the Dr. Richard Sauder ep was great

[Mothra]

First of all New Mexico and Parts of Arizona near Gallup are Hills Have Eyes country. I know this from experience. I remember getting off the freeway (Big Mistake) in NM to turn around and go the other way for some reason, I don't remember but we ended up about a 1/2 mile from the freeway on a side road before we could turn around. Well this place we turned around in was someones driveway, they had a couple tow trucks and beat up cars in this big cul-ti-sac (sp?To tired to care). I started to put my car in reverse and my wife tells me to hurry the F@#$K up because some guy just walked around the corner of one of the tow trucks with a rifle. Dirty overalls, covered in grease, the whole nine yards. That incident haunted me for a while. A lot of what if's. What I'm trying to say is that ANY lunatic could have been shooting at him.

 

[CapnG]

Cul-DE-sac...

Also, yikes!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Now i remember the U.S Air force story, thanks donthizz!

 

[DeeJay]

Gene, Dave, I am very disappointed because of this episode with Saunder, so I have to agree in some parts with davem, with the exception that we can't realistically expect Saunder to give us the GPS coordinates of those bases.

I have problems with the following parts:

- I would expect David to ask what kind of doctorate Saunder has, but he did not ask this.
- Every time a real question was asked from Saunders, the answer was either "Don't know", "It's hard to know that" or "I think ..." without giving some references, links or something substantial. (I don't expect proof!)
- If someone declares him as an expert in underground bases can only come up with "Cheyenne Mountain" and "Mount Weather" as examples, you have to start wondering. Maybe he knows more, but as I never heard of Saunder, and I started listening with great expectations this disappointed me. The conclusion for me is to read the book, but I'm not sure after this, that it is worth it.

I think this interview was not up to your own standards and you also know that.

 

[Lone Gunman]

I actually own one of his books, about secret underground bases, and it's pretty good. I definitley would like to hear him again on the Pcast.

But... I didn't like when David asked him for details about when he was shot at, and Sauder wouldn't talk about it.

It's like if you're in a restricted zone, prepare to freaking die. He seemed to sheepishly clam up, like he knew he shouldn't have been wherever he was. What riled me up further, was that he never even said what state he was in, let alone what base it was at.

This stains his credibility a bit.

Still, a great show though.

 

[David Biedny]

DeeJay,

I might agree with you that I was not thrilled about how this interview turned out.

BTW, I asked him about his degrees before we started recording. I had indeed spoken with Rich Dolan about him before we had him on, so I had some idea about his academic credentials ahead of the interview. Of course, it's not like he faxed over copies of his degrees, so who knows...

dB

 

[Gene Steinberg]

DeeJay,

I might agree with you that I was not thrilled about how this interview turned out.

BTW, I asked him about his degrees before we started recording. I had indeed spoken with Rich Dolan about him before we had him on, so I had some idea about his academic credentials ahead of the interview. Of course, it's not like he faxed over copies of his degrees, so who knows...

dB

Yes, I'm of mixed feelings about Dr. Sauder too. Rich Dolan spoke very highly of him, which is what encouraged us to do the episode.

As to what he does for a living, he tells you in the interview, if you listen carefully, and it has nothing whatever to do with the degrees he has. Strange.

 

[Hummarstra]

I checked out the Adamski footage myself and I can't believe Dolan supports a guy who believes the Adamski crap. Shame on Dolan and shame on Sauder.

 

[DeeJay]

Having also some interest in the subject, I`ve finished reading "Underground Bases and Tunnels: What is the Government Trying to Hide?", and looked up every podcast on the internet, which has an interview with Sauder, I came to the following conclusion: Sauder has some ideas about how things are done, I especially found interesting the part in his book about how land for underground bases are bought up by reliable private individuals, to keep the operation from falling under suspicion. I find the part where he talks about the role of the military in cattle mutilations also very interesting, the theory that those acts are made by the UFO's never really made sense to me. But in his book there are also too many sentences beginning with "I think" and "I believe", he has no proof for anything, what is basically what I expected. I have to acknowledge, it is nearly impossible to prove anything regarding those buildings.

On the other side, his interviews are just crap. He always talks about the same issues again and again, raises rumors, never saying anything substantial, mixing too much politics and anti-establishment speech in it. I heard the same things time and time again.

So my conclusion about him is that he makes a good case for underground bases in his book, and he just does interviews to sell those. He is a good candidate for a second run, if you want to hear the rumors which he heard from one of his teachers with Egyptian origin about underground tunnels under Gizeh, but you won't ever know more facts about these things, than you know today.

 

[nightlark]

He said when he was looking for an underground base in New Mexico, and suddenly U.S navy personal got out of a blue van and started shooting at him. This is unheard of, why would they shoot at a person if they want keep a low profile.

I just finished listening to this episode (time shifting broadcasting at its best) and I thought the discussion was fine until this story came up.

Richard said he saw men "... with high powered rifles ..." (Episode 23 Dec 07, 1hr:54min:52sec), and explicitly explained a number of times that he knew he was being shot at since he could hear the bullets "... whistle past him in the air". At one point he even explained that with the bullets he could "... hear them coming and hear them going." (Episode 23 Dec 07, 1hr:56min:25sec). This stated detail is what made this particular story sound false.

As DB is an image expert, so would I be deemed a weapons expert. I was trained by the military, in the Australian Army for 9 years, and qualified on weapons every one of these years (high powered rifles, machine guns and every 3rd or so year pistols) - I can state definitively that the sound of a high powered rifle being shot at you does not sound like this, nor can you hear bullets coming and going when shot at you - unless they are subsonic.

The speed that rounds (bullets) are shot from high powered rifles exceeds 800 metres per second (m/s), and is often high as 930 m/s, as is the case for the current Australian standard issue F88 rifle. <br/>

The speed of sound at sea level is approx 340 m/s and lowers as you gain altitude (i.e. in mountain ranges as discussed).

This means that when being shot at by "high powered rifles" you don't hear rounds coming and going - you hear a "crack" - since the sound barrier is broken as the bullet passes by. You then hear the "thump" as the sound of the weapon itself firing catches up to your position (at the speed of sound).

I personally experienced this multiple times in my military career by participating in a "crack-thump" range shoot. This was where you would be down range of a number of weapons being fired, most "high powered rifles" as you would think of them. The rounds were shot above the troops heads (at a deemed safe distance) about 20 metres off the ground. In all cases the sound of the incoming rounds was the crack. At no times with high powered rifles do you "... hear them coming and hear them going". The only exception is pistols, due to the short length of their barrels and smaller rounds that combined causes the pistol to discharge the ammunition at sub-sonic speeds.

:exclamation:So in my professional opinion, I call this particular story bunk. As David roughly states: if you can lie about (or embellish) one thing, who knows what else you are lying about.