All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 15, 2001 - Art Bell
02:41:47
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Time Travel - David Anderson - Richard C. Hoagland - Wayne Green - Apollo Missions
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From the high desert and the great American Southwest, how did you all?
From the high desert and the great American Southwest, how did you all?
Good evening and or good morning and welcome to the program, which I'm going to try to
get underway quick because we have a lot to do.
I'm Art Bell and from Guam in the West, through the U.S.
Virgin Islands in the East, South into South America, North all the way to the Pole, and worldwide on the Internet, this is Coast to Coast AM, and I'm Art Bell.
I'd like to welcome right up front a new radio station, KDGO in Durango, Colorado.
1240 on the dial there.
Welcome to the network.
Glad to have you along for the ride, and oh my, a ride it's going to be.
How many of you saw the The Moon Show questioning whether we ever went to the moon at all?
They said why they believe the whole thing was staged here in the high deserts, they said.
At Area 51, they said, and gave a whole litany of reasons and some fairly convincing video evidence that my pixel people out there When picking apart UFO photographs, would've... I'm telling you, they'd have a field day with some of this stuff.
It was fairly convincing.
I have always laughed at the notion that we never went to the moon.
I still think we went to the moon, but no more ha ha ha.
I'm a little concerned at some of what I saw, and I would imagine many of you who saw it also would have some concerns.
In a moment, we'll explore all of that.
Richard C. Hoagland, a one-time advisor to NASA, and sidekick for Walter Cronkite, and science advisor, actually, and author, and many other things, will be here, but so will Wayne Green, who has staunchly, over the years, always said, we never went to the moon, to which I've always replied, ha, ha, ha.
We'll see.
Oh, that'll be appropriate for what we're going to do right now.
As I said, the program at least wiped the smile and took away the snicker from my face.
Here is Richard C. Hoagland.
Hi, Richard.
Good morning.
Good morning, Art.
I'm having a real flash of déjà vu here.
God, it's great to have you back on.
It's great to be back on with you running the helm.
Oh, well, thank you.
All right.
Richard, I know that you saw the program on Fox tonight, too.
Yes.
In detail.
Taped it.
Good.
So did I. I've got to say, as I said, it took the smile off my face, Richard.
The crosshatch marks, they were just... I'd love to take things kind of point by point, but, you know, they made a fairly good case that we never went to the moon.
That the whole damn thing was staged.
Well, the thing that impressed me, first of all, was that Spock Would actually put a program like this on the air, on the network.
Even going way out on a limb and virtually almost accusing murder.
I mean, well... Yeah, when they got to the Grissom part, I must say that there were overtones of some of our own investigation.
But let's look at the big picture.
This is now 2001.
It's the spring of 2001.
We are coming up, you know, Steve Bass' disclosure curve.
Something is coming down the road a few months from now.
I absolutely can feel it in my bones that something big is going to break.
Well, we've been thinking that, though, for a long, long time.
Well, we will see.
I mean, time will tell.
You're right.
You're right.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Well, if that was going to happen, what you have to do is to get certain people in the agency, in NASA, who have been sitting on extraordinary evidence of ruins on the Moon and on Mars God knows where else.
Out of the hot seat.
And the way you do that, politically, is you put up a straw man conspiracy, which is so easily disassembled and deconstructed.
And then, you know, you watch.
Fox will have a part two.
And we'll have a vigorous rebuttal of what we saw tonight.
Well, they probably ought to, because the rebuttal they had on tonight with the NASA guy wasn't worth it.
Well, it didn't take point-by-point-by-point, which I intend to do.
And by the way, on the Enterprise Mission website, we have a detailed refutation of the whole moon hoax idea.
Is it up there now?
It's up there now.
All right, we've got a link on our site, right by Richard Hoagland's name.
You can go... It's called Moon Warns for Apollo.
And it's a point-by-point... A point-by-point... We missed a couple things, like the cross-hatches on the photographs we didn't get in.
But Mike Barron and I were working up the last several days, knowing this was coming.
We wanted to get something very...
Substantive up, and we're going to do a series of articles in the next few days.
That's fine, but Richard, you missed the most important thing in my estimation of all they talked about, and we'll get to some of the other stuff, the crosshairs that were etched in the camera lenses.
I mean, look, Richard, let's you and I settle on one thing.
Were those faked pictures, yes or no?
Oh, I think they were faked, yes.
You think they were faked?
Well, let's say they were altered.
Faked is different from altered.
Okay, it occurred to me maybe the crosshatch that was supposed to be across the American flag was removed so you could see the American flag.
This is, you've got to go to the PR department, because the sequence of these images and the model that we went to the moon is, you take film of the moon, put it in the cameras of astronauts, they take pictures, film comes back to an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific, picked up, it's flown to Houston, Went to the NASA Photographic Laboratory, run by a guy named Dick Underwood, in Houston.
And what has done there?
And then, prints were prepared.
Because the originals were not prints, they were slides.
Ektachrome-type slides.
Okay, but at any stage, from a snap to development, all I care about is, did they modify those photographs?
Is that hard evidence they changed the photos?
Well, a little bit.
but then the sequence is that some of those and inter-negatives go over to the public affairs office
and they sent them out to life magazine time magazine member was a lot of
print back then to tell you was not a big as it is it is now
so they were preparing hard copy for the print media basically color magazine like life
that guys who were preparing those prints from distribution. We're not technical.
They weren't scientists.
They weren't engineers.
They were PR people.
Yeah, I've got that.
And since Ken Johnston reports that he actually saw airbrushing of photographs, it is reasonable on the model that we went to the moon and that these photographs were altered for cosmetic purposes so that the little cross didn't cross the American flag.
But would you have to look at how NASA's PR was running in those years, and they wanted nothing but pristine National Geographic-type pictures for their best astronaut images. That's the only reason I could imagine
they would alter those photographs.
That is, no, no, no, there's one other reason. And the other reason is the investigation we've
been conducting for the last, you know, 10 years or so, which is that NASA went to the moon,
found stunning stuff, and they had to hide what they found.
So in other words, you think, in other words, your position is you think the
photos are fake. You agree with that?
No, no, no, no, no, no. I said altered. Well, the difference between fake and altered is...
All right, then your position is we did go to the moon. We did go to the moon.
But you think they were altered for A, cosmetic reasons, and B, to take out all the signs of...
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think these alterations, which are so stupid,
were deliberately done in...
In the same vein that you're now a series of books put out by the astronauts that have some very bizarre pictures in them, that are first-person accounts which we look at as whistleblowing, we've never done a show following the Collier debate that I did in 97.
As to what has happened since this has all hit the fan, since the idea that we found ruins and NASA's covered them up on the lunar surface has been in public domain.
So Richard, you believe that the ruins that they found were airbrushed out just the way The crosshair on the flag, or the crosshair on the piece of equipment, was airbrushed out.
Alright, I want to bring on with us, I want to bring on somebody else.
Wayne Green has been, for years now, he's been telling me, we never went to the moon.
Right, Wayne?
Well, I think I've mentioned it a few times, right?
A few times, and I've always laughed at you.
Hi Wayne!
Hi there!
So, let's discuss this crosshair thing a little bit.
Wayne, did you hear what he just said?
He thinks, yeah, they were altered.
He agrees.
I mean, there's no question, because physically the way those little reticles, which are what the crosses are called, were on an aluminized plate at the back of a Hasselblad.
So the light came in the lens, went through the plate, and struck the film.
And the idea was to put the crosses on for calibration.
Well, there's no way with that geometry you can get an object on the lunar surface photographed with a cross behind it.
It had to have been altered on the earth in the darkroom.
So, airbrushed.
You're saying airbrushed.
No, I'm saying airbrush is a general term.
It requires a much more precise technique.
Wayne, you agree with that.
I mean, the evidence was, I think, overwhelming to even the average person that obviously the photographs have been changed.
Well, some photographs.
They showed, what, two or three?
Yeah, I... I looked at hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds.
I have found two or three That we're all this way, and they're all photographs that have been published, not photographs that no one has ever seen before.
The ones we got directly from NSDC, hundreds and hundreds, never have I seen an example of this.
That photograph or two they showed were photos that appeared in, you know, spreads in Life Magazine and National Geographic.
Alright, alright, that's good enough.
Wayne, do you have an answer for that?
Oh, I was kind of disappointed in the program in some ways, Why?
But I thought that particular part made good sense.
That's a good question.
Why were you disappointed?
Well, they didn't make much of a fuss over the lack of stars in any of the photos, even the photos supposedly taken of the Earth.
Yeah, but Wayne, that is a ridiculous argument.
Aren't you supposed to put it to rest once and for all?
Well, put it to rest, Richard.
Okay.
Wayne, do you know anything about stellar and photographic magnitudes?
Yes.
Okay.
You know that there's a scale of numbers, and you can put brightness of celestial objects
on this scale and rank them in terms of brightness.
On this scale, for instance, the sun is minus 27.
The moon is about minus 13.
Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, is about minus 1.4.
So if I'm taking a picture on a brightly lit surface, the moon, even though the sky is
inky black and there's no atmosphere, the stars are so damn dim by literally factors
of millions, and I'll go through the numbers if you want me to, Art.
No, you know what?
Stop, Richard.
There's no way you can take a time-limited picture.
Stop right there.
Look, I've got modern equipment.
I've got high-sensitivity CCD camera hooked up to a third-generation night vision in order to see the stars.
I agree with that.
If you should go out and shoot the moon at night, even with a good new camera, you're damn well not going to get stars, even now, here on Earth.
Yeah, and the photographs taken by the astronauts were taken on the day.
They were taken with a bright, sunlit landscape.
Wayne, so, I kind of agree with that.
Okay.
What about you?
What about the moon rocks?
We did that on your program.
We left the stars now.
Do you generally agree with that assessment of the way a camera would have operated, certainly then and even now?
Well, the testimony that I've heard from the astronauts in near space say that the stars are incredibly bright once you're outside of our atmosphere.
Yeah, that's to your right, though.
And they certainly would be.
If you included an object like the moon, which would be very bright, then you wouldn't see the stars.
You're on a bright, sun-drenched surface, even though it's the moon, and the fact that there's a black sky is what fools all of these amateurs, who have never taken a picture, into not understanding the simple physics that you cannot take with a small latitude film, which the color film was.
You cannot take a picture simultaneously of a very, very, very dim object, a star, And a very bright object, a sun-drenched landscape.
Alright, let's leave that.
That's the key reason for most of these websites and most of the argument, that there are no stars on the moon, and it's a stupid argument.
Alright, let's move on to another one.
What about the shadows?
Remember, Wayne, I was Walter Cronkite's science advisor.
I watched, I lived every single microsecond of all these missions.
Literally sat surrounded by 42, 45, 100 monitors.
I was... You know, there were my colleagues who said that the egg never goes home, and it was because it was the experience of a lifetime.
But you know, Richard, they made the same argument you did.
They said 99.9% of NASA would never have known.
Yeah, but I'm not NASA.
And it's now 30 years in hindsight, and I was there, and I'm here now, and I've looked and analyzed with a team of experts, ranging from geologists to ex-NASA people to photographic people, And I can say, absolutely, we went to the moon.
NASA covered up extraordinary discoveries, and this moon hoax nonsense is a blind alley.
It is a wonderful diversion.
All right, here's another one.
Let's take them as much as we can, point by point.
I thought the shadows were very convincing.
No, the shadow argument is stupid, because it implies that the lunar surface is as flat as a billiard table.
In fact, the lunar surface is as hummocky and as lumpy and as rolling as any landscape you'd find on Earth.
And if you have two rocks sitting on two different levels on a hummocky surface, the shadows will not be parallel.
All right, Wayne.
And on our website, you will see demonstrations, examples of photographs where that geometry obtains.
Okay, fair enough.
Wayne, do you have any argument on the shadows?
Oh, sure.
I found it interesting when the two shadows of the, what was it, Aldrin and, oh, the other chap there, crossed each other.
But more interesting was that the shadows taken with the sun higher on the Apollo 11 trip, where the sun was much higher, were much longer than the shadows on the previous trip when the shadows were shorter.
Richard?
Well, the only mission we ever landed first was Apollo 11.
That was the first mission on the surface, and the sun angle was about 11 degrees.
There was no previous mission.
Okay.
The previous mission was Apollo 10, which did not land, was prohibited from landing.
The mission before that was Apollo 8, which did not land, went into orbit.
So the first landing, and they only stayed about 20 some hours, which was, you know, less than one Earth day, and the Sun moves, because of lunar rotation, about 13 degrees per day, so it was higher on the second day than the first day, but there were no pictures taken outside on the second day, because the lunar EVA was done the night of the first landing, and they left the next morning.
Have you read Do the Wild Thing at 775-727-1295?
Jim for MI6.
Shall we continue?
No, you may stop right there.
Let's move on to... I think, according to the chap from NASA that was on there... No, he was not.
He was a PR guy.
Do you both agree the chap from NASA, as you put it, didn't do such a hot job?
Well, he didn't have editing time.
In other words, you don't know what was on the cutting room floor, what kind of evidence, what kind of specific reputation.
The way this was edited was definitely overwhelmingly one-sided.
Okay.
Here's a point I thought was very well made, and that was the radiation.
In fact, during one of the missions, we had one of the largest sun eruptions we would ever have, and it would have excited the Ellen Belt to the point that they would have been How did the film get through that?
and and and we've been nothing uh... they haven't no will help no problems
how did the film get through that and these are good questions it was a way for a candidate
away for a thin covering
uh... and they showed it almost aluminum foil uh... certainly not you know inches of lead or anything
like that or three feet of lead richard okay on the enterprise website as part of
our discussion of this we have a technical document for nasa called technical
notes t and d seven zero eight zero
apollo experience report protection against radiation by robert english richard benson jay bailey he brown from
the mass spacecraft center in march of nineteen seventy three
Which says basically what?
Basically that it was a non-problem.
And the reason was that the solar flare problem is separate from the Van Allen problem.
The Van Allen belts are high radiation belts trapped by the Earth's magnetic field, basically close around the Earth, about 25,000 miles out.
The reason it was a non-problem is that we zipped through them in less than an hour at 25,000 miles per hour.
And they counted, the NASA engineers counted, on the speed of going through the radiation to minimize the overall dose, which was about one rad, if I remember the numbers correctly.
When they came back from the moon, remember they're accelerating under Earth gravity?
Yes.
So they fell back through that radiation belt at very high speed and spent very little time.
radiation is not the amount of radiation it's the amount of radiation
times the exposure time yes oh yes indeed the totality of the other than the
interesting argument and and in terms of the apollo sixteen mission that flare
i was in houston during the flare and if i remember correctly
uh... there was very little concern because it wasn't really that big a deal it was
it was uh...
It was persistent, it was long over time, but the actual peak radiation, and I was charged with the Cronkite people to actually look into the radiation With some solar astronomers, and I got into a whole brouhaha with one guy who wanted to be on the air, and it was a whole ego thing, and it was very disturbing for me at the time.
But I was vividly immersed in all that, and we were very lucky.
During the entire Apollo experience, we didn't have a major flare that would have really killed them outright.
Now, there were two astronauts, if I remember correctly, who have died of cancer.
Jack Schweiger, from Apollo 13, died of cancer.
All right, so there might have been an effect.
You've got long-term effects, and this was kind of the price of the game.
All right, I'm with you, but the high point of your argument was we went through the belt very quickly.
Very quickly.
And sure, they got radiation, but not enough.
And the film.
Let me get to the film.
All right.
This is the thing that I know most about that I've never talked about.
The film, all right.
Everybody who's written about this, and I don't know whether, Wayne, you've been involved in this, but nobody seems to realize that NASA issued a special top-secret contract to EG&G back in the mid-60s, in 1965, to develop an extraordinary color film to take to the moon.
and i was personal friends with the inventor the developer of that film
who was a man named charlie like off who was the chief film uh... guy and eugene g and often we get that film today
uh... you can get a version of it from kodak alright uh...
finally put conversion on the market i don't weigh in
uh... are you aware of that you know i was going by the information from uh... the percy
book which said that they would look into the film thing very carefully
no they didn't well that's what they say
Yeah, but he's an agent.
Come on, guys.
I don't know that he's an agent.
It makes it very interesting.
What is Percy and his colleagues' agenda in writing that book?
All right, gentlemen, hold on.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
We'll come back and we'll do more.
I was always a little bit wild.
Just to see her, while I'm sad.
This house, all right, it goes to bed.
Don't you think that it's a little too bad?
Come to me, honey, see how I cry.
Why must you hurt me? Do what you do.
Let the nature take the other.
You're lonely mansion with a ceiling and a roof.
All I want's the love you promised beneath the hallowed roof.
But you think I should be happy with your money and your name.
And hide myself in sorrow while you play your cheatin' game.
Silver-plated woman.
Hello everybody!
From the desert of the sea, this is Maggie.
Do you want to take a ride?
But I'd use Maggie to keep it short, because we don't really want calls right now.
I'm going to get back into this as quickly as I can.
Richard C. Hoagland, And Wayne Green are here.
We'll be right back.
Ooh, that wasn't a thunderbolt.
That's the garbage cans.
Oh, well, here we go.
Well, it's very appropriate because there's his garbage.
We went to the moon, guys.
Alright, the film.
Just any further comments, Wayne?
I mean, he's saying that this kind of film existed then and exists now.
You disagree?
I don't have any further information other than that, was it, M3 agent?
I love that.
This film, I mean, I fell into something extraordinary at a very tender age.
I was what, 23, 24 back then?
And I was given roles of this incredible super film, and Charlie told me to go around and take as many pictures under most bizarre conditions I could think of that were possible, which included looking directly into the sun and photographing detail in deep shadows.
You can't do that with a normal film.
And then I would take it back to EG&G and he would develop it.
I took some to the Cape and I actually photographed the liftoff of Apollo 8 with this film because I wanted to test it and see if we could see detail in those incredible plane plumes from those five incredible engines.
I was able to then, at CBS expense, get a chopper to go from New York to Boston to the lab, get the film developed, bring it back so we could put it on the air for Cronkite, And we could see the details of the nitrogen shock diamonds in the middle of the flame plume, while we also could see the crystal clear landscape of the Cape and the Saturn V, the blue sky and the seagulls and all that.
No stars, because there does happen to be scattering of the sky over the Cape during the time they launched these missions.
Wayne, what was the most important piece of evidence that we didn't go to the Moon, in your view, That they didn't put on the show?
Well, of course, I had some extra information from one of my 73 magazine readers, who was the head of their data processing in subsequent years.
Who said what?
And he said that he was looking through one of their closets there for some tape to use, and he found one and put it on, and it was the entire Apollo 11 trip Only the tape was dated five months before the trip.
So you would think that would be the most important.
You know, it's funny, Wayne.
So many times I've heard you say, it couldn't have happened.
The spacesuits could not have fit through the measurements and everything.
I thought that would have been the most important convincing piece of evidence.
One of the things that they did not put on the show that I think would have been very compelling Was a demonstration in a laboratory of what happens to dust when you evacuate all of the air.
And it turns to, like, stone.
And you can bounce a steel ball off of it, and you cannot make a footprint or a tire print.
And tire prints... You're saying the footprints and the tire prints could not have been?
There shouldn't be any dust where there's no air or anything like that.
Well, this is, again, incredibly controversial, and I've seen studies Where they actually have duplicated the lunar surface conditions because you have ultraviolet, you have charging of the surface, you have particles that repel each other that don't cement in a vacuum the way we simplistically thought a few years ago.
So you've got to do a complete simulation and that's a lot of money and no one frankly wanted to pay all that money because they went to the moon.
Let me go back to another point.
We talked about the radiation problem.
Yes.
There was another astronaut who died of cancer, and I just remember when I went to get a cup of coffee during the break, and that was Alan Shepard.
So you've got 12 guys that actually go down to the lunar surface.
Two of those guys, you know, of the 18 that went into lunar orbit... But Richard, the show... I hear you, I hear you, but the show made exactly the opposite point, saying that there were no uh... over problems uh... at all in the long term twenty
thirty years out they died of cancer this is a little bit technical percentage of
people are going to date diet cancer one out of one out of nine on the
average what are the cancer statistics i think i have called you this and he
didn't know it's about thirty percent
you mean in the end in the end people who in the end right now
well maybe that's about right It used to be about less than one percent.
A lot of people die of cancer.
Gentlemen, I'd like your own answer to this question, as short as possible.
Here we are.
Gosh, it's sounding familiar.
The one laughing knows who it's directed to.
My question would be, and I think it's a good one, why the hell haven't we gone back to the moon?
I mean, we've got water that may well be on the moon.
I think they've just about conclusively proven that.
We could actually have a base there.
It is strange, is it not, that all these years have gone by and we haven't gone back to the moon?
I think this also helps explain why they're covering up what they've spotted on Mars.
Because if they let it out that they've spotted artifacts there that need to be looked at more carefully, They're going to be a big outcry.
Oh, let's go send somebody up there to look at it.
And they can't do it.
Richard?
Well, I have a very different take.
I think we haven't gone back to the moon because we were shocked with what we found.
We came back home with our tail between our legs and they've been spending 50 years hovering in their Brookings closet trying to figure out how the hell to tell us that we're not living in a solar system the way they thought they were.
They were living in before we actually went on these various journeys.
So in other words, Wayne, we haven't gone back because we never went in the first place, and you think we haven't gone back because they were so damn shocked at what they found?
Well, look at what happened on both sides of the Iron Curtain in the wake of the Apollo missions.
The FBI, and this I have absolute sworn testimony from engineers that were part of the vast 400,000 infrastructure that built the Apollo program, the FBI went around to all the subcontractors.
And anybody who had a key piece of the Saturn V, they took the blueprints and destroyed them, so we could never build another vehicle to go to the moon.
The Russians went even further.
They literally took sledgehammers and acetylene torches to their boosters and their lunar vehicles, and there's only bits and pieces of scrap metal left.
But Richard, why would the godless Soviets care one whit?
Whether there were things on the moon that would destroy our paradigms and religious beliefs?
Well, because it's more than religion.
It's economics.
It's control issues.
It's power.
We were at the height of the Cold War.
I'm sure someday we will get declassified documents.
We've actually had more from the KGB than we've had from our guys, indicating that there was a tremendous fear of what was found and we basically came home Okay, Wayne, why do you think all these things were so summarily destroyed?
I don't know.
Other than they just knew that they couldn't get out there, and I don't think they had any other choice on it.
All right, this is for both of you.
They postulated that all of this was done at Area 51.
And, in fact, if you look at the area where I live, at Area 51, if you did it right, there is so little difference between what they showed of the landscape and so forth, and what we have out here, that it's pathetic.
I mean, you could... I guess the question is for both of you, could it have been faked?
Could it have been done at Area 51?
Is that Possible.
I'm not asking you what you believe, I'm just asking you if it's possible, Richard.
Well, given enough money and enough secrecy, I suppose anything is, quote, possible.
Well, they had a lot of money.
Well, we had about $20 billion in the constant dollars of 69, which is about $40 billion now.
So, yeah, you had a lot of money.
I go back to all the little things we found on the actual evidence, the data that came back.
Which is evidence of lunar ruins taken by handheld Apollo astronauts using Hasselblad cameras.
How do you explain that away?
How do you explain the little things that were carefully placed almost in time capsules for some future generation to trip over and reconstruct what we really did discover on the lunar surface?
This idea that it was done at Area 51 is fashionable because it's a place that no one even admits exists, and you can't get into it, you can't see what's there, The Soviets released some satellite imagery, which is very provocative, but that proves nothing.
I mean, this show went to the height of lunacy, pun intended, of claiming there were breezes that were waving the flag.
Obviously, the astronauts were vigorously trying to insert the damn pole in the ground, and they had one shot of the flag sitting there with no astronaut touching it, and it was absolutely motionless.
I happen to know that the flag was a two-part affair.
It was a bottom pole and then a top pole to fit it into it.
And then the flag stuck out on a wire at right angles, a stiff wire, and when you wag it back and forth because of inertia and lag, it made it look, if you were wiggling it, as if, yes, it was blowing in the breeze.
Yeah, I absolutely agree with you.
And here's another thing.
When you do a show that puts up fake straw men and doesn't destroy the mock argument, it undercuts the validity and the seriousness of the entire operation.
I've heard that argument about the flag many times.
But I've looked at the videos very carefully.
So have I. And I looked at the live stuff when it was being done.
And I didn't see any way that that flag could wave the way it did.
Well, yeah, but, Wayne, if there was a wire there and he was fitting one pole into another, essentially.
There would have been motion if it was a wire.
Some motion, yes.
But you notice that the flag almost doubled up on itself at one time there.
That's because there's no air.
There's no air resistance.
You couldn't do it on Earth because you'd have air resistance.
Well, plus there's this, gentlemen.
I mean, the traditional view was there's no air on Mars.
So if you were faking the landing, I mean, that would be one detail you definitely would pay attention to.
You wouldn't have the flag waving around in an airless environment if you faked it, would you?
No.
Look, this is an argument which I think is going to be with us for as long as there are people who were born after the lunar landings or didn't pay much attention during the actual Apollo missions.
No, I believed them at the time.
I believed them, too, because I was there.
I was as close as anybody who was a non-astronaut could get.
I believe them, too.
What about Mrs. Grisham?
What about who?
Mrs. Grissom.
Well, what happened on Apollo 1 is a totally different discussion, and to bring it in, as this show did, and make overtones that Grissom died because he was murdered because he was going to blow the whistle on the fake Apollo program... No, I think, and I said it on your show before, Betty and Grissom and her son said it, that we have evidence, independent evidence, that yes, the astronauts were murdered.
They were killed.
But not to keep them from telling anything, but to kill the entire Apollo program.
There were forces in this country at that point that didn't want us to go to the moon, and didn't want to have the possibility of the confirmation with astronauts of what was photographed there by the surveyors, and by the lunar orbiters, and they were trying to kill the entire Apollo program, and they came within a whisker of doing it.
Alright, but Richard, in a way, you're putting forth your conspiracy theory, And complaining about their conspiracy theory, but agreeing with them in substance.
Which is simpler that you somehow convince 400,000 people to participate in a $20 billion boondoggle that went nowhere, or that you actually spent all the money, went someplace, found something extraordinary, which only a handful of people could have seen, the astronauts and the guys in the film lab, And it died there!
And we've got the film!
Machine Boys and Girls, we've got the film!
Richard, I have this old, naive belief that Americans working at NASA never, ever, would have, for any reason, killed our own in such a tragic way.
Who said it was NASA employees?
I can't believe it!
Who said it was NASA employees?
Well, I mean, they were the ones in control of every bit of equipment.
Not really.
The security around Apollo and around all the unmanned missions is so incredibly lax.
I mean, yeah, we were in the Cold War, but it wasn't really taken seriously.
And again, I was there.
I was able to get into places that you could never... I appreciate that.
With just a network credential, I could get into places that you shouldn't have gotten into.
I can believe that.
Wayne, do you have any comment on the whole...
I just keep hearing the opposite story at every turn.
This fellow that worked on the LEM said that he didn't believe that one person that worked at that company believed for one minute that we ever went to the moon.
I talked to a fellow yesterday who said that the daughter of the family next door had an uncle that was one of the astronauts and he said, ìNo, we never went there.î I just keep hearing this from everywhere, and every bit of evidence adds up.
If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and it tastes like it... It doesn't add up.
Show me a piece of evidence that adds up.
This whole stars thing.
You just dropped it.
You went on to something else.
It is the key argument.
Oh, we didn't go to the moon because the moon photographs don't show stars.
It's an insane, stupid argument.
Okay, so I'm insane and stupid.
No, the argument is insane and stupid.
What is your position?
According to the fellow from NASA, anybody who doesn't believe that we went to the moon is a nut.
Yeah, he did say that.
But that was his only answer.
He didn't answer any of the other arguments.
I think that you and Richard both agree.
How do you explain away the fact that photographic film, certainly circa 1969, could not take short exposures showing the lunar surface well-focused and well-lit, and show stars in the same frame?
It just physically could not happen.
And how could you get that film, that sensitive film, through the Van Allen belt without talking?
No, no, no.
You're mistaking two arguments.
Forget the sensitive film.
The film, by the way, was radiation-hardened.
I'm going to put up on the Enterprise website a series of articles on this.
It is so outrageous.
And I told Mike Barron, when we put up tonight's piece, I said, one piece is not going to do it.
This has been a 30-year story building.
Do you know where I first ran into this story, Wayne?
When I was with CBS, with the network, and I had carte blanche to go anywhere in NASA, and they actually liked me, I went from Rockwell, where we had built a whole solar system, to walk people through during the Apollo 11 landing.
And a few days later, we put everything together, hundreds and hundreds of tons of gear, and went up to JPL in Pasadena.
I walked in the door and one of the PR people for JPL was squiring around a guy who was
handing out leaflets claiming that the Apollo 11 experience, which was a week and a half
old, never happened.
It was a fake in a hangar somewhere in Nevada.
That is how old this story is and why he was being given red carpet treatment by NASA personnel
themselves is a mystery that I now look back on and say, ìWhy the hell didnít I ask that
question then?î Wayne, youíve got a good open mind, I know you do, and youíre
willing to look at evidence point by point, are you not, that would suggest we did go
to the moon?
I did not buy into this conspiracy theory easily.
It took quite a bit of convincing and quite a lot of evidence, and as I say, backed up by the information from one of my readers, backed up by this fellow that was down in Antarctica... Evidence from one of your readers?
One of your readers, One Swallow Makes a Summer?
This fellow was the head of information technology at NASA a couple of years later.
He did a thesis on Apollo 11, so he was very familiar with it.
And in his thesis, did he claim that it didn't exist, it didn't happen?
No, no, not at all.
In his thesis, he believed it, and then he saw this tape Uh, which was automatically dated by the computers.
Have you seen a copy?
Yeah, that should have been on the show.
I mean, where's... That tape exists.
Where's the meat?
Where's the tape?
Yeah.
Where is the tape?
I don't believe he stole the tape.
In my conspiracy theory, guys, in my conspiracy theory, NASA itself has been spreading and fostering this rumor.
Well, there we go.
On the way there.
Here's my evidence.
I walk into JPL and they're giving the red carpet treatment to the guy handing out leaflets claiming it was the most bizarre thing you could imagine.
It made no sense and I had no context back then.
I was so stupidly naive.
We all were.
But I couldn't imagine that there would be a multi-level conspiracy so that down the road, when it came out of the closet that NASA had suppressed evidence of artifacts, they could claim Oh, we didn't do any suppression, any conspiracy.
Look at this stupid nonsense that's been around for years that we never went.
See how we destroyed that one?
Well, you know, I think it's interesting.
There is one thing you both agree on.
NASA lied.
I mean, if I were to ask individually, Wayne, NASA lied, yes?
I believe so.
And they're still lying.
And Richard, NASA lied?
And they're still lying.
And they're still lying, you say?
So you both agree that NASA lied.
You just have different conclusions about why.
Well, I don't think Wayne has actually looked at the evidence for the artifacts in specificity.
He has had the time, or maybe even the inclination.
Well, you know what?
I'd like to have Wayne take a look at your point-by-point refutation on the website.
And then the next time I have Wayne on, which will be shortly, I'll ask him about that.
I'll be glad to look at that.
Well, one of the things we have on the web is another piece, which kind of goes hand-in-hand with tonight's piece.
Let me go back one here, give you the title.
It's called, Alan Dean Shows Us the True Colors of the Moon.
The piece on the Fox thing is called, Who Mourns for Apollo?
And then there's a piece on New Mars Space, which we will not have time to talk about tonight.
And then below that, on the Enterprise website, Alan Bean shows us the true colors of the moon.
Alan Bean has done a book, which was released, I think, last year and a half or so.
There's not going to be time for this.
Let's just suffice to say, people can go up and read it, and Wayne will go up and read it, and then I'm going to have Wayne on separately, and I'm going to have you on separately very soon, Richard.
And we'll have lots more time to do all of this.
I want to thank both of you.
You do agree on one point at least, gentlemen.
Say good night.
Good night, Art.
Glad you're back.
Thank you.
All right.
We'll pick that up in other shows.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
Inside that we need so much.
The sight of the touch or the scent of the sand or the strength of an earthquake deep in the ground.
To wonder if there are flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing.
To have all these things in our memory at all.
I'm the user of the car.
Springем вперед.
Wanna take a ride?
Call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
to the Rockies 1-800-825-5033.
First-time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
All right.
Let me get a couple of things out of the way.
We just had a spectacular hour with Richard C. Hoagland and Wayne Green on the Did We Go to the Moon?
dial eight hundred eight nine three zero nine zero three.
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nine.
All right. Let me get a couple of things out of the way. We just had a spectacular hour
with Richard C. Hoagland and Wayne Green on the Did We Go to the Moon show. I've instructed
the network to play that back as the first hour after the show.
When we go into playback, they'll start with the first hour.
So if you missed it, don't miss it, given a second opportunity.
That was a wild hour.
We'll do more on it.
It was a wild show.
Now, for the record, I still think we went to the moon.
Although I must admit that I cling to these leafs a little more tenuously than before.
It wiped the smile off my face a little bit.
Very interesting program.
Very interesting indeed.
Coming up in a moment, it's my favorite subject of them all.
Frankly, it's time travel.
And we've got somebody who's doing the real research.
The hardware research.
He's amazing.
He's Dr. David Anderson.
I had him on shortly before I left last April.
And I think you're going to want to hear what he has to say.
And we'll catch up on what he's done.
All of that immediately ahead, but rest assured, my friend, that that first hour is going to be repeated as soon as we get in to repeat at the end of the program.
Oh, one more thing.
I've had enough fun with you, I guess, on the webcam.
That photograph on the webcam site where you would normally see me live.
Well, I'll tell you what, I'll give you 15 minutes to look at it on the website, and then I'll turn on the webcam.
Again.
But I thought I'd just leave it up there for shock value.
Some listener sent it after the program.
I called Keith and said, hey, why don't we put it up there where the webcam would normally be?
And he said, yeah, that'd be fun.
So if you want to see it, go ahead and see it.
In 15 minutes, it'll be gone.
And the live, real me will be there.
Now comes Dr. David Anderson.
He is a former United States Air Force officer, scientist, and flight test engineer, founder of a company called The Time Travel Research Center.
This company has pioneered the development of a time-warped field technology.
Did you hear me?
Pioneered the development of a time-warped field technology that is demonstrating that real-time control is much closer than most of us realize.
His company and research association are dedicated exclusively to advancing the science, technology, and research that will deliver Practical time control for us all.
Dr. Anderson, his most recent publication is a brand new video called Time Travel Journeys into Time.
This video traces the complete history of our views on time and time travel from the ancient views of time to the latest groundbreaking technologies that are ready to change our world in the most exciting Ways you can imagine.
Here is Dr. David Anderson.
Doctor, welcome back to the program.
Thank you, Art.
It's good to be here, and it's great to have you back on the air.
Thank you.
Just for grins here, because that's about all that are left after the program tonight, I take it you heard at least a portion of the first hour?
Yes, I did.
Where do you come down in all of that?
Do you think there is any sort of reasonable evidence that we did not go to the moon?
What do you think?
Oh, you're going to put me on the spot here.
Yeah, sure.
That's what I do for a living.
You know what's interesting?
The only way I can answer that question is that it's kind of the same way I look at my life now.
Even though my background is in hard science and physics and mathematics, I've learned that by opening up my mind to any possibility that has plausible There is probably nothing I'm more interested in, and I'm not even sure why, than time travel.
wouldn't exclude anything your guests are saying and uh...
i think it's worth listening to
well it's a good answer that was almost like a guy from nasa
uh... uh...
all right uh... you know doctor uh...
there is probably nothing i'm more interested in
and i'm not even sure why than time travel it has always been a core of really really
core fascination for me uh... if we could travel in time you know you know i had a remote viewer on the other night
uh... ed dames who suggested that
uh... there has been intervention
uh... here on this planet that uh... the intervention has been done by those things
that we know as u f o's but not manned by alien
He said, interestingly, rather manned by men.
Not exactly humans as we know them now, but humans from the future who have reached back to try and fix the balance of power by sabotaging a couple of programs that would have upset the balance of power and keeping us from destroying ourselves.
If time travel ever does become a reality, and I know probably you can argue, gosh it already is Art, and we'll get to that part, But would something like that, that kind of manipulation, do you think the nature of time would allow that sort of manipulation?
I think the answer is that absolutely yes.
I mean, there's nothing within our... first, there's nothing within our laws of mathematics and physics that would preclude that from being a possibility.
And also, you look at the evidence in not only our legend, but our legend and folklore are filled with stories about UFO sightings and contacts with aliens from other worlds.
Yes.
by kings princess uh... doctors lawyers uh... common everyday people
uh... and it's could be very possible to be stories are not about time travel
from a distant world but instead that they're from our own future
and you look at the fighting many the creatures that have many human
characteristics maybe they're trying to have your own planet because from
years ahead in the future
in my mind if time travel ever can be or or is going to be
then the obvious question i forget who it was some famous person said well then
where are the time travelers And the answer might be, gosh, we're taking pictures of them all the time.
I've got a very startling recent UFO photograph.
Things that blink in and blink out.
They don't just always zoom away.
Sometimes they virtually disappear.
Who's to say these are not visitors from our own future?
Yeah, that's a very famous one.
It was by Stephen Hawking, the British physicist.
He called it his chronology protection conjecture.
He said if time travel is possible, where are all the time travelers from the future?
He actually presented that almost as scientific evidence because of the lack of visitors.
But you're right, absolutely, there is much evidence.
You know, possibly, you know, these alien sightings are perhaps time travelers from our own distant future.
Where are the time travelers?
They're right here, and occasionally we even get photographs.
Yeah.
There's another commonly held belief, too, now in the scientific community that possibly, you know, any physicist will tell you that time travel may be very, very difficult, but it certainly doesn't violate the laws of our math and physics, the work we're doing, the work we've seen by Dr. Wang from NEC within the last year in superluminal light propagation.
Shows that this is possible.
Alright, a good example is Dr. Michio Kaku.
He's one of our nation's foremost theoretical physicists.
And he agrees that time travel may well be possible, but then he talks about the power that would be required to achieve it, and putting things in perspective, he's suggesting we would have to be in control of the power of a sun, or even greater, power in order to actually, I don't know, bend time or to
go back in time or forward in time, that we could do it when we get to that level.
I take it you have issue with that.
Actually, when it all boils down to being said and done with our research, we can talk
about it.
We can talk about the applications and technology, but essentially what our great accomplishment
is that we found a way to create a time dilation at a much lower energy level.
That is the bottom line foundation of our entire research.
A time dilation at a much lower energy level?
All right, let's hit it one at a time.
Define the term time dilation.
Essentially meaning that the rate at which time passes can be sped up or slowed down is probably the simplest way to put it.
Time can be sped up or slowed down.
Correct.
Effectively resulting in time travel?
Eventually, yes.
Right now, what we're doing is we can create a small self-contained, what we call a time warp field.
Within that field, we can accelerate the rate at which time passes or slow down the rate at which time passes relative to the time right outside of the field.
How do you know you're doing that?
We've actually we've actually recently, about two years ago, well, beginning about three years ago, we brought our first what we call our time warp field generators online.
Initially, in our first years, in 1997, we did work with both mechanical and electrical clocks, and we demonstrated the time dilation effect in 1998 was a big year for us, because we did our first test on a living organism, we actually used a living plant organism, And we're able to accelerate and slow down the life cycles of that living plant organism.
Okay, again, one at a time here.
You just used a term, Time Warp Field Generator.
Yes.
What is that, pray tell?
Well, essentially, the theory that we introduced, it's a theory I introduced back in 1988.
It's called Time Warp Field Theory.
It's a discussion and approach and a technique that allows the creation of a field that will allow you to accelerate or slow down the rate at which time passes.
The generator that we use to create that field is called a Time Warp Field Generator.
And by what means does it do that?
In other words, what kind of field are you generating?
I'm going to just take a stab in the dark here.
Some sort of electromagnetic field?
Or can you not talk about this?
No, I can talk about certain characteristics of it.
Alright, is electromagnetic energy involved?
Yes, it is.
I knew it.
I must tell you, I did a program last night in which I started getting these calls, Doctor, from people who had... You didn't hear last night's show, did you?
No, I didn't.
Okay, people who have had MRIs.
You know what an MRI is, right?
Yes, I do.
Incredibly large electromagnetic fields.
And I started getting calls, Doctor, from people saying, you know, I saw things, technicians who would say, I saw things, entities, whatever you want to call them, and I've seen them for years working around MRI, and I would never talk to my associates about this, and a couple did, and they were told, just shut up, keep your job, you know?
But I've always thought that very large electromagnetic fields, since we're electromagnetic beings after Might distort something in the near field and allow something to be seen.
Now, I realize that's pretty far out, but it relates in a way to what you're doing, because what you're doing also is electromagnetic.
So does that sound so wild to you?
You know, it's difficult to say.
Does it sound so wild?
Maybe not.
Maybe not.
I mean, in our application, we use electromagnetics, but not necessarily in the same way that many people might expect us to say.
I mean, our generator is very similar to, I guess, what I'd call a plasma generator.
More of like a plasma generator that people would be familiar with in a high-energy physics experiment.
So, you're saying you use an electromagnetic field to contain plasma?
Well, actually, that's pretty close.
We have an antenna that induces what we call a high-speed rotational electromagnetic field in the core.
Oh my!
Then we have an injector system that establishes a special environment, and then we use a high-energy laser array to induce the time warp field.
So there is an electromagnetic component, but it's not... When we talk about time control technology, we quickly move to the Montauk Project.
You betcha!
I was going to just stop you right there, and I was going to say, do you realize what you just described is so close to what I've interviewed people supposedly involved in the Philadelphia Experiment.
They gave technical details.
And they had large electromagnetic fields, along with rotating RF fields.
And that's starting to sound awful like what you just said.
Actually, not completely.
We do have a rotational electromagnetic field, but it is a minor part of what we do.
A critical part of what we do is an injector system where we establish We induce a gas reagent into the core of our generator, and then we use a high-energy laser array.
That reagent in the laser array is really what initiates and controls the field.
However, it cannot be initiated without the electromagnetic field.
Once we open up a time warp field, that electromagnetic field, the rotating electromagnetic field we have, really tapers off.
We use it for control, but It's not as important after the field has opened as within the Philadelphia Experiment and the Stories of the Montauk Project.
That was a key critical element.
But you don't necessarily rule out the possibility that in what was described in the Philadelphia Experiment, or even in just very large electromagnetic fields, that anomalous things might be observed?
Certainly, there's scientific plausibility for that.
What's interesting, Art, is that my background is 20 years as a military scientist, doing what I do, 20 years of background in mathematics and physics, but I learned recently, probably about four or five years ago, if we're going to be able to move forward with our research, we have to look at the information on time and time travel from many perspectives.
I've become familiar with many people all around the world, right here locally on Long Island, people like Peter Moon and Preston Nichols.
You hear stories of the Montauk Project, some of them are very extreme, some of them have scientific plausibility, but what I've learned is that there is foundation in scientific plausibility in many of the stories about time and time travel, even outside of the mathematics and physics textbooks.
I talk with people from the Federation of Dame and Her in Italy, a cult that their whole life is based on the study and worship of time.
Well, I interviewed Al Bielek, and I will give this assessment.
I don't know how much of the audience will agree or disagree, but in the early hours of the interview with Al Bielek, he described in great technical detail the magnetic fields, the rotating RF fields, how they did what they did on this ship, and what they were trying to achieve.
And technically, it sounded Truly, it sounded sound.
It sounded as though it were based in technical fact.
Now, as the story continued and it reached the Montauk stage, I thought it began to get a little out there.
But the early stages of what I heard about the Philadelphia experiment, they sounded technically pretty much correct, Doctor.
Yeah, there's actually a lot of information about technical information about the the gassing of ships that
was you know these uh... large electromagnetic magnetic coils that were put on
the ship for maybe the gassing the ship yes i'm undetectable to mine
that's right there there there's there's foundation in the stories
absolutely uh... and and that one thing i've learned is that it's it's
it's worthwhile to listen in this study and for everybody to make their own
assessment but don't close your mind to it because there is scientific
plausibility in a lot of these
all right so a time warp field generator
You have these.
You built them.
You're using them, right?
Yeah, we're actually on our third generation system right now.
Third generation?
A lot of people in this country go, what?
I haven't heard of this kind of research.
What the hell is he talking about?
Third generation time warp field generator?
Why isn't this in the headlines?
Why isn't this on the evening news?
Well, you know what amazes me?
Actually, in many ways it has.
We've been published in many articles, many television shows around the world.
I think it goes back to a comment you made earlier.
You said, The time and time travel is one of your favorite subjects.
What I don't understand is why aren't more people asking this question?
Forget what we do and the research that we've been doing for 15 or 20 years and what everybody else is doing around the world.
My favorite dialogue is people ask what time is.
Well, time is a really curious thing.
If you ask anybody walking down the street if they know what time is, they're certainly going to immediately say, yes, absolutely.
If you ask them to explain it to you, they'll be at a complete loss for words.
I challenge all your listeners to try it with a friend, a family, a stranger in the street.
What's amazing to me is I don't understand why more people aren't asking this question about what time it is.
It dominates our whole language, our life, our culture.
We use it in almost every other sentence that we utter every day, but we don't understand it.
I'm lucky in this regard.
I could ask a lot of people who probably are calling right now, but instead, I luckily have Dr. David Anderson here, who's building time warp field generators, and I can ask Dr. David Anderson, what is time?
And that's exactly what I'm going to do when we get back.
So prepare yourself, and I'm sure you are prepared for that.
Can you imagine, folks, if you could fire back, say, to The Roman Age.
Check out a little bit of the atmosphere, something like that.
we may be able to do.
I'm going to be a bad man.
Dr. David Anderson, who's really doing it and building things like time warp field generators.
And trust me when I tell you we're going to get back to that.
But in a moment, we are going to talk about the nature of time.
I guess it's pretty core to whether time travel is ever going to really be possible.
Dr. David Anderson certainly says a big yes.
Alright, once again, Dr. David Anderson, and I suppose a time-traveling obstetrician would say, first you have time dilation, then you have a full-grown adult popping out.
Sorry.
Alright, Dr. Anderson, I think it is important that we cover the nature of time, what time is, because you must first understand that before you could ever hope to move through it, right?
I think that's true.
My first reaction should be, Mr. Ardbell is very glad you asked that question, and he's going to answer it now, because for as much as I've met people all around the world, I still have not had anybody give me a good definition of what is time.
Oh, no.
It is a fascinating question.
Well, I'd certainly be glad to offer some insights, at least to... Give me your best shot.
Okay, well, it obviously is a basic question to our conversation.
What is it that clocks are measuring?
They seem to measure this...
Unseen medium we call time that continues on with a never-stopping force like that river that drags us along.
We can't fight it moving us through life to death.
In some ways, last time we spoke, I talked about two of my favorite quotes.
One of them is the quote, ìTime is the fire in which we burn.î That maybe says a little bit.
Maybe we don't want to understand what time is.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why we can't answer it because it's so linked to our mortality.
No, I do want to know.
I do want to know, and I want to even know about my own mortality and what may be beyond, if anything.
These two questions may coexist.
Maybe part of the answer is that time is a place where our rational minds bump into our own limitations.
Maybe perhaps what we consider to be time, this medium, is somewhat like the ether we used to thought that permeated the universe.
It's something that's a product of our own biological and cultural evolution, maybe an illusion of our own mind.
Maybe it is.
I've heard various references that make some sense.
In the beginning, biblically, before there was anything, there really could not have been time, because there was no reference.
In other words, if there was nothing, if there were not two bodies, planets, or a sun and a planet, or something moving around the other, there was no reference of change.
So, in a sense, there could not have been time. And so then once the Big
Bang, which we won't bother to get involved with here, occurred and there were
objects traveling, moving away rapidly, there was a measurement that could be made. Yes? Yes, as a
matter of fact, there are many theories out there by reputable physicists that say time is a result
of the expanding universe, or what we see as mechanical time anyway, as a result of
the universe expanding.
Yes.
And that perhaps when it starts contracting, time will reverse itself.
And then, and so, well, maybe it will.
Maybe it will.
And things will start running illogically backwards.
Is that what would occur if that happened?
I'm not sure if I agree with that, but there is, I mean, it is a worthwhile discussion point.
There are many theories out there on the subject.
But when you talk about time being an illusion, the way we look at time, again, is a function of our own mind and biological and cultural evolution.
Just within the United States, look at the history of the Navajo Indians.
They seem to have many ties to many of these subjects.
In their ancient language, there was no past, present, and future tense like other languages.
They always talked about No, you're absolutely right.
I mean, now we even have this atomic clock in Boulder that helps all our other clocks stay dead on time.
But what are we measuring?
What are we really measuring?
We've successfully invented this method, this clock.
We look at it.
It ticks.
It's right or wrong, accurate or not, measured against something.
But is it not really all our own invention?
You're absolutely right.
In that case, there is a mechanical aspect to time.
We like to be able to measure things.
But what really is it that clocks are measuring?
In some ways, time is a label we put on something we don't understand, much like gravity.
We could sit here and we could talk for hours about all the equations of gravity and the forces and all the formulas we have, but what they are are representations Of something we observe.
It's not a definition of why is wiser gravity.
Why do two objects, why are two objects attracted and pulled towards each other?
We don't know the answer why.
And time, in a way, is the same thing.
It's a label we put on something to help make our lives a little bit easier.
Well, with respect to gravity, I always thought we were held on the planet because of its mass only.
But I'm told by people like Professor Kaku that no, we're actually here more because we're being pressed down on Then we are held by the mass of Earth.
So, you know, the experts are a little confused over this whole issue.
They can't really... I've heard gravity defined in an awful lot of different ways by very knowledgeable people.
You know what's interesting?
When we talk about what is time, one of the most interesting people, you could talk about the views of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, but there was a philosopher, St.
Augustine, And he was the first one, and it was right around, I think, 400, the year 400, and he's the first one really to document and introduce time as an illusion of our own mind.
And what's interesting is, when you look at what's happening in the new physics, in the world of quantum physics, and you look at some of the things that are coming out of the particle accelerators and super colliders, They're more in tune with the views of the Navajo, the ancient Buddhist, Hindus, and Taoists that treated time as an illusion.
As a matter of fact, if you talk to somebody who's a master in the Buddhist religion, he'll look at you and he'll be confused as to why you think time moves.
They look at us and say, why do you think time moves?
Time stays in its same place.
The past, present, and future all exist at once.
They're not separate.
I'm sure you've heard the expression, time is God's way of ensuring that everything doesn't happen at once.
Exactly.
It's one of my favorite quotes.
So, we have this thing, but you're suggesting you really believe, as they do, it's kind of an illusion.
I think I stick to the ground that time is really still a place where irrational minds bump into their own limitation.
It's a concept that's difficult for us to understand.
Again, it's amazing to me.
We've known since The 1920s, the first scientific proof came in that time was not a constant.
In the 1940s, it was proven over again 20, 30, 40 ways that, yes, time is changeable.
You look at what happened in the last 20 years.
You look at Dr. Wang at the NEC, who was able to inject the pulse into a season block and actually have it leave before it finished entering.
Absolutely amazing.
How many people are walking down the street today fascinating with, you know, what is time?
Not enough.
Yeah, it's amazing.
Maybe in some ways we shrink all the magic in the world and our universe to the size of our daily routines and material possessions.
I don't know.
But it amazes me mostly that more people are not fascinated or asking the question, you know, what is time?
What really is it?
All right.
That's probably as close as we're going to get.
I mean, that's kind of a quick I've asked the question everywhere and I still am amazed.
I think my favorite answer is somebody told me time is a sphere with wings.
Sometimes the wings fly together and it moves forward, sometimes they fly backwards and it flies backwards, and sometimes they just fly around in circles on itself and it doesn't move.
So perhaps that's the best.
All right, you have constructed, where did you come up with the idea or the design concept for a time warp field generator?
Well, actually, it was why I was doing work in the Air Force.
My specialty at the time was space time physics navigation, why I was a scientist in the Air Force, and we were trying to figure out why our satellites were drifting.
I don't know if any of your listeners would know, but For probably about 30 years, there was a problem with satellites that were in orbit around the Earth.
We had the mathematical models that would show where the satellite should be, but at the end of every year, they were off by one or two or three meters.
Are you referring to, for example, the polar orbiters that could be tracked specifically, or the geosynchronous satellites, or all of them?
All of them.
And anybody who's been involved in any satellite research, any astrophysics, knows this, is that satellite positions, there was this mystery surrounding them, that they knew every year that they were going to be off in position by one or two meters, and it was not due to error of equipment, it was due to some phenomenon we didn't understand.
Well, anyway, we created a mathematical model to help resolve the discrepancy After I left the Air Force in further investigation, we discovered a new relationship between time and energy that became the building block of what we're doing today.
What did you discover?
In other words, why was there this error in an absolute calculation?
Do we now know?
It's a phenomenon of general relativity called frame-dragging.
What it means is that a massive body that spins has a tendency to twist time and space around it, even a body the size of the Earth or the Moon.
And when we came up with our new mathematical model, it accounted for it.
We didn't know exactly how we did it.
We knew we accounted for it and solved the problem.
It took a few years for us to really understand what was inside.
Field frame dragging?
Yes, it's a classical physics term.
uh... frame dragging it just means that a massive body will actually twist
space and time to a very very small degree around it at the uh... body the
size of the earth to the moon will twist it to a very small degree
and now obviously the very large planets would
to a larger degree and a something as as a powerful
as a black hole to uh... extremely large degree
yet and something like the sun for instance we know that if we look at the uh...
a radio signal from a distant quasar as it passes near the sun or if we bounce
uh... a radio signal off a planet yes i would have on the other side of the fun or near the
edge of the fun we can actually measure
the effects due to uh... the gravitational effects of the funds
So it doesn't take a body much more massive than the sun or the earth to see the effect.
So the sun pulls it, actually, doesn't it?
Yeah, it actually twists space and time around it.
The element of gravity itself can dilate or change time.
The fact that a massive body is spinning, it adds another small effect to that dilation that is called frame dragging.
Alright, alright, you know I can buy that.
So, taking that as the basis of something that can occur, you've designed the Time Warp Field Generator and you claim that you can actually A change, that's the right way to put it, achieve time dilation, using your phrase, with lower energy levels, how low, relatively, can you begin to see, because after all, even though a planet may not exert a lot of pressure on time and space, you've shown it does exert some.
How do you then distill this to achieve it at a lower energy level?
Well, the planet's got a lot of energy, after all.
I'd like to go back and first comment on your question from Dr. Keiko, and I have a lot of respect for Dr. Keiko.
His work is phenomenal.
His view he presented is a very common view today, that time travel to actually control or alter time rates would take a massive amount of energy.
Yes, as much as the sun might have.
As much as the sun might have.
It's a very accurate number according to classical physics.
What we've done is in this model that was discovered when we were analyzing and solving
the satellite position problems, we discovered a relationship between time and energy.
Maybe I can explain it to your listeners a different way.
We all know, as children, we've held magnets in our hands.
We know that if you put two poles together, sometimes they'll push away, sometimes they
will attract each other.
If you hold them very close in your hands, it works fine.
Well, what happens if you stand on one side of the room and you put the magnet on the other side and you rotate it around?
It'll have no effect on the magnet on the other side.
What happens if you take one magnet and put it in Los Angeles and one in New York?
Obviously, it's not going to have any effect.
Now, if you could build magnets that were, you know, extremely powerful, is it possible?
Yes, it's possible within the laws of physics, but it's very impractical.
Then you take the same time So that's magnetism.
What about electricity or electric fields?
When the first radio came, it was a simple spark that would transmit energy only a few feet.
Could you do the same thing and use just an electric field to send a signal from Los Angeles to New York?
The answer is yes, but it would take a massive amount of energy.
But what we know today... You mean an electric field?
You mean, for example, the old spark generators?
Exactly.
They were gigantic electric fields, very wasteful, very broad.
Very powerful.
They would do the job, but not really very well.
Not really very well.
But when it was discovered that there was a coupling between an electric field and a magnetic field, what we call electromagnetic waves, which your listeners, many of them, are tuning into if they're not getting a real audio feed off your website, once we discovered that, now I can take in my hand A small battery, a single 9-volt battery, put in my hand, a power transmitter that can send electromagnetic waves millions of miles into space.
You're exactly right.
That coupling, before when there was just magnetism and electric fields, it was infeasible.
Within the laws of physics, it would be possible, but it was not practical.
All we've done is discovered a coupling, just like between electricity and magnetism, between time and different forms of energy that allow this to happen at a much lower power level.
Alright, I understand the analogy.
It's a really good one.
You're absolutely right about that, but I don't understand the specific thing that you have done that has allowed this.
Well, the specific thing that we've done is we've created what we call a general relative,
you know, when you talk about dilating time, people always talk about special relativity
and general relativity, meaning that you can dilate time two ways that are accepted today
with very fast speeds or very heavy gravity.
Our field is more along the lines of a general relativistic effect.
Essentially, though, you ask about the generator, we have an antenna configuration, we introduce
this rotational electromagnetic field.
It's very large.
It's probably about seven meters high, the antenna configuration itself, so about 20
feet.
The Time Warp Field Generator itself, we have injectors that inject a gas reagent that help
us create a very large amount of energy.
When we initiate a field, we require a lot of energy.
And you're talking just about an electromagnetic field, right?
Yes, this is a rotating electromagnetic field.
We set that environment up, we inject the gas reagent, then we inject, we have a laser array of 12 high-power lasers around the core of the field, and we use those lasers to excite the reagent to create the amount of energy to open up the field.
Once the field is opened up, the power on the lasers is pulled back a little bit.
The rotational electromagnetic field becomes a less important component.
Initially, though, the electromagnetic field is important to make sure we have a stable
field.
And then all of this is...
You actually have an antenna?
You load this into some sort of radiator, some sort of antenna?
Actually, the antenna, the tent itself, we have 16 elements around the generator that
help create the rotational field in a way that will contain...
I'll just say contain the energy better as we open up the field.
What have you actually created?
I understand you're using the rotating magnetics, you're using the lasers, and then you have created something and you can back off the energy levels and the creation continues.
What did you just create, Doctor?
What we created was, let's just say, it's an area within space where within That area, and it's a spherical field, within that spherical field is an area where time rates will pass slower or faster depending on how we set up the field.
Good Lord!
What sustains this field after you backed off your power levels?
In other words, you're into some sort of creation here that I'm almost grasping, but I'm not quite there.
What sustains this when you back off on the power levels?
Well, the sustaining part of it is not as confusing to us.
Essentially, when we open up the field and it becomes stable, when we back off the power, the laser array we use, we modulate the lasers that we use to maintain the field.
We have an array, as I mentioned, of 12 of them around the field today.
They're used to control and keep the field stable.
We have a gas reagent.
Sometimes during a test, we have to actually re-inject a gas reagent into the field to keep it stable, but it's mostly primarily used to open it up.
But you've started something that you can then back away from and is self-sustaining to some degree, right?
Yes, it is.
It's very self-sustaining.
The only thing that maybe in some areas that we have some questions is when we create this field, It becomes a little confusing to us because we start not understanding what we see in terms of power levels.
As a matter of fact, there you are.
Doctor, hold it right there.
We're at the top of the hour.
we'll be right back folks especially in view of what Ed Dames had to say which was
fascinating no matter what you think about Ed Dames
Thanks.
This is an interesting UFO photograph.
Just go to my website, www.arto.com.
Go to the What's New area and click on, let's see, what does it say there?
It says, New UFO Picture from a Digital Archive.
Duh!
Shouldn't be too hard to get to, right?
Take a look at that and let me know what you think.
All right?
Now, back to Dr. David Anderson, who's located way back east.
Where are your laboratories?
Our laboratories are located in Long Island, New York.
Interesting place, actually.
A lot of interesting and sometimes worrisome research is being done on Long Island, isn't it?
Well, yeah, I guess the Brookhaven labs here sometimes get a lot of attention for different things, but actually it's a pretty quiet place.
What do you think about Brookhaven?
I mean, is there the possibility, just very quickly, that they could push a button and we could suddenly Have a minor bang, which would be all it would take.
I don't think so.
Sometimes people ask us that about our facility.
They're afraid we're going to open up a black hole that's going to destroy the Earth.
I don't think that's a possibility, actually.
Okay.
All right.
I want to go right back to where we were.
We were talking about the field that was created, and then you're able, of course, once the field is created, to back off on power levels, and there is some aspect of this that you don't fully understand.
Yeah, that's correct.
One of the things that I would first say to Azure listeners is not to challenge these ideas, but to challenge themselves a little bit.
When you ask about the technical description, what we have is like a plasma field generator.
A plasma field generator is nothing new.
It's been around for a long time.
What we found a way is that in the boundary area, The outside of this plasma field generally, the boundary area has a unique characteristic that it can actually isolate time rates.
So time can move at a faster rate on one side, but move at an independent rate on the inside.
And that's what we've done.
There's many times a lot of mystique about this and a lot of doubt about the technology.
One of my favorite objections is the objection that To dilate time or to change time rates, it'll take an infinite amount of energy.
Well, let's go back for a second.
Our research has shown clearly that time rates can be changed at a much lower energy level than what's been said in the classical physics.
Look at the other law that just fell only about seven months ago, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Well, guess what?
That has been validated in labs all over the world, that yes, A light wave can travel faster than the speed of light, and when it does, it will move in a negative time direction.
Before, the theory was, for anything to move faster than the speed of light, it would be impossible, because it would take infinite energy.
Now, a light wave has no mass, so there's not that type of energy, but the concept that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is a dead one.
Now, all the textbooks will tell you differently, but... Well, I thought your other analogy was very clear.
The one that Talked about, for example, a spark transmitter that's this blunderbuss making just noise all over all kinds of bandwidth, throwing it out all over the place.
And yeah, you can get from here to there, but you've got to use enormous amounts of power to achieve it.
And you pointed out you can take a little 9-volt powered transmitter on the right frequency and hear it on the other side of the globe.
So, I mean, you're exactly right.
I understand the theory of what you have done here.
I don't understand, and I guess you don't fully either, what keeps that field going when you back away on it.
That would seem to defy the laws of physics.
Well, what's interesting is there are certain things we do understand.
We know that inside the field, when we do certain things outside the field to modulate it, that we can create certain performance, that we can accelerate time rates or we can slow time rates inside the field, actually make time move faster or slower.
We know we can do that.
We can reproduce it.
It's very predictable.
What we don't know is necessarily all of the whys.
We also know that we see energy fluctuations.
When we pull back on power after we open up a field, we know That according to the laws of physics, we understand that it should take X amount of power to keep the field open.
Precisely.
What we see is sometimes requiring more, but sometimes requiring less power.
Now that's what really fascinates us because when we open up this field, we have a field open that's being sustained at a lower power rate than our understanding of physics and our time warp field theory says is possible.
So what does that mean?
It means maybe our equipment is wrong, or our equipment is out of calibration or incorrect, and it's not.
Maybe the laws of physics are wrong, which we don't believe so, or the laws of quantum mechanics, which we don't believe that either.
You can do it reliably, repeatedly, or you said sometimes.
Oh, okay.
When I say that, what I mean is that we can create, when we create a time warp field, We can, I'll say it simply, we can adjust the time rate inside the field.
We can speed it up, maybe to about a factor of three to four times the time rate outside of the field, so we can actually make time pass three times faster inside the field.
We can slow it down.
When we slow down too far, the field becomes unstable.
When you slow down too far, the field becomes unstable?
Yeah.
Does that suggest...
That ultimately, time travel going forward is going to be easier to achieve than going back.
Oh, actually, that's a very accurate statement today, even without any knowledge of our research or any of the other research going on around the world.
Yes, time travel in a forward direction is much easier and much more achievable today than time travel in a reverse direction.
Alright, here's the next question I want to ask you.
We'll leave the field for a moment.
Let me ask you, how do you prove that you have accelerated or decelerated time?
How do you do that within this field?
We've done it with, I'll say, three ways, and we're underway with our fourth way right now.
The first thing that we did in 1997 and 1998 was to do a lot of work when we brought our first time warp field generator online.
It was small, but it was enough to do the first experiment.
We were able to demonstrate it with clocks, let's just say reference clocks.
One clock outside of the field, one clock inside of the field.
We were able to measure the time rate differences inside and outside of the field.
You're telling me you could actually see a clock in the field either running slower or
faster than the reference clock?
Yes, and we did it not only with electronic, but also with mechanical clocks as well, because a lot of people talk about the magnetic field effect on electronic equipment.
That was our first demonstration, which was really our big breakthrough.
Before you leave that one, how much difference in time could you observe?
Well, not that it matters a lot, but because it just demonstrates it, period.
But how much?
Let me introduce a term because it's easier to talk about this way.
If we have a field, outside of the field, we call the rate at which time passes the reference time rate.
That's the time rate that we're seeing right now.
Inside the field, we are able so far, stably, to accelerate the time rate 300% inside the field, which means a factor of three times faster, which means when one hour passes outside of the field, we can have three hours pass inside.
Yeah, and we've been able to stably slow the time rate in the field down to about, I'll say about 35%, meaning that we could slow the time rate inside the field to that point, 35% of the reference time rate.
So when 100 minutes pass outside, we can have 35 minutes passing inside.
Well, that's incredible.
Absolutely incredible.
Oh my God.
And so then when you take the clock out, There is, in one instance, a 300% difference, and you're sitting there looking at two clocks with that much difference?
Yes, absolutely.
In some cases, when we initiate the field, you can't always visually observe the clock inside the field.
The field has a characteristic of Doppler energy up or down, mostly because of the time rate and the boundary of that plasma field.
When it does, sometimes the visual I think everybody's pretty much familiar with the Doppler effect, the shift in frequencies.
Yes.
At time, when you go across a boundary layer that has a time rate divergence, it has the effect of Doppler in frequency.
So sometimes, when we adjust the field, you actually see an object appear to its frequencies, including its colors, to shift, which means eventually they'll shift out of the visible spectrum.
It looks like they actually disappear, but they don't.
Oh my God, really?
So, in other words, at least Visually, on occasion, the clock in the field to the eye disappears.
That's correct.
That's correct.
Matter of fact, a lot of people, we started a project when we first started this, we called it Project Dark Star, and everybody thought it was a sinister weapon of mass destruction.
The reason we called it Dark Star is that one of the first things that we learned when we put an object in the field and we changed the time rate in one direction, the actual visible light How were you able to assure yourself?
Because it must have been a really big question.
colors would start changing and eventually the light signals, the color, the visual optical
image of that object passing through the field would be doppled down so far up so far that
it would actually disappear and the field would become black.
How were you able to assure yourself because it must have been a really big question. Somebody
standing there looking at this one, oh my God, look at that.
Then the next thing would have been you would have wanted immediately to know is the
object still physically there.
Your answer is yes.
How did you find that out?
Well, I think we know it's physically there.
The answer is yes.
We're virtually certain, I'd say 99% certain, that the object is still physically there.
One of the most interesting examples we do, we use a mechanical clock that involves a series of rolling and dropping metallic balls.
And when we create that slowed time rate in the field, just before the object becomes not visible, you can see the mechanical clock functioning at a lower speed.
And you can see objects falling, these metal balls falling in the clock, actually slower and unnoticeably slower than they would if you were holding them outside of the field.
And again, it's due to the time rate divergence.
And that's a real powerful, that's probably from a From an experimental standpoint, it's the most worthless experiment.
But from an emotional impact, when people see that experiment, they freak out.
Freak out.
I would.
God, I'd love to see that.
And then it virtually, to the eye, disappears.
Would it disappear to a camera as well?
Absolutely.
Because all it is is visible light.
And actually, this doppling effect is a huge problem we have.
Because you've got to remember what we have.
We have a 12 laser array firing into this field generator.
Right.
Okay, it Doppler's energy, you know, our laser energy, when we are accelerating the field, the time rate field, when the laser energy hits the boundary layer, that plasma field, I'll call it a plasma field, it's Doppler'd up, which means very quickly it can get to ultraviolet and eventually gamma radiation, harmful radiation.
So when we accelerate time rates and we have a living organism inside the field, We essentially are putting it in a radiation cooker when we try to go too fast and accelerate time rate.
And doing that more stably with lower power is important to us.
All right.
That was the first experiment.
Now, I'm going to sidetrack you for just one second because, again, I'm blown away.
I have this character, Dr. Anderson, out in KCMO territory.
About 25 miles from KCMO, our affiliate.
And I've got to tell you, I called a madman Markham.
He was a young fellow who tried to make a time machine.
And you know what he did?
He eventually went out and stole a whole bunch of power company transformers.
Alright?
For which he went to jail.
I mean, I talked to his parole officer.
The guy actually stole these transformers.
I'll hook them up backwards to create this gigantic voltage, put together an electromagnet affair, and modulated it with lasers, and claimed that he was going to be able to time travel.
He had actually thrown, I forget, a screw or a nut through it or something, the first model he made, and the damn thing disappeared, and then reappeared.
Now this is a, you know, a wild-ass story.
I admit that.
But it starts to sound an awful lot like, or at least close to, some of what you're doing.
That's interesting that you say that, because you're right.
On the surface, it sounds like a wild-ass story.
Now, people say our experiment is like the technical description of the Philadelphia.
It's absolutely nothing like it.
We're using lasers to create the energy, not the electromagnetic field.
We're more similar to a plasma generator than a magnetic field.
A pure, simple magnetic field, but what you're describing that Madman Markham did has much more correlation to what we're doing.
Well, again... He sounds like an interesting person.
Oh, he was a very interesting person.
Why do I say was?
Because, as I said, he lived 25 miles outside Kansas City.
I had all kinds of contact with him.
He had rented a warehouse, had purchased a bunch of... Some of my listeners helped him.
He got these giant transformers.
He was making this gigantic model, and for a mystery, we've never heard from the guy again.
I mean, he's flat gone.
It's been years now.
And that's exactly what he was working on, these giant magnetic fields modulated by lasers.
And I couldn't resist.
It just sounded just like what you're doing.
Maybe he'll show up one day when you least expect it.
He said that.
And I thought that when he walked through this thing, he would either Turn into so much ash, or maybe he achieved what he was trying to achieve.
The guy had gonies.
Do you know that that's our biggest problem too, is that when you say, when somebody steps into something like this, turning into ash, when we did our testing on living plant organisms, bacteria, one of the problems that we've had is... Was that number two?
Yeah, that was actually plants were number two and the bacteria was number three, but The biggest problem is that we're putting so much energy into this, we have to be very careful or we create a radiation cooker, which is very harmful to a living organism.
Well, when you tried it with plants and then you set an organism, what happened?
Well, what was interesting, when we first did our experiment with plants, we have a spherical field.
Initially, when we started our experiment, only those seedlings that were located at the very core of the field survived the experiment.
Now, as we get better and better with the field, you know, when we did our first test, we used a set of seedlings that had a very predictable germination and life cycle, and we were able to demonstrate, you know, the acceleration and slowdown factor, but we also, at the same time, destroyed 90% of the sampling of seedlings that were inside the field almost in every experiment.
But in the 10% you did not destroy, what were you able to demonstrate?
We were able to clearly show that the That we were able to alter the time rate.
The species, I can't remember the name of the species, the Latin name for it, but we have consultants who help us with this, but had a very, very predictable germination cycle and life cycle.
We were able to show that the samples inside the field versus the samples outside of the field experienced a much greater time rate and a shorter life cycle and vice versa.
I take it because acceleration is easier Then the reverse, that you would accelerate them would be your best demonstration.
So, in other words, a seed put in there versus the control seed outside the field would be well into germination?
Yes.
You know, actually, accelerating time rates in our tech, not just when you talk about high-speed rocket ships to the future, it's always time travel to the future is easy.
Accelerating a time rate is easy for us.
The only limitation we have Is the amount of power that we're putting in it so high that again, when we accelerate time rates too much, the upper limit, we can go, we can go, we can accelerate time rates inside the field as fast as we want, but at 300% there's enough energy that it's going to kill any living organism inside of it.
At 200%, 250%?
Now, do you think, since you're constantly working on ways to refine this and therefore
use less energy, do you think that ahead there's going to be a way to use less energy, achieving
greater effect or more time dilation?
Absolutely.
As a matter of fact, our first time warp field generator, a short story, had a field size
of only three to four centimeters.
When we moved the field size from three to four centimeters up to 30 to 40 centimeters,
we cut the amount of power needed for that ten times larger field by a factor of ten.
So we increase the field size ten times, but we cut the power by ten times because we learn more.
Holy smokes.
Now, listen, we're at a break point here, Doctor.
Hold on, we're at the bottom of the hour.
Do you believe all of this is going on right here in the good ol' USA?
Good ol' USA, right in Long Island?
And we've got the man who's doing it, Doctor David Anderson.
So you might just be hearing something new tonight.
Are you surprised by what you're hearing?
Intrigued?
I am.
Stay right where you are.
This is Coast to Coast AF.
All right.
I can't resist.
Dr. David Anderson doing a fabulous job tonight describing his research, laboratory research ongoing right now.
Dr. Anderson, are you there?
Yes, I am.
All right.
Here's this curious guy who's still awake after having a No doubt an invigorating, hormone-producing debate in the first hour, Richard C. Hoagland.
Well, I'm up working on a new book.
Alright, so a couple of questions, right?
Yeah.
Dr. Anderson, I heard you about a year ago when you were on an art show the first time, and I tracked down your website through key links, and I couldn't really find any specific information In tonight's interview, you're providing a lot more details, but the thing that I want to know is, have you ever heard of the work of a Dr. Bruce DePalma, brother of the famous director Brian DePalma, a physicist, who about 20 years ago was duplicating, or actually you were duplicating what he did, replicating a very similar phenomenon
With purely mechanical rotating systems.
What did, what exactly did he do, Richard?
What was involved?
He basically took a radio, not radio, a record changer turntable.
Standard, you know, one of those old Victrola types.
Right.
And he put it under, with proper shielding, an FM receiver.
And he rotated it at 33 RPM and 78 and 45 and all that.
And found that there was a distinct frequency drift that went away when he stopped for rotation.
You mean a Doppler shift?
Not well.
No, there was a frequency shift in the received frequency of primary stations on the dial.
That could be described as a Doppler shift.
Well, a Doppler would be if there had been motion, relative motion between... Well, you've got motion, though.
You've got the turntable going round and round.
But there's no, in other words, you don't have a motion between the receiver and the turntable, the turntable sitting under it.
You know, kind of like right angles.
Anyway, that was one phenomenon.
All right.
Have you heard of that work at all, Doctor?
You know, no.
Well, have I heard of similar work?
Yes.
Have I heard of Dr. De Palma?
No.
The similar work I've heard of in the former Soviet Union, they did a lot of work with
small metallic rotating cylinders, half immersed in water, and trying to...
I mean, there's many attempted documented papers out available on the internet and other
sources about some of that work, but I'm not familiar with Dr. Palmer now.
Okay.
His other experiment was he took a Bulava Accutron watch.
Remember those?
Sure.
With a little tuning fork?
Yeah.
And he did the same thing.
He just sealed it so there was no electrical potential problems.
And when he rotated it, the Accutron would change time.
It would change relative speed.
It would slow down.
He was not, in these experiments, able to accelerate the phenomenon, much as you're reporting tonight, but he was able to retard it and compare the Accutron after the run.
You know, I forget what the numbers are.
They're available on a website.
The actual stuff is published.
I can email you the links tomorrow so you can take a look at it.
But it was significant, and I've been trying for years to get some folks to replicate it.
Because it demonstrates that one can interfere with this energy relationship we call time at much lower energies than the standard guys like Kaku and others think is possible.
All right, well listen, Richard, thank you.
Well, there's one other one.
One other one, okay.
The most interesting one is the biology.
Because he put ordinary lawn grass on top of the turntable.
The lawn grass was stationary.
There was a metal shield to shield from electrical effects.
The turntable rotated at the 33rd RPM for several days, and the control experiment in a dark room with ambient light so there was no phototropic effect had a similar gadget sitting, you know, still with grass growing over it, non-rotating.
And the grass growing over the rotating turntable grew in a very particular geometry, and faster and farther than the grass in the control.
All right, Richard, as always, thank you, my friend.
We'll do a whole show soon.
Excellent.
Richard, it was nice speaking with you.
All right, well, so some of that does kind of sound like some of what you have done, although using a different plan.
Yeah, what's interesting to me is, in some ways I show my conservatism more from the classical physics world, but what always amazes me in the former Soviet Union, Many facilities, many research centers were doing work with mechanical systems to accomplish time dilation, and I've got to admit that I'm not an expert on the mechanical end of systems.
I can talk more about classical physics from the electromagnetic relativistic... Alright, again, your first experiment involved clocks, and that was very dramatic.
The second one involving seeds and plants, very dramatic.
And what was the third and the latest?
The third, we've been working with different strains of bacteria.
We've demonstrated on a living plant organism that our field, other than the 90% kill rate, can actually accelerate a process in a living plant organism.
Now we're moving on into single-celled organisms and different types of bacteria.
We have not made A very controversial point with us surrounding us.
We have not made, nor do we intend very soon, to make a step to vertebrate animal testing, which is a big move.
That's something that's not on the horizon probably for at least a year or two.
You know, that's really interesting.
There's a great deal, it's very controversial, of animal experimentation that goes on.
Why are you hesitant yet to give it a try?
I mean, after all, Just an animal.
I'm taking a position I don't believe in.
I'm just throwing it at you.
Why is it not irresistible for you?
Well, it is.
What's interesting, it is very, very tempting to us.
First off, we know that we can produce repeatable performance and results inside our field.
We know we can do that, but we don't understand all the reasons why.
Like I said, sometimes we don't understand why It requires less power than we expect it to.
We also have the risk to living organisms.
We would like to understand more about why the field does what it does.
When we slow down the time rate, why does the field collapse and kill these plant seedlings?
The reason why the plant seedlings are damaged is because the boundary of the field actually collapses, so the core of the field becomes much smaller.
Any plant seedling outside of that smaller core gets cooked or is damaged, whichever way you want to look at it.
So you don't feel you have sufficient control of it yet?
That's one.
First off, I want to understand it better, and so does everybody on my team.
Second off, we already have enough attention in different groups who think that we as a human race should not be experimenting with time, just like with genetics and cloning.
And nuclear power, even though that's an older story, there are groups that protest.
If we moved on to vertebrate animal testing without... Yeah, I know you'd be in trouble.
But those who say you shouldn't even be investigating this area, they're full of it.
What do they know?
Well, you know, the benefit of this technology for good applications, everyday applications, it really is staggering.
Well, could this ultimately lead, in your opinion, to real-time travel?
By that I mean I hop in a chair surrounded by this field that you now have under control
in some years and I can actually go to three years away.
Three years hence, I'll pop out on the other side and I'll be three years in the future.
I think eventually it will be seriously possible.
There's no reason why it wouldn't be possible.
However, I think in the next four or five years, the applications that will be seen will be more using time-controlled fields to accelerate research, medical, using a time warp field to slow down disease progression or for disease treatment is probably the hottest area that That we have attention and are doing research on right now.
Okay, fine.
But you're not ruling out what I just said.
I am not ruling out what you just said.
As a matter of fact, if any of us, it's kind of for us, it's the holy grail of space-time physics to be able to actually jump into a field and... Okay, Doctor.
Okay, Doctor.
If I were to do that, and now we'll enter the realm of speculation, specifying that, having specified that, If I sat in this chair in the field and I went three years into the future, what would you see in the chair after I left?
What would be seen in the chair after you left?
At that rate, when you went into the field, I'm talking purely optical now, I'm not talking about moving into a parallel universe or anything like that, purely optical.
I would now, for all intents and purposes, not exist in this timeline.
We would see the field become black and essentially you disappear.
We wouldn't be able to see you.
The field would have a very opaque appearance.
So I would now, for all intents and purposes, not exist in this timeline?
I think physically you exist in this timeline, but essentially you move forward three years,
but maybe you move forward in the three years outside of the field, maybe only in two days
inside the field.
So in your time you pass two days and then you come out on the other end three years
later.
Where would I land in three years, assuming you still have the seat there?
I guess I'd land in the seat.
But if your lab got in financial trouble and they put a shopping center in...
What would happen to me?
Well, being that you're still in the same physical universe, you're just inside a field that is blocking the optical path because of the doppling.
I'll make you a promise, Art, if you jump in the field and we have to sell the lab, we'll make sure we turn the field off and let you step out before we just... I know, but still, in all, if the field were to stop, I would be instantly back Or could I go to the future and stay there?
there.
Wells time machine movie?
Of course.
Do you remember when he pushed the lever forward, he saw things racing by him?
passes on the idea i guess you're gonna come out age two days
uh... do you remember the h g wells time she movie of course okay
do you remember when he pushed the lever forward he saw things racing by him
he saw events of course he went very far into the future but
things raised by him if art was sitting in the seat and you will have the field
going what would art
c What would you guess that Art would see?
First off, I think you would see nothing while you're inside the field.
You would see nothing through the boundaries, again because of the Doppler effect.
Anything that was visible light outside of the field.
Initially, if you were moving, if the time rates were only accelerated or slowed down to a small degree, You could see through the field boundary.
We can do that today.
But if you're talking about putting a person inside a field generator that size and accelerate them so they can move forward or backwards in time, you're really talking about a doppling effect that's not going to let you see any visible light through the field.
All right, as the technology presently exists.
That is correct.
Okay, but all right, then let's reduce it down to a smaller acceleration.
If I were sitting inside the field, not cooking to death, Okay.
And I was able to see outside the field.
What would I see?
Would I see you moving very slowly, or would I see you moving very fast?
Okay.
It depends on which way we accelerate the field, but in one case, yes, you would see the motion outside of the field being slower, like when we do the mechanical clock with the dropping metallic balls.
And the other hand, you would see objects moving faster and people moving faster outside of the field.
Do you think that's all?
You really believe it's all within the realm?
Actually, we're demonstrating it today and there's nothing, honestly, there's really nothing extreme about this.
The real extreme thing will be Can we slow down time rate inside the field?
The answer is absolutely yes.
Can we speed it up?
That's the easy part.
Can we reverse time inside the field?
That is something we do not know if we can do.
We do not know that yet.
We believe that the technology will allow putting a living person or animal inside the field and to slow the time so that Why years pass on the outside only a few days or a few
minutes eventually here on the inside?
So essentially you move into the future without aging But what we can't do right now is we can slow the time rate
like that or we can speed it up So you go you age faster than outside, which I don't think
most people would want to do But we don't know if we can actually reverse time yet, okay,
but how about this how about?
The future when your technology is refined when the power levels are much lower and time dilation is achieved with a
9-volt battery And could I conceivably take a field with me
And I guess what I'm asking is, is there any way you can conceive in the future that a human being could move from whatever year they're in now to several years or many years in the future and keep a stable field with them, keeping them there?
Oh, well, the answer is once you're there, you're there.
In the case of the field, if you were inside, theoretically, if you were inside our time warp field, and we slowed the time rate so that only two days would pass while three years passed outside, when we turned off the field, you're not going to go back.
You've only aged two days.
I mean, this is pure classical relativistic physics.
You've aged two days while everybody in the world around you has aged three years.
When you step out, that's it.
You're there.
You're there three years in the future, having only aged two days over the three years.
Maintaining the field is not an issue.
It's not an issue at all.
So I could wait until interest rates got real high, go buy a CD, have you suspend me for a while, just age a few days, come out and collect all kinds of interest.
There you go.
There's an experiment I haven't thought about trying yet.
Actually, we have many, many ideas along those lines, but we'd better not go there.
I don't mind going there at all.
Stocks, for example, are a little risky.
CDs are a pretty sure thing, right?
So there'd be ways of profiting from such A technology.
There would be, right?
What else have you thought of?
Absolutely.
Well, you know, honestly, in our heart, we all sit around and we joke when we have the time, which we have very little of, but we really hope that the first fielded applications in the next few years are going to be in research, medical research or medical treatment.
Probably not medical treatment because we have to move to vertebrate animal testing, which is going to take about two or three years.
The application of our technology to help the medical research for new cures and treatments for diseases has a tremendous amount of potential.
Well, in that area, just as an example, wouldn't there be great benefit to reversing time so that a disease that had progressed to a certain level could be, in essence, regressed?
Yes, absolutely.
As a matter of fact, that's the One of the biggest areas, and this is really, I've got to tell you, 60% of our research is based on refining the technology and developing it so it can be used for this.
Initially, it'll be used in medical for accelerating cure times in research, in test experiments for development of cures and treatments for diseases.
Eventually, though, the hope is that You will actually be able to use it on a living person for the stasis or the regression of a disease.
You know, why haven't you been on Good Morning America?
Why haven't you been on the Today Show?
Why haven't you been on the NBC Evening News, 20-20?
I don't know.
All of them.
Actually, believe it or not, we have been on NBC.
We have been in the Wall Street Journal.
We do keep a little bit of low profile.
Actually, this year is It is an exciting year for us because we will be bringing all of our research public before the end of the year.
How are you going to do that?
Well, uh... Big press conference?
That kind of thing?
Well, the first thing is a lot of our early work is available under Freedom of Information Act.
I think many of your listeners know how to find that.
Oh, they do.
And they can look up some of the early work prior to 1988.
Alright, Doctor.
Hold on.
We're at the top of the hour and we'll be right back.
But remember, folks, when you do hear that big press conference, just remember, you heard it here first.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
Good morning, everybody.
My guest is Dr. David Anderson.
And we're talking about time travel.
Practical, real time travel.
Has that occurred to you?
It's absolutely fascinating and you may recall several years ago, a man who makes time machines sent me a time machine.
I have one and I have one component of it that I want you to see.
Now, This component consists of a thing that weighs about five pounds.
I mean, this sucker is really, really heavy.
It's an electromagnet, and it plugs directly into the wall.
110 volts.
It's a big electromagnet.
His premise was, you take this magnet in conjunction with the rest of his machine, and you place the electromagnet on your chest and plug the damn thing in.
Well, it's an electromagnet, all right?
It's gigantic, and If it were sitting on your chest, I'm holding it on the webcam.
If you go to my webcam photo right now, I'm going to leave it up there tonight, you'll see me holding this electromagnet.
You can see the cord on it.
I have never plugged it in, nor have I used the rest of the machine yet.
I've always been afraid to, because this would create, and even admitted, it gets very hot, creates a gigantic electromagnetic field directly on your chest.
And I've always wondered whether that was really a good idea or not, you know?
So I've never really had the guts to plug it in and put it on my chest, or put it on my chest and plug it in, I guess in that order.
But I wanted you to see the electromagnet.
I'm holding it in my hand.
If you'll check out, if you go to my website and you click on the left on program, you'll see Art Bell Studio Cam.
Take a look at that photograph.
Take a look at that electromagnet.
Would you put that on your chest and plug it in?
I don't think so, as Ross Mitchell would say, but you might.
All right.
We'll be right back with Dr. Anderson.
We're going to go to your call shortly.
Dr. Anderson, by the way, has got to, I don't know, fly somewhere in the morning, and so we'll have him only here for this next hour, I fear.
You're taking off for someplace, right?
Yes, I have to.
I have to leave here about 6.30, so I have to head for the airport.
All right.
A videotape.
This is something new from, what, a year ago when we talked.
Yes.
What is this videotape?
What's in it?
It's called Time Travel Journeys into Time.
Yes, it's a new video documentary completely about time travel.
I guess the best way to describe it is we try to challenge people to think about time and time travel by taking them on a journey through The entire history, including the real science of time control technology, time travel itself.
We started with the early beliefs about what time was.
We talk about time from the standpoint of philosophy, religion, ancient views, even touch on art, but really move very quickly into the science and technology and a lot of the new groundbreaking research that's being done all over the world today.
How about your research?
Is that in there?
Yes, it's included.
We have more detail on our research in that video documentary, and like I mentioned, this year we're planning on really taking a lot of our research more public than we have in the past.
Let's let people know how to get it.
How do you get it?
Yeah, well, as a matter of fact, one of the things I wanted to mention, if your viewers are interested, we have our association's website is at www.time-travel.com.
Oh, we've got a link up already.
Okay, great.
But how do you get the tape?
The video itself right now is available.
It's just been released.
It's available for purchase through our website.
It'll be in distribution in your local video stores and on the major Major online video shops, probably within the next four to six weeks, depending on where you buy.
No kidding?
Absolutely.
So there's no 800 number to call?
Not right now, no.
Ah, too bad.
All right, so if somebody has a computer out there, they can go to my website right now, where we've got a link.
Just jump right over, and you can order it online, and if they order it, how soon are they going to get it?
It's available.
It's in stock, available for shipment right now, so typically within four to five business days.
Well, then, you're going to get a lot of orders.
I hope your website is sturdy.
Actually, our website now gets on the order of several million hits a month.
As a matter of fact, after your show last year, we were motivated to move to a high-volume server.
We motivate a lot of people to do that, actually.
We were quite impressed last year.
Literally, seriously, we did.
We moved to a high-volume server after your show last year because, unfortunately, we crashed once as a result of all the traffic you brought.
Yeah, we teach lessons in bandwidth.
All right, listen, I've got a lot of people who would like to talk to you, so let's open the line and see what we get out there.
How about that?
Okay.
All right.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Dr. David Anderson.
Hi.
Hello.
Hello.
Where are you?
Mount Healthy, Ohio.
Okay.
Welcome.
Thank you.
Dr. Anderson, I was curious.
I caught earlier part of the show, and you were talking about your plasma generator.
And I was wondering if it requires an MHD reactor?
An MHD reactor?
No, when I said a plasma generator, it's like a plasma generator.
Typically what we do is we use a rotational electromagnetic field in an open air environment.
We inject a gas reagent into the center of the field and then we use a laser array to excite that.
Now the combination of the laser array modulating the different 12 lasers and that electromagnetic field Help us establish and open the field.
It is like a plasma generator.
You're just ionizing a gas field.
To create the initial power required to open the field, yes.
You could say that simply.
We're using that to ionize it, if you want to say that.
The reagent is used mainly to generate the amount of energy we need to open the field.
It's not your classical plasma generator where you're going to have a big The large iron core, cylindrical core, with the heavy electromagnets, it's not the same type.
The general approach is the same.
Your control system, it seems to me it must be a very interesting control.
I was kind of wondering if you're employing a SQUID interface with any of this?
No, but you're right.
The control interface is probably When you look at our research beyond the theoretical and some of the experimental applications that we're doing, one of the biggest, one of the most complicated parts of our system, honestly, is the control.
I mentioned that we had six injector arrays, injectors around the field.
They're actually injector sensor arrays.
I'm trying to think if we have an image.
We might have some images of that on our website.
You might take a look there.
Young lady, may I ask you a question?
Yes.
How do you know enough to be asking these questions?
I'm a physicist.
Great.
Good answer.
Great.
This is good.
I enjoy these types of conversations.
Essentially, on every injector sensor, each of the six, we are pulling in 43 data points.
One of our biggest challenges is our stability.
When we retard time rates inside the field, keeping the field stable is difficult.
We try to do it with brute force.
We read in 43 data points from six injectors.
You can do the math.
We feed that into our control system.
And then we, in turn, try to modulate the field real time.
And it's one of the biggest challenges we have right now because we cannot keep the field stable.
We feel if we could modulate it faster that we'd be able to maintain the stability.
So what we've done now is we're trying to, instead of take those 43 data points, we're looking for key characteristics in that data stream and data signal.
And we're trying to use those instead of the entire data stream to modulate the field.
I have two more questions if that's all right.
Go, go.
One of the questions I had is, are you seeing any residual field diffusion in any of your temporal bubble models or field models?
Okay, when you say diffusion, I can interpret that a couple different ways.
When you say the field... Do you see the field spilling over or becoming unstable at specific parameters or interfaces?
Yes, absolutely.
And actually, this is the biggest area.
As a matter of fact, I hope, if maybe possible, if you have some experience in this area, you might send an email off to the side.
But it's our greatest challenge right now.
When we begin to cross that boundary layer, when we create a retarded time rate on the other side of the layer, when we retard, that's where the field gets unstable, and we don't know why.
What happens is, typically, Let me say the boundary of the field has an outer diameter and an inner diameter.
What happens is when we retard the time rate so far, we get fluctuations in the inner diameter.
When we get that fluctuation in the inner diameter, it essentially collapses when we retard the time rate too much.
And that Doppler effect that is typically constrained in the thin boundary layer of the field now is extended across a wider area of the field, closer to the center of the core.
Our samples are inside the field and they're exposed to that part of the core.
That is where they're damaged.
They're damaged by the Doppler effect.
Because anytime you have a time rate divergence, when you look at it, and you have a time rate divergence across a layer of space, it also has the effect of Dopplering both in an up and down direction, depending on which way you're going and where you're modulating the field.
And that's what we don't understand.
You're using just standard interferomic methods in controlling this?
Or is it a distributed system or a smart system or using fuzzy logic?
No, it's a distributed system.
It's not fuzzy logic.
And yes, we do.
And we have on the injector sensor array six of them.
We have six points outside the field where we use interferometers.
You know what?
She sounds like she ought to be working for you.
You know, actually, in a way, I don't mean to use your show to look.
One of the things that, you know, our background and on our staff here is all Classical physics, classical mathematics, when you brought up the issue of the stability problem, we feel we're treading in an area that maybe we don't have the experience on staff.
We've actually even employed some chaos theory experts to help us understand.
We know what the results are inside the field.
We know what we're modulating on the outside.
We just do not have the mathematical model.
That shows why the field goes unstable.
The mathematical model isn't that difficult, and you can probably derive it from duality theory of manifolds.
Caller, do you think you could contact him privately?
Sure.
It sounds like it's a marriage made in heaven.
Hey, I'm falling in love here.
I hear you.
Ann, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Take care.
Holy mackerel.
I like that call.
I wasn't ready for that one at all.
Alright, Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. David Anderson.
Hello.
Hello Art, Dr. Anderson.
Yes, hi.
Hi, this is the Zen Man calling from Anchorage, Alaska.
Okay.
I had a comment about the definition of time, or what time is.
For years now, I've been meditating and I've noticed repeatedly this phenomenon for about the past 20 years.
I'll call it frozen time.
It's when a clock, if you keep a clock just outside of the Your vision, it doesn't matter what kind of clock, mechanical or digital, I've noticed repeatedly that the second hand will freeze.
Now the moment, the very moment that you become aware of this, of course it starts moving again.
I've noticed doing this meditative practice called Qigong, which is a control of the heart rate, which might be considered the basic organic measurement of time.
Yogis do that, yes?
Okay.
That I might be approximating some level of satori, which might be considered to be the timeless state where the individual's in direct contact with the collective unconscious.
And I wondered if Dr. Anderson had any comments.
Well, yeah, we're moving into the metaphysical a little bit, but it is kind of an interesting question in view of the setup he did on the nature of time as well.
It's a non-mechanical based time effect.
I think it would kind of play into the theory here a little bit.
I tell you, my first reaction is for listeners, and it's surprising to hear me say this because I wouldn't have said this six years ago.
I believe that eventually the ability to travel or transcend time, if you want to put it that way, will not only come from a technological solution, but also probably from within the power of the human mind.
What your listener is saying here is very consistent.
As I mentioned earlier, Buddhist monks will tell you that they don't understand why we think that time moves when a fact that stays where it is.
In that philosophy, I don't mean to bring in karma, and I'm not an expert here, but the thought is when a person transcends karma and can achieve that pure state, that time, past, present, and future all becomes one, and they can see and transcend all time as being stationary and standing still.
All right, thank you very much, and take care.
Sorry, Art, that was a little bit of a long-winded response.
No, no, no, that was just fine.
I thought he was going in the wrong direction, and then it all came together for me there.
These are the Rockies.
You're on the air with Dr. David Anderson.
Hi.
Hi, how are you doing, Stephen?
Hi, I can barely hear you.
How are you doing, Stephen?
Your name is Stephen?
David.
David.
Okay.
I was wondering within the parameters of the device where you're finding trouble on the low end of digression, have y'all tried any pulse alternative to try to stabilize?
And I'm wondering if within the usage of the device at some point in the future, would it be, I mean, maybe this is theoretical, I don't know, Would it be any type of device being able to put at one location and one at the other to use in the transportation?
Okay, that's enough.
Let's hold it right there.
A pulse to stabilize, does that make any sense?
Yeah, actually we do that today.
When I talk about modulating the field with our laser array, we do have a pulse configuration employed today.
Alright.
We're still experiencing many problems with stability when we retard or slow down the time rate.
Alright, what about transportation from one Physical location to another, not just through time, but through space, obviously, as well.
Well, what's interesting is, and people are surprised by this comment, the approach of our technology today, as we understand it, does not allow that.
And many people, that puts a contradiction in their mind, but... Well, a lot of people say... Here's something a lot of people say.
They say, look, the Earth moves in an orbit around the Sun.
The Earth rotates, right?
Yes.
So, if you move somebody in time, have they not moved in space?
And, in fact, the globe has turned while this has occurred.
So, wouldn't there be a physical displacement?
Actually, the classical time machine from H.G.
Wells' movie, The Time Machine, fails for that reason, because if you did have an object that was stationary and moved through time, when you returned, the Earth would no longer be there.
There you'd be in the vacuum of space.
Yeah, and many people apply that model to what we're doing.
Understand what we're doing is completely different.
What we have is a contained field, and we're adjusting time rates inside.
We're not requiring movement through space to accomplish the time dilation, or we're not claiming to have the classical Wellesleyan time machine, if you say.
But essentially, because we have a field, and the time rate divergence is created inside of the field, wherever that field moves, that object is still inside that field.
It is still there.
Very comforting.
I mean, you just wouldn't want to pop out in a complete vacuum with enough time and breath to say, damn!
And that'd be it.
Exactly.
All right.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. David Anderson.
Hello.
Hey, Dr. Anderson.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fine tonight.
How about yourself?
Thank you.
Yeah, I wonder if you could explain to me, physics just fascinates me, and this program is pretty interesting.
I just wanted to know how you could explain how time 2,000 years ago is like the time present today, or did I misunderstand that?
I'm not sure of what you just said.
Okay, he said that the explanation for time, that there was no explanation for time as far as some parts of physics.
Yes.
Could you explain that to me?
Well, if he could, he would have answered the question when I asked him.
The answer is, I think, that he cannot adequately explain that, and I don't really know anybody who can.
It fascinates, because, I mean, it goes on, the day goes, the day goes, you know, and Yes, that's a good question, but I guess I would challenge your listener to put him to the test.
We all know what time is.
We see it every day, so we understand it.
So what is it?
What is time itself?
It's got to be just a day-to-day thing.
Yes, that's a good question, but I guess I would challenge your listener to put him to
the test.
Okay, so we all know what time is, we see it every day, so we understand it.
So what is it?
What is time itself?
It's got to be just a day-to-day thing.
But that's insufficient.
It is day-to-day.
Yes, the sun, we go around, we go around, sun comes up, sun goes down, and we measure.
But is that the totality of time, or is that just sort of our understanding of it as we physically tool around on the planet here?
Well, thank you very much for enlightening me on that.
I'm not sure there was a lot of enlightenment there, but at least we've got the questions right.
I'm just a little confused.
And I'm still kind of confused.
We're all confused.
Don't worry about it.
It's an interesting subject, and I'm all ears.
All right, indeed.
Doctor, hold on.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
we'll be right back.
Thank you.
I made you feel the top.
I gave you all I have to give.
Why did it have to stop?
You've blown it all sky high.
By telling me a lie.
by telling me your lies without a reason why
all of my favorite movies are time travel movies And you must know that Wanna Take a Ride came straight out of contact with Jodie Foster.
We'll ask about that kind of time travel here in a moment.
My, I love this topic.
Absolutely love it.
And I've got several good questions for the good doctor in a moment.
So let's get going.
Alright, back into the abyss we jump, Dr. David Anderson.
Dr. Anderson, here's a kind of an interesting, speculative sort of question, but talk about a breakthrough.
Mark from Canton, Ohio asks, Doctor, could you eventually, as you refine your process, send future research data back in time in order to accelerate your own progress?
Well, the answer to that question is today.
Today, understand what we do is we can speed up or slow down the time rate in the field.
We have not been able to reverse time in the field.
So, someday if that was possible, maybe yes.
Today, we're not sure and we're a little bit skeptical whether the technology will actually, this particular technology applied will allow a negative time, allow allow a negative time rate without losing information to
the past would that answer the paradox question you know the uh... go back
in time and and kill your grandfather or your father or something or
another and away you go
on other words the paradox is in fact uh...
all hard rule and and you can't do that because you can travel back in
time i don't believe that i i really i
I really don't believe that paradox.
And the reason why I would say that, many of your listeners might be familiar with what's called the Tipler Cylinder.
Frank Tipler, back in 1974, published a paper that showed how reverse time travel to the past is possible using a certain approach.
Now, granted, it was very extravagant.
It was a large rotating cylinder in space involving a spaceship with tremendous technical performance.
It allowed physically.
It was the first proof that showed time travel to the past was possible.
So is it possible within the laws of physics to travel in a negative time direction?
Absolutely yes.
So I think someday that will be achieved and the issue of the grandfather paradox might fall away as being only really just again one of those places where our rational mind bumps into its own limitation.
But are you able to help me out at all with that?
In other words, if you could travel back, Why, what would prevent you from causing all this time havoc?
Actually, actually, technically, technically nothing.
Technically nothing would create you from having a time, time creating.
So in other words, as you, as you can take a revolver and put it to your head and blow yourself away and cease to exist in all practical ways.
The only, the only, the only, first off, if If it's through relativistic physics, travel in a negative time, if we accomplish that using relativistic physics, then there's no reason why you couldn't travel to the past and alter the past.
Now there is some speculation that says, well if you do travel to the past, You'll end up in a parallel universe, in a version of reality that's separate from the other parallel universe that's running on where you didn't go back.
Ah, so you won't disturb the timeline, the main timeline.
Yeah, in fact you're affecting now a parallel timeline that is branched off in a different direction.
So that's one explanation of a possible answer.
Gotcha, for the paradox.
Did you see the movie Frequency?
You know, I'm sure I have it on our shelves in our space-time museum, but I don't think that I've seen it.
Trust me, see the movie.
The question is as follows.
Perhaps before we're able to actually physically travel in time, and this comes from the movie in a way, would you imagine it to be possible to communicate through time?
I believe, yes, I do.
I believe that across long distances of time, if I can say it that way, yes, that communication, especially communication to the past, would be achieved prior to actually sending a map to the past, meaning a person, a ship, or something like that.
Because of the problems inherent in biological transfers.
Exactly.
All right.
First time caller on the line.
You're on the air with Dr. Anderson.
Hi.
Hello.
How are you doing?
Okay, sir.
Where are you?
Greetings from Chicagoland.
From Chicago.
Yes.
I had a question for Dr. Anderson.
By the way, I've only been listening for about a week now.
It's great to hear something out there that actually is along the same lines that I think about, Art.
Dr. Anderson, on the actual field that you said you generate, that it's a circular field, have you had any experiments when you put something in it, say, that goes into the field and out of the field at the same time?
Ah, something extending right through the field.
Exactly.
And, say, like a solid object, does the field stay, does it just affect one part of the object, or does it actually encompass the entire part of the object?
Okay.
The answer is that it does not engulf the entire object, but moving things through a field is something that we learned that we don't do.
First off, if it's a living organism moving through the field, you're passing it through the boundary layer where all that time differential is being absorbed, including that Doppler effect, which means we pass a living organism through the boundary layer of the field.
Once it's set up, then that living organism is going to be destroyed, guaranteed.
With regards to material objects, I mean non-living material objects, we have put objects in the field.
We get some strange effects, but nothing that would engulf that entire object in the field.
It pretty much has no effect.
I see.
We have run signals back and forth in and out of the field, both optical and through conductors in and out of the field.
And the results we see are very, very predictable.
I see.
I wondered because the caller earlier had asked about traveling kind of through time, and this goes towards a warp, like a warp drive, if you will.
If you have something that can actually encompass that field where you get some particle off of it, it actually could go through time kind of as a warp drive almost.
That's why I was wondering that.
We call it a time warp field because we slightly twist time.
I mean, maybe we probably shouldn't have used the word warp in hindsight, but that was 13 years ago that we put the label on it, and now it's stuck, so.
I understand.
All right, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And, Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Dr. David Anderson.
Hi.
Hello.
Hello there.
Hi, Art.
Hi, Anderson there.
I'm just wondering if you've tried this.
I know you said you're having a problem, I guess, with the Doppler effect there.
I said that's basically a harmonic problem you're having.
Is that with the stability of the lasers, basically, is what you're having a problem with?
Well, what happens is, you know, the boundary layer of the field always has a Doppler effect.
But when we slow the time rate, the thickness of the boundary layer expands into the core of the field.
So, typically, the Doppler effect is constricted to the outer shell of the field.
When we retard the time rate or slow down the time rate and that boundary layer becomes thicker, it collapses into the core and basically anything inside the field, most of it, can be exposed to the Doppler.
Typically, we like to keep it on the outside where it's away from the samples or instrumentation inside the core.
I see.
Are you familiar with how our CRT, a cathode ray tube, works?
It's under a vacuum and you have three electron guns shooting through Well, have you ever simulated or tried doing this maybe in a vacuum or probably in zero gravity effect?
No, we have not.
We have not done it.
We have not done it in a vacuum.
And no, we have not.
We have not speculated about doing it in a zero gravity effect, mainly because it's not practical due to the size of the equipment and the power required.
One other thing is, do you create a large enough field to actually put a video camera camcorder and reproduce the field and then play it back and see what it sees?
Yes.
Actually, in the current one that we've done, we've put target objects in with a small digital recorder, and we've pulled them out.
We had some problems in certain areas because of the interference with the camera, but it showed that the object is there in the field, even though the boundary layer of the field is opaque.
Well, when that field goes opaque, is it really there?
Is the camera and the object really there, or is the camera and the object really somewhere else?
I guess I can't answer that.
Well, then you've taken an operating, say, video camera to the point where it begins to disappear?
No, well, when the camera is inside, we put a very small digital camera and recorder inside the field with an object, a target object, in front of the lens, and we showed that as we retarded the field, or accelerated the field, And we saw the opaqueness from the outside.
The video was pretty much undisturbed except for some interference, minor interference.
So the question was, was that camera still seeing the object inside the field, in the heart of the field?
The answer was yes.
So they're still there somewhere.
So what did you, when you, prior to doing that experiment, what did you expect to see?
Exactly that.
This is really a, All the results we've seen are like a general relativistic effect.
I don't mean to throw it out that way.
Pretty much what we see is very predictable.
The only thing that's not predictable is what happens in that thin boundary layer.
We still don't understand why everything happens there the way it does.
Houston Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. David Anderson.
Hello.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I have done a lot of research on the Internet, and I think I may have an understanding of how gravity works, and I wonder if this may have some relation To an understanding of time, my understanding basically assumes that the fabric of space and time, the ether, does exist, and that the force of this ether or zero-point energy is stretching the fabric of space and time equally in all directions, except when it is in the presence of matter.
This is so because matter attracts the zero-point energy in towards itself, sustaining itself, and in this manner, the fabric of space and time is significantly distorted around a massive object.
In a massive body system like the Earth and Moon, there's less zero-point energy pressure in between them.
Basically, I believe that gravity is a large-scale Casimir effect.
If this is so, Dr. Anderson, I would like to know what you think about this explanation of gravity, and if you think that this flow rate of time, or that the flow rate of time could be related to zero-point energy.
Okay.
There's probably three responses in there.
The first one, uh... does that does a man in space this distort space and
time absolutely yes i mean and that's uh... i i i i thought that that's uh...
that would be part of of of classical physics absolutely yes
uh...
uh... the second half of that with regards to zero point energy i mean
obviously i'm i'm i'm a little bit from her with some of it but i but i am not
i'm not an expert on uh... nicolai tesla's work in that area of the
people's work in that area It's even sad because I'm sitting here on Long Island where many of Tesla's facilities were, but I'm not familiar with that.
There are many similarities with regards to the mass distorting space and time around a mass in space.
Absolutely, yes, I agree with the other ones.
I'm probably not qualified to answer.
If you could look at a single atom inside your field, what would you see?
How would you say that the field actually affects this atom?
Is it at the stage of the parts of the atom, I guess the sub-particle parts, the gluons, muons, and so forth?
Or would it be on the electron?
I mean, it's got to affect it in some way.
I agree, yes.
Actually, it's a good question, but remember we're talking about, and you mentioned gravity, and when I talk about a general relativistic effect, this is a whole theory about how gravity can affect and dilate time.
When you have a field like this, or let's take the simple example of the high-speed rocket ship where you have somebody traveling out into space, coming back ten years and the Earth is has passed a thousand years. That individual and his biochemical
structure and his perception of time and his life and his body and his living organism
have not experienced anything different. His atoms have not been altered. His electrons,
his subatomic structure is still the same. His evolution of himself as a living
organism has not changed any differently than if he was on the earth for 10 years, assuming that all
that all the gravitational issues and all that are the same.
So the answer is no.
We don't expect nor do we see or expect any changes in cellular structure or atomic structure.
In the boundary layers, it's a totally different story.
All bets are off there.
Can I throw in a philosophical comment here?
Yes.
I think it's appropriate.
In thinking about the idea of parallel universes and time travel and a lot of the other stuff
you've seen on your show, it makes me wonder if we and all of the created universe is nothing
but a complicated and intricate computer program slash hologram that exists inside the mind
Oh, let's just use the word matrix and everybody will know.
Matrix.
All right.
I like that word.
All right.
Thank you very much.
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe we'll all find out shockingly one day.
What's for the Rockies?
You're on the air with Dr. David Anderson.
Hello.
Hello.
Yeah, I have several questions.
I don't know if you'll let me ask all of them.
I don't know if I will either, but go ahead and try.
But anyway, I am a kid who listens to your show all the time.
How old are you?
I'm 13.
Alright, first question is, why are you up at this hour?
Because I've been wanting to talk about the moon thing, but since that subject's over... No, it's not.
We're going to do a final hour of open lines.
We'll talk about that and time travel.
Okay.
But you have a question for Dr. Anderson?
Yeah.
I am a long-time fan of time travel, and now that I hear that science fiction is actually coming through, I was just wondering, when will this be out to the public?
Okay.
Well, actually, we've released some information to the public.
Like I mentioned, there's been several different publications.
Let me throw a few out to you.
If you check the Wall Street Journal, also Fox Television is going to be bringing back a show called In Search Of, and they're actually going to be showing some glimpses inside and outside of our laboratory and some information about our work that'll be airing next month.
Our public release, also under Freedom of Information, You can find some early work prior to 1988, and within the next two months, we're going to be releasing and making public a new research paper that talks about some of the power problems we've been having with the field, but it's going to give a complete overview of the current status of the Time Warp Field technology and our understanding of it.
So the answer to your question, Laura, is some of the information is out there, if you know where to look and he just told you.
Listen, Caller, thank you.
You're right.
We don't have a lot of time, but I want to ask this, Doctor.
How much do you know that you can't tell me of proprietary information?
How much information is there that you can't discuss on the radio?
Well, there are certain things.
Obviously, we have clients who Who funds some of our research, and we do research for them, and we have confidentiality agreements.
That's straightforward.
I assume more you'd be talking about what aspects of the technology and performance we can't talk about.
No, because you couldn't answer that.
Are there aspects of it that you can't talk about?
I'd say it this way.
The answer to that question is yes, there are aspects that I cannot talk about, and obviously any time you have research of this nature, what is released publicly is
typically a generation behind what is really going on.
Oh really?
Yes.
Well that says a whole lot.
Gee, we can all wonder where the next generation is that's going on right now.
Oh my, my, my, my.
This is going to be a fascinating two years.
When you look at what's going on, and I won't even, that's not even if you want to talk
the time travel research center at all but one of my biggest passions is people
really need to take a look at what's going on with our understanding of time
i mean it is being turned upside down within within the last two years there
have been at least four or five significant events that have totally
validated new views of time but sometimes we just race through life and
we don't see these things that's right well let me plug it for you again
there's a new videotape time travel journeys into time It eventually will be in your video store, but if you can't wait, and I know I can't, you can go to the doctor's website, which is linked right now on my website, and you can actually order the tape right there.
How much is the tape, by the way?
The tape is $39.
$39.
That's not much money for a good grasp of an understanding of time and a glimpse into the lab where you're working.
And you do get a glimpse in?
Absolutely.
Get a glimpse and a summary of our technology, an overview of our performance, our system configuration, and many other details, too.
It's a complete exploration into the nature of time and time travel from 20,000 years ago to the latest groundbreaking technology.
Doctor, I hope you can get a little sleep before your flight.
Boy, has this been a good program.
Thank you, Art.
It's been a real pleasure.
Thank you, my friend.
Good night.
Good night.
Time travel.
And I'll tell you.
Anyway, listen, we're going to do open lines when we come back, and that young fellow who I had to cut off is welcome to call back and talk about whether or not we went to the moon or time travel or whatever else is on anybody's mind out there.
Open lines when we come back on Coast to Coast AM.
▲
Export Selection