Kerry: I'm Kerry Cassidy. This is Project Camelot, and we're here with Richard Hoagland, who has just written a book called Dark Mission with his partner Mike Bara - and we're excited to be here at his home in New Mexico.

So, Richard, in the beginning we will run according to you and let you lead us a bit to where you want to take us. At some point, I will step in and start directing you in different directions. You can argue with me or you can agree!

Richard: [Laughs] Others have been trying to do it, you know.

K: We can give a little match. However you want to deal with it, yes?

R: [Smiling] Okay.

K: But it will be fun, and we'll all know something [Laughs].

What can you tell us about this new stunning NASA history?

R: It is a story born for many years. I mean, at least some 40 years since NASA itself was born, in 1958. What intrigued me was that I had tried to tell this story earlier on various occasions. I told him on Art Bell, Coast to Coast. I also told him for the National Press Club, during a press conference we did with eight other people - a very prestigious background, people from NASA, the people who recorded it - it was in 1996.

It's a story I told on TV, but it seemed until we wrote it Dark Mission, somehow he didn't get caught. Two weeks after the book was published, it became a bestseller on the New York Times bestseller list. Actually, that's what this [pointing to a picture of the book on a computer monitor] nice little emblem at the top of the corner of the book says.

This is not the worst act when you consider that there has been no promotion on national television for a title like this. The only publicity we had, the only way people found out we had written a new book about NASA behind the scenes and what they were telling us against the background of who they really are, was broadcast to Coast to Coast listeners and on websites.

We have two websites. EnterpriseMission.com, which are the official sites of Enterprise mission researchers. And then we have DarkMission.net, which are the official pages of the new book.

I believe that we are in this country, in fact in the world, politically, especially for the last 8 years - we all are ready hear the truth. Let it lie. At this moment, it is so amazing, it is more than clear that the people we trusted, to whom we have entrusted our lives, our destinies, our sacred honor, lied to us and looked at the cameras and calmly presented us with a lie behind a lie.

So when Mike and I went out with a book to reveal to you truth behind some of those lies about an agency that is not concentrated in the mainstream, apart from rocket launches in the Cape, I think that explains the birth of this literally powerful wave that is now occurring in bookstores, where in Barnes & Noble and other chains it they can't keep on the shelves.

Mike's brother recently went to Barnes & Noble in Seattle and the salesman said, "Sorry, Mr. Bar, but we had twenty of them yesterday and only one left." And of course it's really good for me political message. That means we are somehow interconnected. We are joining the American people and we have a chance to show them, to show them the truth.

K: So, what is the truth? What is the decisive result? And you can build the story however you want, but you're basically saying that NASA lied to us. Basically, our government lied to us because they are one and the same, right? Are they intertwined in any way?

R: Not necessarily. You know, in this, people have to think in their nuances. People need to be much more sophisticated, which is certainly a 21st century viewer, or today's reader, is. It's not government. Nothing like government exists. There are several governments here and they are in war.

Occasionally you notice in public that there is a kind of war, but in fact the subtle nuances of the positions are hidden most of the time. Indeed, it is almost like the old feudal system. You know, we all grew up on stories about Robin Hood and the Sherwood Forest, Nottingham, remember, King John and the scary things that happened in England when Sir Richard, the "king", the King of England, was gone and fighting in the Crusades. expeditions. The "negative" John basically tried to steal his empire from behind him while he was gone and doing good deeds.

And what we're looking at in the current US government - not even the founding fathers dreamed of it in the wildest nightmares, perhaps except for the vision Washington allegedly had in Valley Forge - never imagined that these counties, these feudal kingdoms, and These feudal estates fought with each other and also with the American people for power. As a result, it's all about power.

K: So name that lordship. Are you willing to do this?

R: Okay, let's see, we have the Department of Defense, the State Department, NASA, the CIA, and all those agencies in the alphabet. Remember that the National Intelligence Service's estimate, which just told us a few days ago, "Oops, um, Iran doesn't really develop a nuclear weapon for four years," was a compilation of 16 or 17 intelligence services, all of which agreed on a consensus. and they said, "OK, we were really wrong." Because they don't do what the president told us they've been doing for months, they drum on war drums. Threatens World War III. So people can see that there is an incredible battle for the riverbed here in the US government.

… That there is no one government. There are, in the parliament and senate alone, 535 governments. Every member, every MP, every senator has their own perspective when they are truly accountable to the electorate.

K: Okay, can we talk about real governments that are below the boundary of general consensus?

R: Okay, it's five light-years away. Let's move inconspicuously there. Let's get there with some transformation, because most people think that what they see on CNN is not a shocking fact.

We are only at the beginning of the mainstream of what I call the Bell Curve, because that is exactly what it is. Moderate center. It's the "silent majority," as Nixon called it. We are just beginning to awaken those people to realize that their government, the people they trust, the people they have elected, the people they have given power to with their voice, may not be the people who run this show.

This is an enormous leap for most people who really think that if they go to the ballot box or go to a meeting or take part in some kind of voting, that this has real power. No, it has power in a public place, but the real executors or those who decide our fate are elected in private and in secret. And we identify them in Dark Mission... did you notice how neatly I got back?

K: It was a wonderful transition.

R: Thank you. We will identify the three secret powerful groups that are actually behind it all and that are in the lead and are fighting each other for power under the NASA emblem. And they are - because I see that's where you want to go [Kerry laughs] - they're Nazis, Masons and mages.

K: Very good, very good! It is amazing that you have actually listed them, at least at this level.

R: Why Stunning? It is true.

K: Because very few people would.

R: That's exactly what it is Dark Mission. Tell people the truth.

K: Correctly.

R: George had a guest on the show that night. He was actually a clergyman, a pastor who had been taken by one of the top vice presidents from Atlantic Richfield to Prudhoe Bay in the XNUMXs, where they were drilling on the north side and building an oil pipeline. And during his four hours on Coast to Coast, this man was very pleased to quote one of the Bible's sayings over and over again. "The truth will set you free, know the truth, and the truth will set you free." So the first step on the way to freedom is to know you are lying to you.

And one of the mantras of our book Dark Mission is a message actually given to me by one of these secret agents. You know, these people are calling you; you even have dinner with them. He goes to conferences. In fact, you never really know how much of what they tell you is true and how much they have colored. How veiled is the lie with a little embedded truth - otherwise no one would blame them.

So you make constant decisions when you rely on resources, which we do not really want to do in Enterprise. In a few moments I will divorce it.

So this individual gave me a very interesting message. In fact, it was probably the second most important thing anyone in public life ever told me. The first was my old friend Gene Roddenberry, to which I will return in a moment.

This secret agent told me during one of our previous conversations, he repeated over and over again - it became like a joke when we talk on the phone: "A lie is different on every level."Purport: even people who cover up on camera say that the dollar is collapsing, tell you that we are running out of oil, tell you that we must invade Iran before they attack us, claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - most of These people really believe what they tell you. People they trust lie to them.

So the lie rises up. Every small group is controlled and controlled and restricted by being fed exactly with the amount of lies they believe. And so they can go ahead of the cameras, for example, in front of the National Press Club or the White House when the president's speaker comes out.

Ona believe it 99% of the things she says; she does not lie there. She does not know it's a lie, because if she knew she could not be the actress what she is.

K: Exactly.

R: The lie must be different at every level so that the whole group of lies can ultimately control all of us and hold back the truth. I do not think so "Encapsulate" I suppose to suppress her. Keep her away from us.

K: So, tell me something when things were lit up to you? Was it many years ago when you worked for Walter Cronkite?

R: Oh, I wish it was. No. I was young, I was naive, I was idealist. I was enchanted by the idea of ​​tapping 23let's shoulder and actually listening to my advice. But I was attentive. I just did not have a big picture.

I'll give you an example. One evening we had a meeting in the office of one of the executives. It was a weekend and there was to be a press conference with the astronauts. I think it was during Apollo 8.

It happens that you take off from the Cape and spend three days on the way to the moon, get into orbit and land, and anything else and three days will take you on the way home. Normally in these missions, the only people who asked to talk to the astronauts were those hidden under the CAPCOM label: capsule communicator, basically another astronaut, and NASA set this measure in the very beginning. Because at critical moments, you don't want to be confused by too many voices.

So even all the flight controllers, all the other people at NASA who run the mission, all pass information through one person talking to the crew.

The first departure from this truly important and apparently responsible position was this Sunday afternoon, when astronauts fell home to Earth. After all, you know, two to three days, nothing to work between the Earth and the Moon.

Just try to imagine the scene. They float in zero gravity, we have those incredible views from the window, the Earth from one window, the moon receding from the other, and you're basically bored.

So what they did was hold the first press conference in space, when representatives of the Houston press gathered were given the opportunity to speak into a microphone and actually ask questions to astronauts directly. They had three Apollo astronauts there. It was something unheard of, it was amazing, it was wonderful, it was transparency.

So we look at our clocks and watches and watch the monitors and we have a connection, you know, a satellite connection to Houston. And we're basically waiting for the spaceship to appear above the horizon at Goldstone, California, where is a huge plate - 64 satellite antenna stop - which looks up at the space shuttle between the Earth and the Moon and is about to tune the signal and receive about sending the questions themselves.

And, of course, for that to happen, she must be able to see the spaceship, because she is on a rotating Earth, and the geometry of the moon, where the ship and all of it are, cannot be changed. They had to wait for the shuttle to appear above the horizon in the desert near Goldstone before the press conference could begin.

So we sit there and we talk to you, you know, and the boss has his legs on the table there's a hill of other people sitting on the seats and ...

K: Are you in JPL?

R: No, no, we are in New York at the news center CBS on Western 57.ulici, connected electronically. Even in this dark Middle Ages, we had satellite television and could see what was happening. We watched the monitors, we watched Houston, and we watched a team of reporters.

And we are waiting for the astronauts to appear to us electronically, they also had a TV camera in the shuttle. We are all waiting for them and waiting for Houston to connect with them via the Goldstone ground station and the PIO - the public relations officer - says: "You know, we're waiting for the shuttle to appear above the horizon of the mountains of Goldstone."

So I'm 23, yes? And I think, this is weird; it makes no sense. So I took a typical familiar envelope curve and started scribbling some equations. And you know, you basically take the radius of the earth, the way it rotates, and the height of the mountains; I leaned over my boss and said, "Shh, Bob - NASA's lying."

And he said: "What?". And I say, "They are lying to us". It was something so incredibly trivial, who cares? But I said, "If he's telling the truth, the mountains above which they expect the shuttle to appear must be 5 miles high. They would have to lie. "

And so it turned out later that what they were actually doing was waiting for Jules Bergman, who had drunk the previous evening [Kerry laughs] - He was the leading space news reporter for ABC News - he got drunk, fell asleep, didn't make it to the press room in time and NASA covered him with technical fabrications so that Jules Bergman - who was their favorite correspondent - could get on camera and ask the first question in this historic "Correspondent asks astronaut in space" live without a flight controller and without CAPCOM.

Pools was my first example, the record as I looked at NASA and realized they were lying, and it wasfoolishly.

So that's the background to how I got into the whole theory of Mars tracking, moon tracking, and policy tracking. Tracking secret societies, agendas and all that. The first example where they didn't believe me because who was I? I was just a CBS news consultant.

NASA just couldn't do anything wrong. I mean, [Bob] Wussler basically told me: “You're crazy. Not possible!" He accepted - all of us at the time - the word NASA was above the word of anyone else who had anything to do with the space program.

Ale Dark Mission is a scandalous revelation of the fact that we can not trust NASA since, starting with 5 000 miles through high mythical mountains, for forty years, we are not telling the truth.

K: Quick move here. You wrote this incredible book. Tell us the short story you told us before, about that moment on TV, etc. Because it's not real until it's on TV?

R: Well, when I entered this, when I started tracking the data, unlike the mountain affair - which was just stupid - when I started tracking the data, it was on the occasion of the JPL unmanned Viking spacecraft in 1976, when I was again a representative CBS news at JPL after this incredible, unreal summer of the Vikings.

This is what we call it, "Summer of the Vikings."  When this country sent two space shuttles without human crew to land on Mars for the first time. And two more probes in orbit to make hundreds of thousands of shots. This was the beginning of official research on a possible life on Mars.

Some time after this process began, somewhere around the 25th, I think, July, one of the key people in the Viking mission - his name is Gerry Soffen - stood in front of us at JPL - we were there in California in a jet engine laboratory (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), JPL, which I think you are more than aware of - and Soffen stood up and projected a picture of us on Mars. The bizarre thing with the little black spots. You know, the one with those rather weird lips that has appeared in every book everywhere on the planet for the last thirty years or so.

He pointed at her and said, "Isn't it funny what a play of light and shadow can do?" The big laughter of all the people we gathered from the press. “When we took the picture a few hours later, it was all gone. It was just a trick of light and shadow ”.

So I'm there, I'm another witness to this statement, this process. Let's fast forward the film. I get into the process of actually observing this picture, decades later, in the 1989s, in the late XNUMXs, around XNUMX. I found that everything Soffen told us was a lie.

It was not a game of light and shadow .......

R:  After complete processing, we find that it is a fantastically symmetrical statue, a mile and a half long and a half mile high. We already have a lot of shots; further independent computer processing of various data was performed.

We have 3D models, we have stereotypes, we have shading according to shape, there are all kinds of analyzes and all that, by the way, created by us outside of NASA. NASA ignores everything from the beginning and simply tells everyone that it's nonsense, just put your peace, go away. Shit, that's NASA, it's stunning!

But the key moment I recognized when I went back in time was Gerry's statement - I can call him Gerry because I knew him pretty well - it was also a lie.

No shot of Mars was done a few hours later. Practically speaking, a few hours later, due to the change in the rotation of Mars and the orbit of the Viking camera, this area of ​​Mars was hidden in the dark. They could not make a shot.

Another opportunity to take a shot came a month later - in fact, for 35 days. The shot was taken, which is unusual, because at that time it was almost never the custom on a mission to take two shots of the same piece of reality.

They had to wait a month to return to geometry so they could do the second shot. Which, of course, if you look at it from outside, someone was exploring whether the same thing is under the different sun angle - science says it is probably right.

It was probably a real face, probably a real statue, it was a real mystery, a real incredible breakthrough in what NASA and the Viking project were their goal. Life on Mars! Except, of course, they lied to us, they lied to us, they lied to us.

They have been lying to us on this subject for thirty years. That made me ask, “Are they really lying to us or are they just fools? Are they scientists who have no idea how real science should work? ”- which means - when you see something that fits in your stunning paradigm, you have a mission.

You have a tax-funded mission, billions of dollars spent searching for life on Mars. Well, a mile-wide statue is a bit of life… was built by someone, maybe. So isn't the scientific method of finding out? No - instead of examining it, they flashed in the opposite direction.

K:  Okay, but if they lied then in the past, and that was one of their first missions to Mars…

R:  That's it It was the first mission.

K: ... then they had to be ready to lie. I mean, is not this a prerequisite? Did they know what they would find? Is this the case of a secret space program already before the mission?

R:  Okay, now it'll be a bit technical. Viking was not the first mission to Mars. The first one was Mariner 4 in 1965. The other was Mariner 6 and 7, it took place during the Apollo summer, when I reported on the first manned landings on the moon with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.

We went from North American Rockwell, where we built a studio complex, including a walk through the solar system, which was my idea. We walked up the street to the JPL Hill to finish reporting on the return of Apollo because they were about halfway between Earth and Moon.

We also had to write about the flights of Mariner 6 and 7, the second mission to Mars without a crew. The third non-crew mission that was sent to Mars by the United States was in 1971, under the name Mariner 9. But unlike the overflights, when basically two shots are taken and disappeared forever, this was the first American spaceship to orbit Mars. This has radically changed all our thinking.

So, as I reconstructed history, I look at Viking shots of Cydonia, the face of Mars. I say: “they must have existed somewhere - and we didn't find them and they're not in any public file - there must be secret footage from the Mariner 9 mission in 1971. The Viking was in 1976 and you have '72,' 73, '74,' 75, five years for a predetermination that something really interesting was down there on Cydonia's plains. So, when they sent Viking to the orbit, they knew exactly where to make new, much better shots.

Bill:  Was the possibility that Viking actually flew to Cydonia, but was abandoned because of the too stony surface?

R: Yes, you remember exactly. The first landing site was on something called the "Golden Plains" - in Latin Chryse Planitia - and the second landing area they spoke of was a landing in Cydonia.

So before your heart beats upset, you must not forget that it's like landing in North America or landing in Albuquerque, or landing in my garden. Cydonia is a GREAT place, Mr. Scott - I quote Star Trek.

So, even if they plan to land in Cydonia, the chances are that we would not get anywhere near these interesting things, where the face and the city and the complex are. What is politically interesting to me is that after the initial announcement that they land on Cydonia, after the first shots of the shuttle Viking 1, the trajectory of the second spacecraft, flying first, which had not yet reached the orbit of Mars, was changed to land in a totally different place. Whoever did the programming did not want to admit the possibility that they could accidentally land on Cydonia and see this thing close.

K:  Okay, so I assume you're talking about the ruins they knew about and in advance about them - and you say they had a previous awareness because they had another space program?

R:  This is one level of prior knowledge that we can prove. Undoubtedly, we can prove ... except that we did not find the missing shots from Mariner 9. We found footage from Mariner 9 about other interesting things we talked about. Carl Sagan in his Cosmos he talked about the pyramids of Elysium. They are the huge, several miles wide wide quadrangular pyramid located half way around the planet from Cydonia.

In one of his books, Carl Sagan actually refers to himself in an interesting metaphorical passage. I don't remember the details, but I thought it was extremely strange - both at the time and in retrospect - that Carl connected the two points.

However, these are the only fairly solid data we have. We know we have a shuttle on site during the Mariner 9 mission. We know that another shuttle arrived five years later, the Viking. So it's a logical judgment that if we had really good images of the face on Mars, perfectly focused, and the pyramids of Viking, then they could have prior knowledge of lower-resolution shots from the Mariner 9 mission. It's not a piece, it's not a jump at all.

It's really interesting when you start asking questions. Is it possible that they know of something that could be photographed there from a time long ago in a very distant history?

We get to the three groups that run NASA inside. Nazis, Masons and Mages. For two of these groups, the Nazis and the Masons, as we know, have textual testimonies, ancient documents, things, texts, books, records, remnants from a very distant past.

It's kind of like filming according to a script. They basically use it for trips around the solar system and take pictures of things whose existence they have indications of, but not scientific evidence.

K:  So you're talking about old texts. Do you know their names? Did you see them? Are they out there on the public stage?

R:  Yes and no. I'm trying to recall the details now, because there's so much mythology in it that when you really start delving into it, it's more like a messy story.

For example, we know that Hitler had established the whole SS section that was supposed to do nothing but travel around the world and steal all good things. All the old stuff. Actually, I was in great anticipation when Spielberg came out with the movie "The Conquerors of the Lost Ark," that he would really discover and show us that the Ark, and all the things the Nazis were obsessed with, is nothing of the Old Testament. In fact, it was an ancient technology hidden on this planet, achievable from previous epochs of civilization. Some of them could have built spaceships and flown to Mars and done the things we see there, but that's not the direction he went.

K:  OK, but you say it's true.

R: I say it's possible. I'm not saying that's true, I'm saying it's possible, and I'm reminding you that a lot of it has to do with perspective. You know, there are old clichés: “Policy is from 99% point of view; it is not important if something is true ”. If people perceive it as true and then act on that belief, this can make it true.

So let's say that these two groups, which have access to secret information, old texts - Nazis and Masons, that for some reason they believed in the existence of an ancient civilization on Mars and when they took control of the space program went there to find evidence… and BINGO found them .

This confirmation of 20.stolets then confirms the hints and rumors and guesses of old texts.

K: Sure. Do you suppose the Nazis had a space program?

R:  No no.

K:  No?

R: They wanted to, they were heading for it. I am seriously researching the possibilities for this kind of technology at the time. What I find is a very interesting pattern as we get deeper and deeper into the entire Nazi era.

While they were, what they believed, where they came from, their ancestral roots, which go much further, it seems. Hundreds of years, then a sharp wave after World War I, leading to World War II.

Nazi philosophy, the idea that human beings are not from this planet, that there is a special race of Aryans. I mean Aryans… Mars! … That they may in fact be rooted in some old documents that were super secret, held in reverence, worshiped… is almost beyond reality. I just don't have a copy with me this afternoon. I'd like to see some.

Kerry Cassidy: Okay, and maybe you're in touch with researchers who specialize in this area?

Richard Hoagland: Yes, yes, no doubt. Actually, one of them is a pretty nice guy you should interview. His name is Joseph Farrell. He's in South Dakota. He'll be here in January. He is an Oxford Fellow and has a PhD from Oxford. He has written five books on the subject. He writes footnotes very carefully, documents, discusses, quotes authors and reveals incredible internal messages and clues.

As a serious researcher who is also a very nice person by the way, he has given me a stunning new insight into the Nazi predecessors the US government has brought, hid them right in the heart of our own space program, and these seem to have their own agenda outside of Eisenhower, Kennedy. and the American people.

K: So you say - Werner Von Braun ...

R: Kurt Debus.

K: Excuse me?

R: Kurt Debus.

K: Good.

R: ... which seems to be somewhat interested in creating a very interesting alternative rocket technology for space-based missile-based missile technology.

K: Based on free energy?

R: Field propulsion based drive…

K: Based on torsion?

R: Field propulsion based drive, which is a way of manipulating space-time by getting anti-gravity on one side and free energy on the other.

K: Okay, so when was he active?

R: Kurt Debus?

K: Yes

R: From Paperclip to Apollo.

K: Does that mean the end of the Second World War?

R: From World War II until the 50s, after the 60s until the 70s, he was appointed head of Cape Canaveral / Cape Kennedy, with an all-secret background that was never once revealed in any official NASA document or any another place.

K: And how do you know about him?

R: Thanks to Joseph Farrell, his research and research. He has German documents; he speaks German. That will help. You know, that's real scientific work. We have always been - those of us who follow this cutting edge of the transition between falsified history and real history - we have always been limited by the fact that we basically have amateur terrain here. Some of them are talented amateurs; some of them are dumb amateurs. I have a sentence whose truth is confirmed time and time again: "Amateurs can kill you."

People like Farrell are not amateurs; and when they turn their qualifications into education and scientific work and are trained in the problem in a place like Oxford, you end up with five stunning books that document, page by page, real hidden history.

Alternatives to what the Nazis did technologically and politically continued almost uninterruptedly by moving from one group of sponsors, i.e., Hitler et al., To another group of sponsors, i.e., the U.S. government and others. - without taking a lunch break at all.

In the book, we have a fantastic photograph of Von Braun and all those scientists from Operation Paperclip, standing under such a cute Western motif. It is a symbol that is hung over the assembled scientists and it is a UFO.

It's actually a UFO / "flying saucer" cutout. In the middle is a large swastika (swastika). And this is in the US after we are have won war. These people are at their mainland stop on the way from White Sands to El Paso. It's a curiosity shop called "Bob's Curiosity Shop" - enlargements of the photo are in the book - of course the reason why the swastika appears there is extremely important, this is described in some detail in the book.

It was because the swastika was a symbol that Hitler stole from the ancient past leading back to the Vedas… this old Indian tradition speaks of a spaceship, nuclear weapons and all sorts of amazing things of advanced technology in times of deep history - at a time when here there should be no such technologically advanced things.

What Hitler did was that he took that symbol, accepted it, and consciously used it for purposes of its politics and propaganda - for what swastika means is penetration or insight into a totally different level of reality, which I call the term hyper-dimensional physics .

Which, on the one hand, gives you, if you do it really right, anti-gravity, which makes rockets obsolete, and then free energy; and thus centralized power plants, centralized power, and the control of people through the price of oil will also become obsolete.

So together here you have, as part of a proven, now Nazi, research and development effort during and after World War II. You have the keys to the liberation of the entire civilization of this planet. Six billion liberated people and someone is sitting on this truth, and it is one of the three groups that secretly control NASA: the Nazis.

K: So you're saying the Nazi line has continued to this day?

R: Yes, even now until this time we speak together.

K: And their successors are headed by NASA?

R: Sure. I do not know who he is.

K: Do not you know?

R: Well, I don't know, because when the old guard died or retired, they didn't say, "Yeah, and this guy comes to my place and also has the legitimacy of the Nazi Party, the National Socialist Party."

So here is a philosophy that is not identified. Today they are much more refined. After the World War II debacle, they realized that people probably wouldn't really take that kind of open approach.

So, what we have in the country lately, just look around, look around, is creeping fascism. You have Nazi philosophy in every bedroom, under every roof, in every public message. You have people looking at the camera here, who are trying to tell you with a stony face that: “it is in accordance with the Constitution to read all our e-mails, to tap into our telephone conversations, to eavesdrop. That a guy from the cable company will come to you to see if you're doing something suspicious. "

This is directly from Nazi Germany; and unfortunately this is not limited to NASA.

K: So, when you talk about how the Nazis run the space program, you're talking about the past, about the time after World War II, you got the V2 rocket here, as I understood it ... so, that's a group, right?

R: Yes

K: And there's the atomic bomb they're building or taking technology from Germany and ...

R: Well, we live under the influence of a historical record that says the United States developed the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project and that Japan and Germany are the two main adversaries in World War II, even though they had little results.

They went the wrong way. They didn't have enough money; they didn't have the right people. Basically, there was no competition for the great United States, which deposited all that money - two billion dollars - money after 1940, which could make perhaps two trillion dollars in 21st century money today.

We created the atomic bomb and used it twice in rage against Japan during the war. According to Farrell, this might not be exactly what happened. From the documents, it seems that there was a much more sophisticated, much more advanced, and perhaps even functional, nuclear research program in Germany that created and detonated at least one nuclear weapon in tests.

In his book, he states where and when and who was involved, and all this. It looks as if the knowledge was brought to us after the war. It didn't help us during the war, but it was brought here and merged.

In part, we may have picked up some uranium for one of the atomic bombs from German sources. There is a story about a submarine ('U-boat') that carried modified uranium, and we got to it, originally headed for Japan.

I mean, this is an extremely new and interesting insight into how World War II was caused, how it progressed and how it went on. When it comes to this, it may not be the end of history that we have learned the last 50 years, or the real history everyone really has lived with.

K: OK, but then there is a group that also deals with free energy or a space ship that the Nazis also developed besides ...

R: Maybe, maybe musíte you always have to be careful with this, maybe.

K: Good.

R: There are people who say yes and there are people who say no. Indeed, science really depends on experiments and documents. Even these documents, when it comes to the real technology in which they were genuinely interested, then these top technologies are very unclear.

They could be interpreted in different ways. I think that is partly because the good materials have not yet been released or even found. Mysterious deaths are associated with this documentation.

For example, at the end of the war, Patton died suddenly and mysteriously. Apparently at the time, he was leading a group, the Sixth Army, which was headed to the border between Czechoslovakia and something else to find these hidden documents about high-tech Nazi projects. So, until you have the documentation, it's all just rumors and remember…

K: And is there a presumption that he may have found the documents and then been killed?

R: Or he did not find them and he was killed because he was looking for and did not want to give up.

We don't know, and you have to go to Farrell's work and look at the whole story; and you see, I'm promoting the work of another author here, which I really want to do, because Joseph Farrell is an extremely important researcher, and I'm glad I was able to meet him, and as I said, we'll meet here in a few weeks.

K: Well, maybe we should come again and have a conversation with both of you.

R: This would be very beneficial, I think very beneficial.

K: So now I say, there are three groups. You talked about the Nazis ...

R: So far we have only talked about two.

K: Well, not so much, no, not at all, really. So take us to the Masons and mages, how do they fit into NASA with the Nazis?

R: Well, of course, the Masons have established the United States. I mean, traditional Masonic philosophy is an extremely important contribution to the progress and evolution of the human species.

According to the old military phrase: "Be everything you can be", Masons are not bad people. Masons are good people.

K: Are we talking about free Masons?

R: Yes Yes. They are the rightful heirs of the Templars. You know, from the Middle Ages, who became very powerful by finding something in Jerusalem under the Temple Mount.

They have become the most powerful organization in Europe. They literally owned Europe, basically. They created a free banking system. They have set up as many modern institutions that we know as when you go to your ATM.

The French king Filip Sličný devalued the currency and in 1307, on Friday the 13th, he killed many of them. He imprisoned most of them, persecuted some, and never found many of the things they kept secret. Including a lot of money, a huge amount of money.

It is said that the money was hidden in a place called the "Oak Island" and that the FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) and other Masons regularly funded and obtained private funding to go out and try to dig it out. That would be a completely different story, the whole next video.

The fact is, Masons were good guys. For example, James Webb, who was NASA's Kennedy Administrator, was 33 Freemason. When you read Webb's biography, not his autobiography, of course he wrote, but his biography written by someone who was trying to find out who James Webb really was.

It is very clear on this site what Webb was doing. He tried to choose the best of what NASA was made of, which was - to find out what was out there; use it as a system at the secondary and university level. Pour new cutting-edge technology into American industry, which of course creates products that strengthen the overall economy of the entire middle class.

You can look at his program and see that it was a mandate to take everything NASA found out and what he could get and make it useful so that the American taxpayer would benefit. It's really all there. You have to read it.

And what happened? I think these two philosophies, the two metaphysical traditions between Freemasons and Nazis, are so close that the Nazis could enter and take control of Freemasons, almost unknowingly, unobtrusively, secretly, quietly ... 'like a thief at night', as they say .

I don't think the Masons realized that until it was too late. That they were given, that they had been occupied… with goals which they had sought to fulfill and which they had also kept out of public statements, but which they had tried to accomplish in silence.

And it's secrecy that got them in trouble, because when you try to do things secretly, terrible things can happen in secrecy. Their biggest tactical mistake was that they did not reveal to the public what they had found.

Instead of striving for a peaceful introduction, the gradual development of this culture in the direction it was supposed to go. Where aliens are not a bad word. Where can we really talk about extraterrestrials and our ancestors and all those things that are out there in the universe and that they find and scare people to death.

K: Who did they find Masons or Nazis?

R: NASA. The program as such, the NASA program. A program run by people behind the scenes.

K: What I wanted to know was about the past and the Nazis in Germany. They had this technology, which was incredible and supposedly…

R: We do not know that.

K: I mean - you said they had an atomic bomb, did not they?

R: No, I said maybe. All this is not known. Possible.

K: Okay, so we have Farrell here, there are documents that go that way.

R: They strongly suggest but are not conclusive.

K: Good.

R: Not yet, no evidence.

K: But from somewhere it had to come, the view was that there was ET contact; there was a whole development of remote remote viewing ’technique…

R: Whose opinion?

K: Then, in the Nazi era.

R: Yes, but from whom?

K: Good question. I'm asking you.

R: Well, I'm not an expert on the Nazis. I got to it through the gates of NASA. I'm trying to uncover politically what got us into this mess.

K: Exactly.

R: And I look, and we look at the book Dark Mission, to all those different clues in the documents and they lead back to the mysterious groups. You know, the good ones and, of course, the bad ones, but they believe the same things.

Remember, there is darkness and light. You can take the same knowledge ... I mean, I can take nuclear energy and make a bomb or I can make a reactor. One illuminates cities and gives people power and energy and the other destroys them.

So, at any base of knowledge, we always have this double-edged sword. You can use it for good or you can use it for evil. The Masons have historically tried for the good. The Nazis obviously used it for evil. It is very, very metaphysical.

K: Okay, so if we have a dark mission and we have two space programs and they all go back to Nazi Germany ...

R: Maybe.

K: Their roots exist there. These people manage programs, ongoing link. The main line is the Nazi line and the same thing, the Nazis, the Masons, and we haven't talked about magicians yet, but they all derive from a certain kind of belief in extraterrestrial life. Isn't this true, because where are you going is there a place on Mars?

R: So I'm heading there? [Smiling]

K: [Laughs] Is not where we are heading?

R: No.

K: So you're basically saying that NASA is lying to us about the face of Mars at this time - with a purpose. You can't just do that…

R: No, they definitely want to squeeze.

K: Why?

R: Remember, this is a nest of lies. The lie is different on each level. The first lie the good NASA guys believed was a study they gave themselves - just as Eisenhower was withdrawing and Kennedy was coming, in 1958-59 and the early 60s.

That was the message… and now remember, NASA itself was created just 50 years ago, in July 1958. So half a century ago, President Eisenhower said, “I cannot allow all these warring military factions to rule the universe. I will create a civilian agency and it will be the connecting point for all peaceful space activities. The Ministry of Defense will lead all military space operations. "

The first thing we show in Dark Mission is that it is a lie. NASA is not a civilian space agency. It's a military space agency. It has always been formed by order and under the leadership of the National Security Council, the Ministry of Defense, any intelligence agency. All its data that are found to be unsuitable for public knowledge may be marked as confidential. Even for their own people.

K: So it's not made available to the public if it has anything to do with controlling the cosmos?

R: We don't know that. We know that by law, anything the president or his minions deem appropriate for secrecy may be kept secret. It does not have to give a justification.

K: Okay, but I'm asking what's the reason for the secret of the space program?

R: If you have an agency walking in the front line with the credentials to boldly enter places no one else has entered before and you know, because you have secret documents that say it's out there that it encounters artifacts, aliens, old libraries, generators, space ship, god knows what else, and you don't want to tell those people what you're really looking for, then you create an agency by law that can tell them just what you want them to know and keep all those important things secret - which is how in Dark Mission we prove on the statutes themselves, exactly what NASA is.

Every time a speaker speaks out and says, "we are a civil agency", the person probably believes that because she hasn't read the statutes.

Now people are arguing with me in several conversations on the web. I'm at the Graham Hancock Forum in England, where people say Hoagland doesn't understand how to read the statutes, it's just a metaphor.

No, this is not a metaphor, because there are several paragraphs in the Space Act that clearly confirm the President's absolute right to mark any NASA data he does not want to reveal to the public.

That makes it a military organization. Simply. The civilians would be independent. They could publish scientifically, and from what I know, you publish or perish. You find out something, write it down and publish it. It's out in the periodical and let people have it available.

And then there is a consensus: well, he's right about this, he's wrong about this, we'll find out more data, and the process continues. This is not something NASA could do externally. She has careful, clear rules in the law that can only release what the president and the White House and all the other various branches of the executive allow.

K: Okay, but you're saying that their motivation is to hide information about ruins ...

R: Yes

K: About ruins that testify about what? About the history or history of other beings that are out there?

R: Well, again, it depends on what you find. If the essence of the matter is to keep us oppressed through physics and technology, and you have an economy here that is unknowingly dependent on oil, the world is ruled through oil, through the dollar. There is currently a huge struggle between the dollar and the euro.

And that's why we went and invaded Iraq because he was going to go to the euro. The Iranians have just switched to the euro; we are facing a nuclear war. Damn! Let's connect the points together.

It is about political and economic domination. So you go to the moon or Mars or one of Jupiter's months to find a functioning alternative power plant that has a cup size for tea and tightens half the city.

Do you want to let public information? Do you want people to realize there is a way to do things without having to drill in the Middle East and without all the political and economic infrastructures that have been built?

I do not think so. That plan seems to have worked for the last 40 years. As the oil economy grew, people could plan. People demand more energy; they want more things or more devices. We sell all the things that we take for granted all the time on this screen [points to the computer] and create a consumer society that is totally powered by oil energy. Nuclear power is a tiny percentage of global oil power.

Would you like to step in and mix alternative energy system technology that would allow every house to get rid of the grid, every person to be, suddenly, independent? Everyone would have an unlimited amount of energy from the thing that works in their basement, which they never have to look at or ever touch again in their lives.

Just flipping a switch that would draw energy from another dimension from space. It would be hyper-dimensional. No, not if you enjoy the game of control - because how do you control people? You keep them dependent on you for vital resources, and energy is a vital resource.

Try to live without her in your home for two days. Very quickly you will find that "you basically have a very expensive shed", as Art used to say.

K: You say NASA hides secrets due to technology ...

R: No, I say they could, it is a possible justification. Honestly, I do not think that's the best. I bet - and again, this is the theory from the outside - I have no resources to tell me that's what's going on here. And if I had, would I trust them? No, I would have to find records and data and evidence and verify what they call me. On the level, I think it's a religious affair.

K: Okay, that's a FIRST introductory note, let's take a break!

Hoagland: The problem with all this is that we are trying to conduct forensic research outside the system. We don't have people inside who would say: "Here they hide this, there they hide it again" And if we had, would we believe them? The lie is different at each level, and they have the whole set of lies that are being presented to them, so if you really want to do this you have to rely on the evidence itself.

And then you have to evaluate such evidence in the light of the political realities of the whole culture in which you live, which is the United States; or the wider culture in which we live, which is the world. And when I look at the world and look at what's happening right now - I see the sharpest, escalating conflicts. The reason for more and more bloodshed, more massacres, more murders, more pain, more suffering, more war on this planet - much more than anything else is the religious idea that my God is bigger than your God: in fact, your God is nothing and you too you are nothing.

And when you look at this year's presidential debate, what came to the fore? To an immense extent, again and again and again, the religious background of the candidates. Founding Fathers - The buzzing you hear in the background is the sound of founding fathers turning in their graves as they sought to establish a political system where we separated politics from religion, politics from our metaphysical thinking about who we are, what we do on this planet, who our creator, etc., etc.

And what we are seeing as the 21st century unfolds, even in these early few years, is the mixing and merging of religious views with the political platform. And just look at the schism that confronts everyone who has given us now 'Freedom' - and I say this in quotation marks - to create a Patriotic coup in the constitution and to give rise to NSA wiretaps (National Security Agency - National Security Agency).

It's all about religion. They are the bad guys, these ugly terrorist Muslims! Conflict of civilizations; that these people are here to kill us all, basically. You know, the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. Which is, of course, what the radicals on our side are saying, even though they claim that this is not what they are saying. So we live within many, many levels of illusion, where at the base it's all about religious difference and religious intolerance and religious religious intolerance, and religious obsession - that my God is the only God and you deserve death because you do not believe in my God.

Put this idea into this mixture to Brookings, this NASA official report, which says that when NASA set off into space, logically there would be evidence of more developed beings. And you know, in the statutes it was said, on the moon, Mars or Venus. Well good, mature creatures would have to be created, did not they? Whose God would create them? Was he your God? Was he my God?

So when you fly to the moon, as it is on my monitor here - and then in Apollo you find something that appears to be a robot's head, a feeling or perceiving being created by something larger than a human species and lower than angels, and then you see that in our own fiction, George Lucas's Star Wars, there is this incredible resemblance to our favorite cultural myth, and the question must arise: Who at NASA knew what, when, and was afraid to tell us about it because of religious implications?

So now that you look at the ruins of the moon or look at the ruins of Mars, especially if you have a long face on Mars - a mile long plus minus - and it looks like my...

Remember, in the Old Testament, this key phrase is: "God created man in his own image." But now a moment. If this is true, then what is this mile-long face lying on Mars doing? Mars was not mentioned in the Old Testament. Who were the Martians? Were they created in the image of God? Is it a reflection or likeness of God lying in the desert?

In other words, you start to get to such levels of conversation and such levels of potential controversy to people killing each other because of your version of the truth that Brookings in 1959 he said John Kennedy passed the congress 18.dubna 1960that it is better to leave everything in the room, not to let anyone know about it, because the only thing that happens is that they will kill each other because of who God is behind this new version of truth.

And I think, given history, right on CNN, right now, that's the main reason - which is used as an excuse, because a lie is different on each level - it's an excuse based on some of the things that are happening. in our culture - if humans really had to know unequivocally that we are not the only conscious beings in the universe, the level of religious fanathy would rise to the level of hysteria.

And we would literally melt in any fire you can imagine. And that a lot of good people - don't forget, we have the good ones and the bad ones - a lot of good people identify with this, because in their minds, to quote Jack Nicholson: "We can't bear the truth."

Kerry: Okay. So NASA is here to protect us from the truth, because we can not handle the truth, and the truth is that ...

Hoagland: But by whom? Do not forget, it always depends on who writes the script.

Kerry: Okay, but according to what you say, this is ...

Hoagland: I say some good people at NASA believe that.

Kerry: Okay, but you say ...

Hoagland: Others believe to others things.

Kerry: ...you say this is the main reason for secrecy ...?

Hoagland: I think that's the main reason they've been able to persuade so many people for so long. Remember, everyone wants to be a good person.

Kerry: Clearly.

Hoagland: Will you wake up in the morning with the idea that you are a bad person? No. You think you are doing something positive. You help humanity, you make these programs, you put them on the Internet. You are trying to uncover the truth, because the truth will set you free. But they have been told that the truth will kill you.

Kerry: Exactly…

Hoagland: And they believed it. This is the most pernicious thing of all. In many cases, they ignored their own Bible. And they believe that by suppressing the truth, they are freeing us.

Kerry: Well, let's take a closer look at this truth. You tell me the truth is that ruins on Mars and the moon indicate that we are not alone.

Hoagland: Ah, that's not the problem. What's going on here is if we're involved. They are our ruins?

Kerry: And they are?

Hoagland: I ask this question, are they our ruins? Did our great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers of the human race, created in the image of God, put the thing there?

Kerry: Sure, well, if these were our remains and they were created like us and it was us, our ancestors or what I know, then we do not have a religious problem because, halo, they are our ancestors.

Hoagland: Or, if they aren't… and were created by some fantastic alien beings who created us as a laboratory experiment and put us here to do what we do, which is not free will, that's not much, then these fighters would become God. We are eavesdropped on, we are limited, literally on God's territory, as we define God, which is not the big guy I thought all my life because I grew up reading catechism, but something lower than angels and basically just as erroneous and as human and as mortal as all of us, they were just someone who played God. Can you imagine it…?

Kerry: So is this your assumption? Are you researching this area as you look at these ruins?

Hoagland: Of course! I research in all this. The problem is how. It is very heavy. It's really, really difficult because you can't trust people to tell you the "truth." You have to find the original sources and finally we have to go to Mars or the moon and find the libraries.

But of course it is about who will read them? Who translates them? How will we be able to control translators? How will we be sure that translations will not be falsified? Not being falsified to follow certain confessions, they confirmed that certain Gods are true, or God, but the other guys are scary. You have to ... I mean, this is not an ordinary labyrinth. This is the passage of a rabbit, through a wormhole, into another universe, back through a white hole, into another galaxy. (They both laugh.)

It's not easy. Which is why it waited a little over 40 years for the beginnings of the first flash of sunlight, when people now really, finally, want to know the truth. Which brings us back to numbers and success Dark Mission / Dark Missions. Because, after all, what kept all this going, which allowed the constant suppression of the truth to continue for at least 50 years? People. You guys out there.

You are it they wanted to. You didn't want to know the truth. Because if you really wanted to, you would have known the truth for a long time. You are the problem, not the solution. And right now, those of you who are watching are perhaps part of the solution to finding the truth.

Kerry: Now I want to ask you whether you are exploring what we have found on Mars and the moon, and it is clear that yes; you have the documented evidence you are watching - you are watching the incredible dome made of - I do not even know what ... the moon that covers ...

Hoagland: These are several glass domes. The easiest explanation is that it is made of glass. The reason is - if we look at the analyzes of the Apollo program that relate to imported material - and I quite trust them, because - why would these books be counterfeit? It's chemistry. The vast majority of it is silica, which is glass.

It is also what the Earth is made of. Do you know how to make glass here? How do you make such huge beautiful windows? Basically, you take the most common elements found in the earth's crust and heat them, refine them, melt them, place them on steel sheets, press and roll and make glass plates, sheet glass.

So it seems that the ruins on the moon are made of the most common material you will find on the moon, by the way, when it comes to structural structures on the moon, these are twenty times more durable than steel.

And the reason is: there is no water on the moon. There is no atmosphere. There are no dirt that would get into the glass and make them weak and fragile. So, on the moon, glass is a building material, and if you overwhelm it with different minerals, metals, you can get it to do different kinds of incredible things. It can become photochromatic, so when it's exposed to sunlight, it darkens like sunglasses that darken automatically and when the moon's night comes, it turns brighter. They can also be radiation-resistant, you can make them translucent, so they can only penetrate certain wavelengths and other wavelengths are blocked.

When you are on the front of the moon, at a place called Sinus Environmentswhen you look directly overhead, you will see that beautiful Earth, hanging overhead, spinning on its own axis, with clouds day after day, week after week, month after month. The best property on the moon from which you would see the Earth would be right here and here we also found our first line of amazing ruins.

Wouldn't you really like me to show you what some of these ruins look like?

Kerry: Sure.

Hoagland: (whispers) As part of a lunar study that goes back in history now 1996, which is 11 years, I got various experts on the Enterprise mission to look at different aspects of this truly incredible first-hand story.

Namely, that Apollo flew to the moon; astronauts flew there specially authorized by NASA, the president, with the mandate to go and, secretly, find the technology and bring it back and reconstruct it. And that Apollo… race with the Russians, who will be the first on the moon, was a cover.

And we know that because we have internal messages that are in the book, in Dark Mission: from the White House, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; we have testimonies from of his own son, Prime Minister Khrushchev, Sergeiwho was, I think, a scholarship at Brown University, which confirms that since Kennedy entered the Oval Office in 1960, after being put into office this afternoon, 20, January, opened a dialogue with Khrushchev, trying to get him to go to the moontogether.

So logically, this is crazy. Because - if all these years told us that we were flying to the Moon to defeat the Russians, why did we ever fly to the moon? Why did we ever spend all the money? What were we doing there at all, if it wasn't really a reason to defeat the Russians, when in fact we were secretly trying to go there with the Russians?

The only logical answer is that there was something out there that Kennedy thought was of paramount importance to humanity - to civilization, wherever it was on this planet - so we had to unite with our arch-enemies from the Cold War.

And as we end up in the book, he appears to have been murdered for it. And then a few months later, they imprisoned Khrushchev and kept him under house arrest until his death, a few years later.

Kerry: But after all, behind the scenes, we used to be able to fly to the moon with them anyway. It's not so?

Hoagland: We do not know that. Again, we do not know. The gaps in the record are still large enough to fly through Enterprise. What we know is that we were flying. Apollo flew to the Moon. We had six missions. Real missions. It was one that did not go quite the way we wanted - 13 - which in itself has interesting cracks that I study in my spare free time.

But what we know now from the photos they brought back, from the photos I viewed in NASA's archives - I physically held them in my hands - from the photos that are currently leaking everywhere on the Internet, everywhere on NASA's websites around the world, so you can get them anyone can download and use anything from image processing like this Photoshop or CorelDraw or anything else to basically adjust the brightness, etc., looked at what is in the sky, which should be completely black, and found THIS.

To be clear, this is actually the perfect, idealized version of what you will find. This is a grid created by one of our experts, an architect named Robert Fiertek, which we are talking about in a book that I brought to it in the mid - 90s to analyze photographs and tell us what is on them from a building, construction point of view.

So Robert created this grid on the computer and then we looked at some of the photographs. For example, this is an image Hasselblad from Apollo 10. The number of the shot is AS10-32-4810. So you can go to the archive and go to the website and download this picture. You will see there are indications of something in the sky, below is really a typical moon terrain. And all you do is to increase clarity. You remember that song Turn up the Volume?

Kerry: Mm hm.

Hoagland: Increase yield. And you will see this stunning meshwork in the sky. The lattice creation, which - this is now a close shot - it does not belong there. It is three-dimensional. It is straight. They are traverses up and down. They are beams from right to left. In the minds of anyone involved in construction, who at least built a house, there is no doubt that this is real. These are not scratches, this is not a strange image from the stabilizing bath when the film is developed. It's a real-made 3-D thing.

Kerry: Well, so what is your theory about who created it?

Hoagland: Well, that brings us back to the photo I showed you a little earlier, which was the head. That head is a little anthropomorphic, what do you say? If we believe in biological evolution, if we believe Gaylord Simpson, who is an expert from Harvard in the 60s and who presented this kind of Bible for human development, which was then used by Carl Sagan: human beings are absolutely unique.

The way we look. Our face, our features, our proportions, two hands, two legs, all that. If you were to go through Earth's history again, you wouldn't come across anything that looked like us. And the reason is - because when you look at the oceans, at land, when you look at all the different species, when you look at all the extinct species, when you look at the fossils - the only maniacs who look like us, we now know that. , are genetically related. Monkeys, apes. We have a pedigree. Darwin was right. There is a family we came from somehow.

Bill: And what about some extraterrestrial visitors?

Hoagland: We don't know that. Again - I'm working with real data that I can touch. I don't do the UFO phenomenon. Because I'm addicted to stories. When you depend on stories, you are at the mercy of someone who tells you the story. If you rely on real, documented evidence, stored in an archive from which anyone can download it, it's something else entirely. So, I listen to the stories, cross-compare them with the data, but we are bound to the data. And that's what sets the Enterprise apart from everyone else trying to do this thing. We have date.

Kerry: Okay, so anthropomorphically look like us?

Hoagland: Yes

Kerry: And what has that got to do with what you find on the moon?

Hoagland: We'll get to that right away. I always try to get to some place. So back to the robot's head. Why does a robot look like us? It could look like anything. It could look like R2D2 [read: this is the same]. Remember, R2D2 didn't look like us at all. It's cute and almost like a little trash can, you know, with flashing lights and rays and all that.

You know, he looks like C3PO, which was an anthropomorphic robot with a human appearance. So the fact that Apollo flew to the moon and all that - Apollo 17, Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmidt, they could see it. They could have picked it up. They could bring it back to Earth as part of their commission. We do not know any of these facts yet, because they do not speak.

Kerry: Okay, why do we have a photograph of this thing?

Hoagland: There are 15 photos.

Kerry: I know, but - did they shoot them?

Hoagland: They took the pictures. Be aware that when you take photos on the moon, you are not looking through the viewfinder. The camera was attached to their chest. The fact is that the only way to focus the camera is to do it with your body in a spacesuit. And you sit behind the glass…

Kerry: Hasselblad.

Hoagland: Hasselblad. High quality camera, but you're not looking at the shot. They watch the scenery and take shots of their body movements, so they didn't even have to see it, it was too far. It is the bottom of a crater the size of a football field.

Kerry: Well, who invented it?

Hoagland: It was me.

Kerry: You?

Hoagland: I am the first person to find it. Of course. What do you think? That's why you're here, is not it?

Kerry: (Laughs)

Hoagland: That's exactly what we're dealing with here! Read the book!

Kerry: (laughs even more) You found the robot's head at the bottom of the photo ...

Hoagland: On 14 photos. It was photographed over and over again and again and again within the panoramic sequence. We have received two copies of the film - not just the internet version, but the film, (which are really bad copies sent to us), and I managed to make a computer comparison of the robot with C3PO.

I managed to take two of these shots and very carefully place them on top of each other, one over the other. This is a common photographic technique for signal amplification and noise compensation. Because every photo has noise.

If you do this, the mathematical equation says that you will subtract the square root of the noise from a number that is the number of frames you can successfully and thoroughly superimpos. In the end, we had 14 pictures to play with.

I need a higher resolution, but I played a bit on the computer with these shots and you get interesting results. So we managed to put the two shots, which was actually the film we used, on top of each other, and at that moment our eyes popped out of their sockets.

Circular irises, photographic eyes, it tells me that this is not a dry human being lying there on the moon, one of the lunar colonialists we once thought was there. This is an artificially created life form, a robot.

We called it "Data head." It doesn't look like Data. It looks more like C3PO. Which opens the door to the question - what does George Lucas know and when did he find out? And if you want, I'll go for it and your eyebrows will really twist.

Because we have more information that Lucas is soaked to his ears in this whole interesting story as well as the plot and conspiracy. And that's why it is George Lucas so successful with those movies. It is not a coincidence.

Kerry: Okay, so I'm going to do it, but there's not much time to go ... Bill?

Bill: Richard, I have a question if I can, I know other people have asked. I was able to understand how Data's head was accidentally captured on film, given that it was quite far away and they didn't watch what was happening to their Hasselblady…

Hoagland: 14 times.

Bill: ...but the huge buildings you identified in your pictures, you would have been on the background before the astronauts made the pictures. Why would they allow these images to be in the background when the only thing they had to do was to make the photo differently?

Hoagland: This is a photo taken from Apollo 14. It's a picture taken Alan Shepard, who was the commander. When we look north, it's there Edgar Mitchell, with whom I have been discussing all this in 1996 in the Art Bell program. Here's Mitchell's shadow. And here is the unbelievable dome on the background that spans Mitchell, who obviously has no idea about it.

And here is an embedded area where - because I have the original of this invaluable image that has been rescued from the deliberate destruction of NASA, I think that in 1971, a gentleman named Ken Johnston, stored for 30 years and then physically handed over to me in Seattle in 1995. I inserted it into a PC sensor (which was enough then primitive compared to what we have today), I scanned it, increased the clarity, and the result once again… and bingo! This amazing geometry jumped out of it.

When I made the detail to scan it with a greater and greater resolution, I found the consecutive series of truly stunning, detailed versions of what was in the picture. You may notice that there is this minor scaffold at the horizon, that there are square supports that lead obliquely down somewhere from afar.

There are multi-level 3D cross braces. Here's something that looks like a shot in the front window of a car. Like I did 45 - so the glass is completely shattered, light is scattered all around. Notice the color. That color is real. This is immersed in layers of multilayer blue emulsion paint Ektachrom of the original ASA 64 filmwho they had with them on the moon and took all these shots of him.

They didn't take classic pictures. They made slides. Then, in the darkroom, they took help pictures, and in the darkroom, to answer your question, Bill, they removed all the good stuff. They simply removed it in a dark chamber.

Bill: But on the first mission they did not have a color film ...

Hoagland: No, they should. No, no, no, they had a color film. In fact, they had an excellent color film. Which is quite a different story. Actually, I knew a man at EG & G who invented it. I watched his use. In fact, I myself had the coils of that film to use them myself.

Hoagland: When I was at CBS, I went to Cape and had a huge camera compiled for me by one of the main photographers in the reporter team. He worked as a freelancer. He worked for the AP (Associated Press), worked for Newsweek, People Magazine, and many others.

He actually built that huge camera that looked like a weapon, and I aimed at it like that, with a trigger that launched that 35mm camera with this special film, and I took footage of the launch of Saturn 5, on Apollo 8, the first mission to the moon.

CBS then took me with a helicopter from New York to Boston where the lab was and right into the lab, and Charlie, my friend Charlie Wykoff sparked the movie and I was watching.

Then I flew by helicopter back to New York, and we aired the movie to show what the launch of Saturn 5 looked like with this incredible, extended-range color super-movie that NASA had secretly developed to take with it to the moon. They then destroyed a laboratory that was built solely to produce the film.

Kerry: NASA destroyed the lab?

Hoagland: Yes, NASA destroyed the lab. Well, Kodak on NASA's orders. Because Charlie was asked to hand over the film to Kodak as part of an evaluation for a possible commercialization of the film, so you and I could basically have - it's the Gold film that's commercially available in stores today.

It is a version of Charlie's color slide super-film with wide exposure flexibility. They took him to the moon. They used it to take first-generation shots with those Hasselblad cameras. Then they brought him back to the darkrooms in Houston and made temporary generational copies and pictures, and all those troubled ruins were removed in the darkroom. That's why this slide is so important. Because this is from the first production, an unchanged image from which nothing is removed.

Bill: It was that colorful cinema movie I mentioned about Apollo 11, which was not used, but it could have been. Do I say that right?

Hoagland: Well, they had a color camera / camcorder and they had a black and white camera / camcorder. They used only black and white and used it with a reduced sensitivity mode, because if they had used it in the original mode created by Westinghouse, it would have shown the ruins behind Apollo 11. This is, by the way, why the original Apollo 11 records "disappeared". They do not dare to release them. Can you imagine what we would find on them with modern computer technology?

Kerry: Sure.

Hoagland: Except for the dim figures dancing around the moon. Even in these images, if you know what you're looking for, there are hints. But there is that enormous element of the convincing ability to deny something. Because people can say, “Oh, that's just a bad photo. Bad light". So there is no proof.

This is an enlarged detail where Mitchell can be seen and also shows where we did it and shows that amazing 3D geometric shape made of glass. We call it "Mitchell under glass." And anyway, when I talked to him on Bell and we talked about it, he said he didn't see anything.

And then he passed me, because I thought that this problem had something to do with the fact that he really couldn't see it. And this is a close-up showing something I call a shot. Notice all the 3D geometry, the stunning 3D grid. You see those glowing stairs made of beautiful glass and the overexposed surface of the moon. Because don't forget, this is very dark. This probably has the density of cigarette smoke. It's so gentle because it was whipped and whipped and whipped to death by constant micro-meteor shower. So after how many millions of years did almost nothing remain. But there was enough left for them to take shots and bring them back home.

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

Hoagland: Let me continue in logical order and we'll get to that. This is the light curve of human visual sensitivity. Our visual sensitivity culminates in a place called yellow-green, where, by the way, the solar spectrum peaks, so it's probably no coincidence. And as you can see as we move towards the red end of the spectrum, we really get down here. This is a sensitivity curve. This is 100% and this would be zero. So it's really completely down in the noise and as you get to blue and purple, it starts to get really full of noise. So you really don't see much of what is in blue and red at low light levels. You can see a little something in green.

But the film has, of course, a very different sensitivity. So now we get to the astronauts. Each astronaut was equipped, as we were told, with a golden curtain designed to protect against UV light. Polaroid sunglasses or something like that.

That's another NASA lie. I can prove it. Watch. So, looking at the gold penetration curve and looking at the spectrum and looking at the gold helmet, it turns out that the gold suppressed all the visible wavelengths of the bright lunar surface under the glowing bright sunlight - and has increased blue.

The purpose of these helmets was to actually allow them to observe the surface of the moon and see the ruins of the domes so they could move their cameras / cameras onto the body at any given location to capture the ruins that are ubiquitous all over the place so it is absolutely impossible to direct the camera somewhere where there were no ruins.

Because they were inside an ancient ruined glass dome - this is a 360-degree panorama taken from one of the panoramas saved by Ken Johnston from the original images - and you can see that most of that stuff is west, backscattered. Notice the geometry here.

And then as you move the camera north, that's where - and here's Mitchell again - that's where the grid we showed in detail was - and then you look towards the sun over there and south, there's a lot less. You see, it's almost dark, so it would be if there was no glass. And then finally back again to the west, where it begins to assemble into something we call backscattering, where this light is reflected back.

So this panorama, taken from NASA's original image, saved by Johnston from destruction 30 years ago - somehow this image knows where the sun is. And it is completely out of the question for some interplay of circumstances caused by chemistry, development, poor lighting, light penetration or anything else - I mean, the light penetration would be towards the sun, right? Why is most of the backlight in the sky directly opposite the sun, as I judge from the astronaut's shadow? In other words, his body directly overshadows the camera lens and prevents him from seeing any sunlight.

Bill: Well, I know that some people who are watching this will want us to ask you this question, and they want to hear your answer. So: some people say that you revealed a conspiracy, but they said you didn't reveal the real one. Because what you have here is evidence of former buildings that are the work of cinema in the Nevada desert, such as the Truman Show. And that's what was actually kept secret. So, this is not a stupid question. But I'm sure you can answer it.

Hoagland: (laughs) We discuss this in great detail in the book. In my opinion, there is zero probability - and I rarely use the words 'zero probability' - that landings on the moon have been recorded. In view of all politics, in view of the old story of the Nazis, and in view of what they were looking for, in view of von Braun, in view of the Kennedy-Khrushchev affair. Why would we go if there was nothing to go for?

Hoagland:   But the real evidence that this wasn't created in the studio, and that it really is, comes from a humorous story about my own eyewitness accounts. I was at JPL when we moved from Downey to JPL to report on the Mariner 6 and Mariner 7 missions. I was there when NASA's head of public relations for JPL, named Frank Bristo, was conducting a man in the audience, and he he placed a small leaflet on the seat of each reporter in the hall.

And then he was taken out to personally hand over a copy of this circular, or whatever it was, to every reporter who was in the press room waiting for the next press conference to begin. So I got one and read it and I was frustrated. Because there was a man here, officially supported a NASA representative, and handing out a document that said, "The entire Apollo 11 mission was done in the studio, a large soundproof studio in Nevada, and the whole thing is recorded."

I wish I would have hidden that document! We are now looking for a reporter who actually published it on the basis of that two-page leaflet, as a short, side report to the main story in the style of "it's not cute what's going on around these missions." Because someone had to do it. Perhaps in Pasadena Star News, which is one place we are looking for. Maybe even in the New York Times.

I didn't research it. I didn't have time to research it. The point is that there were other reporters, both well-known and those about whom no one has ever heard in their lives - a thousand people at the time reported on these missions. Someone had to keep, at least as a historical relic, a copy of the leaflet.

So what does it mean - as I say in Dark Mission, politically NASA itself stood at the beginning of these rumors - before it was Neil and Buzz and Mike Collins got home at all, stating that Apollo was a scam. Why NASA, even in its own the wildest dreams, releasing the rumors that would have matured 30 years later? The answer is: vaccination.

The answer is the following - if it ever came to light that there are real things they hide, they could redirect the conspiracy crowd to a fake conspiracy, namely, that we never went to the moon by sowing seeds to culture for a generation earlier. Which would later bring fruit, which also happened - at Fox Television. (That's interesting.) And that would divert people from asking real questions, which, of course, is what they found on the moon and when they found it, and when they decided to lie about it all those years?

Kerry: So astronauts, even Mitchell, you say, have a window that actually allowed them to see this glass wall or dome or what it is ...

Hoagland: So they could make shots of the right thing. Yeah.

Kerry: ...and take a picture of it. So when you asked Mitchell and he said he did not see what your theory was about why he was lying?

Hoagland: [to the camera] Look, Kerry is like a good lawyer. She knows the answer to that question. He never puts a question to which he does not know the answer.

Kerry: (Laughs) It is not true!

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

Kerry: OK, I do not know this answer.

Hoagland: Oh, so she did not know the answer. Well, that's because she did not read this part Dark Mission.

Kerry: Exactly!

Hoagland: The solution to this paradox is the fact that something happened to Ed Mitchell's mind.

Kerry: Oh, I knew that answer. Good ... good.

Hoagland: I think someone was playing with the astronauts. Now, all possible kinds of treatises on technologies that can selectively erase memories of specific events are coming out in the available literature. And I believe, and I have it in the book - Mike and I have carefully inserted proof after proof and after proof that each of the astronauts complained, at one time or another, that is unable to remember what they did on the moon.

They came up with various justifications. Like some of them… Pete Conrad replied immediately: "Oh, it was really cool, gentlemen, well, well, it was great!" Which was a cover for the fact that he was very devastated - in private conversations, on the record with certain reporters - from being can not remember.

We had a conference in Wyoming a few years ago. Wyoming is a breeding ground for the CIA and former intelligence people, to whom they all bought beautiful large farms and ranches to keep their mouths shut. They were basically bribed. That's how they bribe them.

I was invited by one of these former-CIA-large-rancher-types, who had a beautiful wife who happened to be a doctor, to present information about Mars. I won't mention any names because they're still alive and I'd like it to stay that way, but a lot, a lot, a lot of weird things were happening. Because I was allegedly invited to present data about Mars: Cydonia, our work at the UN, the unveiling of NASA briefings on Mars at NASA Lewis. And I suddenly surprised them by presenting a lot of things about the moon there for the first time ever. And this man panicked.

Kerry: Well, gentlemen.

Hoagland: And his wife, who turned out to be one of the doctors who interrogated the astronauts, the crew, she circled the conference, she never entered, and she talked to some people who were there with us and said, "I don't know why it's so disturbing, but I - I just can't be there."

Kerry: Ms. Stunning.

Hoagland: So it's the old story 'Who's guarding the guard?'Though, I believe that her they adjusted the mind so that she couldn't remember the truth - after what she did - so how high does it go? How many "guards" have altered their minds with some technology?

And technology is not perfect. I think we can see evidence around it that technology is failing again and again.

For example, if you read the first-person testimony in Buzz Aldrin's books, he's talking about Jay Barbara, who was a colleague of mine at NBC News - I knew Jay when I was at Cronkite and I was just a young puff, and Jay is now the chief space reporter and still reports on NBC shuttles and asks very insightful questions from a team of reporters - Jay inexorably invited Buzz to - I think it was the Kiwanis Club meeting in Palmdale, one of NASA's facilities north of Los Angeles. where they actually tested many components of the secret space program and the secret military program, including the space shuttle.

So he invites him to this meeting with lots of excited jet jockeys and engineers slapping his back. You know exactly what I'm talking about. And he sits on stage and has two chairs to talk to, and Jay asks Buzz: "So how was it to walk for the first time in a month?"

And in his own book, Buzz Aldrin says that at that moment he felt terribly sick, had to run off the stage, ran out into the alley and he vomited. His wife ran out of excitement because she thought something was really bad, which of course was. This is typical aversion therapy. Typical aversion therapy.

So yes, I believe astronauts are innocent. Everyone except Neil Armstrong.

Kerry: Good…

Hoagland: I think Neil Armstrong is the master of his memories. I believe that Neil Armstrong, as an icon, the first person in the human family to walk after a month, was left alone. And that's why Neil Armstrong never says anything about the space program in public. They hold him aside and then bring him to a couple of ceremonies - like in 1994, when he was at the White House with President Clinton and a group of students, and it was all like an arranged photo of the operation and he was standing there talking.

So one evening I asked one person to analyze his body and voice, and he said something about how incredibly nervous and how incredibly anxious he seemed to be. Which you can see on the record. We have the recording.

And Armstrong began by comparing all the astronauts, the whole team of astronauts, all his colleagues who landed on the moon - to parrots. He said: "And parrots don't fly very well. Parrots will also not tell you the truth. They will tell you what is told to them ”.

At the end of his speech, he turned to the students, because the student represents a new generation - the perfect photo arrangement. Always plant students among your listeners to make people think you are next generation. He looked at them. At that moment, he calmed down a bit and said, “There are miracles on the moon to the point of unbelief; for those who can remove the protective layers of truth ”.

So, I've never taught me in school that truth has protective layers. Who protects the truth? He apparently referred to Brookings, at NASA, for 40 years of lies.

Bill: Okay, I also have a few questions. So once again, despite the risk of annoying you here, Richard. There will be many people who have read your entire book to the last page and also read Dark Moon. They were looking at the shots, and I know you're very familiar with those shots. These are the ones where the thread of the hair cross seems to be behind the shot rather than in front of it. They are the ones who seem to have multiple illumination - in the sense of multiple shadows. So, these questions are worth raising again. I know you rejected them. Can you just briefly explain on what basis you did so?

Hoagland: Well, to deny it means not to deal with it. We are in Enterprise av Dark Missionhave dealt with the most common issues very effectively and scientifically, and I believe that we have managed to put this problem to rest. Because what people who naively raise some of these questions do not know is the secret technology that was used to make these images.

For example, that unique colorful super movie. When you take that movie, you make the first original shot in the camera, then bring it back to Earth, make more copies and what you can do because you have such exposure flexibility is that you set it between light and dark so it looks like it would be perfectly illuminated by floodlights, spotlights, additional lighting - and it was actually a movie.

It was the hidden, hidden XRC technology of Charlie Wykoff, which allowed them to do that. As for multiple shadows, no, there are no multiple shadows. There appear to be multiple angles. And these are people who do not understand how shadow angles depend on the surface geometry of the hills, valleys, craters, what are the stones there.

Then there's the usual duck that they didn't see the stars. Ken Johnston informs - and remember that he is the person officially responsible for the photographs in the lunar reception laboratory for Apollo - that his people told him to eventually destroy all but one set of films.

One day he went through one of the buildings and noticed that there was a group of three or four people doing something with negatives, and color. They painted the sky above the horizon. And, like any good manager at NASA, he said, "What the hell are you doing?"

And the answer was, "Oh, we're 'stripers'". Which is somewhat insolent because it is a term that comes from Hollywood. There they make paintings, which then bet into the background of the film, so in the movie Forbidden Planet / Forbidden Planet, but you know, you see the illusion of Chesley Bonestella's monster painting on which the alien moon world is depicted, Altair 4, where the expedition landed.

So she goes on and says, "So, what are you really doing?" And the man who was in charge of several women who were doing it - by the way, they were women - said, "Well, we're supposed to paint the stars so that people don't."

I have to say that the stars, as part of the original NASA photos, were a great source of concern for many people who worried that stars are not visible on the lunar image and they naively think they should.

Well, in fact, it's like when you do the moon shots during the day, you will not see the stars. The reason is that the stars are so incredibly small and the sun is so clear that you can not take one shot so that it is a decent picture of the surface of the landscape and at the same time you can see the stars.

You can try it and do it any day or night here on Earth - go outside when the night is without the moon, and try to capture the stars and let someone illuminate the foreground with artificial lighting and you will quickly find that the foreground looks completely overexposed, even with a faint , insufficient artificial lighting - because the stars are so incredibly faint that you simply can't record both in one shot.

What is serious, given what Ken tells us, is that the people who worked on this painting obviously painted these things. They painted glass ruins, glitters, pieces of glass that would reflect sunlight back into the camera lens at the right angle, and it would be unquestionable that there was something in the sky that should not be there.

The fact that these people thought they were working on star blurring and not glass meant that they also believed lies. The lie was different at every level - and at their level they were told, "We're getting rid of the stars because it would be confusing."

So it's an internally consistent, coherent story with elements of first-person testimony, photographic evidence, web-based testimonials - around the world, amazing, untouched versions, probably scanned from the original, XR Ektachrome slides, are now leaking out of someone. And it all fits together as a cohesive whole that NASA has kept secret - real lunar ruins - for more than 40 years.

Bill: Someone who is our valuable internal resource, and I was so lucky to be able to talk to him for a long time just a moment ago, and I know you're very suspicious of any testimony from people inside, and I understand why, but let me tell you the story…

Hoagland: Well, it lacks physical evidence. You know, Ken has the difference that he had real, tangible sets of images that stand up.

Bill: Of course. I understand. But this is the kind of conversation we could lead last night at dinner, and we did not. I asked this man [Henry Deacon], I talked to him many times about everything, and I thought, but you know, I never asked him if we were on the moon or not. I said, "Look, were we really on the moon?" And the longest silence followed.

I didn't know what he would say. It was a really, very long break. Finally, he said, "Yes." He added: "But it wasn't that simple. We were there with some help. "Then he said," We had advanced technology that was not part of the official Apollo program. It wasn't part of the acclaimed science of the time, which helped us get through the Van Allen belts. "

And in fact it was also built into the LEM, which enabled it to start without leaving behind a cracked crater and the like. He said astronauts knew about it, and that is why he attributed their unwillingness to provide interviews, and so on. He claimed it was a very complicated story, but most of the missions were on the moon.

I didn't insist on him about it. But he mentioned, yeah, these guys who claimed it was all staged, that's not true, but some of these things were actually designed in preparation for this, so that the whole story was kept in public because of the complex aspects of PR, and so on.

Hoagland: And do you know the background of that man?

Bill: Yes I know.

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

Bill: He was not in NASA. He worked for a number of black projects, he was an electronics specialist. He worked in Livermore, worked for a lot of black projects. He knew people.

Kerry: He worked for NOAA.

Bill: He asked the questions. He was not involved in NASA, he did not belong to the program.

Hoagland: Good. Without talking to him myself, because I think I know who you're talking about, my impression is that he is another victim of "Different lies at every level." He was presented with a lie that would give him the experience of national security that covering up technology. Because nowhere in his dictionary can you find that they hide ancient ruins.

Bill: Yes. What he passed on to us is not first-hand information. I think that was something he learned during his work.

Hoagland: From someone else.

Bill: Correctly. I absolutely understand.

Hoagland: So you can understand how honest and honest it is, and yet completely mistaken.

Bill: That's the biggest problem.

Hoagland: Because if he had seen something that would make sense to him ... - Oh, here is the amazing advancement of technology - which, of course, when we got right here, exists, a secret development of real antigravity technology, in parallel with the public, official Apollo program. There are people, actually Joseph Farrell is one of those people who, in his books (that is, before he met me), floats this as one of the possibilities.

In fact, all those people who watch the LEM start up and don't understand what they see - that's because they don't have enough knowledge of physics. Everything we saw, including the craters - I saw a close-up of the crater below the LEM. What makes it interesting is that when you blow the dust - you see, the natural model says that the dust falls on the moon for billions of years, which means there should be a nice, light, fluffy layer. So, something like snow, if I had to park a rocket engine in the snow after a snowstorm, there would be a real, beautiful crater, right?

Instead, what the astronauts found in flag-fixing and drilling attempts and other experiments is that beneath that thin surface, about a few inches, maybe one or two, the lunar surface is damn hard. He's tough. And the deeper you go, the harder it gets. Which, of course, is in line with the idea that there are ruins beneath this surface.

There are buildings down there! There are walls, there are beams, there are beams. The things you see above the ground are only half the story. And that's why on current missions orbiting the moon tonight, just as we're recording 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 a pile of tools up to and including high-performance radar to explore lower levels and detect what I believe the ruins below the lunar surface.

Kerry: And are ruins underground or underground?

Hoagland: It does not matter. Do you mean, then, do you think ...

Kerry: Underground base of the present.

Hoagland: The moon has a surface area like North and South America together, 15 million square miles. If we have a base there, it's pretty small. So most of the things you find there are old. And it's easy to distinguish it.

Kerry: Okay, and what is your opinion, do we have a base here?

Hoagland: I do not know. According to my OpinionIf we take into account that, probably, in all probability, there is a secret space program, I would say that there is a base. She probably won't be the only one. You can't do everything from one place. I mean, can we explore this planet from one base?

If you have technology that you can get there very easily in a few hours, using antigravity… And we actually have a video of the shuttle that captures that technology, and I lent it to Art Bell a few years ago. And he really kept it a secret! I said to him, "Art, watch over it, and don't tell anyone."

Eventually, I passed it on to Whitley Strieber via Art, and it ended up in NBC as part of Whitley's program. I firmly believe that this thing is our thing - that we are not looking at aliens, we are not looking at little grays, little alien guys. We're watching our secret space program.

And there are reasons, again very carefully explained in the book, why I think this is our business. Well, if that's the case, it would be foolish to believe that we didn't build a base or bases on the moon, if not for another reason, at least because we need a place where we can function, throw all these things in there, and What is interesting is to bring home.

Kerry: Well, we've heard Auroras fly back and forth with cargo, and I guess they're with humans, too, I don't know.

Hoagland: Aurora is a pseudonym. It could mean anything. We know that in the XNUMXs, there were aerodynamic bangs in the air over Los Angeles, which allegedly arrived across the Pacific Ocean and then landed, probably at the Edwards site. After all, you know the super-secret research facility that is out there.

We heard it was Aurora. That's all we know. Do not forget that it's a mystery, encircled by a mystery, shrouded by a constant veil of lies. So, as far as the truth is concerned, if you do not have pictures, pureblooded documentation, you can not believe it.

And even if you have them, you need to do a thorough analysis to understand what you're looking at. I mean, there are people who look at it and say, "Hoagland, I have no idea what the hell I'm looking at." Because they don't understand how to think in terms of simple optical physics. They never drove the car towards the sunset, with the sun shining on their dirty windshield, to realize that they saw dirty glass.

OK, the key premise - remember, science is nothing if it is not the premise - the key premise of the whole ancient lunar dome - if anyone was there, they lived there, built this incredible, vast thing. Apollo was sent there to find out what could be brought home with primitive rocket technology of the XNUMXs and XNUMXs. By the way, we are doing much better today, secretly. And one of the key assumptions of the model is that when you have glass, when you have glass domes, glass ruins - people who live in glass houses see prisms.

See an amazing amount of colors. And if you lived in a glass house and you would look at the sun and look at the reflections and everything, you should see the prisms again and again. On these photos, as the model says, we should be able to find prisms.

So I started watching. And this is a picture from Apollo 17. You can see a hint. It's one of those newly scanned shots that got out, in 16 Mb files, so anyone can go to the web and download them and use Photoshop and bingo! You will confirm exactly what is there when you amplify the result. Right up here, above these mountains - which are not mountains, by the way, it is an eroded ecological deposit - you will find a prism.

You will discover a stunning colored fragment of glass, spectrally refracting light.

So, as for the model that was thrown here before, that it was all made in a big studio? No, no, no, no. Because large studios would be made of steel and aluminum… from the things we build. We do not build here from glass, because glass is fragile. The glass breaks. There is no steel glass on Earth. On the moon alone, glass is twenty times stronger than steel.

So if I had to bet everything that we certainly weren't wrong in a single figure, it would be these prisms. Because looking at these photos, looking at how the color emulsion of Ektachrom, the Super Ektachrom, that Charlie Wykoff - my friend with whom I worked and for whom I used this film - evoked; I know that these three layers - yellow, fuchsia and blue-green - converted to an Ektachrome color slide, were obviously recordable.

Here we have another. Here is a prism pointing up and a prism pointing down. It's called birefringence. And when you look at it, we have a comparison: the one I showed you first and here is the second. Note that the angle is different. This is because the shot was taken at a different angle in relation to the sun.

So quarry physics, prism formation - this is one of my favorites. This is a PR image. Cernan with command braids with a flag, but when you look, up here in the dark, in the dome above the valley Taurus-Littrow, and enlarge it, we have a prism here! Double prism, and in fact you can see that it is aligned with the struts in the glass. There's another one, another up here. These are great proof, proof of optical physics, that what we see is really real.

And this is probably my favorite. This is Harrison Schmidt on the moon. The lunar landscape, the Taurus-Littrow valley, the gray scenery, everything they told us about. Here is the color spectrum, yes. This is our calibration. Red, green and blue. This is a gray scale. It's called a noman. Attach it to photos to calibrate the color.

The color is particularly unsaturated. It's similar to NASA when they were released, downloaded the color. Want to see why? When you return the color back to the level it should be, bingo! We have a dawn here on the moon. We have a layered sunrise, just like when you look out here, now that we're filming. If you look outside, you will see the same layering of light and color under the Earth's atmosphere. Except we all know and can prove that there is no atmosphere on the moon. Deliberately watch the star travel the moon sometime at night. She's not shaking. It simply disappears like this. So, John Lear, dear John, you are wrong.

There is no atmosphere on the moon, but there are huge grids of glass and if you look at these pictures the right way - remember, this is the official image - not only will you see the color spectrum of dawn, but right here is a beautiful, unreal prism made of glass breaking sunlight back to camera. And notice the angle. It's almost horizontal, because when Cernan was taking this picture, he had the sun in his back. It was turned almost directly away from the sun, and the geometry of the domes made the prism horizontal. This is stunning evidence to me about these old lunar domes.

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

Hoagland: Oh, instantly.

Kerry: Great.

Hoagland: I'm done.

Kerry: The last time we visited you here, we didn't get an interview. You were working on a video called Kokopelli, and you just came back from below, from the south, near Palm Springs, where you were at a conference.

Richard: Joshua Tree.

Kerry: Exactly. You have lectured on your findings on what is happening now.

Richard: It was a four-day conference with many other scholars.

Kerry: There was also David Wilcock.

Richard: David was there. David's friend was there. Sean David Morton was there. There was one of the lunar researchers Steve Troy, there was Ken Johnston.

Kerry: I really wanted to be there, but I couldn't, but we were fascinated to hear that Richard Hoagland was now exploring what was happening to the planet, just as we entered the unexplored waters of the future, starting with the present - in 2008, we just at its beginning - until 2012 and beyond.

We understand that you have some evidence that you are working on, and I think David Wilcock actually helped you write an article for your website called Interplanetary Day After, which begins to document the changes that are taking place on other planets, not just on our own Earth, in terms of warming of the planets and other changes.

And what we wanted to talk to you about is this: What did you find out?

Richard: The way I came to this, and at the same time the fact that brings these two seemingly separate themes together, is: what is it that NASA has been doing all these years and does not want to tell us about it and what will come in 2012 ?; these two issues appear to be very fundamentally and critically linked.

Remember, I started by examining a group of Martian ruins - even though NASA claimed they were not ruins, just a play of light and shadow. As part of the work published in Monuments on Mars, to which we returned and elaborated in detail in the second chapter Dark Missions, we encountered this physics-the physics we had no idea about.

One evening a source from a secret intelligence service told me on the phone, and this is an exact quote - it's so amazing and it's very important that I tell you exactly, because it shows what's going on behind the scenes all these years about whether they tell us the truth:

I was told that they would rather expel a major American city to nuclear terrorism than to deliver this physics.

It is anti-gravity physics, the so-called free energy, even consciousness and life itself. Everything is connected with the fact that physics, more than a hundred years ago when Maxwell wrote his equations and the modern foundations for electromagnetic theory were laid in England, took a radically wrong direction.

Now looking back, as I worked it out - and this is what we are talking about in the second chapter - it was not a bad turn made by people who were mistaken, who made mistakes or did not know what they were doing. It was a conscious influence on the truth. It was done by people who manipulated science and scientists by controlling periodicals, creating a collegial review procedure and, in principle, eliminating unwanted work, aggressively discrediting scientists who were unwilling to 'lead an orderly life'.

Deliberately keeping the scientific community in isolation from technology and a fundamental understanding of physics that would liberate all of humanity. In other words, control.

Remember, I look back on these issues by examining a group of ruins on another planet. By studying certain formations and through exceptionally interesting steps that I will not bore you now, because they are described in both books, realizing that we have spread all physics on the surface of another planet, a window into a whole new way of looking at the world, looking at reality, what in fact, it controls all things up to and including our technology, one that we take for granted and think that it works in one way and yet actually works on slightly, sometimes much, different principles.

So this was the background of circumstances when I began to watch the ruins of Mars, and then I extended my search to explore the ruins on the moon and these fragments of glass and the confirmation that it was really all real, all the things I said was before NASA has been hiding us all these years.

Then came the question: if we look at ancient civilizations on these planets, civilizations that are no longer here ... what happened? I mean, if they had this almost magical to divine power, why aren't they here anymore? And why are we, as their last surviving successors, in a model that says - they are us and we are them, so why are we in such a terrible situation, fighting each other for a few drops of oil when the universe would give us, surrounding us could provide an unlimited amount of energy to build the stunning range of things we find right next to the moon?

Something had to happen.

And so I began to think: we know from earthly history that life does not just happen, in fact, bad things happen. They become people, they become cities, nations and civilizations. So goes life, rise and fall. As in Shakespeare, the seven ages of man. Beginning, middle and end.

So, if these things, no matter how amazing these individuals who did it all, were, if it could have come to an end, disappear, and it seems so, so it happened, in many cases, to the catastrophic end… when you look at those things on Mars, it is clear that there has been a huge planetary catastrophe that has swept everything away and buried it under mud and sediment, and eroding.

We see traces of buildings protruding from below. Even the Russians tell in their literature about cities buried under the sands of Mars. It is found in their current sci-fi literature.

So I look at it all and I say, could it happen again here?

Could everything we see around us - New York, skyscrapers, the unique technology that got to Apollo, all the things we take for granted, the fact that we are on this never-ending triumphant march into the future - it could actually at some point does everything come to an end? Could we, at the moment, be going through some kind of devastation that these guys [on Mars] obviously went through? Because they're not here anymore.

That made me look at things like old records. There are some amazing things in Egypt that I can show you - I actually have them in this database - that really prove that we are not the first.

There is the mysterious parallel between the face on Mars and the faces of the famous pharaohs of Egypt, including the headgear, which was called Manes. It had stripes.

If you look at the early versions of the Viking Face on Mars, you will find that it has side stripes on both sides of the pedestal on which the face rests. That told me there was a potential connection to Egypt.

Then you quickly rewind the film and reach out to people like Vladimir Avinsky, a Russian researcher who, quite independently, in 1984, published in Soviet magazine the chronology of his exploration of Cydonia and eventually called Face on Mars. 'The Martian Sphinx“.

Another step forward in the film. In my research, when Errol Torun joined the research, we one day found that there was a perfect mathematical connection between the physical location of the ruins on Mars and the physical location of the ruins in Egypt. In fact, if I remember correctly, the cosine of one was equal to the sine of the other.

The probability that this might be the case is 7000 to 1. In other words, two special places - the Sphinx and the Pyramids, on two separate planets, that they know the location of the other ... And that's not just some guess. As George Noory says: 'I don't believe in chance'. George is right: it can't be accidental.

The more you immerse yourself in Egyptian history and Egyptian hieroglyphs, architecture, all of Egypt's things, which are, incidentally, the things on which your Masons are founded, the more you find this unbelievable submarine connection to Mars. When I look at the disappeared civilization on another planet, where I have no underlying facts, when I find a connection to this planet where I can have underlying facts, it makes me pay attention.

Summary: It seems that both in mythology and in architecture, mathematics and geometry, at all levels, some deep serious connection has emerged between the monuments of Mars and the monuments of the Earth, more precisely in Egypt. Which v Monuments on Mars I call terrestrial connections.

You can look in the books and read all about it. It is evidenced by pictures and comparisons and all that. So, it made me focus really carefully on the fact that there may in fact be contemporary records in Egypt, a hint of a former advanced civilization, which in this model may have come to Mars, for example, and build what we saw.

Though I think this is not the case. There are too many things. But the civilization on Mars, as we can see on ruins, could be displaced by colonists or colonists or something similar to Earth, and then you would have an independent development where advanced civilization would develop, and on Earth you could see a record of this origin reflected in the monuments.

One particular case concerned what we see on the screen. This is Abydos, which by the way is a very crucial planet in the whole Stargate mythology in one very popular TV show. Which begs the question: What do these people know and where did they find out?

This is Abydos. What is remarkable about this is that this is the temple of Seti I, who was one of the Renaissance pharaohs. It is from the middle part of Egyptian history, about 1 years ago. He was a Renaissance man. He basically looked back to the beginnings of his culture, his civilizations, and had the power and money and ability to lead his people to basically find good things and build monuments that confirmed what these big guys, these ancient original founders of Egyptian culture, were.

He built this temple in Abydos. What seems remarkable to me is this - when you look at this facade, how do you feel it? It seems to me modern. It does not look old. Actually it looks really modern. It looks like a large, massive five-sided building on the other side of the Potomac, called the Pentagon.

When you look at the Pentagon from ground level, it looks like this. Including columns that are made of concrete. These are made of stone. When you walk in, there's a real surprise, because inside, at the top of the lintels that hold the roof, on one in particular, you'll see this amazing frieze of what initially looks like hieroglyphs, but in fact it seems to be an advanced technological device. Here's a helicopter, here's a tank, a distinct antigravity spaceship with a tail. Here's a land-speeder… I mean it looks exactly like a land-speeder from Star Wars, you know?

You also have other things that look more like iconography. Perhaps letters, maybe some kind of hieroglyphs. They do not look Egyptian. And I just arranged the comparative pictures. Right here.

Now someone will look at it and say, God, do you mean that the Egyptians had war tanks and Cobra helicopters? No, that's not what we say. I'm saying this is an Abrams tank compared to this tank here. I say that this ancient culture, led by Seti I, looking back to his own sacred records, to his own sacred texts, to his documentation of what is called in Egyptian the first time, which is the chronicle of a certain extraordinary era that took place before the then-present Egyptian civilization. He worshiped the amazing guys who built and preserved these things.

So I think that Seti I was basically building a museum to honor the memory of technology from its time - from first time. Shemsu Hor, followers of Horus, were hereditary priests who kept records. When you look at Manath's chronology, his calendar, you will see giant time blocks that conventional Egyptologists dismiss as stupid or misidentifications of lunar cycles such as years and things like that. But we are talking here about time periods that are, in total, equal to ten, twenty, thirty thousand years, for example. If you rewind all those hours back, this time period could actually be the same as anyone who built what we saw on Mars.

An anchor of real science is when you look at Gizu and look at the shape of the pyramid from top to bottom. Look at the Bauval and Hancock reconstructions of the stars and Orion strip copying the Pyramid's location in Giza. See how these pyramids are arranged almost, but not exactly, to the north.

If you take ordinary clocks, the tectonics of lithospheric plates in standard geology, and you rewind these clocks with the rotation of Africa, thanks to the physics of the planet under Giza, it turns out that the architecture of Giza and the time frame for anyone who built Cydonia is exactly the same: a quarter million years. Which means we are looking at the unreal civilization that has come and is now gone.

Kerry: Are we talking about Atlantis here?

Richard: Metaphorically, yes. In other words, if you read Plato, the Atlantean story, I think the scholars - and this is my personal opinion - were too close to one place, one island, one night, one disaster. Plato listened to priests from Egypt. He got all the information about Atlantis from the guys who did this. He spoke of the era, of civilization and culture, or of a small piece of land where a bunch of guys did something really dull and cut off by gods.

Atlantis is a concept, not a place.

Richard: For me, Atlantis is a time or a time that was once here and could have included people who could travel to the moon and back, to Mars and back. They placed all the things we found with great effort through NASA's database on the moons of other planets. And who are also waiting to be confirmed by some honest space program that will one day tell us the whole truth.

Which brings us back to the inevitable question - if all these things once existed and now it's all gone, what happened to it all? The answer in physics is that physics can be wrong. He may be terribly wrong. It can be wrong only in the range of the solar system. That's why we see Mars in a really advanced decay. That's why we see ruins and not skyscrapers, you can immediately recognize it on the moon. The next question must be: can it happen here?

Which further diverts our attention to the Mayan calendar, because the Mayans, one of those ancient cultures, contemporaries of those who tried to record, capture or perpetuate these things, these Mayans have in their own texts:

The day and time will come when all this will disappear and something completely new will be born again.

Is it just a metaphor? Does it cover a new way of looking at the world? Is it a foolish fairy tale of the new age that says that one day we will all love one another? Or it concerns the possibility that there are a number of timed ticking bombs in this physics, and if we do not grasp this knowledge, this physics and technology, all those matters of covert, black operations that some have been sitting on for fifty years, or perhaps much longer, we will be in big trouble when the day of reckoning comes, December 21, 2012, and we will be completely unprepared for what could happen.

Politics is 99% providence. I think there are two questions here. One is: what will actually happen? I work with Enterprise and researchers such as Joseph Farrell and others to try to crack this physics.

The second path is political. What are they, those who control and control everything, those who prevent us from knowing our true history, what they think will happen and what they are doing to prepare and what they are not telling us all?

There is physics here. In fact, we are looking at some very interesting hyperdimensional or torsional indications that are taking place in the galaxy, which happens once every 26 years, and what the impact is, the actual physical impact. The question is, how big? We also have evidence that all 'those from one party', the Rockefellers, the Diamond Guys, the Bilderbergers, all these groups, that they know something - or more precisely, they think they know something and have been taking various steps for at least 000 years. to prepare.

One thing seems really interesting to me - and it was so stunning when I came up to this and I could have done it at the Joshua Tree conference, which was not the first place I had put it. I have done several conferences that have been almost like a concentration on which I have seen people pick up the data from the chairs.

When Columbus sailed the ocean in 1492, one of the things he brought back was data from the Mayan calendar, the Mayan Codes. They told us they burned, didn't they? In any case! In my opinion, they were confiscated and stored in the Vatican Archives. Who in their right mind would destroy information? Forget the fact that they are not religious, they are about saving their own skin, they are at the forefront of society and politics and among nations, and it is all about control.

The point is, of course, that if they burned them, no one would ever look at them again - so they could look at them secretly. So I think all the codes the scholars have missed came back to the Vatican.

How do I know this? The only way this could work was that in 1582, a German scholar was appointed by Pope Gregory to lead a council to reform the calendar. The seasons fell out of harmony with the Easter and Christmas holidays, as well as Christ's Resurrection and all that. You can't have Christmas in July, and that's what happened. So the calendar had to be transformed from the old Julian calendar. And so Gregory chose Clavius, a German mathematical genius, to lead this team, this 'chairman committee', if you wanted to think of him in these terms, who was to recommend changes to the calendar.

When everything was resolved and done, they went public with a calendar that adjusted the dates, seasons, times, resynchronized everything. It is called Gregory's or Gregorian calendar. According to him, we live now. It took some time for it to seep into various parts of the Christian world and parts of the world that were not Christian at the time. In 1583 it was set 11 days in advance.

When you look at the synchronization of the Mayan Calendar and Gregory's calendar, this very crucial day of 2012, according to the US Navy Observatory, you can look at their website - Google is your friend - and find out that the magical moment, the Mayan moment when the world changes , it does not stop - but it changes - and it is radically 21.prosinec of the year 2012, in 11: 11 hours. World Time.

By no means is this possible to be accidental, because 11:11 is the code for physics that we deciphered from the monuments on Mars. That would be a long story, which we don't have time for now, but it's on the site  Enterprise website, it's in books. What is happening here: it is not possible for Clavius ​​to master without an independent source of knowledge that was much more sophisticated.

Professor of mathematics, who directed the department at Fairleigh Dickinson University, he actually wrote to me that he couldn't figure out how Clavius ​​did it. It's damn accurate. So I suppose it was the secret codes imported by Columbus et al., Isolated in the Vatican, with the Mayan calendar, where they were then able to adjust Gregory's calendar to 11:11 a.m., the morning of the twenty-first, 2012.

Kerry: What will happen?

Richard: I was afraid you'd ask me. I do not know.

Kerry: Do you work on that?

Richard: I'm working on that, of course. It's just going on. I do not know. I'm not going to sit here and say something I do not know. I can tell you what I think.

Because the effects are so serious and the amount of effort the 'bad ones' are making is so huge, I conclude very strongly that for many people it will not be a successful day. I still can't go out with it.

There are different ways to change radically. One possibility is - if the boys from the community of black operations who play with their secret toys, spacecrafts and secret programs, traveling back and forth, raging Moon, finding libraries doing - God knows what they are doing out there - if they suddenly realize that this technology is actually usable in the world, that there is physics that can literally dominate the planet and prevent bad things happen ... that would be serious.

The situation that would really get us in the end would be as follows - it is a case where a real problem comes and we do not have a damn only way to do it. Fortunately, according to all the possible evidence available, including the people you are constantly talking to, everyone inside / up knows all these things. Only we, peons outside / down, have nothing to know about. Which means nothing has to be invented. Everything that is needed here is redirected from herewhatever they do with it, tam, which is a planetary affair.

Our job is to get people inside / up to realize they don't have a ticket from here. That they are caught with everyone else. We are all in this together, because each level has its lie. Even if they were told they had their ticket gone, they probably didn't. Do families and aunts and uncles and cats and dogs and mortgages and all these things? According to the physics I can prove, whatever is to come in 2012 will be here when it comes.

Kerry: We have a scientist who has spoken to us very briefly. He came and said there would be three events from now on [end of year 2007] by 2012. He's a respected scientist, someone you might know and maybe you've talked to. We don't know, we can't name him. He's talking about CME (Corona Mass Ejection) from the Sun.

Bill: The second issue is the reversal of magnetic poles. And then finally the polarity reversal. He said the events began in 2009 and culminated in 2012. He told us nothing more, as he was said to be bound by a national security order and was reportedly the first person he had spoken to outside the national security community in seven years.

Kerry: He paid tribute to us, sent us an e-mail and spun the conversation a bit. We are now being approached by various people, some of the black operations, with secrets they want to uncover, etc. They all have information about what may happen between this moment and 2012.

We went to Russia and did an interview with Boriska, a child who remembers past lives on Mars and who started talking at the age of seven, and we will publish this interview very soon. Basically, Boriska says in a very real-sounding tone that Moscow will be flooded with water and that this will happen in 2009. In his current 11 years, he does not know why and how - he only knows that it will happen.

We get all kinds of evidence. Evidence of underground bases, of preparations for placing some people in safe places, with the rest of the people, about two-thirds of the population, being left to improvisation and, in principle, discarded.

Richard: This is probably a great understatement.

Kerry: We do not want to believe that it will happen or that an extensive cataclysm will hit Earth in such a way that these events will cause total destruction and the end of human lives.

Richard: It is not the end of human life, it is the end of this cycle of civilization. We will move on, the human race will continue. If the evidence from the past is accurate, which it is, there will be a new cycle, a new series of cultures and civilizations will come, and we will become a myth in their minds and writings, and they will one day discover spaceflight and fly to the moon. And they will have people who will hide the truth from them, and the cycle repeats itself indefinitely if we don't stop it here.

This game is about this, all of us who look at it from different angles, we all need to combine our resources and strengths, our knowledge and goodwill, and above all, to recruit all the people you are out there and change the scenario. The tools are here. I now know that tools exist, whatever comes, we can deal with it because the physics are so extraordinary. The problem is political and spiritual will.

There is a small group of people who, in the worst case scenario, want us all to disappear. So they don't solve, they don't even lift a finger. In fact, they maintain the illusion, with the lie differing on each level, that there is nothing that can be done. According to my research, there are an extraordinary number of things that can be done.

It may be stopped, it may be changed. The first way to overcome the enemy - and we are an enemy for them - is to get them to fight themselves. You make them give up and want to stop fighting. You tell them it's useless.

You remember those guys from Star Trek, Borgy? Fighting them is futile - resistance is futile. Well, it's not. It's just another stage of lying.

Kerry: What kind of physics are you talking about here? Are you talking about time travel? I'm sure it's hyper-dimensional physics. What is what you perceive as a solution? I know you work with David Wilcock and he has a very positive attitude towards the future. Is his positive attitude based on your joint research or does he share some of your resources with you?

Richard: A little of both. The reason Wilcock caught my eye is that he came up with the same things as us, and independent confirmations are amazing to me. It's the lifeblood of true science, when someone isolated, whom you never talk to, introduces you to a database, and wow, it looks a bit like your database, and you never talk to each other. So that's how Wilcock and I got together. We worked together. We have developed common information sources and created some publications to try to get something out.

As for what to do - I'm not sure if even the best and smartest of those inside knows what will really happen. I discovered so many cases where they worked on the basis of these old texts and documents and apparently had no idea of ​​the real physics behind it.

They could literally spend all that money, in trillions. They could easily build their huge underground cities like the Urals and Russia. They could build their tribal bank, which they do in Norway. I mean, it's all there - you can see what they're doing to get ready. But suppose they are not on the right path. Suppose they do not read the physics correctly because they do not know there's any physics there.

It's so boxed out that people who work in physics build those precision spaceships or energy sources, so they don't talk to people from politics, to those who make the other decisions. Remember, it's a secret - they would rather give up a major American city than release this mystery of physics, because if they did, they would lose control altogether.

Their paradigm, the overall reason for their existence, is all about control. They can not just come and say, "Maybe we're wrong, maybe we didn't decipher it correctly". No one who is really deep inside has called me lately and said, "Hey, Hoagland, what do you think will really happen?" (So ​​if you people don't do it for them, then it would be a very elegant technique.)

The point is, you have to go by numbers; and the numbers tell me two very important things at the moment. One of them is that this is not a date. It will not happen by midnight on December 21, 2012, or at 11:11. It is part of a synchronized ritual. It's an amplification of the fact that it's really physics based, because the code is 11:11. 11:11 is actually - I'll tell you the answer and then you can trace back how we actually got there. 11:11 is the code for 19,5, which is the key geometry of the revolutionary physics of every planet in the solar system. So it says… it's like a swastika, it's like another version of instilling something that this is really based on physics. On hyper-dimensional physics.

There are two ways to use this physics to avert what is to come. If something bad comes along, then technology is one of them. I have a strong suspicion that HAARP is in fact one of the positive technologies protected by all those stupid lies around. The worst case scenario, mind control, irradiation of people with rays, no, it's to protect what is the real meaning of HAARP - an attempt to work with plasma in the ionosphere. Plasma is key to controlling torsion waves, and torsion waves are an ethereal 3D manifestation of hyper-dimensional physics in this dimension.

You have a huge multi-gigawatt transmitter that works with plasma at the top of the poles. And now, we know that the Russians are very interested in both poles. They sent an expedition to the North Pole, Putin did something very special this summer, and also sent a not-so-secret agent in charge of secret service matters to the South Pole. What was it all about? This is because the poles are the key to controlling the Earth if it wants to do somersaults.

Someone, somewhere, is actually working on technology to avoid the worst scenario. This is good news. They live here. This means that at least one group is not going to get stuck. Actually, they work to solve the problem and I can point to some other clever aspects of HAARP, which we do not have room to analyze here, but they are on the web and in the book Dark Mission.

They are so incredibly great, confirming that a certain group is actually looking for a way to solve a problem for all of us. And that only happens with the technology we can see. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and we don't see it, it's subject to secrecy.

As I told a neoconservative a few years ago when I talked to him about this - and it was really fun because he's someone alive, he's a very high level banker… watch the money - he lives right next to George Bush down in Houston. He is obviously very intimately involved in this series of conversations.

And that's exactly what I explained to him, it was a few years ago what I think could happen - and he looked at me and said: "But you realize, Hoagland, that you won't get any recognition for this."

I do it: "What!?" He said: “This must be done in secret. No one can know about it. ” I said: "Then go for it, do it. Damn it, just do it. ”

So things are happening. We do not have to know what's going on, we do not need to know the details. We just need to know that someone is paying attention for us. There's a folder here - do not forget, it's a lone manor, they all fight each other - and there's one folder that says, "Damn it, my wife doesn't have a ticket from here, maybe I should do something for the planet, because otherwise she's stuck."

The second path - which is actually the more interesting path for me and which is slowly coming - is the path of consciousness. Art and George and I have been doing such experiments with consciousness on the Coast to Coast for years. We have shown that there really is a certain indefinable, invisible ability of a large group of people to focus on the same goal in order to influence 3D reality.

I am sitting here in part thanks to this technology of concentration, from Art and the Coast audience. When I had a heart attack in 1999, for a long time, for about about the critical first week that Art was concentrating people on me, there was a change. I really believe that the intervention in these first few critical days had a really decisive effect and helped me overcome the crisis, and then Robin's long-term benefits of support and all the other things she made me do ended up sitting here in perfect health, without single problem, ten years after the event.

And I began - apparently for personal reasons - to think: what if we could use this technology, this invisible connection of the mind, to work on this same problem. George and I discussed discreetly how to set up more more controlled experiments - and recently one took place, countdown clocks were posted, and George told his listeners to focus on them, and indeed, the Princeton EGGs, the random number generators that were at Princeton University. Designed for a conscious project, they really showed an effect, on time and precisely, at a time when people were concentrating on the experiment at a certain time during the day.

Imagine that we should shed light on a large-format medium - a cinema, a special news service on television - that this is the problem as we identified it. These are vulnerable moments when an intervention would be helpful. Then we would simply give people a database that this worked here. It can also work there.

In this process, we are democratically empowering ordinary people around the world to collectively set aside their differences. We will focus together as a collective human family to solve potentially the biggest problem in the history of the human race, in this iteration of the world. Suppose it works. That's our challenge, and that's why I'm doing what I do. That's why I wrote the book.

Kerry: This is very impressive. In a sense, Ingo Swann was able to influence his mind, this thing, with the help of SRI…

Richard: Experiments with a magnetometer. In fact, he played with it nicely and really confused them.

Kerry: It was supposed to be impossible.

Richard: It's a torsion. It's all about torsional waves. The Russians, once upon a time when they were still Soviets, have 50 years of records showing that this is real physics - which has again been suppressed in the Western world. I'm trying to bring these two cultures together.

It is not interesting that we have so many positive reactions to our press conference at the Washington DC National Press Club. Four Russian television companies appeared there. We had a Russian television company here in this living room and they were sitting here with me and some of these things were showing up on the screen and it will be broadcast on NTV - Russia's largest commercial television company - for 120 million Russians in a few days.

If we can build bridges between two cultures that have records that show that this is real science, real physics, then this can not be suppressed - assuming that ordinary people forget about the authorities they lie and listen to people who they try to show the grain of truth.

You need to do your homework. You can not sit and listen to me and trust me. You should not - but you have internet. You have Google, Google is your friend.

Now you can reconcile everything - by collecting pieces from so many possible sources and getting an overall picture that tells you that most of what I'm telling you here is actually verifiable and therefore true - and if it's true, then you can no longer sit on the sofa and watch TV.

You have to get up and do something ... because 2012 is coming.

Kerry: Thank you very much, Richard Hoagland. That was really wonderful. Camelot thanks you, and we hope to return again to interview you and Farrell and continue the story.

       Epilogue

One of the problems with publishing a book like Dark Mission is credibility. If you refer to evidence, even evidence based on NASA sources such as Ken Johnston, it is always open to different interpretations by many different people and is therefore open to attack as to the credibility of your sources.

In the last few hours, a review of Dark Mission's book by a former NASA flight controller has been published on Amazon.com - which not only confirmed that most of what we said in Dark Mission was true, but also told me in this public way that they used to be the time I did Coast or Bell and the flight controllers listened to my interpretations of various NASA activities - and that the flight controllers themselves put it all together as a compilation into the Johnson Space Center space library.

And then after a while, about ten years ago, the tape disappeared. He was concerned. He went out to look for the tape. He was then ordered to stop searching for the band under the threat of punishment - the punishment is not specified.

James Oberg, a current NASA advocate who venomously and repeatedly attacks Ken Johnston, wrote a response to Amazon alleging that the person had made unsubstantiated allegations and was actually making up…, and then a few hours later posted another reaction where confirmed that, in fact, this flight controller is indeed exactly who he claims to be.

Something is changing ...