Host: Michael Corbin
Guest: Richard Hoagland
Transcribed by: JJ Mercieca, Malta UFO Research
Web Page: http://www.waldonet.net.mt/~mufor/
PART 2 of 2
MC: My guest is Richard C. Hoagland. We're talking about his paper he wrote in 1980 which has been essentially ripped off by NASA possibly to explain away the upcoming possible revelation that they have found life on Europa.
MC: Richard, dealing with your web page again, you have an interesting set of documents on there regarding Public Law 85-568 from July 29, 1958. Can you tell us what that is?
RH: This is the actual congressional legislation that was signed by President Eisenhower that basically formed the current NASA, and what is interesting about this set of documents which is available from NASA's own historical archives office, it admits both in the beginning pages under security sections relating to classified information relating to the space agency and, the relationship between the NASA administrator and the secretary of the defence and then later on in the ending pages of the document it actually says that for the purposes of this act NASA is to be considered a defense agency of the United States government. The idea of a civilian space agency which is completely exempt from security classifications and all the things we've been told over the years, except as it relates to means and methods, technology, space craft that they would share with DoD missions or whatever, turns out to be a very elegant fiction.
MC: That's incredible .. I mean it really is in a lot of ways because we've always framed NASA in a civilian way or section in our minds.
RH: And 99% of NASA's own employees absolutely, firmly believe what they have been told because I bet that not many of them have read the legislation. So what we have done is put actual GIF images from the NASA space act up on the web so people can see that this is untampered with, that this is the actual set of documents from NASA's historical archives office and we intend to do that for all of the very controversial documentation that we have been and will continue to provide.
MC: I think too, doesn't this put a different light on the agency?
RH: Well, ya, it makes it part of the DoD, part of the defence establishment. And what it means is for those people who claim that if we find life out in the solar system, ruins, or artefacts or crashed space craft or whatever, that NASA or its employees would immediately tell us they really are living in a naive world because we then must hearken back to another set of documents that we have also posted on the web. Again, it's actual GIF images of the actual documents from the Brookings Institution, relating to a study that was commissioned by NASA in 1959 within a few months the formation of the agency itself and these documents relate to the potential forecast of the discovery of ET evidence indicative of intelligence elsewhere in the solar system and then there is a strong recommendation from the participants in this study that NASA cover it up that they not tell us and then the footnotes explain in great elaborate detail all of the fearful reasons why they were then saying to NASA, "You really should not level with the American people", ranging from religious reasons to economic reasons to social destabilization reasons to .. to the fact that in one phrase, perhaps the one I love best, they say that the most destabilized group of all would be scientists and engineers and of course NASA has been run from the beginning primarily by scientists and engineers.
MC: Why would they say that, I'm curious what that ..
RH: Because scientists and engineers, they're almost at a religious level, if you talk to many of them recently, Michael, they think they have a secret pipeline to the truth. They have very little humility, they have completely lost touch with the idea that they are dealing with models of reality, with theories that approach reality and not reality itself.
MC: So there is a built-in inflexibility with any kind of new idea.
RH: An inability to say "I could be wrong" .. which of course is what makes Carl Sagan's recent admission in his recent book that over Cydonia, the ruins on Mars, the Monuments of Mars so called, that in fact all these years he might have been wrong and we might be right when it comes to our contention that they are in fact bonafide ruins left by someone on the planet Mars. For Carl Sagan to say this year in his latest book, The Demon Haunted World, again the quotes are up on the web, that he might have been wrong all this time since 1976 when he began decrying this as any kind of significant information hinting at or pointing at a bonafide ET prescence is pretty astounding and indicates to me personally, and this is now an opinion, that Carl is trying to tell us something about how this is going. That there is going to be an acknowledgement that we live in an inhabited universe, and that there are evidences very nearby, i.e. in the solar system possibly beginning with Europa, because Squyres of course was a grad student of Carl Sagan. And maybe Carl is telling us in this book that yes, NASA is going to change it's approach to this subject but not in terms of their own claims. In other words, they may ultimately admit that there's stuff out there, ET stuff, but they're going to have to claim that they found it themselves because that would allow them to maintain the dialogue and the control of the interpretation of what it means. And Michael, you and I have always known that this is not a war about is it real or is it false, it's what does it mean.
MC: I do have a problem with the whole notion, because it puts a different spin on everything because you're dealing with what is allegedly a civilian organisation but you're also dealing with a lot of politics. Politics and science don't mix very well.
RH: And some pretty lousy ethics. It is really mind boggling that Prof. Squyres could absolutely 16 years after the fact attempt to get away with claiming this idea. And the only reason that I think this is put forward, and I kind of feel sorry for him because I think he is the designated fall-guy .. have you ever heard the phrase in Washington a trial balloon?
RH: .. I think this is a trial balloon, I think this is to see if this will fly into (garbled) .. if the media, if science journalists, if members of the internet, if people who are concerned about these issues really don't rise up and there is really no big outcry of this naked attempted theft of a pretty interesting concept that when NASA gets around to making the announcement and nothing happens, I mean this is a licence to steal, literally a licence to steal from then on.
MC: OK, hold that thought, we're going to go for another break. When we come back we're going to get more into this stuff, it's fascinating .. you're a fascinating guest Richard. I enjoy having you on the program. My guest is Richard Hoagland, and we're talking about some really incredible stuff, NASA is not what we've thought it was all these years .. crazy!
MC: Returning is my guest Richard C. Hoagland and let's go right to the phones. We have a caller calling from our affiliate in Salt Lake City, KCNR.
Caller: First off Richard Hoagland is one of the greats of the 90s scientific age. And I also wanted .. my question is Richard, what did Apollo or NASA see, what did their photos convey to show that there is life, and I heard that on one of the Apollo missions they have film of UFOs following behind one of the Apollos, one of the missions and they have a hard time now explaining that film. Thank you gentlemen.
RH: Let me see how to deal with this. First of all, thank you for the kind words. Europa of course is a moon of Jupiter and the only spacecraft that have gone there are the unmanned Voyager and now the unmanned Galileo. The Apollo missions were in orbit and landing on our own moon which is a mere quarter of a million miles away.
We have had access in the last four years to increasing qualities of both still photography, the Hasselblad photography, the Pan camera, the mapping camera, the metric camera footage, as well as the beginnings of an examination of 16mm motion picture film. And I must say, Michael, that the more film we look at from the lunar missions the more extraordinary and blatant and widespread the evidence of structures on the moon becomes. And what's really interesting, after we held our press conference in March of this year in Washington where we had 8 other specialists, engineers, architects, scientists, geologists standing there with me at the National Press Club presenting two hours of data to the National Press corps. We had a lot of enquiries on behalf of former NASA employees to look at this data privately and we went to Houston to show a number of engineers some of our best footage and some of our best stills and this has opened the floodgate and we are getting even more information. Everyone who knows the missions, who knows the technology and the engineering, who has looked at this accumulating evidence, which we are posting in a timely fashion on the web, they cannot help but come away with a feeling that they have been betrayed. That the NASA that they thought they knew, that the agenda they thought they were carrying out is only part of a much more interesting truth that which over time is going to come out.. there's no way that this genie can be held in the bottle for much longer.
Michael Corbin: It leaves you with a bad taste in the mouth.
Richard Hoagland: Well, but it is also a good taste, because the honest folks are standing up and coming forward and agreeing with us that what we have is amazing, compelling evidence.
MC: Let me ask you this .. I think what we are seeing is damage control, you know, they're coming up on this possible revelation .. we're seeing this in a lot of other areas as well. Do you think they know a lot more than what we even possibly imagine?
RH: Well, I think they know more, I don't know if "a lot" is a qualifiable term. The name of the game here is to get the honest people who for whatever reason have been admonished and cajoled to come forward.
MC: How much headway have you made since your press conference.
RH: Behind the scenes, quite a bit. And we now have such compelling information that I am going to put up on the web page this week, and when we have put it up you and I, Michael, should have another conversation. Because what it demonstrates unequivocally and we're betting a thousand, everyone we've shown this new evidence absolutely says, it's undeniable .. that it's a smoking gun .. that they have known, that a select group have been planning activities around knowing i.e. that there are artifacts on the moon, and in fact the evidence that we have includes both the moon and Mars and is extraordinary evidence of prior knowledge. This did not just come about because of the unmanned Viking missions to Mars or the manned Apollo missions. The evidence now strongly indicates that some in NASA involved behind mission planning and direction of activities of the space agency knew beforehand with full knowledge what awaited us there to be confirmed with the manned landings on the moon and for the unmanned Viking to confirm on Mars. So this is a scandal of unestimatable proportions so what Steve Squyres is trying to do by taking credit for the Europa Concept is only the tip of the iceberg .. there is much more to hit the fan when it begins to come out and if NASA is going to announce that it has found life on Europa I think that this cascade of additional evidence, a different kind of agency, a different kind of agenda is invevitably going to come out because the pressure behind the scenes is building and the evidence is there.
MC: Let's take another call. Good evening, what's your question for Richard Hoagland.
Caller: Richard, you had the debate with Edgar Mitchell and you were going to send him some follow-up information on the moon structures. Has he gotten back to you negatively or positively?
RH: We sent him a large quantity of additional material, videotapes, discs, hard copy and there has been no word back. I have, in truth, not pursued the matter because we have been involved with some of the other material I have alluded to, but I would imagine after we post this new information on the web I will be placing a phone call to Dr Mitchell to see what he thinks after I send it to him myself.
MC: Thank you for your call. We have one more call, let's take that real quick because we're about out of time for this segment.
Caller: In terms of social cultural causation, looking at this whole scenario we have to admit that ideology and politics has not been causative, what's been causative is techno-economics and this is a techno-economic issue. What do you think about the fact that our institutions are controlled by capitalism and therefore to protect their own system in accordance with Brookings material, that we've been fed propaganda all these years.
RH: Well I think basically I would take your point and .. the opposite side of the coin is that if you have a truly competitive system then the truth will ultimately come out and the technology such as Paranet and such as radio programs we're doing, home video recordings, satellite technology - thank God for Arthur Clarke and that invention - and the web, I believe are ultimately going to be the balancing force in this techno, socio economic realm you're discussing, to bring about a more level playing field ... and if people want to know with these tools they can know, but they really got to want the truth.
MC: Richard, hold that we have to take a break. We'll come back and get some closing comments from you about this incredible program. The smoking gun could be indeed on the horizon for us. We'll be right back.
MC: Indeed the truth is stranger than fiction as we are finding out tonight with our guest, Richard Hoagland. Richard, we have about one minute to wrap this up .. what are your closing comments, what's the future hold...
RH: Well you know, if we were writing a scenario for how NASA were to admit it's pregnant i.e. on the ET issue on life out there .. this is a scenario one would write because the safest thing is to announce that you have discovered microbes or slow, simple forms of life in an ocean on a moon circling the largest planet ..
MC: Something not real harmful ..
RH: Exactly, not guys in spaceships that can come here and do what ..
MC: "take me to your leader" yeah ..
RH: Alright, and first of all you want to claim that one of your own predicted it, you keep it in the family ..
MC: ..damage control
RH: Damage control. And then of course you move on from there to other possibilities .. life circling other stars .. and maybe you get around someday to finding on the next missions going back this year i.e. the Global Surveyor and Pathfinder missions to Mars, that "oh my God, boys and girls we looked down and there are ruins down there and we have found them!" Now that may be what we are seeing attempted here and I don't think it is going to work but it is going to be an interesting several months if not a couple of years ahead of us.
MC: Are you going to do any future trips to Denver?
RH: Not in the immediate future. I am going to San Francisco in mid-August to do a conference there, and I'm going to St Louis to work with some of our new team members, some of our former NASA people we had on the stage in Washington. And we'll be working the net very hard, we're expanding the Enterprise mission, you know the Enterprise herself, we're adding new sections, we're going to have two-way conferencing, dialogue, we're in the process of picking people to moderate those sections, we're going to put a lot more pictures and imaging data .. and as I've said we have this amazing new information that shows what NASA's agenda has been for 30 + years since its formation and I can't wait to get that up there to see what people think. We are boggled.
MC: That's it for us tonight and I want to thank all our callers, especially those we didn't get to tonight. A very popular guest, Richard Hoagland. This is Michael Corbin, keep your eyes on the skies!
GO BACK TO PART 1 OF THE INTERVIEW