. Without mentioning names, because they're still alive and I would like to keep them alive, things got really, really, really weird. Because I was ostensibly invited to present the Mars data: Cydonia, our work at the UN, the expose on NASA briefings at NASA Lewis on Mars. And suddenly, I surprised them by presenting a whole bunch of stuff, for the first time, on the moon. And this individual freaked out.

Kerry: Oh, Wow.

Hoagland: And his wife, who it turned out had been one of the doctors who had debriefed the astronauts, the crew, she orbited around the conference, never even coming in, talking to some of the people who were there with us and saying: “I don't know why this is so disturbing but I - I just can't sit through this.”

Kerry: Wow. Amazing.

Hoagland: So it's the old 'Who watches the watchers?' Even, I believe, she had had her mind altered so she would not remember the truth after she had done - so how far up the chain does this go? How many watchers have they had to change their minds with some technology?

And the technology is not perfect. I think we're seeing evidence that the technology, again and again, breaks down.

If you read, for instance, Buzz Aldrin's first-person testimony in his own books, he talks about how Jay Barbary, who was a colleague of mine from NBC News - I knew Jay back when I was with Cronkite and was just a young whippersnapper, and Jay is now this senior space correspondent still covering the shuttle for NBC, asking very perceptive questions from the Press Corps - Jay innocently invited Buzz to, I think it was a Kiwanis Club meeting up in Palmdale, which is one of the NASA facilities north of Los Angeles where they in fact have tested a lot of the components of the secret space program and the secret military program, including the shuttle.

And so he invites him into this meeting with a whole bunch of rah, rah, jet jockeys and engineers, the good ol' boy, slap-you-on-the-back network. You know exactly what I'm talking about. And he's sitting on the stage and they've got two chairs for the conversation, and Jay asks Buzz: “Well, what did it feel like to walk on the moon for the first time?”

And in his own book, Buzz Aldrin says that at that moment he became violently ill, he had to rush off the stage, he went out to the alley and he threw up. His wife came out all upset because she thought something was seriously wrong, which of course it was. This is classic aversion therapy. Classic aversion therapy.

So yes, I believe the astronauts are blameless. All except for Neil Armstrong.

Kerry: Okay...

Hoagland: I think Neil Armstrong fully has his memories. I think Neil Armstrong as the icon, first person of the human family now to walk on the moon, has been left alone. And that is why Neil Armstrong never says anything in public about the space program. They wind him up and bring him out at a couple of these ceremonies - like in 1994, he was at the White House with President Clinton and a bunch of students and it was a whole arranged photo op and he stands there making this speech.

So I had somebody the other night analyze the body language and his voice, and talk about how incredibly nervous and incredibly upset he appeared to be. Which you can see on tape. We have the tape.

And what he started out doing was comparing all the astronauts, the entire astronaut corps, all his colleagues who landed on the moon - to parrots. He said: “And parrots don't fly very well. Parrots also don't tell you the truth. They tell you what they're told."

At the end of his speech, he turned to the students, because the students represent of course the next generation - the perfect photo op. Always plant students in your audience so you make people think you're concerned about the next generation. He looked at them. He kind of calmed down at this point, and he said: “There are wonders beyond belief on the moon, for those who can remove truth's protective layers.”

Now I was never taught in school that truth had protective layers. Who's protecting the truth? He was obviously referring to Brookings, to NASA, to 40 years of lies.

Bill: Well I have a couple of questions as well, once again at the risk of irritating you here, Richard. There will be many people who have read your book from cover to cover, and they also read Dark Moon. They've looked at those images, and I know you're familiar with those images. They're the ones where the crosshairs seem to be behind the image rather than in front of the image. They're the ones which seem to have multiple lighting effects in terms of multiple shadows. Now those are good questions to raise again. I know that you have dismissed those. Can you just explain briefly on what grounds you have done that?

Hoagland: Well dismissing is if you don't deal with it. What we have done on Enterprise and in Dark Mission, is we have dealt with most of the common questions very effectively and scientifically, and I think we have been able to put the issue to rest. Because what people who naively raise some of those questions don't know, is the secret technology that was used to take the pictures.

For instance, this super extraordinary color film. If you take that film, and you make a first generation copy in the camera, and when you bring it back to Earth you make other copies, what you can do, because you have such latitude, is you adjust between the light and the dark, so that it looks as if it's perfectly lit with floodlights, spotlights, fill light - when in fact it was the film.

It was the secret hidden technology of Charlie Wykoff's XRC film that allowed them to do that. In terms of multiple shadows, no, there are not multiple shadows. There appear to be multiple angles. And these are people who don't understand how shadow angles depend on surface landscape geometry of hills, valleys, craters, the way the rocks are.

Then there's the common canard that they couldn't see stars. Well, Ken Johnston reports - remember he's the official guy in charge of the photographs in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory for Apollo - that he was told by his people to eventually destroy all but one set of the films.

He walked through one building one day and noticed that there were a group of three or four people who were doing something with negatives, and paint. They were painting out the sky above the horizon. And as any good manager at NASA, he said, “What the hell are you doing?”

And the answer was, “Oh, we're strippers.” Which is a kind of a flip answer, because that's a term that comes from Hollywood. Where they would make matte paintings and they would strip them into the background film, so that in Forbidden Planet, you know, you see the illusion of the monster against the Chesley Bonestell painting of the twin moon alien world, Altair 4, that the expedition landed on.

So he explores a little further and he says, “Well what are you really doing?” And the guy in charge of the several women doing this - they were women by the way - he said: “Well, what we're doing is we're painting out the stars so that it doesn't confuse people.”

Now the stars, as part of the original NASA photographs, have been a major cause of concern to a lot of these people who've been concerned that you don't see stars on a lunar picture and they think naively that you should.

Well, in fact, if you take a picture in the daytime on the moon you're not going to see stars. The reason is the stars are so incredibly faint and the sun is so bright, that you cannot expose one picture that will be a decent exposure of the surface and see the stars at the same time.

You can do this on any day or night here on Earth, you know, go out on a moonless night, and try to get stars and then have someone light up the foreground with floodlights, and you'll quickly see the foreground look totally overexposed, even with weak, feeble artificial illumination - because the stars are so incredibly weak that you can't record the two on the same shot.

Significantly for what Ken says to us, is that the people who were doing the painting-out, obviously were painting out this stuff. They were painting out the glass ruins, the sparkles, the pieces of glass that just at the right angle would kick sunlight back into the camera lens and it would be unmistakable there was something in the sky that should not be there.

The fact that they thought that they were painting out the stars, and not the glass, means they also believed the lie. The lie was different at every level - and at their level of the lie they had been told “We're getting rid of the stars because they'd be confusing.”

So it's an internally consistent story that has elements of first-person testimony, photographic evidence, corroboration on the web all over the world now from someone leaking amazing, untouched-generation versions, probably scanned from these original, XR Ektachrome transparencies. And it all fits together as a coherent whole that NASA has been suppressing - real lunar ruins - for over 40 years.

Bill: Somebody who is a valuable insider source of ours, and I had the good fortune to be able to talk to him at length just a very short while ago, and I know you are very suspicious of any insider's testimony, and I understand why, but let me show you the story...

Hoagland: Well, it's not accompanied by physical evidence. See, the difference with Ken is he had an actual, physical set of prints, which hold up.

Bill: Of course. I understand that. But this is the kind of conversation that we could have had over dinner last night, and we didn't have it. Now, I asked this guy [Henry Deacon], I've had a lot of conversations with him about a lot of things, and I thought, you know, I never asked him whether we went to the moon or not. I said, “Hey, did we really go to the moon?” And there was the longest silence.

I didn't know what he was going to say. It was like a really, really long pause. And eventually, he said, “Yes.” And he said, “But it wasn't that simple. We went there with help.” He said, “We had advanced technology that was not part of the formal Apollo program. It was not part of the accepted science at that time, which helped us get through the Van Allen belts."

And actually it was also built into the LEM that enabled it to take off without leaving a blast crater and so forth. He said the astronauts were aware of this, and this is the reason that he attributed to their reluctance to be interviewed and so forth. He said it's a very complicated story, but he said most of the missions went to the moon.

I didn't push him on that. But he said, yeah, those guys, who said it was all set up and faked on a fake stage, that's not true, but some of the stuff was actually fabricated in preparation for this so that the whole story would hang together in the public eye, because of the complicated PR aspects of it, and so on and so forth.

Hoagland: Now, do you know this person's background?

Bill: Yes, I do.

Hoagland: Do you know what role he played at NASA?

Bill: He wasn't in NASA. He's worked in a lot of black projects, he was an electronics specialist. He worked in Livermore, he worked for a lot of black projects. He knew people.

Kerry: He worked for NOAA.

Bill: He asked questions. He wasn't involved in NASA, he wasn't involved in the program.

Hoagland: All right. Without talking to him myself, because I think I know who you're talking about, my impression would be that he is another victim of “The lie is different at every level.” He's been given, which satisfies his national security experience, the lie that they're covering up the technology. Because nowhere in his lexicon are they covering up ancient ruins.

Bill: Yes. It's not first-hand information that he was giving us. It was something that I believe he had learned in the course of his work.

Hoagland: From someone else.

Bill: Right. I absolutely understand.

Hoagland: So you understand how he can be honest and sincere and still totally mistaken.

Bill: It's the biggest problem.

Hoagland: Because if he had seen something that made sense to him - Oh, there's this high technology - which of course if we are right there is this secret development of real antigravity technology in parallel with the public, official Apollo program. There are people, in fact Joseph Farrell is one of the people in his books (this is before he got together with me) who raises this as a possibility.

In fact, all the people that look at those LEM liftoffs and don't understand what they're seeing... it's because they don't have the proper background in physics. Everything we've seen, including - there are craters - I've seen close-ups under the LEM of the crater. What makes it so interesting is that when you blow away the dust - see, the natural model says that dust has been falling on the moon for billions of years, which means there should be a nice, light, fluffy layer. So, like snow, if I was to pull a rocket engine over snow after a snowstorm, you'd get a nice, beautiful crater, right?

Instead, what the astronauts found, from trying to stick in flags and do drilling and other experiments, is that underneath that thin surface, like a few inches, maybe an inch or two, the lunar surface is damned tough. It's hard. And it gets harder the deeper you go. That, of course, is in consonance with the idea that there are ruins underneath that surface.

There's buildings down there! There's walls, there's beams, there's girders. The stuff you see above ground is only half the story. That's why, on the current missions orbiting the moon, tonight as we're taping this, there's a Japanese unmanned mission the size of a Greyhound bus. The Chinese have a mission the size of a VW bus. They are loaded with dozens of instruments up to and including high powered radar to ping the lower levels and see, I believe, the ruins underneath the lunar ground.

Kerry: Okay, is it the ruins under the ground or is it an underground base?

Hoagland: Same difference. You mean, well, base implies...

Kerry: A modern-day, underground base.

Hoagland: The moon has a surface area of North and South America combined, 15 million square miles. If we have a base there, it's pretty small. So most of the stuff you're going to find is ancient. And it's easy to separate the two.

Kerry: Okay, do we have a base there, in your opinion?

Hoagland: I don't know. In my opinion... given that there is probably, in all likelihood, a secret space program, I would imagine there is a base. There's probably more than one. You can't do everything from one place. I mean, could we explore this planet from one base?

If you have the technology that you can get there in a couple of hours, effortlessly, using antigravity. And we do have shuttle video showing this technology, which I loaned to Art Bell some years ago. And he really kept the secret! I said, Art, just sit on this, don't tell anybody.

I eventually gave it to Whitley Strieber through Art and it wound up at NBC as part of Whitley's program. I firmly believe that that stuff is our stuff. That we're not looking at ETs, we're not looking at little grays, little alien guys. We're looking at our secret space program.

And there are reasons, again very carefully laid out in the book, why I think it's our stuff. Well, if that's true, it would be silly to imagine that we hadn't build a base or bases on the moon, if for no other reason than we need a place to function, to loop all this stuff and bring the good stuff home.

Kerry: Okay, we've heard that there are Auroras flying shipments back and forth, and I guess people, I don't know.

Hoagland: Well, Aurora is a code name. It could mean anything. We know in the 1980s there were a series of sonic booms in the air over Los Angeles which were reported coming in over the Pacific and then landing, probably at Edwards. You know, the super-secret research facility out there.

We heard that they were Aurora. That's all we know. Remember, this is a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, shrouded by a constant veil of lies. So getting at the truth, unless you've got pictures, with a paper trail, with a pedigree, you can't believe.

And even with these, you have to do some decent analysis to understand what you're seeing. I mean, there are some people that look at this and they say, “Hoagland, I haven't a damn clue what I'm looking at.” Because they don't understand how to think in terms of simple optical physics. They've never driven towards a sunset in the afternoon with the sun shining on their dirty windshield to realize that they're seeing dirty windshields.

Okay, a key prediction - remember, science is nothing if it's not prediction - a key prediction of the whole ancient lunar dome model if somebody was there, they lived there, they built incredible, extensive stuff. Apollo was sent there to find out what they could bring home with the primitive rocket technology of the 1950s and 60s. We're doing a lot better now, by the way, secretly. And one of the key predictions of the model is that if you have glass, if you have glass domes, glass ruins - people who live in glass houses see prisms.

They see stunning arrays of color. And if you lived in a glass house and you looked at the sun and looked at the reflections and all that, you should see prisms over and over and over again. In these photographs, the model says that we should be able to find prisms.

So, I started looking. And this is a picture from Apollo 17. You can just see a hint. This is one of the newly scanned, leaked images that somebody is putting 16 Mb files so anybody out there can go to the web and download them and use Photoshop and bingo! You'll confirm exactly what is there, if you turn up the gain. Right up here, above these mountains - which aren't mountains, by the way, they're old eroded ecologies - you find a prism. You find a stunning color shard of glass, spectrally refracting light.

Now, in the model that was raised earlier, that this was all done on a sound stage? Uh-uh. Because sound stages would be made of steel and aluminum... things we build out of. We don't build out of glass here because glass is fragile. Glass breaks down. Glass is not steel on Earth. Only on the moon is it twenty times stronger than steel.

So if I had to bet the farm on one piece of data, that we're right, it's these prisms. Because in looking at these photographs, in looking at the way the color emulsion of the Ektachrome, the Super Ektachrome that Charlie Wykoff, my friend who I worked with and used this film for him, developed, I know that those three layers - yellow, magenta, and cyan - when converted into a color Ektachrome transparency, were obviously able of recording.

Here's another one. This one has a prism going up and a prism going down. It's called bi-refraction. It's a double refraction. And as you look through, here's a comparison: the one I showed you first, and here's the second one. Notice the angle is different. That's because it was taken at a different angle in relation to the sun.

So the physics of the refraction, of the formation of the prisms - here's one of my favorites. This is the PR shot. Cernan wearing the commander's stripes with the flag, but if you look up here in the darkness, in the dome that's over Taurus-Littrow, and you enlarge it, lo and behold, you find a prism! A double prism, and you can actually see it's aligned with the stringers in the glass. There's another one here, there's another one up here. These are overwhelming proof, an optical physicist's proof, that what we're seeing is in fact real.

Here is probably my favorite. Here is Harrison Schmidt on the moon. The lunar landscape, the Taurus-Littrow valley, gray landscape, everything we've been told. Here's a color chart, alright. Here is our calibrator. Red, green and blue. This is the grayscale. It's called a noman. They put this out in the photographs to calibrate the color.

Well, the color is strangely unsaturated. It's like NASA, when they put these out, turned down the color. Do you want to see why? It's when you turn the color back up to the way it should be, bingo! You have sunrise on the moon. You have layered sunrise just like looking outside here as you're filming this. If you look outside, you'll see the same layering of light and color under the Earth's atmosphere. Except we all know, and we can prove, there is no atmosphere on the moon. Just watch a star as it goes behind the moon some night. It does not twinkle. It disappears just like that. So John Lear, dear John, you're wrong.

There is no atmosphere on the moon, but there are these huge grids of glass and when you look in the right way at these pictures - remember this is an official picture - not only do you see the color spectrum of a sunrise, but right here there is this nice incredible prism made of glass refracting sunlight back into the camera. And notice the angle. It's almost horizontal because when Cernan took this picture the sun was to his back. He was facing almost directly away from the sun and the geometry of the domes made the prism flat. This, to me, is overwhelming evidence of these ancient lunar domes.

Bill: And we learned that NASA is very happy to adjust the color of their images from the Mars images.

Hoagland: Oh, instantly.

Kerry: Wonderful.

Hoagland: I'm done.

__________________________