Art mentions the night’s agenda, including a report from Roswell, New Mexico, provided by Linda Moulton Howe, and an interview with Michael Hesemann about his new book “Beyond Roswell.” Art criticizes the lack of media coverage on significant news from Roswell, noting the focus on museum displays rather than the critical developments. He also plans to discuss the Pathfinder mission with Richard C. Hoagland, expressing amazement at NASA’s achievements and congratulating them on their success.
Linda Moulton Howe joins from Roswell, describing the crowded, festive atmosphere and a significant banquet at the airfield amidst a massive thunderstorm. This storm reminded attendees of the historical weather event around the time of the original Roswell incident. The morning event featured speakers like Roger Lear, Jesse Marcel Jr., and Dr. Russell Vernon Clark, discussing debris analysis and asserting that the material collected was not from a weather balloon, supported by older videotape evidence from Jesse Marcel Sr. Dr. Clark presented scientific findings, explaining isotope ratio analysis, particularly focusing on the composition of a tiny specimen they had been studying for a year.
Linda continues explaining that the specimen is almost pure silicon, a composition not found naturally on Earth, implying it was manufactured. Dr. Russell Vernon Clark presented findings showing non-terrestrial isotope ratios in the trace elements of nickel, zinc, germanium, and silver. Paul Davids, a TV producer, joins to discuss the material further, emphasizing the challenges in proving its extraterrestrial origin. Jesse Marcel Jr. related the material to what his father had shown him, reinforcing the connection to the Roswell incident. The analysis was conducted meticulously, with blind tests confirming the anomalies. Dr. Clark’s findings were replicated and validated through extensive studies, confirming the material’s unusual properties.
Paul Davids elaborates on the findings, emphasizing the anomalous isotopic ratios of trace elements like zinc, nickel, silver, and germanium, which don’t conform to Earthly standards. The material appears manufactured, with a flat side and structured curves, and requires extreme temperatures to create, akin to an atomic explosion, yet without any radioactivity. Despite the lack of national press coverage, CBS did treat the story seriously. The chain of evidence remains unclear, with concerns over anonymity and pensions affecting disclosure. The material’s extraterrestrial origin has never been publicly asserted before, marking a historical moment. The presentation also countered the Mogul balloon explanation for Roswell, with Jesse Marcel Jr. discussing it with Charles Moore.
Art Bell continues the discussion with Paul Davids, emphasizing the importance of the anomalous isotope ratios in the material, which supports its extraterrestrial origin. Paul clarifies that experts like Dr. Russell Vernon Clark and others from Stanford University conducted thorough tests. The origins of the material involve a retired military person, concerned about losing their pension, and documents that remain hidden due to their classified nature. Paul criticizes the Air Force’s use of crash dummies to explain Roswell, highlighting its implausibility. He invites media contacts for further coverage and briefly promotes his film about Timothy Leary.
Art then speaks to Linda Moulton Howe, who will present her findings on bismuth-magnesium material, distinct from the silicon specimen, which also shows structural anomalies baffling scientists. Despite not finding isotope ratio anomalies, Linda notes that most scientists believe extraterrestrials would use the same elements found throughout the universe, explaining why their findings align with known elements.
Linda Moulton Howe continues discussing the intriguing aspects of the nearly pure silicon material and its anomalous isotope ratios. She emphasizes the potential significance of the bismuth-magnesium material, which has peculiar structural properties that suggest advanced nanotechnology. Despite these findings, mainstream media focuses on museum exhibits rather than scientific discoveries. Linda highlights the importance of hard scientific research in uncovering evidence of extraterrestrial materials. Art Bell encourages media to cover these significant stories, criticizing the superficial coverage of the Roswell incident.
Linda also shares a reporter’s criticism of the New York Times for prioritizing the Air Force’s crash dummy explanation over scientific presentations. She mentions a conversation with Colonel Corso, indicating a forthcoming detailed discussion on Dreamland. Art then transitions to introducing Michael Hesemann, who is in Roswell for the event and will discuss his book “Beyond Roswell.” Art underscores the need for government transparency regarding extraterrestrial life, quoting Jesse Marcel Jr.’s appeal for the truth.
Michael Hesemann joins Art Bell, discussing his book “Beyond Roswell” and the recent press conference. He is impressed by the hard evidence presented, noting the professionalism of Paul Davids in documenting and showcasing the case. Hesemann details his background in UFO research, including preliminary tests and findings related to alien material. His involvement began with interest sparked by the 1995 alien autopsy rumors and the opportunity to connect with Mr. Santilli in London.
Hesemann, a German, explains his lifelong interest in the UFO phenomenon, driven by a quest for evidence that humanity is not alone. He has traveled extensively to investigate UFO cases and, as an editor of Magazine 2000, Europe’s leading paranormal publication, he leveraged his position to delve into the Roswell case. His proximity to London facilitated frequent communication with Mr. Santilli, allowing him to gather information and publish early photographs of the alien autopsy.
Art Bell summarizes the night’s discussions, emphasizing the significant findings from Roswell, including the non-terrestrial isotope ratios and the upcoming bismuth-magnesium presentation by Linda Moulton Howe. Despite limited media coverage, the hard science story is crucial. He also mentions the Pathfinder mission, expressing his belief in NASA’s success and sharing a verification of the Mars signal by Wayne Green.
Michael Hesemann, co-author of “Beyond Roswell,” joins the conversation, focusing on the Santilli alien autopsy film. Hesemann recalls his early access to the film, facilitated by his proximity to London. He initially believed in its authenticity and conducted thorough research, verifying details with the cameraman’s account. Hesemann mentions that while he hasn’t met the cameraman, others have, and an interview was aired on Japanese TV. Despite ongoing skepticism, Hesemann leans towards the film’s genuineness, citing his extensive investigation.
Michael Hesemann continues to discuss the skepticism and controversy surrounding the alien autopsy footage, which faced significant criticism from the American UFO community. Hesemann recounts that the footage was met with skepticism primarily because of its depiction of a humanoid alien, which contradicted some expectations of extraterrestrial appearances. He jokes about the Air Force’s “time compression” explanation, which was widely mocked.
Hesemann believes there is a 95% chance of the footage being authentic. He explains that the cameraman, living among retired military personnel, fears social isolation and legal repercussions, which is why he hasn’t come forward publicly. Hesemann has communicated with Ray Santilli, who admitted his profit motive but also recognized the potential for greater earnings if the film’s authenticity was verified. Despite this, cooperation has been limited.
The discussion shifts to the technical analysis of the film. A piece of the film’s leader was analyzed and determined to be from the 1940s, with images of the autopsy room entrance. The film’s chemical composition was verified by experts as being from a type used by Kodak until 1956. Given the film’s age and the presence of 1947 Kodak markings, it aligns with the claimed timeframe. Hesemann notes that despite arguments about long-term preservation, the film’s condition suggests it was exposed and developed within a few years of its manufacture. Pathologists worldwide, consulted on the film, largely agree that the figure shown is a biological entity, not a dummy, and not human.
Michael Hesemann discusses the alien autopsy footage’s anatomical details, noting its fresh appearance, well-preserved muscles, and the unique genetic disorder of six fingers, which is extremely rare. He compares the U.S. reaction to the footage with Europe’s, where it received extensive, serious coverage from major television networks, including analyses by leading pathologists. Hesemann highlights the difference in how UFO phenomena are treated in Europe versus the U.S., with a more rational, scientific approach in Europe.
Art Bell touches on the upcoming release of more footage by Ray Santilli, indicating that new material related to the autopsy is expected soon. This includes an earlier autopsy from July 1st, preceding the well-known July 3rd footage. Santilli’s business partner has agreed to release part of this new film. Art mentions that despite scrutiny, the original autopsy footage remains credible, with no significant debunking.
Michael Hesemann continues discussing the authenticity of the Santilli alien autopsy film. He addresses various criticisms, such as the presence of a curly telephone cord, which he confirms was available since 1938. He also debunks the claim that the warning sign in the film couldn’t have existed in 1947, stating that such signs were used during World War II.
Hesemann emphasizes his commitment to uncovering the truth, regardless of whether it supports or debunks the film. He mentions having a 1945 Kodak manual that recommended black-and-white film for surgical procedures, countering claims that a military cameraman in 1947 would have used color film. He also points out the technical limitations of color film at the time, supporting the use of black-and-white film for indoor filming without professional lighting.
Art Bell and Hesemann discuss when the overwhelming evidence of extraterrestrial visits might reach a tipping point, prompting official acknowledgment. Hesemann highlights Colonel Philip Corso’s forthcoming revelations, including documentation on the removal of eyelashes from alien beings and the hand imprints on panels, which Corso encountered during his tenure at the Foreign Technology Division. Hesemann recounts his initial interview with Corso and mentions his belief in the integrity and truthfulness of Corso’s claims.
Art asks Hesemann about a time machine reference made by Corso on Dateline NBC. Hesemann explains that Corso and Professor Hermann Oberth believed these objects might operate outside the three-dimensional time-space continuum, traveling through hyperspace. Hesemann shares his personal experience with Oberth, affirming his deep interest and involvement in UFO research.
Hesemann contrasts the treatment of UFO phenomena in Europe and the U.S., noting that while the topic is more integrated into American pop culture, European media approach it more seriously. He acknowledges the playful aspects of UFO culture in Roswell but criticizes how the media uses these elements to debunk serious investigations.
Michael Hesemann discusses the different perceptions of UFO phenomena in Europe and the U.S. He notes that in Europe, the topic is treated more academically, while in the U.S., it often becomes part of pop culture, leading to a perception that UFO enthusiasts are “nuts and loonies.” This is exacerbated by media portrayals.
Art Bell asks Hesemann why, if aliens are visiting Earth, they haven’t made more direct contact. Hesemann suggests that if there is a higher authority behind the visits, it might be to avoid disrupting human societal structures and control. He believes the aliens’ intentions appear scientific rather than hostile, citing phenomena like abductions and cattle mutilations as part of an experimental mission rather than an invasion.
Hesemann describes different types of aliens reported worldwide, including humanoid beings and the typical “little grays.” He entertains the possibility, as suggested by Colonel Corso, that the beings might be bio-engineered entities rather than natural life forms. This is supported by abductees’ reports of the grays’ collective behavior, indicating they might be programmed bio-robots.
Art then shifts the discussion to Area 51, asking Hesemann about his knowledge of the secretive site. Hesemann shares that he interviewed three individuals who worked there, including a mechanical design engineer and a security guard. These witnesses confirmed the U.S. government possesses at least nine crashed alien discs and has had contact with living aliens. Hesemann also mentions an interview with an alien, known as the “Victor” footage, which showed a being similar to those described in military documents from the South African Air Force.
Michael Hesemann continues discussing the alien autopsy footage and related reports from Area 51. He mentions that after viewing the Ray Santilli alien autopsy footage, some people recognized specific elements, such as the panel with hand imprints, as things they had seen in Area 51. Hesemann believes that materials from UFO crashes, including alien bodies and possibly surviving aliens, were taken to Area 51 but have since been moved to another location, likely Tonopah, due to increased public attention on Area 51.
Art Bell asks if there is an equivalent of Area 51 in Europe. Hesemann responds that while there isn’t an exact equivalent, there are rumors of secretive bases in places like England and the former Soviet Union. He mentions that the Soviet Union conducted UFO research and concluded that the phenomenon was real and possibly of alien origin. General Vasily Strelnikov of the Russian Academy of Sciences led these investigations.
Hesemann plans to stay in the U.S. until the following Friday and thanks Art for the opportunity to share his findings. Art transitions to the next guest, Richard C. Hoagland, who will discuss the Mars Pathfinder mission. Hoagland, known for his critical stance on NASA’s missions, notes a recent communication problem between the Pathfinder lander and the Sojourner rover, which threatens the mission’s objectives. Despite this, the earlier stages of the mission appeared flawless.
Hoagland speculates that the actual landing might have been planned for July 20th at a different location, possibly Cydonia, instead of the original landing point. He explains the communication delay due to the celestial mechanics between Earth and Mars, emphasizing that the situation will become clearer the following afternoon when Earth rises for the lander and rover.
Richard Hoagland continues analyzing the Mars Pathfinder mission, describing the communication problem between the lander and the Sojourner rover. Despite this, Hoagland notes the positive media coverage and the frequent use of the term “tetrahedral” by CNN. He reflects on the emotions of the day, appreciating the hard work of the engineers while maintaining skepticism about the mission’s perfection.
Hoagland recalls his own experiences at JPL during the Viking mission in 1976 and empathizes with the current team’s elation. However, he finds the mission’s flawless execution suspiciously perfect, citing engineers’ astonishment at the successful signals received throughout the landing process. He explains how, based on celestial mechanics, the signal should have been lost behind Mars’ hills, yet communication persisted seamlessly.
Art Bell and Hoagland debate the plausibility of maintaining communication, with Hoagland emphasizing the improbability of consistently perfect conditions. He details how the lander, designed to come to rest on one of its tetrahedral sides, remarkably landed perfectly on its base, further adding to the improbabilities.
Hoagland argues that while each lucky break could be individually explained, the cumulative improbabilities suggest something more orchestrated. Art acknowledges the points but continues to play devil’s advocate, prompting Hoagland to elaborate on each detail’s significance.
Richard Hoagland elaborates on the improbabilities of the Mars Pathfinder mission, emphasizing how each fortunate event reduces the overall likelihood of the mission’s flawless execution. He acknowledges the emotional investment of the mission team and the public’s acceptance of the success story, attributing it to a lack of critical scrutiny.
Hoagland shares a sense of unease due to discrepancies and new information coming to light. He contemplates why NASA would orchestrate such a perfect mission if it were fabricated, suggesting that most people, including network correspondents, would not question it. He notes that any anomalies would quickly be forgotten amid the excitement and media coverage.
The conversation shifts to the Phoenix lights incident from March 13, which gained attention just before the Pathfinder mission. Art Bell mentions a young talk show host’s claim that the lights were explained in a 1990 issue of “Aviation Week and Space Technology,” identifying them as a known aircraft. Hoagland doubts this explanation, pointing out the lack of admission from the supposed pilots and the ongoing mystery.
Hoagland refers to his earlier predictions linking the Phoenix lights, the Pathfinder mission, and other events, which seemed to align in a significant pattern. He highlights NASA’s one-day delay of Pathfinder’s midcourse correction, which coincided with a major space catastrophe involving both U.S. and Russian astronauts. This delay, among other anomalies, adds to his suspicion about the mission’s integrity.
Richard Hoagland continues discussing the Mars Pathfinder mission, highlighting the collision of the Progress resupply vehicle with the Mir space station. This event shifted media attention, allowing Pathfinder’s midcourse correction to go unnoticed for 36 hours. Hoagland emphasizes the danger of the planned spacewalk to reconnect power to the Mir station, noting the challenging conditions and lack of proper training for the astronauts.
Art Bell brings up a suggestion from a listener to set up a live camera pointed toward Area 51, allowing viewers to watch for any unusual activity. He briefly promotes WebTV, a device that connects TVs to the internet, enabling users to access various online content, including live broadcasts and archived programs.
Returning to the discussion with Hoagland, Art states his belief that the Mars Pathfinder successfully landed, while acknowledging that Hoagland has serious doubts. Art mentions receiving messages from listeners who, frustrated by Hoagland’s skepticism, want to see him proven wrong. Art directly asks Hoagland if he believes the Pathfinder landing is a cover-up and if the public is being shown fake photographs.
Richard Hoagland expresses his uncertainty about whether the Mars Pathfinder mission truly landed on Mars, citing a history of deception by NASA and the U.S. government. He explains that his skepticism stems from a broader investigation revealing lies about lunar and Mars missions, indicating a pattern of misinformation.
Hoagland emphasizes the need for independent verification of the Mars signal. Art Bell reads a fax from Wayne Green confirming that the Mars signal was detected where it should have been, suggesting the Pathfinder mission is legitimate. However, Hoagland remains cautious, highlighting that Wayne’s sources are connected to government contractors, which may not be entirely independent.
Art encourages ham radio operators and independent observatories to confirm the signal from Mars. Hoagland agrees that independent confirmation would solidify the mission’s legitimacy. He shares new intelligence that raises further suspicions, specifically noting an unusually large amount of midcourse correction fuel carried by the spacecraft, which could indicate an alternate mission plan or deception.
Richard Hoagland continues expressing his concerns about the Mars Pathfinder mission, pointing out that the spacecraft carried five times the amount of midcourse correction fuel needed for the nominal mission, raising questions about its actual mission profile. He theorizes that the excess fuel was used for a long burn on June 25th to place the spacecraft on a parallel course to Mars, potentially aiming for a July 20th landing rather than the reported July 4th.
Hoagland mentions receiving intelligence about a possible alternative control center for the mission located in Dallas, Texas. This facility is heavily guarded, and attempts to approach it have been thwarted. He suggests that this center could be involved in faking the mission’s data.
Art Bell interjects, confirming a recent murder of a NASA official in Texas, which Hoagland links to the broader pattern of suspicious deaths within the NASA community. He details other recent mysterious deaths of NASA personnel, including Brewster Shaw, Dr. Raymond Jurgen, a computer technician in Mountain View, and Mary Kay Olsen, a Mars Surveyor program manager. Hoagland finds the coincidence of these deaths troubling, suggesting a possible connection to the ongoing missions and their hidden agendas.
Despite the strange events and mounting suspicions, Hoagland emphasizes the need for independent confirmation of the Mars signal. He urges radio astronomy projects and independent observers to verify the Pathfinder signal, arguing that such verification would either confirm the mission’s success or reveal a more complex truth.
Richard Hoagland emphasizes the importance of independent evidence to confirm the Mars Pathfinder’s location. He stresses that while believing NASA’s claims based on their reports and images might be sufficient for some, he requires confirmation from independent sources to fully accept the mission’s success.
Art Bell acknowledges the potential for ongoing conspiracies but points out that endless hypothesis proliferation isn’t productive. Hoagland responds by underscoring that their analysis has been specific and cautious, and they are currently observing a violation of their expected pattern.
If independent verification proves that the higher-powered signal comes from a fixed point on Mars, Hoagland would accept he was wrong about the cover-up theory. However, he remains cautious, wanting to understand why the pattern was violated and what other strange activities might be influencing these events.
Art mentions the upcoming seminar in Phoenix, where they will present their findings, and reassures listeners that they are diligently confirming the information they receive.
The segment concludes with Art previewing upcoming guests on the show, including Professor Carl Grossman discussing the dangers associated with the Cassini launch and Stan Hannon, who has decoded the Bible. They also correct the earlier report about Brewster Shaw, clarifying that it was his son who was killed, not Shaw himself.
Art Bell and Richard Hoagland continue discussing the possibility of a Mars mission hoax. Hoagland mentions a correction about Brewster Shaw, noting that it was actually Shaw’s son who was killed. Despite the correction, the pattern of anomalous deaths associated with NASA remains concerning.
Hoagland observes that the data from Mars Pathfinder appears too similar to Viking data from the 1970s, despite Hubble Space Telescope images suggesting Mars should currently look different. He questions whether the images from Pathfinder might be based on old data if they were part of a simulated mission.
Art Bell reads comments from viewers and astronauts, including Richard Cook, John Holloman, and Story Musgrave, expressing doubts or making remarks that the images look like familiar Earth landscapes. Hoagland highlights the importance of critical thinking and verifying what is presented as reality, drawing parallels to the movie “Capricorn One,” which depicted a faked Mars mission.
Hoagland stresses the need for independent verification and encourages people to ask hard questions about what they see. A caller from Edmonton, Alberta, supports Hoagland’s skepticism, agreeing that in an age of advanced virtual reality, it is possible to simulate such missions convincingly.
Art Bell and Richard Hoagland continue the discussion on the Mars Pathfinder mission. A caller from Edmonton raises concerns about the disinformation and the ease with which images could be faked, questioning the disappearance of the Mars Observer and whether it could be secretly on Mars.
Hoagland explains that the Mars Observer was an orbiter, not a lander, but suggests it could have provided high-resolution data used for simulations. He points out that digital models could be created using this data, implying the possibility of faked images from Pathfinder. Art acknowledges the technical capability to fake such a mission but believes the evidence presented indicates authenticity.
Hoagland reiterates his skepticism, emphasizing the need for independent verification of the Mars signal. Art concedes that independent confirmation is essential to dispel doubts. They discuss the challenges of getting independent radio astronomy observations due to potential pressure from authorities, as experienced during the Mars Observer mission.
Hoagland compares this situation to previous debates about the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings. He believes the photographic evidence from the moon is more convincing due to the technology available at the time. However, he acknowledges the possibility of faking signals in the current digital age, which adds complexity to verifying Mars missions.
A caller from New Orleans asks why NASA would risk faking a Mars landing and how they would manage to keep it a secret. Hoagland responds, explaining that the stakes and potential political motivations could drive such actions. He emphasizes the need for thorough investigation and verification.
Art Bell and Richard Hoagland address a caller’s questions about the potential reasons for faking a Mars mission and the pattern of mysterious deaths associated with NASA. Hoagland explains that if there is a cover-up, it is part of a larger disinformation campaign to keep humanity from knowing it is not alone. Admitting the reality of extraterrestrial structures or beings would unravel a web of deception maintained for decades.
Another caller points out the string of deaths among high-level scientists in the 1980s in England, suggesting these were cover-ups to protect sensitive information. She also criticizes Colonel Haynes’ statements about the Roswell incident, accusing him of lying to the public.
Art Bell confirms a correction from UPI about the recent deaths, clarifying that it was Brandon Shaw, not Brewster Shaw, who was found dead in a lake, along with another victim. Despite this correction, the series of suspicious deaths related to NASA remains troubling.
The caller praises Art Bell’s show for its significant impact on public awareness and media coverage of UFOs and related topics. She believes the widespread attention has forced the authorities to address these issues more openly, even if through disinformation.
Art Bell and Richard Hoagland continue discussing the possible motivations behind faking a Mars landing and the implications of such an action. Hoagland acknowledges that the idea of his show influencing NASA’s timeline is intriguing but unlikely due to the extensive planning required for space missions.
Hoagland mentions that a recent ABC segment included a piece attempting to discredit the face on Mars and his investigations. This suggests that their work is perceived as a threat by some within the establishment. He encourages listeners to continue following the evidence critically.
They discuss the anomaly of Vice President Al Gore, rather than President Clinton, congratulating the NASA team, which Hoagland finds politically significant. He plans to send recordings of the event to David Oates for reverse speech analysis to uncover the true thoughts of key figures like Dan Goldin and Wes Huntress.
A caller asks if Hoagland doubts NASA’s technical capability to land on Mars. Hoagland affirms that NASA is technically competent, referencing the successful Viking missions. Another caller supports Hoagland’s skepticism, pointing out that the mission appears overly smooth and slick.
Hoagland expresses his internal conflict, torn between nostalgia for past space missions and suspicion due to current anomalies. He urges continued scrutiny and independent verification to ensure the truth about the Pathfinder mission.
Richard Hoagland discusses the probability of events during the Mars Pathfinder mission and raises concerns about the rover’s deployment issues. If the rover isn’t deployable, it would cast doubt on the mission’s authenticity since the fixed lander location would limit the data gathered.
A caller from Connecticut suggests the possibility of a second lander being sent around Mars to land later, but Hoagland rules this out due to payload capacity constraints. The caller also questions the 36-hour delay in updating the midcourse correction and the excess fuel carried by the spacecraft. Hoagland agrees that these are significant issues without satisfactory explanations.
Another caller inquires about the designation “STS-94” for a shuttle mission, which seems out of sequence. Hoagland explains that shuttle mission numbers are assigned long before flight time and can be mixed and matched, leading to such anomalies. The conversation shifts to Wake Island, which had been closed to the public for 50 years due to national defense but has recently opened for tourism. The caller suggests secret activities may have occurred there, which Hoagland doesn’t dismiss but can’t confirm.
A caller from Long Beach questions the impact of a storm on the landing site and notes that the atmosphere appears still in the photographs, which contrasts with pre-landing data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Hoagland acknowledges this discrepancy and reiterates his skepticism.
An East of the Rockies caller asks why NASA didn’t plan the landing for July 20th instead of July 4th. Hoagland explains that NASA wanted to avoid revealing information about the Cydonia region, which might indicate extraterrestrial activity.
A caller from Dallas reports seeing a building recently outfitted with a large array of satellite dishes, suggesting potential covert activities. Art Bell asks the caller to send photos or video for further investigation. Another caller proposes that staging the Mars landing could be a way to funnel money into black projects, and questions how astronaut footprints were made on the moon without moisture. Hoagland explains the phenomenon of vacuum cohesion, which allows fine particles to hold impressions without water.
Hoagland emphasizes the need for independent verification of the Mars signal, calling on radio astronomers, grad students, and ham operators to help determine if the Pathfinder is on Mars or still in space. He invites people to attend an event on July 14th in Phoenix, where new information will be revealed.
Hoagland provides his fax number for further contact from radio astronomers: 505-899-9641. Art and Hoagland conclude the discussion, with Art mentioning upcoming guests, including Colonel Corso on Dreamland and Stan Tenen.