Richard C. Hoagland and Tom Bearden challenge classical electrodynamics, citing NASA probe anomalies and historical tracking errors as evidence of a weakening universal gravity G and variable light speed. They allege the KGB weaponized longitudinal waves to cause seismic events, destroy submarines like the USS Thresher, engineer weather patterns, and induce Gulf War syndrome, while suppressed French research hints at medical cures via cellular time-reversal. The discussion further claims the Iridium constellation serves as a secret fallback for physics shifts and warns that orbital anomalies threaten satellites, suggesting these hidden technologies could trigger global economic meltdowns if not properly understood. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening or good morning, as the case may be.
It's great to be here.
Better here is in Puerto Rico, where the winds are screaming.
I talked to Seth Shostock, who's not in Puerto Rico right now, because he said, well, we watched this thing churning across the Atlantic Ocean.
I talked about 10 minutes ago, and he said at the time that wind gusts were around 200 miles an hour, and he said Aerocibo itself was only meant to withstand 200 mile an hour winds.
And so that's it.
We packed up, they closed up, we got out of there.
SETI is obviously not manning the Aerocibo telescope at the moment.
As a matter of fact, probably all you would see would be boarded up windows and that sort of thing with hurricanes screaming through the island.
There are already three dead in Puerto Rico.
To the business at hand, Richard C. Hoagland was an advisor to Walter Cronkite, science advisor.
He was at one time a science advisor or advisor to NASA, where they now have large busts of him in the halls.
People still salute as they walk by.
He has been an investigator into things uncommon, but scientific for a very long time.
He's on to a lot of really interesting stuff.
And Tom Bearden are both coming.
Tom Bearden, let me tell you just a little bit of what I know.
He is a retired Army colonel.
And what he is going to tell you tonight, a lot of it's going to be presented in the guise of theory and fiction.
But I'm telling you all, listen to what Tom Bearden says very carefully because I'm told, read between the lines because most of what you're going to hear is real.
It is being presented in the manner that it is, probably to avoid people going to jail or something.
You and, of course, the audience and Tom know for a long time I've been looking at this field I term hyperdimensional physics, which most people, they stop me right there and they say, what in the world is a hyperdimensional?
And so tonight, let me define it.
We know what dimensional is.
We know what length and width and height is in the normal three dimensions of our existence.
Living room furniture has a length, a width, and a height.
Freezers have length, width, and height, and all that.
Supposedly, there is a fourth dimension of time, which Einstein gave us via general and special relativity.
But before that, back in the last century, in the 19th century, there were a group of scientists, physicists, mathematicians, and others, who were really playing around and toying around and thinking long and hard about more than three spatial dimensions.
And therefore, the term hyper.
Anything that's hyper is beyond or above normal.
So hyperdimensional means beyond three normal dimensions.
And hyperdimensional physics means a physics which must encompass more than three normal spatial dimensions to be on the way to completeness, to be a unified model, a real model of reality.
Well, many years ago, my interest centered on Tom Bearden because he was one of the few people, I mean really few people, that I encountered on the lecture circuit who was actually talking, A, about hyperdimensional physics, although I don't think, Tom, you used the term in those days.
And then the other thing that Tom did was he introduced me to the real Maxwell, James Clark Maxwell, who can be considered the father of modern non-relativistic physics.
I mean, if you say the name Einstein, everybody thinks relativity.
But when you say to most technical people and physicists and engineers the name Maxwell, they think of everything up to Einstein.
So those two people are kind of like the super icons of the foundation of the world we think we inhabit in terms of science.
Well, Tom introduced me to some pretty interesting things about Maxwell that I didn't know, and I'm sure that most other physicists don't know, namely that the Maxwell that we read about is not the Maxwell that really existed.
It is a version.
It is a kind of a 2D cardboard cutout of the extraordinary multi-dimensional universe that Maxwell and his colleagues were playing with, imagining, working with, trying to model, trying to predict scientific facts from.
Well, even modern-day theoretical physicists, best minds in the nation, like Michio Kaku, who I interview all the time, almost thinks that a number of universes or parallel universes are passe.
I mean, he's so accepted the fact that they exist.
Well, it has come back a long circle to where the idea of multidimensionality as a solution to the big problems of science, the big problems of physics, is once again in.
It's once again deroguer.
But the difference is that where, you know, Kaku and his colleagues talk about 26 dimensions or 10 dimensions, and you can't test them.
There's no laboratory test you can propose that will decide whether their models, their hyperdimensional models, are real, because it would literally take more energy than there exists probably in one half of the known universe.
The Maxwell multidimensional models we have discovered through Enterprise, through the work that I and my colleagues have been doing, and that then impinges directly on what Tom Beard was going to talk about tonight, is incredibly, eminently, and blatantly testable.
And that's where the two pathways, the two thinking processes, radically diverge.
Actually, Clinton may have better approval ratings than you in some cases in the halls of science.
Now, but these people, mathematicians, physicists, have been emailing me, and they say that the paper you have put up there is of great substance, great importance, deserves study, and nobody but nobody, even the people who hate your guts, have said that, have poo-pooed it.
And the ultimate purest democracy, it doesn't matter what personality you carry or what baggage you carry or whether somebody likes the cut of your beard.
The bottom cruel line of the universe is if it works, it's real.
If it doesn't, it's not.
And the thing we're going to get to tonight, beyond the theory, beyond the ideas, what Tom is bringing to the table is a whole series of engineering capabilities, implications for real machines and real devices and real breakthroughs and real-world implications for putting this hyperdimensional physics to work.
The other thing you have is any model, any kind of theory, like the theory of electrodynamics or something, you pick a particular algebra that you embed the theory in.
unidentified
Now, an algebra is like a chessboard.
It's got a certain fixed domain.
It's got a certain set of functions that you're allowed to do.
It's like a game, a special game that's been constructed.
If you were constricted to pidgin English to describe Samoan sunset, obviously your audience wouldn't get the point.
But if you have the King's English or you have Latin or you have, you know, Shakespeare, you can be much richer in metaphor and texture and subtlety and nuance.
I mean, the Eskimos have how many words just for ice?
So mathematics, an algebra, is like a language in that the richer it is, the more you can use it to describe the real reality that surrounds us.
Well, the functions that come out of it, the more functions that it has, that makes it a higher topology algebra.
Topology, all that means is look at it like a little flat piece of paper, only now you're able to stretch it and pull it like a rubber sheet and twist it and tighten knots and so forth.
Well, all I'm trying to get to here is if we can forecast the splitting of an atom mathematically, then we can forecast Richard's hyperdimensional physics and what they're going to mean to us mathematically as well.
Yes, and in particle physics, particularly, you have to keep adding dimensions because you can't get all the crazy particles in that keep coming out of the experiments unless you do open up the model.
unidentified
You can't just stay in a fixed small number of dimensions.
About the least you can get away with is about 11, and I think now it's up higher than that.
All right, now, one big question is how we prove all this.
And Richard really tantalized me with something.
He said to me the other day, Hey, Art, you know, our deep probe spacecraft are not acting as they should act, given known physics.
And I said, what?
He said, yeah, gravitationally, there are anomalies that cannot be, simply cannot be explained.
And there's big news about our deep probe spacecraft.
So when we get back, I think I want to head in that direction and see if that underscores the hyperdimensional side of physics and the other dimensions.
And that's exactly what we're going to do.
So that's the teaser line right there, folks.
Our deep probe spacecraft have been found to be not operating as they should.
In other words, defying the laws of known physics.
Now, how can that be?
Well, easy.
There's something we don't know.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AF.
touch that dial going to cover deep probe spacecraft in a moment but actually I'm going to preempt even that discussion for a second Something we should have done at the beginning of the program, and I will now do.
I'll do it by reading the following facts from Ontario in Canada.
Dear Art, I would like to talk about John Holloman as unfinished business from last week.
Like yourself, I, too, was very saddened to hear about his death.
You know, I've watched him over the years and always looked forward to his upbeat, enthusiastic reporting style.
Was glad for him when he was given the exciting space shuttle program to cover.
You mentioned you'd be talking to Richard Hoagland Monday night tonight.
Could you please ask him what he thinks of the vagueness and too few details given out about John's death?
How it occurred.
A man who survived so many earlier worldly close calls to be taken out that close to home in such a manner doesn't make sense to me.
Upon hearing the news after the initial shock wore off, the first question I found myself asking was, what was it that forced John to take such a profound risk on the road that day?
He knew the road well, traveled it often, knew there was a no-passing rule along that stretch of road.
He was an intelligent, seasoned man, it seemed to me, who would just simply not take his life, his sons, into his hands, unless he felt it was absolutely necessary.
And the silly reason reported to People magazine just doesn't cut it somehow.
Could someone else have been involved?
Was something weighing heavily on his mind that perhaps distracted him?
There really are many questions.
And Richard, we can't let the night go by without letting you say something about John Holloman.
Well, first of all, I was, as everybody else, shocked.
I mean, you were the one to call me and basically call my attention to the CNN bulletin, and you know I was stunned.
I had been looking forward to John and Walter getting together.
There had been some discussion, very low-key, of maybe me doing something on the mission with Walter and with John just because it would have been so neat and so nostalgic, and it was something that we were keeping very quiet, and that obviously has all been cut short now.
But in terms of the facts, we don't want to leap to the sensational.
You know, there are times when things so bizarre just happen.
What I find equally bizarre is that a few minutes after it's not there and he almost killed himself.
And I am trying very hard not to, just because if we squander the precious resource of searching for the truth, and when we find it, announcing it, talking about it, we devalue that coin and we can never retrieve the value.
I haven't actually studied the space probe itself.
I've been confining most of my work to energy and to some medical applications.
And so I haven't looked at the probe itself.
I do know that from the weaponry aspects, some very strange kinds of weapons are being used right now, which do affect the local potential of the space-time itself.
What?
So it may be that you're having some effect like that, but that's just a guess.
I called you up and I sent this facts to you, which have been sent to me, by the way, by an old colleague of ours, Ken Johnston.
Yes, former Boeing engineer, former test astronaut who's been a member of Enterprise now for some years.
In the very distinguished journal, mainstream science journal, The New Scientist, published in Britain, on September 12th, a remarkable article appeared.
In fact, it's so remarkable that what we've done is have our ACE webmaster, Keith Keith Rowland, have got up on our website at the top of the Enterprise mission website, accessible through the Art Bell website, a short link directly to the new scientist gravity article I'm going to describe in a moment.
So just go to artbell.com and you'll find my Gift My Name and you can go to Enterprise or you can go to Enterprise directly at www.enterprisemission.com.
At the very top of the home page, and now hear this, you will see a report on a NASA solar gravity anomaly, which appears to confirm additionally the hyperdimensional model.
And there's a link directly to the new scientist article.
Okay, for several years, an old friend of mine at JPL, John Anderson, who is, together with Tom Van Flandren, probably one of the preeminent celestial mechanics experts in the solar system.
John and I worked together with Jim Warwick back during the Voyager days on the anomalies found in Saturn's rings.
And there was a whole little synergistic thing that three or four of us did that resolved that there was something really wondrous and bizarre embedded in the main ring of Saturn found during the 1980 and 81 flybys by the Voyager spacecraft.
At that time, John was beginning a project at JPL to track the outer solar system missions.
We have sent now two pioneer spacecraft beginning in the early 70s, two Voyagers beginning in the mid-70s.
We've now got a Ulysses probe that went in the late 70s, early 80s.
And we've got a Galileo mission that started in the 80s and wound up in 95 going into orbit around Jupiter.
All these spacecraft are being tracked by means of radio signals.
Now, in this article, John and his colleagues report that for these four or five spacecraft that I named, you know, the Pioneers and the Galileo and Ulysses, apparently closer than they should be.
They have been slowed down by some mysterious force, meaning in this article that the calculated model of the sun's gravity field is different than it should be.
So of course this caught my attention because one of the key predictions of the hyperdimensional model is, guys, gravity, Earth, Moon, Mars, wherever, Sun must change over time.
It is not constant.
So that's what I reported to you, and that's what I sent to you, and that's what Tom and I and Tom Van Planner were discussing the other night.
Because it is my contention, and Tom wants me to be qualified on this, so I'm going to be very scientific, and I'm going to follow your prescription, Tom.
It is my contention that NASA may, in fact, be wrong.
That there's nothing wrong with gravity.
That in fact, the gravity of the Sun, instead of getting stronger, as this article implies, should be getting weaker.
Now, why do I say that?
Because if you go back to the paper that you talked about a few minutes ago on the web, there are experiments in laboratories all over the Earth indicating that G, the force of gravity between objects, is getting weaker.
Now, Tom may have something to say on that in a few minutes.
Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, our spacecraft are suddenly not as far out as they ought to be, meaning that the tug on them is stronger than it ought to be.
It ought to be getting weaker as they get farther away from our sun.
A key prediction of the hyperdimensional model is the speed of light is not constant.
And Tom and I will talk in the next few minutes of a whole host of experiments, from laboratory experiments here to astronomical experiments that over the last century or so have proven that.
In fact, there are websites I can point people to through our website where there are paper after paper after paper of historical changes in the speed of light, which just don't get reported by interesting coincidence.
Well, radio waves travel supposedly at the same speed as light waves.
If the radio waves are now, because the physics predicts it, traveling faster.
In other words, our model says as G gets smaller, as the force of gravitation between objects apparently gets weaker, the speed of light will get greater.
We know that the speed of sound changes with temperature.
If he doesn't factor in the change in the speed of sound, he will get an erroneous result.
By the same factor, if the speed of light, the speed of radio waves traveling in the solar system is just a little bit greater than the textbook value now, what will happen is that the spacecraft will get the signal quicker than it should have.
It will return it quicker than it should.
The ground computers, assuming a fixed speed, will say, oh, it's got to be closer, and thereby the whole thing is resolved.
But it's not gravity getting stronger.
This is the solution.
In fact, gravity, when you do the actual calculation, turns out to be getting weaker along with the lab data here on Earth.
So the extraordinary anomaly that NASA is on record now is saying exists can have two interpretations when all the other possibilities of unseen planets and plasmas and all the stuff that in the paper they eliminate as an easy answer is eliminated.
And either answer is extraordinary.
But the speed of light one is the one that is in conformance with our model, and that's the one that ultimately is going to be resolved.
So then how would you apply this equation, if you work it out along the lines that you think you've got it worked out, to something as far out as 15 billion light years?
I told you, be careful because it could be one heck of a lot closer and therefore a heck of a lot weaker than Kaku and the standard guys were proposing.
This new data from NASA, from our friendly local, I stress the local, neighborhood space agency, is moving us in the direction that the universe we think we know, we don't really know.
Because years ago, a century ago, James Clark Maxwell was suborned.
They talk about suborning perjury.
Well, poor Maxwell was suborned, and the laws of physics that we think we're operating under are not really the full set of the laws of physics.
We've not got a lot of time before the top of the hour, and I've not asked Tom very much, but Tom, you're a nuclear engineer.
When you listen to this well-done explanation of what Richard believes may be going on, how does it set with you?
unidentified
Well, it sets pretty good.
I would phrase it a little different.
For example, when we're talking about the gravitational pull, we're actually talking about the creation of a force on an object, gravitational force in this case.
And from a general relativity viewpoint, what you're talking about is a change in the curvature of space-time.
The curvature of space-time, a little curvature, generates a force.
Mass or trapped energy curves space-time.
The curvature of space-time reacts back upon the mass to produce a force.
This will be presented to some degree in the theoretical, but you need to read between the lines.
Tom Bearden is a retired Army colonel who was involved in some pretty interesting projects, some of which he can't talk about in a very direct way.
So you're going to have to read a little bit between the lines as you listen to some of what you're about to hear.
Apparently, Richard C. Hoagland and Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Bearden, with whom we're talking at the moment, as well as astronomer Tom Van Flandren, are going to be appearing in Seattle, I guess.
And they're running some commercials up there that might say the wrong thing.
Apparently, tickets are going to be available at the door, and that's what's supposed to be said on the commercial, and I've got news that it is somehow wrong or something.
And it's the first time that the three of us have done anything in public.
It's a two-day conference, and it's going to explore not only the dimensions of the hyperdimensional physics and some of the things that Tom is going to talk about tonight in much greater detail, but it's also going to bring Tom Van Flandren together with Tom Bearden.
All right, now, we were talking about the speed of light actually increasing as one explanation for what is wrong with our deep probe spacecraft and not only spacecraft, but you're suggesting other astronomical objects as well, like meteors or asteroids or whatever.
Spacecraft was launched a couple years ago and goes through a long looping trajectory to get to where it's going to go because it had to make a plane change.
It rendezvous in January and goes into orbit around this little 15 or 20 mile sliver of rock called Eros, which is tumbling through space and is on a very elongated orbit that takes it around the sun every few years.
Now it turns out that Eros is probably the most tracked asteroid in astronomical history, and it used to form the basis of the scale of the solar system.
As it went by the Earth and through the inner solar system every few years, astronomers in the last century and in the early parts of this century would take pictures from different observatories and record the time.
And through good old trigonometric parallax, in other words, the width of the Earth, they would get a different direction slightly in space for two photographs taken of the asteroid at the same moment by celestial time.
They would then compare those differences on the photographic plates, and with good old trigonometry, they would establish how far Eros was from the telescopes, from the Earth.
By using Kepler's third law, they then could map out its trajectory to the whole inner solar system and thereby derive the scale.
Back when radar was first developed and NASA started bouncing radar beams off planets, they found a very weird anomaly.
The radar results did not match the Eros results.
Venus appeared to be closer or farther away.
Mars appeared to be closer or farther away.
It was topsy-turvy, and so there became a kind of a, like an edict came down, and the speed of light and its arbitrary limit at a fixed velocity was assumed by all future NASA experiments to be the wisdom, the way the physics worked.
And the Eros data from hundreds of years, literally 100 years or so, was thrown out.
Now NASA suddenly launches a mission to one asteroid in the whole panoply of 40,000 that are known that has this tremendous historical database.
And they're claiming publicly that they're going to just look at this asteroid.
Well, privately, I know there's a hidden agenda.
And I know from the science that what they're really doing, some of the experimenters, is when they put this little thing in orbit around Eros and track it, they're going to be monitoring the radio beacons from the spacecraft while they simultaneously take good old-fashioned photographic plates of the trajectory.
This is why Tom is on the show tonight, because what Tom's going to talk about is the engineering, literally, of reality, using this hyperdimensional physics and the fact that there's an in-crowd and an out-crowd, and the in-crowd is knowing it and using it, and the out-crowd doesn't know it even exists.
And the problem is the out-crowd is in control of our public policy, like trying to keep our satellites in orbit in November when the Leonid meteor shower is going to smash about 20% of them, according to.
Tom, being a nuclear engineer, though it's not exactly your field, if Richard is right about what we've discussed thus far, could they be wrong about this comet missing us by that amount?
I mean, you would have probably very appreciable results of that, clearly seeable in the solar system on the other planets.
Tom, let me stop you there.
Because the reason that John Anderson at JPL started tracking these spacecraft is because of exactly that effect.
There is well known in the astronomical literature going back a couple of hundred years after Uranus and Neptune were first found and that those planets themselves are not behaving according to the current laws of physics.
Now, for Uranus, that anomaly was used to predict where Neptune would be found, and lo and behold, it was found pretty close.
And for Neptune, the anomaly was used to predict where Pluto should be found, and lo and behold, Percival Lowell found, I'm sorry, Clyde Combo found Pluto in 1930, but now we know it was a wonderful accident because the planet's too small to cause the effect on Neptune that was in the literature.
So Anderson started tracking these spacecraft over long decades now with very high precision radio tracking in an effort to find out whether these anomalies were due to unseen planets way out there or by his own admission, whether the gravity model is wrong.
And he now has come to the conclusion that the gravity model is wrong.
Because it means, back to art, that when they confidently say, as Don Yeoman says, oh, it's going to miss us by 600,000 miles in 2161, no, they can't be that damn confident because the model is wrong.
unidentified
Well, let's put it this way.
I would say the model results are wrong because it doesn't agree with what's being observed.
There's a thing I'm trying to get at here.
I'm not just splitting hairs.
Okay, go ahead.
The gravitational effect, whether it's global, local, or whatever, is going to be involved with the curvature of space-time.
The gravity does that.
That's the whole basis of the interaction of gravitation and mass in the general relativity theory.
Now, what a contradiction usually involves is that something in your model is wrong or some other factor has entered that you're not taking into account at all.
You're just assuming it's in my normal model that I use and nothing else has intervened.
I'm just, you know, taking the problem as it occurs.
You have either something extremely dramatic happening and your model is now completely off base, or you have the intervention of an outside factor that you're not taking into account.
One of the things that Anderson and his guys are, they are very good.
They're world class, as Perot used to say, all right?
In their paper, which, by the way, is also linked to the new scientist article in Physics Review Letters, they talk about all the possibilities which could give us a synthetic anomaly.
What I would characterize, I'll try to characterize that a little bit more exactly, you see.
What I would characterize is say the factors that they considered, I would put that phrase in there, because if they're factors they didn't consider, then it means that they didn't consider the outside intervention at all, except what they knew about.
If it's something else, it was something they didn't know about.
Space was considered by all parties to be filled with so-called luminiferous ether, a thin material filling all space.
And electrodynamics today, in spite of anything anybody tells you, every university in the Western world is teaching electrodynamics where the material ether is still present in the equations.
They still assume that at every point in space, there is a unit north pole, and that's a magnetic charge mass.
There is a unit positive electrical charge, a coulomb, and that has some mass.
unidentified
And there's a unit mass, a kilogram of mass at that point in space.
And those equations describe how that point mass reacts.
If you have errors in fundamental electrodynamics, which you do, terrible errors, then that permeates everything you're doing because they just spread the electrodynamics into all the other systems.
You know, a lot of people are sitting out there right now who are creationists who are saying, right on, Richard, do you realize the allies that you just picked up?
Dive into kind of a sensitive area with Tom Bearden and Richard C. Holland.
And Tom, I know that you know something about weapons systems.
You've done some work in that area.
What can you tell us theoretically, or even from a science fiction perspective, which people can read in between the lines of, about what might be possible if what Richard says is correct?
Well, what's possible is, first of all, you get several different new things in electrodynamics.
And by the way, part of this, you can go on the Los Alamos National Laboratory website, download a paper, for example, by Rodriguez and Liu, and several other papers, and they will give you a summary of some of the new work in electrodynamics that shows the use of longitudinal waves rather than the conventional old transverse waves.
unidentified
Now, when you use longitudinal waves, you get some extraordinary capabilities.
One of the things you get, a pure longitudinal wave, if you can make one pure, normally if you make one, you make it with some residual, some noise hanging on it, that's transverse stuff.
It has some, it's a messy signal.
But if you can make a pure one, it goes at infinite velocity and has infinite energy.
So, of course, they don't make that, but they make waves that go faster than the speed of light, and they make waves which don't have the proper energy that you would predict from the normal electrodynamics we all were taught.
For example, Nymphs and colleagues transmitted with quantum tunneling and through a barrier and a waveguide, they transmitted Mozart's 40th Symphony as something like 4.7 times the speed of light.
So, we need to, first of all, get completely out of our minds the idea that the old idea that's been so ingrained that the speed of light is an absolute limit.
If you use longitudinal waves, the speed of light suddenly becomes quite variable, if you mean the speed of the wave that you produce.
So, you already have a new physics the moment you go into the use of these longitudinal waves.
Well, several nations of the earth, and the most predominant one is done under the auspices of what used to be called the KGB, and I'll still use that term because the leopard did not change its spot.
I interviewed the top-rank military defector from the Soviet Union, the biggest, highest-ranking defector in the history of defections from the Soviet Union.
And he said there is, in fact, he named the program that there is a program the Russians have been working on for some time now involving waves of the kind you're talking about that produce seismic events on Earth.
This was, in fact, part of the geopolitics going on behind the scenes because it's kind of like showing your cards to the other guy who knows you got them, but now you're showing them to the rest of the world.
And, of course, controlling the weather makes nuclear weapons look like matchsticks.
Interfering With Waves00:08:48
unidentified
Oh, yeah.
Well, in 1975, some of these weapons were so frightful that even the Russians got frightened.
Brezhnev called them, he used the phrase more frightful than the mind of man had ever imagined.
And he actually had Gromyko in that year introduce to the United Nations a draft treaty to stop the production of new weapons of mass destruction again.
I can, or X direction, let's say, I can vibrate vertically, and we would call that the Y direction up and down.
And then I could be a crazy fool, and I could rush forward a little bit faster, and then a little bit slower, and a little bit faster, and a little bit slower.
unidentified
I could velocity modulate.
I could keep changing my velocity, surge back and forth as I went along.
That paper, by the way, sparked a thing that's a little obscure, but it is well known in cavity theory and so forth, waveguides, called superpotential theory.
unidentified
And so he showed that we can do away with all the waves and all that stuff and replace it all with potential functions anyway.
Now, those two papers, those two key Whitaker papers, for any physicists listening tonight, are attached to my paper on the web through Art Bell site and Enterprise.
You just click on them.
They're underlined.
You go right to Whitaker, and there you are.
The full Whitaker papers, Tom.
And Maxwell's original 900-page treatise, I've been informed from my folks tonight, is about halfway through the copying.
Including the 20 quaternions, which described the hyperdimensional physics originally that we're discussing tonight.
unidentified
Well, what happened is if you use the longitudinal, basically to put it real simply, if you take, you make longitudinal waves, which you can make with plasmas and some other things, plasma gas tubes and so forth.
There are several processes you can use to do this.
And then if you interfere these longitudinal waves in that interference zone where they meet and conflict with each other, you produce ordinary stuff, the ordinary stuff we talk about.
unidentified
The transverse waves, you can make it either cold or hot.
You can make heat energy or you can make cooling energy.
You make it diverge, which is heat, or you make it converge, go the other way, which is cooling.
And by doing this and then steering that place you're heating and the place you're cooling, by steering the hot spots and the cold spots, you can actually entrain the jet streams and steer them.
But I'm bound to ask you if you, I mean, what you just said is so provocative that I've got to ask you whether you know this whether you know this from first-hand information.
What I will answer is the fact that I'm very sure about what I'm talking about in the Soviet Union and three other countries, one of which is not us, by the way.
By the way, to touch up what Richard was talking about, since you can put the things under the water, instead of having a big burst, instead of pulsing your weapons, what you do is you just put the beams to cross and gradually heat the water if you want to heat it, or you gradually cool it if you want to cool it.
So you can touch up both El Nino and La Nina, both of the major things in heating and cooling the water that do wind up having large-scale effects on the weather.
If you put the energy and start to create the energy inside a fault zone, for example, as the energy builds up, the rocks are piezoelectric, so they expand mechanically as you put more energy into them.
unidentified
And so gradually the rocks will then slip and you'll have an earthquake.
If you really get desperate and you need an earthquake real bad, you just pulse the energy and put it in the rock, whether there's a fault zone or not, and it'll blast its way in there.
Once you can do longitudinal wave interferometry, you can do that at a distance into the earth or through the earth or in the ocean.
Now, later in the morning, you know, probably the next hour, we're going to talk about some real environmental threats that we're going to experience in the next couple of months.
The Leonid meteor shower and the NORAD alert, that 20% of the 500 satellites we depend on for our life and our economy and our almost existence now are going to go down.
They're going to be killed by little tiny flecks of dust moving at 30, 40, 50 miles per second.
It won't pass November 17th unless something is done.
Now, this comes back to what Tom just said.
In the black world, in multinational laboratories, there have been developed some extraordinary hyperdimensional weapons/slash tools, which if they came out of the black world and were applied to the white world to saving our asses in November, we would basically get through unscathed.
And what we wanted to do tonight was to let people know that this is not theory.
This is real physics, real technology, and a real problem that needs to have this applied to in the not-too-distant future.
Yeah, but look, if the Russians have the power to destroy a submarine beneath the sea, if the Russians have the power to change the weather, and they've been doing this, and Tom just confirms that sort of almost in an offhand way.
Yeah, but look, to most people, this is Buck Rogers, period.
It's not real.
It can't be real.
To the average American would more easily believe the president of the United States right now than he would that the Russians can do these kinds of things.
Well, some years after that, that wasn't the last end of that story.
Some years after that, working with an aerospace firm, foreign aerospace firm, which must remain nameless, I furnished them an address that appeared on the internet or some Soviet scientists who were scrambling trying to find something to make a living and set up a company and so forth.
Okay, so to make a long story short, they sent in an engineer very fluent in Russian, and these Russian scientists showed him what's called coal molding.
unidentified
You could put this scalar charge on the piece of metal.
The metal would turn liquid at room temperature without heating.
You simply dissolve the lattice bonds.
All you do is space conjugate them.
That's what you do technically.
Space conjugate.
They turn it into a liquid at room temperature without heating.
Pour it in a mold, walk away, let the charge die away after a while, and it turns back into a normal metal.
So they could use this to mold the metal without heating.
Well, one of the things I've been very hopeful of is that enough of this stuff will bleed out, you know, that our own scientific community will start to really pay attention, which they finally started doing.
The fact that Los Alamos National Laboratory is carrying a whole series of papers dealing with longitudinal waves and the ones that are imperfect, they call them undistorted progressive waves, and their characteristic is really revolutionary.
unidentified
So I'm delighted that they're doing that.
Now, if they'll really take that seriously and go ahead and apply it, you don't have to build weapons with everything.
Meanwhile, it has tremendous applications in things like energy and medicine and things that can do a lot of benefit for people.
Certainly, if you can clear a hole through a meteor shower or little particles that are going to do you a lot of damage to your satellites, that would be a very useful thing to do.
Either us develop the stuff and do it, or, you know, the Soviets or the Russians who already have it, do it anyway.
You see, this falls under absolutely squarely, and probably for the first time in many, many, many years, of a real good, solid case for national security.
Because if tomorrow, let's say Clinton were to get on television and say, we've discovered a terrorist group that's going to take out 20% of our satellites, don't you think Americans would get a little pissed that we didn't do anything about it?
And what Tom and I are saying emphatically is this is not theory.
This technology exists.
There are examples over and over again of its being used in the past several decades.
It's just so deep in the deep black that those guys have to be dragged kicking and screaming to even use it for a purpose like this because they would rather keep a secret.
Secrecy in this game is power.
And in this case, there is a way they could use it and never reveal that it exists.
And ultimately, everybody would breathe a huge sigh of relief, and then we could get on with life.
I've talked to cable people in the last few days, and they're telling me that when I was running Enterprise in Washington, where the name came from, was this school experiment that we gave to Dunbar Senior High on Capitol Hill.
NASA came over, NASA Gotter came over and gave the guys, gave the kids a satellite system and a dish and engineers, and they set it up and all that.
And I used to tune through the bands and found that there was a tremendous oversubscription.
We had satellites in orbit that literally had just dark transponders or bars 24 hours a day.
That no longer exists.
The pricing for a transponder used to be 400 bucks an hour.
Now it's over $1,000.
Because, like anything, if something is scarce, people can get more money for it.
So if you lose 20% of the satellites, there's no place for those customers to go.
CNN has no other satellite it can beg, borrow, or steal.
And the replacement rate, if you want to launch from the ground new satellites, takes a year or two to build and to launch, and you have to build the launch vehicles, and they're backed up on orders for that.
So we're talking about a major economic global meltdown of people basically being kicked back not to the 20th century, but to the 19th century in many cases.
high technology now depends critically on what goes through space over our heads how do we out all of this publicly I mean, we're doing this now.
Stephen Greer and I have been in very close consultation in the last few weeks.
On Friday night, you're going to have him on the show talking about another area of secret technology where Tom Burton has exquisite experience and expertise, the so-called myth of free energy.
When we get back, I'm going to try the same question all over again.
I'm going to take on faith what Tom just told me.
And all I'm asking again is: if any of this is true, and I'm not doubting it, I'm just saying, where is even a simple little toy that we can mass-market and change the way the world thinks about energy?
If you were to take, let's say, a book or something heavy on your console and hold it straight out in your hands, how long could you sit there and hold it straight out before it got heavier and heavier and your muscles got tired and it began to vibrate and you dropped it?
The idea is that we have been run by authority figures who've been telling us the world works a certain way.
They've been lying to us.
Most of them have been lying to themselves because they haven't gone back to Maxwell.
They haven't been able to go back to Maxwell.
But in fact, the world doesn't work the way the theoreticians have been telling us.
And therefore, when you try to take a device to market to patent, if the theoreticians are the gatekeepers, oh, it can't work because the laws say it doesn't work, forget reality.
Forget the fact that the magnet is going to hold the vaporclip up forever.
So the energy's got to be coming from some other unknown source, non-dimensional source.
The device can't work.
You don't get the patent.
You don't get the money.
You don't get it to market.
It doesn't get into the hands of people.
Period.
End of discussion.
And that's why what Steve is going to present to you on Friday night is so mind-blowing.
Because you've got a bunch of people who want to basically give it away.
So it gets into the hands of people, including one art bell.
Now, what we intend to do when we do have a working model, and we intend to have one, when we do have one, it's not sufficient just to produce a model.
unidentified
What we will do, there is a thing called a government-certified test laboratory.
Yes.
All the aerospace firms use this.
When you fulfill a government contract, they don't want just your guys to say, oh, it tests great.
They get this independent certified test lab who gives you what specs it's tested to and the procedures that are used, the calibration of the instrument, everything.
Now, the proper procedure, as far as we're concerned, in our group of eight guys, is when we do succeed in having a working model, we have out here in Huntsville a very excellent laboratory that's a government-certified test laboratory with an international reputation, Wiley, Wiley Test Labs.
And they're going to certify it that with the state-of-the-art instruments and state-of-the-art test engineers, this thing tested that way today to all the specifications that apply.
When you get that, you've got something that you can go to the U.S. Patent Office in, and they will accept that and grant you a patent.
And I would recommend that all the other inventors who are legitimate and not trying to do a stock skim, my goodness, if we'd wanted to just get well, you know, we could have got rich a long time ago by selling stock and, you know, making a nice smooth statement and all this kind of stuff.
The problem has been, and I've been trying to tell these free energy folks for years, if you try to be greedy and try to make a billion dollars in your basement in your spare time, it will never work.
A lot of times, sometimes it's the inventor, but sometimes it's not the inventor.
unidentified
Let me shed a little light on that.
Quite often, the inventor to keep going, you know, it's just like a scientist.
All science is patronized, and so are inventors.
Somebody funds this stuff.
Sure.
And he's got a backer.
Well, a lot of your backers are greedy as can be.
And, you know, they don't understand anything scientific, but they want to make that billion dollars tomorrow, and they don't mind engaging in a stock scam.
So you're telling me that you're telling me there have been so many frauds that you're making the case that when something real comes along, you won't even recognize it.
It's ignored.
unidentified
Well, and the other problem here is by the guys who specialize in going around clearing something up and making a stock.
Okay, and that might be true in the sense that I have always said, and I'll say it again now, that if person X, with absolutely what he considered to be irrefutable proof, came forward and got in a podium and said, here's the real story of how Kennedy was killed.
It would simply be piled on the thousands of theories that are already out there.
And nobody would pay any attention to it whatsoever.
And how long, Art, has it taken me, and how many shows have we done before you get mathematicians and physicists commenting on this paper saying, you know, he may really be on to something.
Now, in the world of C, you know, the suppression world, you don't go to the inventor.
You don't threaten to break his legs.
What you do is you go to the money sources who might provide him the money, who usually have a lot of money, and you say, look, if you put money into this, you're going to lose your money over here.
Basically, it turns out, to make a long story short, if you, in theory we have today for time reversal of waves, if you pump with transverse waves and you have a nonlinear mass, and it'll respond to another input wave that you put in, it'll respond by generating a sort of a crawfish wave that'll back up exactly where this other wave came through space, even through a very torturous route.
Like a mirror image.
unidentified
It's retro-reflection, but very precise retro-reflection.
And it'll do it at an awful long distance, too.
It'll just appear everywhere in space back there that this other wave came and occupied.
It turns out, after 14 years' work, that if you pump a living cell, the mass, with longitudinal waves, not with transverse waves, what you do is you do not make this reversed wave.
unidentified
You reverse the mass itself.
Now, in biology, that's called a de-differentiation, going back to an earlier state.
And what you do is you just back the cell back up to when it was an earlier and healthy state.
Now, this thing actually worked.
He worked on it all through the, and demonstrated in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of lab experiments with eminent scientists working with him under rigorous controls.
What there is is the standard thing that goes in the scientific community, not invented here, and it's the greatest scientific jealousy you ever heard of.
unidentified
And suppression comes from the dogma in science.
It's not a conspiracy from without that says you're not going to do this.
And so they took him back to France and put him into slave labor, although he was an Italian radar engineer.
unidentified
And then they decided they were going to kill him.
Well, the French underground had a raid and freed him, set him free, and some other folks in there too.
But anyway, the rest of the war, he fought with the French underground against the Nazis.
Now, some of the people that were in that underground with him while he was fighting the Nazis during the latter part of the war later became very high French officials.
And so when he started to doing his experiments, he had enough power of his personal friends in the government that the French government funded his work.
The reason the thing got suppressed was in the early 70s, the French government fell, and the leftist government took over.
unidentified
And of course, all his friends were out of office.
And at that point, they got him.
They suppressed the whole effort.
But he actually did that, literally stunning experiments and rigorous control.
I mean, for example, Courier sent his personal PhD assistant, a very fine lady biologist, down to personally do the graphs on the animals to ensure that everything was done with meticulous care and as fine as could be done by the very best.
unidentified
And the work was unexplainable because nobody knew anything about longitudinal waves, much less time reversing the mass.
Only in biology, you would call it de-differentiation back to an earlier state.
Somebody in email sent me a summary or said there is a website with a summary of your contributions and claims, and one of the claims, according to that site, is that the Russian scalar electromagnetic weapons appear to be involved in UFO abductions and reports of cattle mutilations.
unidentified
Well, no, I don't think the scalar weapons are involved in that.
By the way, the Russians call them energetics, energetics weapons.
And the reason I don't think they do is that our own scientific community, for some reason that I cannot figure out, defends this classical electrodynamics, which dates back to 1864.
Strange Iridium Anomalies00:10:33
unidentified
They defend that as if it came down on the stone tablets with Moses off the mountains.
Remember, with the NASA data you've got an anomaly which is unequivocal.
It's there yeah, you've got one of two, but it's.
You know, the two things conflict exactly, and that's the real puzzle.
What is the causative agent that would give you one kind of effect?
unidentified
Apparently I'm saying apparently here, because I have not read those papers apparently on the surface of the earth, where you're doing experiments and yet would give you something different out in space?
Now boy, that's a real anomaly that one deserves full scientific attention.
If we can measure, like their interpolation of values and so forth I'm not exactly sure how they do it, but they can kind of estimate the mass of the universe and and so forth wouldn't they be seeing some kind of change in the mass of the universe as the speed of light changes?
Or that's assuming that the energy constant would be constant?
See in astronomy all the time, from the Hubble data, from the X-ray observatory data, from ground-based data, you see all kinds of wonderful little anomalies if you read these papers that are published carefully, but when you see popular accounts or when you see official press conferences, all these little anomalies are all swept under the rug and the real surprises of the universe are always in the anomalies, the things that don't fit.
I like to think of it by saying that while we may have, in some cases, very good models, the models are not perfect.
unidentified
I don't believe we have a perfect science yet and I believe that what happens with anomalies?
Either you have some other variables that you don't know about that are now starting to change and are affecting the situation itself you have a piece of your model missing in that case or there's some additional cause that's entered the situation.
unidentified
You don't have an effect occur unless there's a cause.
Otherwise we've got to throw away the whole scientific regime.
We believe in cause and effect and so if we are having the effect, there's got to be a cause.
So the question becomes, if the experiments are sufficient to say we have the anomalies for real, and particularly if they are also contradictory on where you're located.
Then the question becomes, we now have let's say, we accept experiments.
Let's now ask the question, well then, what is the cause?
What are, first of all, you say what's a possible range of causes, and then you go looking to see what, if anything, you can find That fits, any of those that you can think of, that would be possible causes of that.
And that's really the way you have to attack the problem.
And that's a problem, a problem of that magnitude should be attacked directly by the scientific community.
As you know, I've been talking to some of these satellite operators now because of the Leonid meteor problem.
And I got some information over the weekend from, again, another source who tells me that people like Hughes and others are getting increasingly concerned with orbital anomalies showing up in the tracking of the Earth-orbiting geosynchronous satellites, which are not conforming to the standard gravitational theory.
And this will show up in antenna pointing and in your ability to stay on the air.
If the gravity constants are changing like the lab data says it is, ultimately, in an orbiting situation, it's more sensitive just because the baselines are much bigger, much longer.
Well, they're not rumors, and what I would appreciate is if you can track the rumors back because our friend from Hawaii, you know, he listened to the entire night, and obviously he's throwing out the experimental observable anomalies because his universe doesn't permit them.
But in fact, the real world tends to intrude a lot, and if the satellites are moving in a non-Newtonian fashion, let me tell you why I can't get any confirmation of this.
Any unexplainable phenomena that's occurring to them is not going to be, unless they know what it is, is not going to be made public, not in a million years.
Hi, I just had a little nitpick with something that Richard said about the Elevatron supposedly revealing variations in the Earth's gravitational field.
Well, why wouldn't this the moon that causes the tides and the influence of the moon and the sun affect the gravitational constant on the surface of the earth at different times of the day?
We're back to the same old question with what's going to have to be the same old answer, and we don't have time for the same old answer because we're out of time altogether.
So, Richard and Tom, thank you both for being here.
We're going to have to obviously do this again, but we're out of time.