On March 21, 1996, a group of former NASA scientists and engineers, led by former NASA consultant Richard Hoagland, held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. to announce the results of their analysis of lunar photographs which purportedly show ancient artificial structures on the surface of the moon. O Show da Lua
Textos sobre o Tema(Inglês) "Artefatos na Lua ?"
Art Bell entrevista Richard Hoagland (consultor da NASA) e Kenneth Johnston (responsável pelo arquivo fotográfico da NASA) no programa de rádio "Coast to Coast whith Art Bell" em 21 de março de 1996.Ancient Artifacts on the Moon?
Analysis of "leaked suppressed photographic evidence" shows astronauts walking amid what appear to be lunar ruins, a glass structure floating nine miles above the surface of the moon, and other unexplained anomalies.Hoagland's findings have been hotly contested, with some claiming a government cover-up, others claiming that Hoagland is wrong, or worse yet, perpetrating a hoax. To help clear the air, ParaScope presents the following transcripts from a radio interview with Hoagland and Kenneth Johnston, the NASA contractor in charge of processing photographic and written documentation about lunar samples during the Apollo moon landings. The interview was conducted on "Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell" on the night of March 21, after the press conference.
To view photos of lunar anomalies presented at Hoagland's press conference, or to visit the Art Bell home page, click on the weblinks in the list box below.
The URL for the Hoagland photos is:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/mphotos.htmlThe URL for the Art Bell home page is:
http://www.artbell.com/
zxzxRichard Hoagland/Ken Johnston
Interview, Part 1
Artifacts on the Moon?
Transcript of Art Bell's interview with
Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston, 3/21/96[PART ONE]
(introductory remarks by James Shannon [jamesjs@unixg.ubc.ca])
The following is a transcript of the radio interview that was aired late
Thursday night - March 21, 1996 - into early Friday morning - March 22,
1996 - on the weeknight program, "Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell". The
interview was conducted by Art Bell. The participants were Richard
Hoagland and Ken Johnston.Art Bell was attempting to get the scoop on what really took place at the
historic press briefing at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. earlier
in the day - where Richard Hoagland and a team of scientists and engineers
presented their remarkable Moon findings.This press briefing centered around information kept from the American
public by NASA - concerning possible artificial structures - or ruins of an
ancient "alien" civilization - discovered on the Moon, during the Apollo
missions.* * * * *
After a few words about "hard water", Art got to the "hard facts" and the
program opens with the reading of a few faxes.[key] AB= Art Bell KH= Richard Hoagland KJ= Ken Johnston
________________________________________________________________
AB: From the high desert, in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good
evening or good morning, as the case may be.Welcome to another edition of the largest live overnight radio talk program in
America - maybe in the world, actually.This is "Coast to Coast AM" and I'm Art Bell.
Now, I know a lot of you - zillions of you - actually, want to know what is
going on with Richard Hoagland and the news conference at the National
Press Club, in Washington, D.C..Well, you're about to find out. If they won't tell you - and many of them didn't
- we will. Because coming up in just a moment is Richard Hoagland and Ken
Johnston, who was NASA's data and photo-documentation supervisor.That coming up in just a moment.
... (break for messages)
AB: Alright, this fax is typical.
"Dear Art, it is beginning to look like the only way most of us are going to
learn what happened at the press conference, will be if you tell us tonight. I
learned from the National Press Club, there were about 18 cameras and 60
guests at the briefing. C-SPAN told me they didn't cover it because they had
"other things to do", and because they weren't told who would be there,
besides Richard Hoagland".AB: But there was coverage.
"Dear Art, I have a tape of the following report, with video graphics, which
was broadcast on our local news at 5:00 PM, Channel 11, NBC, in
Minneapolis - 'Does NASA Have Something to Hide?'A private science research group, called 'The Mars Mission', thinks so.
The former NASA scientists and engineers and other researchers said today,
that suppressed NASA and Soviet photographs show apparent lunar ruins that
may have been created by another civilization."AB: I want to certainly thank Adrian Abbott, at KOH, which actually is
Citadel Communications, after hearing our show Friday night; actually a
repeat of the Friday night show.She got a hold of ABC, and ABC ran some actualities from the news
conference. ABC ran a story on the news conference. So, our sincere thanks
to our friends up at Citadel, and Adrian and the whole group.The IRC chat channel, I understand, was something of a disaster. That's
because the IRC chat channel is like anarchy. In other words, you've got a
million people on there at once, and so that's what you get - a million people
on there at once.That's why I don't do it here on the air; it's simply too diverting, and too
anarchistic, for my tastes... and so I guess that was a little rough.In the meantime, knowing that you would want to know what really went on,
I have a very tired Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston on the phone, all the
way from - I would guess - somewhere in Washington, D.C.Richard?
RH: Good morning. (tired chuckle)
AB: Hi.
RH: From high atop Capitol Hill, the view out my window here, is absolutely
stunning.AB: Is it?
RH: I am looking at the Capitol dome of the United States Capitol, in the
center of power of the United States, the last reigning superpower of the
western world.And you know, I can't help thinking - as I look to the left I can see the
Washington Monument and just beyond that I can see the White House all
glistening in the dark on this beautiful spring evening -I can't help thinking there's something radically wrong with this Republic ...
where a group of scientists who were willing to come forward and talk about
a problem with this government, can not get coverage on most of the news
outlets in the country ... after they spent a lot of time and effort and put in a
two hour major presentation - which was carried *live* to the rest of the
world.TeleMundo, carried this program from Miami, by satellite, live to all of South
America, Spain, Portugal, the Mediterranean...AB: Wow!
RH: I had a live conversation with the producer, afterwards. They were so
excited by the photographs; they were so entranced by the analysis; they
were so in tune with the historical aspect at what we are proposing and with
what has to happen now...And in this country, it's as if it did not happen...
And we're the ones that spent, guys, 20 billion dollars to go to the Moon.
Something - is - wrong.
AB: You're absolutely right.
World-wide coverage everywhere else in the World but *here*.
People were searching frantically: C-SPAN, CNN,... I guess ABC did give
you some coverage?RH: Well, the coverage is very intriguing, because you're getting a lot of
conflicting reports that don't square with our reports. We had, as I said - there
were like 15 to 16, 18 cameras, something like that. You know, you couldn't
see the back because of the number of cameras!C-SPAN did show up at 10:30. C-SPAN put in an appearance.
AB: Alright, I was getting all kinds of reports about C-SPAN.
C-SPAN said, "Well, we didn't cover it".
Then they said, "We did cover it, but we're not going to broadcast it". This is
what they were telling people.RH: Well, what I find bizarre, is if they are not going to broadcast it, why
bother to show up?AB: That's true.
RH: And why show up?... we started at 9:00 AM.
They didn't show up 'til 10:30. We went to 11:15 - actually 11:20, and then
the Press Club had to ask us to close down, because they had another event
happening in 40 minutes.There was a major banquet taking place ... and this was at the grand ballroom.
This was the center stage of the Press Club where lots of other events were
scheduled, so they were very kind to us, to give us another 20 minutes over
the time that we had reserved.But, why show up, if you're not going to put it on the air?
AB: I agree. I agree.
And there were thousands of angry phone calls to C-SPAN.
(laughs).
I know a few things. C-SPAN put in a special telephone response thing - just
for you, and so there was a very great deal going on, Richard.RH: Did anybody tape that?
AB: Did anybody tape what?
RH: I actually did not call, so I didn't hear, but I understand that when you
called up, you got one of these dial selector things: "If you would like to
know about the Hoagland Press Conference, press ..." Something or other.AB: That's right. I don't know if anybody taped it. I didn't, but I got a lot of
reports on it, so I know it's true.RH: Well see, I have not talked with Brian Lamb directly, and I would love
to, because I don't understand the logic.If you think we are silly and "out-to-lunch", fine. Ignore us. If you don't think
we're silly and you think there's something interesting, why not put us on the
air?But if you think we're silly, and you still show up and you put it on tape so
that there's a record of it, but you're not going to use it, that's kind of a waste
of time and effort and money, isn't it?AB: Well, I have to but wonder at a program that ran - instead of what would
have been you, "live" - something about "FDR's Name Used in Ideological
Arguments" or some obscure something.RH: Whaaaat??
KJ: (chuckling)
AB: Yeah, something like that. Anyway,...
RH: I can hear someone chuckling in the background.
AB: Well, it's true. Ken Johnston is probably the chuckler and he's on the line
with us, and Ken, you were NASA's data and photo-documentation
supervisor. Is that correct?KJ: Well, good-morning Art.
I'd like to kind of clear that up just a little bit.
I was working for one of the prime contractors for NASA at the time. That
was Brown-Root and Northrop. It was a consortium between the Brown-Root
Corporation and the Northrop Corporation at the Lunar Receiving
Laboratory.They had the contract for the processing of the lunar samples and my
particular function was a supervisor of the data and photo control
department, which handled all of the photographic, as well as written
documentation about the lunar samples.AB: So, everything that came in, went through you?
KJ: That's correct.
AB: Alright, how did you get involved with Richard Hoagland and why and
what is it that you believe?KJ: Well, that's a rather interesting story in itself.
About almost a year ago - as a matter of fact, May the second, it will be a
year - when Mr. Hoagland was out in the Seattle, Washington area doing a
conference; a seminar on the "Mars/Moon Connection"...As a matter of fact, one of the gentlemen who listens to your program
regularly, told me about Mr. Hoagland's research on Mars - the "Face" on
Mars - something I had been interested in way back when I was more
involved in the space program.So, I'd read his book and I thought, "What a great opportunity to go in and
hear the man speak in person."And particularly since he's going to be talking about a connection between
Mars and the program I was very intimately involved in: the Moon.AB: Sure.
KJ: So, I wrote up a letter of introduction and kind of told him a little bit
about myself, and what I'd done and been involved in - the photographic
portion of that mission; and showed up a little bit early, in hopes I could get
him to autograph my book.One of his associates, Rhonda Eklund, read the letter and said, "Oh, don't
move. You're the guy we've been looking for!"RH: (Laughing heartily)
KJ: And I kind of stood there a little bit concerned, but she went in the back,
and the next thing I know I'm being ushered in the back and introduced to
Richard.Long story short: After the seminar, we made arrangements for them to come
over to my house the next day and take a look at some of the data that I'd
maintained - about 500-1000 photographs in my own personal collection.And I explained to them that I had put a complete set of all the photographic
data from the Apollo missions, at my college alma mater - back home at
Oklahoma City; at Oklahoma City University.RH: And you gotta understand, Art; this was literally days after the bombing.
And the idea that there was a placement archive of photographs sequestered
in Oklahoma City, was pretty amazing to me - given the context of what was
going on at the time.AB: Well, I didn't even know that.
They were blown-up in that explosion?
KJ: No, no.
RH: No, no, no, no.
AB: O.K.
RH: But, the coincidence of that, of all the - you know - it's like that old joke
from "Casablanca" - "Of all the gin joints in all the world".The idea that Ken had placed these photographs, outside NASA, 30 years
ago, in that university - literally across the street ...KJ: It was. It was just a few blocks down the street and when I was in
Oklahoma City - of course that area [was] cordoned off and you couldn't
drive next to it - but I was able to drive close enough, that I could actually see
the tragedy that had happened there. And of course the city was still in a state
of shock.AB: Alright. Ken, what do you think. First of all, did you have in that
collection - photographs, that are now not available from NASA?KJ: Well, from what I understand from the photographic experts, the prints
that I have and the negatives and the film strips that I have - these were made
off of the first generation, the originals.And the data they are able to extract from it and things that we can see in
those is so far superior to anything they've been able to get from other
repositories, that I guess the answer is "yes", there's a lot of things in there
that you can see that you wouldn't ordinarily be able to find on material that
you would get from other sources.AB: Alright, well you're their photographic person.
So, I'll ask you a hard question:
Is it because you've got a close-in generation of photographs that you can see
these things, or in your opinion, were there things - that in later photographs -
simply were erased?KJ: I think I probably ought to defer that one to Richard, since they've
analyzed it.Mostly, I just wound up the person that had a little foresight to think that we
shouldn't throw all of the stuff away.AB: Hmm.
KJ: In other words...
RH: Okay, here is a very critical political question, Art, because when we got
Ken's data, and there is a massive amount - it is voluminous - and we have
only really, intensively looked at a tiny portion of a large collection of prints
and other materials that he has bequeathed to us on this long-term loan
arrangement.AB: Yes.
RH: The first thing that I wanted to do of course, was to check with the
official sources - with NSSDC, our friends here in Washington - that we went
to a year ago and had the two-day meeting. We took eight people into the lab
and spent two days looking at the photographic processes and the archiving
and the record-keeping, and why were there duplicate numbers of the same
frames that were different.You know, the so-called 4822 problem and all that.
AB: Yes. Oh yes.
RH: And I had one member of our team literally drive 10,000 miles coast to
coast with a very complex piece of equipment - from Los Angeles to Goddard
- set it up and go through tens of thousands of feet of film stock - in
preparation for this analysis.And then Carrie Clark, my own administrative assistant now - who formerly
ran a major photographic laboratory in New York and has been working with
us for about three years on this - she went down to Washington from New
York and spent two days with John, looking at the stills; the Hasselblad stills.And we had taken the frame numbers for comparison, from Ken's data.
And the first thing we found, Ken - and I don't know whether you realize this
- is that the numbers on the photographs you have, are not the same numbers
that are now out of the archive in Washington, here.AB: Hmm.
KJ: That's amazing.
RH: Particularly that panorama- the one where you can see the intense
geometric haze above the horizon, 360 degrees around - that was misfiled.And they looked and they looked and they looked, and it was only because
the head of the lab had remembered seeing that - somewhere else, [from] his
own memory, that he was able to go and put his hands on it.And it was one of those puzzles, like well, "God, how'd this get in here? This
shouldn't be in here. This is misfiled."So, we put in an order - a very complex order - months ago, to get
comparison photographs so we could look at them side by side, prior to this
morning's briefing.AB: Sure.
RH: And that order has been delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed,
and finally - three days ago - I had Kerry call the head of the lab, NSSDC,
and he had sworn that this had gone out by Fed Ex, a week ago, and he went
to another office and found it sitting on someone's desk.AB: Oh!
RH: And we did not get it in time to make the comparison.
So, in actuality, Art, I can't answer your question, except qualitatively - it
appears that most of this information has disappeared from the current
record, just because of generational problems.AB: Well, a lot of things are found just sitting on desks, in Washington.
RH: Yes, in other words, there seem to be what we would term,
"foot-dragging" - in the extreme.And this is - this is a part of the pattern that we have noticed. I have not seen
any overt examples, that I could put my finger on, in this lunar work - of
outright retouching or air-brushing or faking of pictures, or destruction of
data.What I find, is a pattern of deception, a pattern of losing information, of
mis-labeling it, of publishing catalogs where the photographs appear black.When you order the picture, the picture is stunning and very good.
In other words, I see a pattern of - of trying to deter people, trying to dissuade
people - from getting access to the data.But, if you're persistent and you will not be deterred, ultimately the real data
can be found.And this gives me reason to believe... that someone, somewhere in NASA,
realizes that someday this is going to come out.AB: Alright.
RH: And you know that the major crime is not the crime.
It's always the cover-up of the crime.
AB: Sure.
RH: So this looks like plausible deniability, because at any point that we get
in the process and find real data, someone can always say, "Oh, they ran out
of ink", or "Oh, they had somebody in from the temp office who filed it
wrong that day."You can never pin them for the mistake.
AB: Alright Richard, very quickly, I've got to ask you about this:
A number of people said that the reason C-SPAN did not cover, was because
you had refused to give them a list of who was going to be there.RH: Well, we have held two press conferences before at the National Press
Club on this investigation.The first was in 1988, when the Russians launched to Mars. We thought it
was important that they go and take pictures of Cydonia.The second was on the date that the Mars Observer spacecraft was supposed
to enter Mars orbit and we had planned to hold a press conference at that
time, anyway, to encourage NASA - with Mars Observer - to take new
pictures of Cydonia.AB: Yes.
RH: So, we had a hundred show up. Alright? We had a hundred show up this
time. We had 18 cameras and we specifically did not reveal Ken's name, or
Marv Czarnik's name, or the other participants - to simply protect them from
undue pressure, prior to laying out the data.The fact that everybody else showed up, and didn't claim that we hadn't
revealed their names; and that we had a track record of providing a good
news story. We had promised them responsible people, formerly with NASA.
We did go to the extent of saying that. We did go to the extent of saying
specifically in terms of photographs were going to be discussed - from inside
NASA - and what was on them.The idea that you don't provide a name, I mean, in Washington - sources are
commonly withheld until the last minute at a press conference.This is not unusual at all.
AB: Sure.
RH: That, frankly, is an excuse that will not stand the light of day.
AB: Alright. Well, I had to run it by you.
Ken, you've looked at these photographs.
Do you see the same anomalies?
Do you see the same things that Richard Hoagland sees?
KJ: The more and more I've been exposed to looking at the data, and realizing
- actually without the aid of any kind of instrumentation, you can actually see
some of the anomalies on just the raw film and pictures itself.One of the most striking things I have found, and one of the comments that
one of the analysts was making is - if you really want to see what somebody
doesn't want you to see on the Moon, look in the visor of the person being
photographed.And it was a rather unique experience. We started looking at that, with
magnifying glasses and looking at the reflections on the curvature of the face
masks of the astronauts on the lunar surface.And there's some rather striking pictures that show what appears to be
constructed structures, ladders, portals; some very, very interesting things in
the visor in a number of pictures.So, the answer is yes, there are definitely things you can see with the naked
eye. And then when you start getting some of the enhancement and
techniques that Alex Cook had done - just a young man on his own, in a
darkroom working by himself...AB: Ken, I'm going to ask you to hold it there.
KJ: Okay.
AB: We're breaking here at the bottom of the hour and we'll pick this back up
out of the bottom of the hour.A contractor for NASA - actually with all the data and photo documentation;
A supervisor, Ken Johnston.And Richard Hoagland.
Back in a moment.
(station break and then announcer with the lead-in:
"... this is the CBC Radio Network.")
AB: It sure is. And I have with me, Richard C. Hoagland, who was a science
advisor to Walter Cronkite, did some work for NASA - and for a long time
has been an advocate that there's much more on the moon and Mars, than
we've been told.With him tonight, is Ken Johnston; who was a contractor, taking care of --
actually, he was NASA's data and photo- documentation supervisor, by
contract.In other words, he's the guy who got all the photos. And he's with us. Back in
a moment.(break for messages)
AB: Back now to Richard C. Hoagland and Ken Johnston. Ken, you were in
the middle of something, so please continue.KJ: Well, I was just explaining about whether or not - I think you were asking
us whether we had seen any unusual features in the pictures?AB: Right!
KJ: And the answer is, yes we did. You have to understand that I had kept
these pictures for my own personal self - which were about a thousand
pictures, inside of a plastic [album] - where I could flip through them.Occasionally, someone would show some interest, and I'd flip through them
and, you know - good little soldiers, we looked at them and we saw what we
were told we were going to see.But, when Richard and his team came over, and we took a serious look at it,
and got out some loops - it was amazing the things that they had seen on some
of those eighth to tenth generations that just stood out blatantly right on the
pictures that I had.AB: Alright, a fax: "Please ask Ken" - and I think you just answered it - "if he
knew there were artifacts and/or structures or anything anomalous in the
photos he possessed, before he met Richard."KJ: Well, the answer I just gave, is no - I really didn't have a chance to pay
that much attention to it. I guess when they came over and we started looking
at them, and they started pointing out some of the features - I was taken
aback, because here I had them in my possession for - well - eighteen to
twenty-some odd years, and really never seriously set out and looked at them.They were just great pictures of the lunar surface, as well as orbital shots and
the astronauts in them. These were men that I'd worked with and knew quite
well - when I was one of the consultant test pilots with Grumman on the lunar
module.I never considered that there might be something there that I wasn't told to
see.AB: Hiding in plain sight.
KJ: Absolutely.
RH: Art, this is very important, because a lot of people don't understand.
They almost say: "Look Hoagland, if you're right, this stuff should be like
New York City. Everybody should have seen it. You can't be right, because
all of NASA can't be in on the conspiracy. You have to be 'out to lunch'."And what Ken has just described, is a crucial piece of information and
perspective. We tend to see in life, what we expect to see.AB: That's right.
RH: And Ken's own experience - which is what I wanted him to relate to the
National Press Corps this morning - is of an honest guy, doing a job; that was
an eighteen to twenty hours-a-day, demanding, "Chinese-fire-drill" - of
getting astronauts to and from the Moon, safely - as rapidly, rapid-fire "bang!
bang! bang!" as possible.Nobody had time, in the system, to look at and question details and
photographs, when the official interpreters were telling them: "This is what
you're seeing."And it's that process of expecting to see what you expect to see, which I think
accounts for the fact that you only require a tiny handful of people at the top
- to manipulate a system.So, everybody else, as honest as they are, and as hard-working, as motivated
as they are - they just don't see it, because it's not blatantly obvious.It requires an educated eye, to understand how to look at these photographs,
to start with.
[CONTINUED IN PART TWO
Richard Hoagland/Ken Johnston
Interview, Part 2
Artifacts on the Moon?
Transcript of Art Bell's interview with
Richard Hoagland and Ken Johnston, 3/21/96[PART TWO]
-------------
AB: Alright. Would you please give us a run-down - since the run-down was
not given ahead of time - about who was there?We know that Ken certainly was there. And who else did you have at the
press conference, and what kind of reception did they get?RH: Okay. In addition to Ken, we had Marvin Czarnik, who is an engineer.
His experience goes back all the way to the Mercury program and Gemini. He
was a key engineer, responsible for the rendevous radar development and
implementation of procedures in Gemini - and later on, he helped train the
Apollo crews in the development of rendevous techniques.He was also involved, I believe, in environmental control systems. And
basically, his experience was with the astronauts; with the day to day
operations; with the engineering; with the process of going to and from the
moon.RH: And he then went to a major aerospace company, McDonnell-Douglas,
where he spent a lot of time working with both NASA systems, as well
military black-budgeted systems.AB: Alright.
RH: And when he heard me at Ohio State a couple of years ago through the
Internet, what Marvin did was to set up an independent team called LARG,
or Lunar Artifacts Group, in St. Louis.AB: Oh.
RH: And he presented the results of their team's five-person independent
analysis of our claims - as Ohio State's.And Ken, you might want to pick-up on some of the things that Marvin said
this morning.AB: Alright, please - Ken.
KJ: Well, I think it was the independent verification - it is one of the things
that he has said he has done all along.His team would go in and get the same negatives and pictures, and do their
own independent research. And then I think it was shortly after that, that he
got in touch with you, Richard - after he had checked it out himself.And the same thing and way that Alex Cook did.
You know, these are very honest people that wanted to - I guess you might
say: "From Missouri. Show me. I want to find out for myself."RH: (laughing) In this case he is from Missouri. Ha, ha.
AB: Well, fair enough.
And this is good information, Richard, because a lot of people say you're
"hanging out on a limb", by yourself - claiming things that just aren't true -
with processed photographs that just don't show what you say they show.But, there's been independent analysis of what you're saying.
RH: Which is crucial, and that is what I have been asking for from the start.
Ken mentioned Alex Cook. Alex Cook was there representing, basically -
"Mr. Joe Average" - although, I don't think that Alex could be called
"average" - would you say, Ken?KJ: No, not at all. He is certainly just a private individual. He rents his own
darkroom.RH: He represents the best and the brightest of ordinary folk, who are
properly motivated. Alex is a young man. He's going to school; going to
university up north of Seattle. He's married; has a child, I believe. He
attended one of my presentations at the University of Washington, a couple
of years ago.And he saw this data for the first time - in fact I think I did that right after
Ohio State. And he was so taken with the photographs that he followed my
recommendation. He called up NASA. He started ordering frames on a
student's budget. And you remember I told you, Art, that they've now gone up
eight-hundred percent in price.AB: Yes, correct.
RH: So, this represented a significant investment of student personal
resources. When he got the frames back, one of the first things he
immediately noticed was what he thought was the absolutely lousy quality of
this frame, 4822.And he called me up, and he was kind of bitching and moaning - and I asked
him to look on the photograph to see if this structure we call "The Castle" -
this glittering glass thing hanging nine miles above the moon - was present on
his version of this frame.AB: Yes.
RH: And he admitted - I mean he found it and he was quite excited, because
this represented the first confirmation - outside of my Goddard source that
had been provided to me initially - that an average person ordering the
photograph through NASA could get this frame with this structure.He then proceeded to send me the original negative, after he made duplicates
and prints and all that, and when we got it and compared it to our own data,
we then realized that Alex Cook had made a major step forward in the
investigation, at that point.Because, his frame, the "Cook 4822", contained the first stereo pair of "The
Castle". An image taken a few minutes later showed it had changed angle and
position over the surface, so we can get a 3-D stereo comparison to actually
how big it is and how far away it is.AB: Ken, would you agree with that assessment?
KJ: Oh, absolutely. That was one of the things that the crew did - is that they
would take sequenced shots, timed - to give them a stereographic view of
objects on the lunar surface.AB: Alright, since you're the great expert in this area, Ken...
KJ: Uh-oh.
AB: How can one photograph - I assumed, wrong thing to do, of course - that
one photograph would be assigned one number?KJ: Well, that came as a surprise to me, because when we would be looking
for specific views of the surface, as well as where lunar rocks and things were
located, even stereo pairs had sequential numbering, back whenever we were
getting the original data.So, that was a surprise to me.
RH: We now have ten different versions of this one crucial frame, and they
are all masquerading, Art, under the same frame number!And for that reason alone, there should be a major inquiry!
If I have an "x" amount of dollars in my bank account, and the IRS comes to
me and they say: "Wait a minute, Mr. Hoagland, you have "x" dollars times
ten".AB: Right.
RH: You know, people can get a little bit pissed off at that - at the federal
level.Well, here we have, for this one frame, ten times the number of images - all
masquerading under one frame number and nobody has to be a rocket
scientist to realize, "There ain't something right with all that."AB: Well, alright. In your pre-press release, or press conference press release,
you said you were going to have some photographs taken by Russians.Did you display those?
RH: We actually ran out of time at the end and were not able to display those
to the group this morning. But we do have two frames now, taken from the
Zond-3 mission, which were in the press packets.We had a lot of material in the press packets that they were able to take away
from the conference - some of which we didn't get to, during the actual live
presentation. We had hard copy. It was annotated. It had the proper
background sourcing, and all that.We now have a second frame from the Zond-3 mission, on July 20, 1965.
And remember - the first Zond frame showed this 30-mile high dome-like
protrusion of the lunar limb.This second frame shows a twenty-some mile "Tower" - very massive tower -
which is farther to the north, on the limb of a photograph taken a few seconds
earlier. It's in this 28-frame sequence that we can't get our hands on, out of
Moscow.And it is pointed; it is aimed straight down toward the center of the moon. In
other words, the Tower is a tower that knows where the local gravity should
be pointing it.AB: Sure. Ken, have you seen these photos?
KJ: Yes, I did and that was one of the most fascinating things I ever saw,
when Richard showed them to me, because clearly - there's a dome on the
rim of the lunar surface with the sun coming up behind it - and there's this
huge chunk. It literally shows that it has been battered and beat, but it's still
pretty much intact.AB: Hmm. This is all so totally incredible.
RH: (laughing) You keep saying that, Art. What's incredible is not the data.
What's incredible is the response of our government, and our major media to
this data. That's the incredible part. Because - what this is really affirming - is
what we're claiming. You're not getting the whole truth here.AB: Obviously.
RH: That's the incredible part of this story.
KJ: I'd like to interject here. We put together the greatest minds - the
brightest, the youngest, and the sharpest - that we could to get to the moon;
and right after Apollo 17, we turned around and we started laying everyone
off.Right after Apollo 11, it was no longer research and development. It was
routine flights to the moon; and Grumman laid off 30,000 right there. You
had Ph.D's selling papers there in Houston.And basically, once we got there and grabbed the data, and got back - they
dismantled the whole system that got us there.KJ: And basically, once we got there and grabbed the data and got back, they
dismantled the whole system that got us there.AB: That's right. That's right. We went and we've done nothing since, and it's
a puzzle to many people.I suppose you could suggest: "Well, we went to the moon - and this is the
conventional wisdom - and didn't find anything, nothing special -- rocks --
that's about it -- and so there was no reason to go back"...RH: I would not agree with that assessment.
KJ: Nor would I.
AB: Hmm. So, you had engineers. You had Ken, who was a
photo-documentation supervisor with all of the photographs; first generation
copies - right, Ken? - coming through you?KJ: They would be the copies right off the first generation - positive
transparencies that were taken.RH: Now, see - this is a very important piece of information. When NASA
sent the Apollo crews to the moon, for some reason - and we have our
suspicions - but we don't have a memo describing why there wasn't any
negative film sent.In other words, they didn't send a roll of film - that when you bring it back
and you develop it, you get a negative from which you can make the paper
prints.AB: Right.
RH: They sent transparency film; reveral film - slide film, really.
Ektachrome-X , rated ASA 64, in 1969. And then from those transparencies,
something called an inter-negative had to be made.And from that inter-negative, you'd make your prints - so there was a
two-stage process.So, Ken's prints, actually, were not second generation; they were third
generation - from the original data. And in that intermediate step, in that
second generation process - is where we believe, that some interesting
"hanky-panky" went on. Because...KJ: Let me interject here.
AB: Sure.
KJ: That was one of the questions a lot of people asked when they looked at
the pictures I had in my collection; - was -"Why is the sky absolutely, totally black?"
And of course, the explanation I was given at the time was that with all the
brightness on the lunar surface and the astronauts' white spacesuits - that you
had to step down the focus on the... not the focus, but the ...AB: The f-stop.
KJ: Yes, the f-stop; -- to the point to where it caused the sky and everything
to be totally black. Now, that's the story we were given. That's the
explanation I gave, up until just recently.RH: (laughs).
AB: What is your more recent explanation?
KJ: I'm going to let Richard answer that one.
AB: Richard?
RH: Well, if you take a reversal film, and you expose it - if the moon was as
advertised, alright? Even if you stop - if you open the lens wide and you had a
time exposure of let's say, several seconds - the sky should still be absolutely
black.A vacuum is a vacuum is a vacuum.
There is supposed to be no air on the moon, you know, except for maybe light
scattered in the lens, from the surface or the spacesuits - which would cause a
kind of a greying-out.That sky should be beautiful, velvet black; as black as the blackest night you
can imagine.AB: Yes.
RH: In fact, when you start looking at Ken's prints - which, now remember -
are third generation from the originals, taken on the moon - there is a
beautiful, very slight, bluish haze in the sky.AB: A bluish haze?
RH: A very deep, deep, deep...
You know, looking at it with a bright light - just holding the print at the right
angle - and I started to think:"Wait a minute. Why is this sky not black?"
"Why does it have any haze at all?"
Because the photos were not over-exposed.
They were very well exposed; they were perfectly exposed.
They were - I mean these things have been sitting in archives for 30 years,
and they were better, in terms of quality, than the photos we were seeing right
out of the lab at NSSDC, just a few months before.AB: What about the possibility of dust, that had been kicked up by the
astronauts?RH: Well - but dust would not remain suspended. And there was no sources
of dust. I mean, you're in a vacuum. You're under 1/6th gravity. The stuff
falls down.I mean, gravity is gravity.
AB: That's true.
RH: No air to suspend.
Anyway, so, we put these photos under the optical scanner, and used the
computer algorithms that we've been working with now for several years.And the most amazing geometric patterns come out of this haze.
Because, what the computer is able to do - because it's sensing grey levels
and light levels, below the human ability to detect.AB: Sure.
RH: You know, light steps.
AB: Sure, oh sure.
RH: It is - the technology is better than the natural human eye. That's what
technology does. It amplifies human senses. So, what we're doing, is simply
amplifying information that's already there - and making it blatant.Whereas, if you look at the print, you can barely see that there is something
out of place. Now...KJ: And this technology was not even available back then.
RH: No. And not even foreseen.
Now, here's where the "hanky-panky" comes in.
If we have the original transparencies - not the prints that Ken has ...
AB: Right.
RH: But the transparencies - it's my bet that we would have amazing detail in
the sky that you could look at, by simply looking at a bright light; that those
photographs were exposed to record the glittering glass domes, structures and
ruins that are sticking up above the horizon.That in fact, that was why NASA went with the transparency film; that they
had a special film built, which had an ultraviolet-sensitive layer that would
record that information even better than conventional Ektachrome-X film.And that in the laboratory, by putting a filter in the optical enlarger when you
made your inter-negative, they could remove almost all trace of that
"offending" detail.So, in essence, they had an almost fool-proof scheme, for taking pictures of
real data on the moon, and giving to the American people and the press - and
the world - a false, distorted version of the Moon that really is.AB: Alright, so you had coverage by TeleMundo, worldwide?
RH: We had Australian Television. We had German Television. I did
interviews. We were mobbed with cameras. Ken was mobbed with cameras.
Alex was mobbed with cameras.Fox did a very good interview here which ran coast to coast - at various times
- on the Fox Network.Very balanced coverage.
Right, Ken?
KJ: I think they were fair.
AB: Oh, they were fair? I'm glad to hear it.
Well, maybe this will be enough of a spark to ignite yet more massive
coverage.Ken, what's your attitude about that?
Do you think NASA will begin looking hard at this, now?
KJ: I certainly hope they will.
I will say this though, on the coverage that Fox gave, the one person that was
the rebuttal - a young man - wasn't even born when these pictures were
taken. And he's talking that we're "all wet".I would hope they'd take it seriously, and come out and do the analysis.
We've recorded all the steps that they've done to look at these items and look
at these artifacts.And all they have to do, is just repeat the steps, and answer the question: "Is
there something there, or not?"AB: Alright. Gentlemen, I'll give you an option. I know you're both dog-tired.
And I'm sure you feel the way I did after my book-signing. Kind of worn to a
frazzle.We could either continue, or we can let it go here.
RH: Well, I think we need to talk to some real folks, and I'll tell you why.
As we were building up, I got a lot of faxes and calls from people in your
audience, that were basically giving us moral support.And I think we deserve to answer some of their questions. And while we have
Ken, this is a very important opportunity. Ken is feeling a little bit lonely right
now.And one of the things that I think he'd like to do - is to encourage other folks
in NASA, who may have done the same thing he did - put data away.You know - look at it inside [NASA], ask some questions - but don't quite
know who to go to, to talk to about this; Ask them to come forward.AB: Alright. Alright, we will do that, then.
RH: Because the more folks we get, the better the system will get.
AB: Richard, you've got to hold on, Richard.
Alright, both of you, hold on. We'll be back to you, shortly. You're listening
to the CBC Radio Network.(announcer leads in: "Now, here again, Art Bell".)
AB: Once again, here I am. Good evening, everybody.
We have with us, Richard C. Hoagland.
And we have a contractor to NASA. He is Ken Johnston and he took care of
NASA's data and photo stuff. He was the documentation supervisor.And he's just one of those who appeared with Richard Hoagland in
Washington, D.C., at the National Press Club.And we're talking with him, about what happened and what didn't happen.
And we'll get back to it in a moment...
Alright, as we go back to our two guests, this report of coverage by KABC
Television in Los Angeles, tonight at 11:30 - actually, after we went on the
air:Female anchor:
"Well, the man that once said he found a human-like face - in a photograph -
on Mars, tonight claims he spotted signs of an ancient civilization on the
Moon.Richard Hoagland held a news conference displaying magnified portions of
pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface.Now he sees a Grecian-like temple, a mile and a half-high formation - and
what he calls a glass dome.Apollo 12 astronaut, Alan Bean, said: "Not true". He took many of those
photos; says he doesn't see any signs of civilizations or little Moon condos, or
anything else."Other anchor: "Maybe he needs new glasses."
Female: "Maybe".
AB: That was the essence of a newscast that ran at 11:30, on KABC
Television, in Los Angeles...Richard, you want to react to that?
RH: It's interesting about Alan Bean.
We have a film, that was released by NASA in 1969 called, "Apollo 12:
Pinpoint for Science", which was the half-hour official NASA "PR" film on
the Apollo 12 mission.AB: Yes.
RH: And we have had that film analyzed, frame by frame. There are some
remarkable sequences from that film.And I have to describe how the film was made, because when the Apollo
program was underway - what people have to understand is - there was this
incredible demand for time.Ken, how many hours a day were you putting in on Apollo, when you were
there?KJ: Well, for most of it - in the early 60's - we were putting in anywhere from
12 to 14 hours, 7 days a week.It was - back in Bethpage, Long Island, at the final assembly plant for the
Lunar Module, that we had one guy who had been doing that for like three
years; Came in - clocked in - turned around - had a heart attack, and died.Because that was extremely stressful to do that.
AB: My!
RH: So, between the missions, there was *no* pause. There was no
"breathing" space. There was no time for reflection or analysis, or any kind of
assignment process that a scientist would recognize.So it was bang!, bang!, bang! - mission after mission after mission.
And right up to the Apollo 12 mission - which occurred in November of 1969
- NASA "PR" in Washington here, wanted film to get out to the news media.AB: Yes.
RH: And the procedure was, that they would take the photos the astronauts
had taken on the Moon - the still photos - they would make up prints; they
would rush them over to this production house - I think it was in Houston, run
by Ken Grimm, at the time; And they would put them on what's called an
Ocks-Ferry animation stand.And they would point a 16-millimeter camera at them; and they would pan
the stills. And they would make their film from the film of the stills that the
astronauts had taken.On Apollo 12, the astronauts did not take any 16-millimeter motion picture
film on the surface, outside the Lunar Module. They took Hasselblad stills -
from still cameras mounted on the chest of their spacesuits. And then those
were used to make up the film, as part of the elaborate production process
when they came back.Well, we noticed when one of our colleagues - the same gentleman who
drove his equipment 10,000 miles from California - from Los Angeles to
Goddard - when we put one of these original films, which is now 30 years old
- it's faded; it's brittle; it breaks in the projector, in the Telecini - when we put
it on the instrument and had him look at it, there were some remarkable
peculiarities about this official NASA-released film.And what I did was - I had him make a videotape copy of the film through
this very high-quality electronic system which he's developed, based on
German engineering, for the Hollywood film industry out in California.State-of-the-art, Art, Okay?
AB: Yes.
RH: And I had him send it to me, and I put it through our computer process -
which is able to take still frames, digitize them, enlarge them, and then using a
variety of algorithms to enhance them.And on those frames from NASA's own film, we have photographs of Alan
Bean standing in front of stunning, geometric, tiered, recessed, buttressed
lunar ruins - over and over, again.AB: Well, then, what do you make of his statement?
RH: Let me get back to the statement, in a minute. Let me complete this
thought.What is really important, is that this film, "Pinpoint for Science" - was an
official release document from NASA. It's all over the world. It's in libraries
in every country. Every NASA Center, every major city should have this film.AB: Alright, that underscores my question.
RH: Which means that people should be able to get access to it, and do the
same thing with it that we've done with it.So now we come back to Alan Bean, alright?
Alan Bean is claiming to ABC tonight, that he didn't see anything and as far
as he knows, there is nothing there.Now what I need to see, is the exact wording of his statement.
AB: Hmm.
RH: Remember, the art of politics - is the exact language.
AB: That's true.
RH: The State Department spends a fortune writing draft language for
relations between countries, because a word or a comma, legally, has a whole
different meaning.What is very clear here - because we've got the evidence - is a situation very
similar to Hillary Clinton's.Hillary Clinton got a document out of her library the other day, that she
wasn't supposed to have. We don't know how it got into her library. She
claims she doesn't know how it got to her library - on the third floor of the
White House.But the document exists.
We have photographs of Alan Bean standing in front of ruins on the lunar
surface.AB: So, somebody ought to put that photo up in front of him and say: "What
about this?"RH: Exactly!
And until he is confronted, face-to-face, with this photo and asked: "How can
you say it's not there, when it's there on official release prints - that NASA
sent all over the world and all we've done is go back to the original NASA
film and simply turn up the contrast?"That's all we did.
AB: Alright, listen to me for a second, Richard. A serious question. This is
from me.RH: Okay.
AB: You've been talking about what could and could not be seen, according
to certain filtering.What do we know about the astronauts' visors?
RH: Good question. Excellent question.
The astronauts' visors were gold; and Ken, correct me at any point - where -
if I'm wrong, here.KJ: Okay.
RH: They were gold-plated, multiple-layer Lexan - which is a very hard
plastic. And they had a pull-down gold Lexan covering, so that they could
filter out ultraviolet light.Now, the first thing I thought of - when we got these photographs, is: "Oh my
God!" - I mean, here is the greatest tragedy in history. We send human beings
to the moon, to explore the moon, to find what no one has found before - and
because of the basic equipment they had - which was a filter that cut out
ultraviolet - they missed seeing the most stunning obvious thing they
should've seen - which is these tiered ruins around them made of glass,
shining brightly in the ultraviolet.AB: Could it be?
RH: No. And I'll te
