Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 23, 2001 - Art Bell

02:55:38

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Nanotechnology - Mark Pesce -Richard Hoagland

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	If you were at war with a nation, how would you use it against another nation?
	You could produce a nanobot that would destroy a very specific type of material.
	Perhaps it would look for explosives and break them down into inert components so that someone's guns wouldn't fire.
	So you could do something as targeted as that, as simple as that.
	And so when you think about a smart bomb, this is in fact the ultimate sort of tininess of a smart bomb.
	and i can go into fuse a bomb or you could take another type of nanobot
	and have it replicate so that it produced an explosive out of an inert
	material you could perhaps transform a clay surface
	into an explosive surface what if you wanted to kill only iraqi people
	then you probably have to look at something that was very specifically
	targeted at the genome a particular class of people
	That sounds to me like it would be a little bit more difficult to do.
	Or, conceivably, you could distribute a widespread weapon, but only distribute the antidote to your own side.
	But there are a lot of dangers in that.
	You mean to the one doing the dispersing?
	Yes.
	Because anytime you release something into the environment, there's obviously the chance that it could mutate.
	But, I mean, the military is going to be in love with this technology.
	They already are.
	They're funding it.
	Uh-huh.
	They are, huh?
	Oh, yes.
	The funding is coming from DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the same agency that gave us the Internet 30 years ago.
	And from the federal government and also from universities.
	So, you have places like MIT, University of Michigan, University of California, Los Angeles, places like this that are really becoming hotbeds of nanotechnology research and that are really going to be the focal centers for the nanotechnology revolution.
	If you were a scientist working in that area, when the U.S.
	Motory came to you, you can imagine what their interests would be.
	Would you accept that funding to keep doing what you want to do?
	I personally would not.
	I personally would want to focus on the positive applications of nanotechnology.
	But nanotechnology would quickly be capable of wiping out any disease or any sort of malnutrition that you could take.
	garbage materials literally throw some nanites or bugs onto the top of it and
	then convert it into edible food. Yes, or conversely wiping out the human race.
	Exactly. And so I would want to, as far as I could, work on the positive aspects of it.
	And I think that's one reason why the ethical dimension of this technology
	needs to be examined closely because it promises so much and threatens so much.
	They're really, in a sense, a perfectly equal balance.
	So then, Senator Bell again asks, what precise regulation would you recommend to this committee?
	Well, I think that nanotechnology research needs to be conducted on the same kinds of safeguards that we would do very sort of dangerous biological research.
	That we need to develop the kinds of facilities that can prevent things from getting into the environment accidentally.
	Or otherwise you're going to have an Andromeda Strain scenario, where something is created that can't be contained or controlled and will destroy any population.
	So then the equivalent of the CDC should be formed?
	Yes, or it may in fact be a branch of the CDC.
	Because again, when you get down to this level, the differences between biology and nanotechnology start to become very indistinct.
	They start to blur.
	One would imagine many countries about the world would be hard at work at this right now.
	The Japanese, for example, they're really good in these sorts of areas.
	They would be, I would think, involved.
	Are they?
	The Japanese just produced a single atom transistor.
	Well, there you are.
	So the Japanese are right alongside with the Americans and the Britons.
	The British are also right alongside with the Americans in this field, and we're really the three powers of America by far being in the lead with the most researchers working on this.
	Now, one of the most interesting things that's being done long term, one of the longest projects that's been going on, has been NASA's project to use nanotechnology for space exploration.
	The reason being that, right now, Spacecraft are very large, and when they're very large, it means it costs a lot of money to put them into orbit to send them to another planet.
	Sure does.
	And when you only have one of them, if it happens to crash, you're out of luck.
	That's true.
	So, instead, why don't you produce 50 or 100 million small craft, deliver them in a small missile, release them, say, onto the surface of Mars, let them gather their data and send it back.
	And so this is now a very efficient way Even if you lose half the spacecraft, you still have 50 million spacecraft.
	Well then, wait a minute here, Mark.
	If you're talking about Mars and releasing something on Mars, then why not release some form of the Grey Goo scenario on Mars, and why, before you know it, you'll have yourself a habitable planet, hello there, with an atmosphere and Water, and growing stuff, and maybe even little furry things running around.
	It's been talked about.
	We don't know how to do something like that yet, but clearly as we grow into a fully realized nanotechnology, something like that will become more and more within the realm of possibility, and perhaps in another generation or two there will be the moral equivalent of an Apollo project to green Mars.
	Wow.
	This is amazing.
	Let's come back to reality, today's reality for a moment.
	Video games.
	Sony's new PlayStation 2.
	And I guess Microsoft's Xbox?
	Yes, that's what it's called.
	It's going to be released in October.
	They have made such a jump.
	Do they begin to blur the line between reality and simulation?
	Well, back when people were first working in virtual reality, so in the late 80s, early 90s, It was believed that you could create realistic images if you could create about 80 million little units that your eyes can see per second.
	If you could create these 80 million units, they figured it would be pretty much indistinguishable from a real thing.
	Well, with the PlayStation 2 and with the Xbox, we've gotten to that point.
	And if you've seen some of the things that have come out, some of the NFL games, some of the racing games, Quite often, when you look at them, you have to do a double-take.
	Because you can't quite tell if it's a video image or if that's a computer-generated image.
	So we're now starting to enter this area of blurriness.
	Whether we can tell if it's a computer-generated image or if it's, in fact, a live image of some sort.
	So what are we liable to have by the time we get to Sony, PlayStation 10, or 20?
	It's another way of asking, where is that going?
	Well, right now, computer graphics.
	And the kind that we use to play home video games are increasing not as fast as Moore's Law.
	They're not getting twice as good every 18 months.
	They're getting eight times as good, really, every 18 months.
	It's Moore's Law cubed.
	So between 1995 and 2000, computer graphics got 1,000 times better.
	Between 2000 and 2005, everyone expects that they will get 1,000 times better again.
	So you don't have to wait for the PlayStation 10.
	You don't have to wait for the PlayStation 3.
	Which Sony has already announced will be a thousand times faster than the PlayStation 2.
	Really?
	Oh my!
	At that point, there really won't be any strict difference between live video and a computer-generated image, at least none that your eye can easily see.
	I've seen a prototype for the PlayStation 3, something called the GS Cube, which is still itself only about a sixteenth as powerful as the PlayStation 3 will be.
	And it was just absolutely stunning.
	The images were so clear, so beautiful, so crisp, and so realistic, that you can clearly see that by the time 2005 comes around, we will be there.
	We will be at this blurring between real imagery and computer-generated imagery.
	Well, how far of a leap is it from PlayStation 3 or 4 to the holodeck on Star Trek?
	The holodeck is really just a matter of how do we project it.
	Right now that's been a big problem.
	We have television sets, we have monitors, we have panel displays.
	Right.
	But we don't have an environment we can stand up and walk around in.
	Yet.
	Yet.
	We had the head-mounted display, which everyone was looking at ten years ago as being the way we'd get into a holodeck.
	Well, it turns out the head-mounted display is really bad for your eyes.
	Which is why we're not all wearing them now.
	Yeah, I've seen them advertised, and I've been tempted, and I don't know why I haven't gone for one, but it's not so good for your eyes, huh?
	It'll give you, at the minimum, it'll give you a headache.
	It'll give you eye strain.
	In the worst case, it'll cause something called binocular dysphoria.
	Because what happens is when you put the head mount on, your eyes are seeing the world in a different way than you see it in the real world.
	And your brain learns that way, so that when you take the head mount off again, your brain is still thinking, In the way it was when you were in the head-mounted display.
	And this is not such a big problem for adults.
	Adults will come back anywhere between 20 minutes and 24 hours.
	But for children, and these video game companies were going to release these and sell them to children, could actually cause, perhaps, permanent changes in brain function.
	In other words, your little brains, which are just in the formative stages, would, or could, perhaps, Take that as the reality, and then the real world would be the non-reality for them.
	Exactly, and they would have trouble moving through the real world because their brains had adapted to something that wasn't real.
	In the mid-1990s, I participated in a project with Sega, the video game company, developing a head-mounted display, and we got it all the way through the design process.
	Ready for production, and they sent it out for testing.
	And when they sent it out for testing, the testing company came back and said, you cannot give these devices to children.
	Well, Sega said, thank you very much.
	We're going to take the results.
	We're going to take the project.
	We're going to bury it.
	The company that actually did the testing, SRI, went and retested on their own dime so they could release the results to the public because the results were important enough that they needed to be widely known.
	So head-mounted display use is fine for, say, 20 minutes or less.
	It won't really hurt you, although I wouldn't give it to a child for that length of time.
	But in terms of this holodeck world where we'd be sitting inside of our head-mounted display and the world would be projected around us, that doesn't seem to be a good way to do it.
	Now there's just some breaking technology of people who are starting to do holographic projection inside of 3D globes.
	Excuse me?
	Inside 3D globe?
	So you can think of a clear glass globe.
	Yes.
	And they can project a 3D environment inside of it.
	You look into it almost as if you're looking into a crystal ball.
	And you can see a world inside of that.
	That technology has just entered the prototype stage.
	They've just gotten it working.
	But that may be one way of having a holodeck.
	Now clearly you're not inside that environment.
	But you can see into it, and it's fully 3D.
	You don't need to wear any fancy glasses.
	It's just there in front of you, and that may be one direction it's going.
	Suppose we made it all the way to Holodeck, where you create a complete new reality all about you.
	You don't have the glasses on.
	It's all about you in 3D.
	Right.
	That presumably will be possible one day, right?
	I would suggest that a better way to do that, rather than using a projection technology, is to use nanotechnology.
	Remember what I said earlier about... To actually create that world.
	Create the objects themselves out of material.
	Aye, aye, aye.
	I think that's going to be the cheaper, safer, more satisfying route for people, is to have a holodeck that doesn't use objects made out of light.
	Well, yeah, but the problem with that is you are then literally creating an alternate reality, because it is a reality.
	And so...
	But we're almost up to the Matrix here, in a way.
	Absolutely.
	I think there's going to be a point 20 years from now or so when the difference between the synthetic world and the physical world is going to have blurred completely.
	Now, for the kids who are growing up with these kinds of video games, they're not going to have an issue with it.
	They've been used to it all of their lives.
	For us, it's going to be a little bit more disorienting, because we're never going to know what really real is.
	That's going to make a difference.
	Wouldn't that be fatally dangerous for mankind in the sense that people would be able to create their own realities, and in every sense of the word, reality, an alternate reality, and to hell with this world in every way, just why not live in this idyllic, created reality?
	It would be a fatal flaw if it cut us off from other human beings.
	Otherwise it wouldn't be Qualitatively different from the world we see showing up in cyberspace.
	The chat environments, the websites, the webs of connectivity by which humans create their own mental spaces and gather and congregate.
	It would simply be a physical manifestation of it.
	I know, but I mean, people would be creating Britney Spears land, right?
	Indeed they would.
	Well, how do you stop a human being from preferring that over the real world?
	Hold that answer.
	Hold that answer.
	We'll be right back.
	Weird stuff.
	I'm R. Kelly.
	Every night I hope and pray a dream lover will come my way.
	A girl to hold in my arms and know the magic of her charm.
	Because I want a girl to call my own.
	And I want a dream lover so I don't have to dream alone.
	Dream lover, where are you?
	And the hands that I can hold, will be near as I go.
	Cause I want girls to call my own.
	I want a free lover, so I don't have to be alone.
	I don't have to be alone.
	Wanna take a ride?
	Well, call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	to the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	I mean, why not?
	If it's nanotechnology, and we'll ask about this in a moment, why not?
	Shouldn't that alternate reality contain your dream lover?
	0903 this is coast to coast am with our fell on the premier radio networks
	I mean why not if it's nanotechnology and we'll ask about this in a moment
	Why not shouldn't that alternate reality contain your dream lover?
	And then is that your real mate or is that your fantasy mate?
	Well Kevin in Yarmouth Maine we have the names as a little more bluntly than I would have
	He says, will nanotech be the future drug abuse?
	I want a Raquel Welsh nano doll.
	You think internet porno is bad now?
	Just wait till nano porno comes along.
	Mark, is there any reason to believe that an alternate reality that you could eventually create with nanotechnology couldn't contain You or me?
	Well, there's no fundamental reason to believe that.
	No, I think you're absolutely right.
	I think one of the promises, if you could call it that, of nanotechnology is that it's going to blur the line for most people between the fantasy world and the real world.
	That that line isn't going to be as firm, as fixed, as neatly constructed as we are familiar with.
	In the early 21st century.
	We may really look back on these as the good old days.
	Or as the real old days.
	The real old days.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Oh, man.
	It's hard to imagine the kind of world you're talking about.
	And yet, you're not the only expert, Mark, who said the things you're saying.
	You're articulating them, I think.
	A little more clearly and directly for me.
	Thank you for that, by the way.
	But there have been many experts who have said the same things you're saying.
	And I don't know.
	I don't know if it's the kind of world that I could accept.
	How about you?
	Well, I think it's going to be for us, for the folks who grew up in the static world.
	The old world, almost.
	The old world.
	There you go.
	It's going to be a little bit disorienting for us.
	It's almost as if you think about how people adopt technology.
	Younger people always use an ATM.
	Older people tend to go to see the teller.
	That's right.
	So it's almost like that.
	We may want this corner of our lives to have the kinds of benefits of nanotechnology.
	For example, life extension technologies will clearly be taking full advantage of this What about his comment from Maine about the equivalent of drug abuse?
	Well, I think that there's a more direct equivalent of drug abuse, which is that we could probably engineer nanosites that would directly stimulate centers of the brain.
	You're not even talking about formulating a Raquel Welch doll.
	You're talking about generating what you would think of as probably a superheroine, and being able to tie someone into that, and so there's a potential for abuse there.
	That's also enormous.
	And the question is whether these technologies will exist only in the pharmacological laboratories, or whether they'll be relatively widespread.
	Every indication is that nanotechnology doesn't really require an expensive, huge environment to create.
	The basic tools of nanotechnology are relatively inexpensive.
	Less expensive than, say, a gene splicing laboratory.
	And as the techniques Those are going to be the things that will allow someone to do nanotechnology, say, in their den.
	Do you think that the present state of social evolution in the world would support that technology being available right now, or would it, in essence, destroy the human race?
	We have all that ability right now.
	We'd probably do ourselves in, wouldn't we?
	I think we'd have to be very careful.
	I think we'd get wise very quick.
	Well, or get gone.
	Or get gone very quick.
	So, in other words, I guess I want to ask this.
	Is social development, in your opinion, moving in parallel with nanotechnological development?
	I think for our children it definitely is.
	Our children are used to all of this blurring, all of this in-betweenness between animate and inanimate, between static and active, between real and virtual.
	These are a matter of course for them.
	They really won't have the same sort of philosophical issues that we as grown-ups have.
	Now whether that's going to be the thing that guides them safely into a nanotechnological era is anyone's guess.
	I think the most important thing we can do with our children is to educate them about the responsibilities that are inherent in any technology.
	Do you think, for example, that a child of the future, say the next generation, because you're talking about 20 or 30 years or 40 years, not that long, that that child will be able to easily make a decision about whether to turn little conscious Freddy off and that it's not killing and that the child will have come to grips with the fact that even though this is a conscious entity capable of emotions And feeling, and learning, and all those things, that that child will be able to just flip the switch, understanding that it's somehow different?
	Well, it's interesting because the Furby itself does not have an off switch.
	One of the most interesting things about a Furby, one of the things that tends to drive adults crazy about it, is that there is no switch.
	You can take the batteries out if you want, but otherwise the Furby itself has to go to sleep on its own.
	right we have to give it a time and that will
	Right.
	snoring go to sleep so in that sense these kids are already
	being prepared philosophically psychologically
	for objects that have their own intent
	you wouldn't currently off you might
	up playing with billy he might want about it a little bit and then he'll go to sleep
	uh...
	but if you didn't want billy anymore at all Then you're talking about a different kind of problem.
	You're absolutely right.
	You're talking about what a child does when he doesn't want a pet anymore.
	It's that kind of same medical, emotional issue.
	We can already see what happens in some cases when children decide they don't want their schoolmates anymore.
	Right, exactly.
	I mean, things are changing, and pretty fast, too.
	Exactly.
	And we have to take a look at our society's reaction to violence and the kinds of tools we use to create violence, whether they're guns or anything else.
	We have to say, okay, if we know that a child can walk in with a gun and, God forbid, kill several people, well, what can they do if they can cook something up in their living room and wipe out a city?
	That's the world of the mid-21st century.
	That's going to be some world, isn't it, Mark?
	And it's so close.
	It's close, and it's a beautiful place because of the Powers that we gain, they're almost God-like powers that we gain.
	God-like, yes.
	I was going to say that.
	God-like.
	Creation.
	Creation.
	Almost.
	But at the same time, we have the same destructive powers that you would associate with a very sort of Old Testament God.
	And unless we can temper that with our humanity, with our desire to continue, not just individually, but as a species, you're absolutely right.
	We can't make it through a transition like that.
	This discovery could then be more potentially dangerous to humankind than the splitting of the atom was.
	Oh, it's been my firm belief that this is absolutely the case.
	The thing about the atom bomb is that it's very difficult to gather the materials necessary to make one.
	And in the case of nanotechnology?
	Everything's lying around.
	It's just a matter of putting it into the correct organization.
	And that's what we're learning.
	Well, how many different centers and places right now around the U.S.
	and around the world are in serious development in these areas?
	I mean, how widespread is the technological research?
	In America, certainly any major material science program at a major American university has some unit that's looking into nanotechnology.
	So you think about the major research centers, Harvard, MIT, University of California, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina, all of these centers have programs that are looking into these issues right now.
	But in addition, you also see the high-tech firms, IBM, for example.
	One of the things that IBM did back in 1981 was create something called the scanning tunneling microscope.
	The scanning toning microscope is very simple.
	It's really nothing more than a very, very sharp pin with a weak electrical charge on it.
	But it turns out that with that pin, you can move individual atoms around.
	Now, the fellows who invented this in 81 won the Nobel Prize just five years later for their work, because their work was so significant.
	Because it allowed us to start pushing atoms around.
	And it's now become, in a sense, the basic building block for all nanotechnology applications.
	Because we now have a finger that we can poke into the atomic world.
	You have research centers like IBM, like Hewlett Packard, like Intel, and they need nanotechnology in order to stay ahead of the curve.
	In order to be able to provide it at the next level with chips that we're going to need for the computers that we're going to need to do the things we're going to need in the world.
	Well, your website is called Playful World.
	Obviously, you're an optimist about the technology, for the most part.
	I believe that the most important thing is to make people aware and to educate them about the possibilities, both the upside and the downside.
	Very straightforward about talking about grey goo.
	Most of the nanotechnology community tries to downplay that scenario.
	Do these researchers, Mark, talk about the grey goo scenario a lot privately?
	Privately, they'll talk about it.
	Publicly, they don't want to alarm the public.
	They don't want to alarm the public to the degree that will scare them from looking at this research because everyone's fairly convinced of its inevitability.
	So what they want to do is to keep the public informed.
	So they phrase it differently.
	They talk about different kinds of problems.
	One is called the Toner War, where you basically have different types of nanobots fighting it out in the environment, replicating and fighting it out.
	Almost a war between two colonies of bacteria fighting for control.
	And the problem with that is that it can cloud the atmosphere with so much dust that it could clog our lungs.
	So it might not wipe out the Earth, but it could easily wipe out the human race.
	Well, to us, same thing.
	Exactly.
	No difference.
	Well, there would still be an Earth going on.
	There would still be a chance for another emergence of evolution.
	Well, you know, there are a lot of people who suggest, here I am trying to be positive, that events of this magnitude are what will cause evolution to take the next major jump.
	You know, the things like this that come along, big rocks that hit the planet, suns that sterilize planets, that sort of thing.
	And then from the ashes, you know, will arise the next generation of intelligence.
	It's possible, it's also possible that we will learn enough in the investigation that we will be able to mature ourselves sufficiently.
	So how, what do we do then about the mad scientist in the little lab somewhere in Switzerland who decides to become the Grey Goo God?
	And to take the earth to the next level of, you know, even though everybody on it right now is going to more or less go belly up.
	Well, I think that in the same way that we develop antivirus software after viral infections, you know, we need to be thinking of developing anti-nanite software while we're developing nanites.
	If we have the capacity to create Grey Goo, then we have the capacity to create something that could stop Grey Goo.
	They go together.
	They really do.
	And how long did you say it would take Grey Goo to do its thing if released?
	It's believed to be about 72 hours.
	If 72 hours.
	It's sufficiently small enough that it can be caught up in the air currents and travel the Earth.
	Well, I don't know if 72 hours is fast enough for Norton or not.
	Yes, but Norton anti-nanotechnology utilities.
	So, if you were to If you could actually see the release of this gray goo, what would the eye see?
	If you could see the release, and it were released, I don't know, five or ten miles from you and you had a pair of binoculars, what would you see?
	You'd probably see things melt.
	It would just look like things were melting.
	And there would be probably an energy release.
	It would probably be hot.
	You mean kind of like somebody was taking a big paintbrush the size of Earth and just beginning to Moving across the surface of the earth, and as it went, everything that was turned grey.
	Or rather, almost, that the buildings themselves would start to cave in.
	The biological beings, ourselves, the animals, would simply fall down and slowly sort of decompose into this grey goo.
	I'm not sure how fast, how rapid that would be, because part of the sort of Break on a breakthrough scenario is that there's an enormous amount of energy released when you break all those chemical bonds.
	And so there's a fine balance between the number of times you can break a chemical bond and the amount of heat that can be sustained.
	So it would be slow and hot.
	And then finally fast and hot, right?
	Finally, if it covered the entire surface, it would just be hot.
	It would still have the same relative rate of progression everywhere you looked, but there would be more and more spots where it would be proceeding.
	So it might start out in one location.
	And frankly, people who have thought about this think that if there's ever a breakout in a location like that, and there's time to contain it, the only way to contain it is to drop a nuclear weapon on the site immediately.
	A nuclear weapon?
	Because it's the only way you could actually destroy nanites before they spread irreversibly into the environment.
	And a nuclear weapon would be what?
	Hot enough?
	Oh yes, it would break the chemical bonds.
	It would just vaporize any nanites in the environment.
	You have to hope.
	I mean, you do that and cross your fingers and pray that you did it in time.
	It's almost unimaginable.
	Unimaginable.
	And yet it's almost here.
	When will we see the first examples of, you know, I have a lot of people talk about free energy all the time, and I say, give me a toy!
	At least just a little toy.
	Prove to me you've got an over-unity device.
	A little toy will do.
	And I never get one.
	When might we see the first little nanotechnological toy?
	Probably within about five to seven years you're going to see artificial blood.
	Artificial blood is a small sphere that's made out of diamond.
	One of the things that we'll get as sort of low-hanging fruit from nanotechnology is very inexpensive sheets of diamond.
	Because it's simply a regular lattice of carbon atoms.
	If you can make that into a sphere, fill it with very high-pressure oxygen, and then have a small motor on it that sputs out the oxygen at a regular level, you can use that as artificial blood.
	Wow.
	Now that, there's already a design for.
	So now it's a matter of the fabrication process involved in the design.
	There is a startup in Texas called Zyvex.
	There's a link to it on the Playful World site.
	And they're a nanotechnology startup.
	And so they are working now on the applications of nanotechnology.
	I think the real threshold isn't going to be these sorts of devices, but what is called the nanocomputer.
	So a computer built out of atomic-level elements.
	This computer that would be a million, million times faster than any computer we have today, and 1,000 times smaller than a human cell.
	The experts in the field, people like Ralph Merkel, who's one of the fathers of nanotechnology, expect that by around 2011, Or 2012, the elements will be in place to create a nanocomputer.
	That's really soon.
	It's really soon.
	2012, that's really soon.
	So again, I'll ask you one more time.
	Do you think that socially we're going to be able to keep up with the technological advances?
	Because socially we're going to have to, or it definitely will do us in.
	We've got to make some pretty dramatic social advances.
	And as you look around the planet right now, do you see those Occurring at a rate that pleases you when you look at what's happening with dental technology.
	I don't think it's nearly as fast as I would like it.
	Whether it's fast enough, I can't say.
	I think that we need to be able to think almost as if it were magically.
	That we need to be able to think about the fact that the actions, the consequences of our actions can have a nearly magical effect.
	That we could almost cast a spell with atoms.
	And either wipe up the earth or cure someone of cancer.
	And we have to understand that there's an individual responsibility there.
	And a social responsibility.
	Well, on a scale of 10, how are we doing in the area of individual responsibility right now?
	Is that your answer?
	Who wants to be a nanotech millionaire?
	I think that as a culture we're coming to an understanding of the problem of violence.
	I think that's one reason why we find violence as abhorrent as we do.
	It's because there is a cultural understanding of the nature of violence, of the problem of violence, of what happens when you take an instrument of destruction, a gun, and put it in someone's hand.
	And I think that that's the first step to this broader understanding of what this complete violence of nanotechnology could release.
	So I'm optimistic.
	That was a good answer.
	I mean, that was a safe answer.
	I wish I believed as you do.
	While we may understand... I don't even know that we understand more about violence.
	Well, I guess we've been good.
	We haven't had a big world war in a while.
	But the micro-scale, not macro, but micro-scale on Earth right now isn't too good.
	There's a lot of killing going on out there.
	A lot of violence.
	And in this nanotechnological world you're talking about, it wouldn't take but a few bad apples to ruin the whole bunch.
	Right?
	Yes, but I think that at the same time, we will be working, and there will be a vast number of people who will be working on how to defeat that problem.
	How to bring it to a stalemate.
	So I think that at the same time that you see Grey Goo, you will see 100,000 solutions to that problem.
	Alright, alright.
	We're going to break here, and when we come back, I want to turn you over to the audience.
	This I can't wait for.
	Alright?
	Alright.
	Can you stay?
	Absolutely.
	Good.
	Stay right there then.
	Y'all are next.
	Are they real?
	I've been dreaming of green.
	Red roses, too.
	I sit in blue, for me and you, and I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
	I see skies of green, and clouds of white, the bright blessed day.
	It's so late at night, I cannot think to myself.
	Want to 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 reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255. East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033. First-time
	callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222. The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	And to call out on the toll-free information, call 1-800-618-8255.
	international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	Now that certainly is an understatement, isn't it? Remember, what we're talking about right
	now isn't that car in the future.
	It's not science fiction.
	It's what your children are about to encounter.
	We're about to go to phones.
	Joe in Alameda, California says, Hey Art, how come I find myself not laughing along?
	I know Joe.
	I understand exactly how you feel, Joe.
	I've been sort of chuckling along because you've got to keep us some sort of sense of humor about these kinds of things, but I'm with you all the way.
	And then I think Jim in Denver asks the question of Mark that we ought to tackle first, then we'll go to the phones.
	It's simple, and it's blunt, Mark.
	He says, Mark, I'm an African-American.
	Does this gentleman truly believe this technology will not be abused?
	Will not be what?
	Abused.
	Understand why an African American might ask that?
	I understand why I think anyone would ask that.
	Anyone who's seen the history of the 20th century should really ask, will this technology be abused?
	I think that we have to consider very rationally the possibility that it will be abused and prepare for it on that basis.
	If we don't go in with our eyes wide open, I can paint a very pretty picture with the possibilities, but I can also paint a very ugly one with the downside.
	And I think that we need to keep both of those points of view in our sights at all times as we move into the 21st century.
	If we don't, then yes, The potential for abuse will overcome our ability, will overcome our sense of what to do about it.
	Most Americans, Mark, think of what we're talking about right now as they think of a science fiction movie, you know, something that while we might imagine, but you know, isn't really ever going to happen.
	The problem with this is It's not science fiction, and it's happening already, right?
	You could have said the same thing about cloning just two years ago.
	Yes, I know.
	Well, we did.
	We did.
	And now it's likely that a human being is being cloned somewhere.
	Indeed.
	And so we now are faced with all of the ethical issues that come from that.
	And we have a little bit more lead time.
	We have at least a good five years, probably a good ten years.
	Before we really have to be able to say, this is how we're going to approach this problem.
	Yeah, but in terms of observed human social evolution, five or ten years... Well, I just don't know, Mark.
	Anyway, listen, we've got a lot of phone calls, so let us begin.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	This is Rob listening to you in Minneapolis on KSVP 1800.
	That's the way to do it, thank you.
	A wavelength and I have a brief comment before I ask Mark a question.
	Yeah, sure.
	The seasons are reversed in Minnesota and central Minnesota here.
	It's supposed to be spring but it's pretty much fall here.
	Yeah, we know what's happening all over the nation, not just there.
	Just a note on the weather changes, you know, we're feeling it up here.
	Yeah, it's obvious everywhere.
	Anyway, do you have a question?
	My question was, in terms of, like, nanotechnology and, I don't know, using, Mark talked about the, Mark, you talked about the crystal ball, and using that to have, you know, whatever experience like video game type experiences and talk about
	the hologram room
	using uh... nanotechnology uh...
	how much energy would a like hologram room like that use or that's a really
	really really good question uh... the energy would it be similar to like los
	angeles or would it be more like uh... you know nintendo or what yeah how much
	power consumption would would would you imagine being used in something to create
	eventually a holodeck let's say well one of the advantages of nanotechnology is that it
	works on such a micro level
	that you can effectively sort of optimize all of the energy usage
	And in fact, in nanotechnology, it's important to do that.
	One of the technical stumbling blocks that people are working through now is how you can create something that's working very quickly at such a small level and doesn't burn itself up in the process.
	But if you take a look at biology, human beings are very flexible.
	We move relatively quickly and all sorts of things from bacteria up to elephants do so.
	And so there's probably a lot of lessons we'll learn from nature about how to effectively use energy in a conservative way.
	Now a human being uses about as much energy as a 120 watt light bulb at any given point in time.
	So if you're thinking about building an environment, you can probably use that as a convenient multiple.
	We're equivalent to 121 light bulbs in terms of the amount of energy we use.
	Well, at least we're fairly bright.
	Yeah, I have to laugh sometimes.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hello.
	Hi, Art.
	This is Kathy from Woodbridge, New Jersey.
	Hello, Kathy.
	Yeah, I wonder if we're the long-lasting light bulbs of the old Phillips.
	Yeah, right.
	Listen, I'm going into the not-so-distant future.
	And I'm going to ask you something about the future of computers as if they could be the mother and fathers of children born either here because we screwed up, sowing the seeds of life on a new planet, being the guardians on a new planet.
	You get my drift?
	In the future, we may mess up so bad down here that we have to program a computer to literally plant the seeds of life and then nurture them and watch them.
	And I'll end it with this.
	Guys, once in a while, just catch the PBS and watch the Teletubbies and tell me why these four little things are watched by a computer and never have any parents around them.
	Alright, that's a lot to tackle.
	Mark?
	If we were going to do some sort of genesis project, I suppose is the best name for it, of replanting a garden of Eden somewhere else, and if there were A computer that we were responsible for bringing human beings into maturity, you would have to be sure that this computer had been raised itself by human beings, because there's a human transmission of values that would be necessary from the humans to the computer to the children.
	And if you break that continuity, essentially what you're doing is you're breaking what makes us human.
	And so in that sense, You'd have to make a decision if you were embarking on a project like this, whether you wanted those children to be the offspring, the philosophical offspring, the psychological offspring of a purely rational intellect, or whether you really wanted it to be a much broader, more human intellect.
	Wouldn't a purely rational intellect be frightening for humans, dangerous for humans?
	I think it would.
	It would be given to making decisions that we would not normally be given to make ethically, morally.
	I think that this is the issue that... It would have its own set of ethics and morals.
	It would have ethics and morals, but it's its own.
	It would be its own, and they would be alien to us because they wouldn't be influenced by the concerns that we would normally think of as being human concerns.
	So, it might make decisions that we couldn't possibly understand.
	Like, for example, if it were running the justice system right now, it might, the very first time a child is brought in who's been fooling around with marijuana, it might decide to euthanize that child on the spot.
	Right.
	It would be capable of justice, but no mercy.
	And human beings tend to temper all of their justice and all of their actions with mercy.
	With mercy.
	Not most effectively so.
	Well, it's a question of what you're considering effective.
	If you're considering effective in a purely sort of rational frame, then perhaps you're right.
	But human beings, again, don't think in a purely rational frame.
	We think in a much broader frame than that.
	Well, then we'd better be careful what we create.
	West of the Rockies, you're on there with Mark Pesci.
	Hello.
	Yes, this is Jim in the LA 640 KFI area.
	That's the way I want people doing promos for their radio stations.
	Everybody do it.
	All right, go ahead, sir.
	Oh, good to have you back.
	Mark, I was at Disneyland with my wife back in the early 70s.
	I guess they call it the Haunted Castle, where they have these holograms or whatever you call them.
	On the exit they had one that was in a bell jar, oh maybe 20 inches or two foot high with a woman in it.
	And she was in 3D, actual 3D.
	I mean her arms moving and all this stuff.
	Somehow they projected it in there.
	And I was just wondering how the heck did they do that anyway?
	That's actually almost like a magician.
	It's all done with mirrors.
	That's a parabolic mirror, so it's a curved mirror, and the image is projected onto the mirror, but because of the way the light reflects back from the mirror, it resolves into an image that's in front of the mirror, so it looks as though the image is solid.
	Wow.
	I'll be darned.
	But I was just curious, you know, like, they have to have glasses, I guess, for 3D on television.
	Man, if they came out with something like that, with the games, holy mackerel.
	Yes, there's a good question.
	I think I already know the answer, but what would the movies or the television of tomorrow be in a nanotechnological world?
	I think I know the answer.
	Well, I think that what you're talking about is not typing a program in, but typing a reality in.
	We are literally, out of the cable is coming the instructions to redesign the environment that you're in the midst of.
	Around whatever drama is going to take place there, and whether that's a drama that you sit and watch as a member of the audience or you participate in.
	Mark, you know, even with turn-off-your-TV week underway right now, word is that we watch, on average, about four or five hours of television.
	You know, the old two-dimensional, yes, nice color, but two-dimensional TV.
	Now, we watch five hours, Mark.
	Uh, in that future that you're describing, not all that far a distance, how are you going to ever, I mean, you know, once they've been to Paris and all that, how are you ever going to get them back?
	Well, let me give you another example.
	I don't know if you've heard of a new game that's coming out called Majestic.
	Uh, you know, it's interesting that you would mention the new game Majestic, because I understand that they have woven my name into it somehow.
	Majestic was described by the president of Electronic Arts, who is creating a game as a cross between CNN and the X-Files.
	When you sign up for the game, you go onto the web, and you give it all of your contact points.
	You delete your phone, your fax, your email, your cell phone, and you give it the hours it can call you.
	And annoy you.
	And annoy you?
	And involve you in the game and call you and tell you that there's a character that's in jeopardy and you have to go do this thing right now to solve this mystery.
	You have to find the pieces of the vast conspiracy that are swirling around you.
	So already, without the projection technology, we're finding that the next generation of games, this isn't really even a PlayStation game, this is almost a game that starts to confuse the real world with the world of the game.
	So this is now It's a coming trend.
	It's expected that this game is going to be wildly popular because it really involves you in a world that's right next door, and yet completely in your living room.
	Isn't this like the next logical step to fantasy football or baseball or whatever it is that people get so involved in?
	Absolutely, and it will appeal to the people who really love the X-Files or Millennium or shows like this, or people who listen to Art Bell.
	Yeah, my audience.
	Actually, I heard from the people who were constructing this Whatever you call it, Game Majestic.
	And they are using my name somewhere in it.
	And I guess I was honored.
	I guess I'm honored.
	I think it should be.
	I think it's going to be very interesting.
	And this is, again, the future of entertainment.
	It's not just something you sit and watch passively, although I think that'll still exist.
	People will still make movies as we think of them, or TV as we think of it, where you sit and watch a drama or a performance or a comedy.
	But there will also be these other more subtle forms of games.
	We are literally taken in.
	And you use the best virtual reality machine we have, which is between your ears!
	But how are people going to break away from this?
	How will this not be an irresistible narcotic that will make television look like kid stuff?
	Five hundred years ago, Art, all across Europe, theologians, priests, preachers, decried a new narcotic that had come out and was destroying the best minds in Europe.
	Do you know what it was?
	The novel.
	The novel?
	The novel.
	I mean, you take a look at Don Quixote.
	Don Quixote, the plot of Don Quixote is that Don Quixote has read so many romance novels, he's gone mad.
	And he starts to act out on all of these novels that he's read.
	And it was a popular theory in the day that reading all of these books was going to drive you crazy.
	So I think that we see over and over that these new ways of telling stories are coming into our lives and we make room for them.
	We don't think twice when someone says, oh, I was up all night because I was reading a really good book.
	Yet, at the same time, you have to say, wow, that person is addicted to reading this book.
	That's how good this book was.
	It was a narcotic.
	And I think that's how we'll think about Majestic.
	But taking leaps ahead, not to Majestic, but further ahead, why wouldn't a government which is concerned with productivity, and I'm convinced that's one of the main reasons that we have drug laws right now, Mark, that we do, and the drug war and all the rest of it, is because they consider drugs to be a war on productivity.
	Or a threat to productivity, and so that we have the war on drugs.
	Why wouldn't we have the war on nanotechnological entertainment for exactly the same reason?
	Placid, a dangerous narcotic.
	Well, I think that nanotechnology is going to upend the whole argument about productivity because When you can literally fabricate anything that you need on demand.
	About the only activity of civilization will be the design of those things that can be fabricated on demand.
	Yeah, alright, but then what about Zeger and Evans 2525?
	You know, our arms hanging useless by our side, right?
	I don't know that our arms will be hanging useless by our side.
	I don't think that's the case.
	I just think that the emphasis on what constitutes productivity in the imperial world It's going to move more, I think, into a design sense.
	That what's going to be important are the things that we can design and play with, rather than the things that we actually fabricate.
	All right.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hello.
	Yeah, I've got a couple questions for Mark.
	Go ahead.
	One is, what would be some good effects of this new nanotechnology?
	Right.
	And my other is, what kind of benefits would we get for our human society?
	Well, I think one of the things that nanotechnology can promise us is freedom from want.
	That you can, in fact, go to a place where the population is starving, throw nanites out on the ground, and have them produce food just from raw soil.
	And it wouldn't matter whether there's a drought, or whether there's a flood, or anything like that.
	That you can actually remove human need at a fundamental level by using these machines.
	I think the second benefit It's going to be in medical technology that we will be able to both observe the human body in incredible detail.
	Mark?
	Yes?
	Quick question.
	Unless we can make it real expensive, then what would that do to our economy?
	And I mean the world economy, not just ours.
	And that's exactly the point.
	I think that we're going to see this transition away from the value of the material world.
	Right now, money And value are based on scarcity.
	We have wars over this.
	Because they're wars.
	We have wars over this.
	What do you think we went to war with, almost went to war with Russia over, and may yet go to war with China over?
	It's materialism versus the greater common good.
	That's what we go to war about, right?
	Absolutely.
	But if we've removed the sort of focus of materialism, if we've taken that out of play, then it becomes, in a sense, a war of creativity.
	To bring us back to the Gregor versus the anti-Gregor, the virus versus antivirus scenario.
	That's a war of creativity, of design, not a war of materiel.
	But that would require an entire shift from an economy based on consumption or materialism.
	On materialism, not on consumption, because we will still be consuming things, but we'll
	be consuming designs, rather than actual products.
	Designs.
	We'll be consuming designs.
	That's an interesting concept.
	So then everything we know about money and the way everything is transacted, all of that is going to change, isn't it?
	I believe so, yes.
	Bottom of the hour, I'm going to try much harder to be good and get to the phones.
	Oh, there goes the International Line.
	Don't forget the International Line.
	800-893-0903 If man is still alive, if woman can survive, they may fly.
	In the year 3535, ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies.
	Everything you think, do and say is in the bill you took today.
	It means 45, 45.
	Ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes.
	You won't find a thing to chew.
	Nobody's gonna look at you.
	In the heat of 55, 55.
	Your arm dragging you in past your charge.
	Your legs got nothing to do.
	Some machine doing that for you.
	Wanna take a ride?
	Call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at area code 775-727-1222 or call the wildcard line at
	775-727-1295.
	To talk with Art on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them
	dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Well, our trip into the world of nanotechnology is not a voluntary ride.
	So perhaps we should rephrase the opening.
	There.
	Ha.
	Sure.
	This is a ride you're on like it or not.
	As promised, now back to Mark Vesce.
	And Mark, anytime I ever bring a guest on here, I want to give them an opportunity to plug a book or plug whatever they've got going.
	In your case, I know you've got a website.
	Anything else?
	Well, the book, The Playful World, which has been out for six months, it's in cover.
	And is it generally available in bookstores?
	It should be available in most bookstores nationwide.
	It's carried by all the major chains, and you can buy it on Amazon or Barnes and Noble.com if you want to get it online.
	Where you get deep discounts.
	You do.
	People with computers already have advantages.
	They're disproportionate advantages to people without them, don't they?
	In general, we're starting to see, I guess what people are calling a knowledge gap.
	The people who have If you think about a child.
	But it's a money gap, too.
	I mean, I can go buy your book for cheap on Amazon, but if I don't have a computer, I've got to go to a bookstore.
	Yes, and you've got to pay the fullest price.
	Same deal with airplane fares.
	You can go get very cheap airplane fares on the web.
	I mean, really cheap compared to what you'll pay at a travel agency.
	Although more of this information is starting to migrate now to voice systems on the telephones.
	The web and the telephone over the next years will start to become more and more indistinguishable so that anyone who has access to a telephone will have access to the same kind of rich information.
	Isn't it rather likely with broadband that when that arrives for most Americans, let's say, that your telephone won't even be going over a phone line anymore?
	That's absolutely right.
	More and more of the phone network is looking like the internet.
	Yeah, it sure is.
	All right, here we go.
	On the international line, you're on air with Mark Pesci.
	Where are you, please?
	I'm from Australia, Melbourne, and India.
	Melbourne, Australia.
	All right, well, welcome to the show.
	You have a question?
	Yeah, well, as you were saying a minute ago, computer people, in a way, we do have advantages, but we already have problems with bots in IRC kicking us and all sorts of dramas going on left, right, and center with those mobs.
	So, what I was wanting to know also... Can we stop for just a second?
	With bots in IRC, alright?
	IRC is Internet Chat Relay.
	Or Internet Relay Chat, or whatever it is.
	Anyway, it's a place where people gather on the Internet, and they have what are called bots.
	And these bots keep control of things when humans aren't around.
	You know about those, right, Mark?
	Yes.
	Okay, well I didn't know whether the audio... A lot of the audience, not computer savvy, wouldn't have known, but the bots are already there.
	on these groups uh... go ahead for are you a little bit but we're willing to be a hot bell i
	think that we're already got a lot of heard that yes
	i think you can have to get that uh... well i'd like to know if uh... about
	if they'd software for the uh... the nanotechnology you know if we're
	gonna have a problem such as that
	and microsoft software and buggy beta testing and also to drum with the
	dorkish chemical or how it works well right now there
	they'll speaking to the fine nanocomputers not along the lines of computers as we think of them with
	electrons flowing across silicon surfaces
	But in fact, they're taking a page out of the very first computers, which were built out of mechanical parts.
	You think about an old mechanical adding machine.
	Perhaps people remember these from the 1950s and the 1960s.
	They were wheels and gears.
	Yes.
	And in fact, it seems that the right way to make a nanocomputer is to build it out of these very small components in wheels and gears, wheels of carbon and other elements, That would work together in the same way.
	So in a sense, although they're much faster than the computers we see today, they are mechanical.
	Now, as to software testing, we're going to have exactly the same issues with buggy software that we do in the world with our computers today, and that perhaps is the biggest problem.
	Because even if we manage to effectively prevent someone from producing something that's toxic with nanotechnology, that doesn't mean That a computer with bad software can't do it.
	So then the blue screen of death in the year 2050 might be grey goo?
	The grey goo of death.
	Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Basically, isn't a part of life the struggles we face in order to reach our wants and needs?
	So isn't creating this instantaneous gratification removing a part of our existence?
	Ah, a social question.
	In other words, without the wants and needs that we struggle for today, if these wants and needs are all delivered to us so easily in the future, Then what happens to human struggle?
	A good question.
	Aaron's making a very good point, Art.
	There's no question that the way we visualize or philosophize about what human ends are, what our purposes in the world, is going to be radically redefined by a pervasive nanotechnology that you're essentially saying that part of what constitutes human need is Just there.
	It's there like the air that you breathe.
	We also think that if you take a look at the pyramid of needs that was constructed by Maslow back in the 1930s, breathing is at the very bottom.
	We don't really normally worry about breathing.
	And so in the same way, the other material needs for housing, for food, are going to be, in a sense, subsumed down to that level.
	And so we will focus on the higher end of that, which is creativity, expression, the more artistic pursuits.
	Doesn't sound like a big world for the blue-collar worker.
	Well, if you take a look at the whole sort of progression of American culture, American culture over the last 50 years has progressively reduced the role of the blue-collar worker.
	I know, but that would eliminate it.
	There's no question that within the generation of a widespread amount of technology, people would not be fabricating things, per se.
	Okay.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	My name is Michael.
	I'm calling from Norfolk, Virginia.
	Yes, Michael.
	In your conversation tonight, Mark, with Art, you've done two rather significant things.
	You've made the case for one world government in a more powerful way than it Has ever been made on this program and on almost any other program in the United States.
	And that, of course, is something that frightens a lot of religious people, people who believe in the Bible, particularly religious conservatives.
	But the case that you've made is... it can't be argued.
	This is something that is inevitable.
	It can be argued and fought over.
	I mean, that's a reason right there for a war, and you know it.
	Yeah, but... Let's ask him about that.
	You really have, as the caller points out, made the case for a one-world government, the necessity for it, before tackling any kind of technology like this, yes?
	I really actually disagree.
	I have the same, I think, very natural qualms about centralization of authority in this kind of system.
	I don't think that's the answer.
	Because I don't think that any centralized state can be so omniscient as to prevent something from happening.
	I think what you need is as much decentralization as possible.
	Well, let me just make my point about it.
	People have been thinking about this, serious thinkers have been thinking about it for well over 50 years.
	And actually working towards that, because they find it as an unavoidable thing.
	The problem is we can't talk about one world government as such, so we talk about free trade.
	But realists in the world today know that we must go in this direction for the dangers that you have pointed out here tonight, and your own arguments argue against you.
	I won't attempt to do it in this short space of time.
	But I would like to make another point.
	Your discussion of technology has also made another very significant point.
	You have made the case for the 3,500-year-old Genesis account of Moses and the Tower of Babel.
	And because you have made this so effectively by saying that, yes, what mankind is doing is actually recreating Genesis In his own time.
	And because you have done this, you have given people who are religious conservatives out there, and all kinds of religious people who are normally very paranoid about this thing, an opportunity to enter into the discussion, to think more rationally about it, not be knee-jerk in their reaction to the whole idea of one world government, and actually we can begin now talking about a one world radio program, On the lines of Coast-to-Coast AM, which will begin introducing the entire world simultaneously to the ideas, opportunities, and problems that we're talking about right now.
	I've even got the new name, sir.
	From Coast-to-Coast to Coast-to-Coast to Coast-to-Coast to Coast.
	Well, I think instead of looking at 20 million people in the Bell audience, we ought to start Seriously and realistically talking about a two billion per person audience.
	Well, I'll tell you, my network is working on it, sir.
	I can't reveal any more than that right now, but trust me when I tell you, from coast to coast to coast to coast is closer than you might imagine.
	His first point was an interesting point.
	And why, how would you make the case, Mark, that the kind of technology you're talking about wouldn't necessitate A single control, and a very strong control at that.
	There's a lovely line.
	It's my favorite line in the entire Star Wars trilogy.
	When Princess Leia turns to General Parkinson, the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems slip through your fingers.
	When you impose order, escalate chaos, and that's probably the worst of all possible situations.
	Yes, but chaos...
	You would, I would think, want to have as many different centers working on different problems as possible.
	They may want to be coordinated.
	We can see with the Internet the kinds of loose coordination, or even in the nanotechnology community, the kinds of loose coordination where researchers are aware of each other's work.
	They're trying to engender public discussion, public awareness, public debate.
	I think the idea of having a radio program where people can be educated about these issues It's incredibly beneficial.
	It's a thing that should happen.
	I agree.
	But I mean, you're such a social optimist, I can't believe it.
	I mean, somehow you see things that just aren't happening today, aren't even trending today, and you're applying them to, you know, this incredible new technology, and I don't know.
	I guess the glass is just always half full for you, huh, Mark?
	You can't say that, Art.
	I definitely have my nightmares.
	I've lived with The idea to this, part of the reason I'm well-versed in nanotechnology is because I was around when the key people involved in inventing it were actually inventing it.
	This was back at MIT in the very early 1980s.
	But Mark, as long as we have separate nation-states and rogue nation-states, and that difference and that separation, this kind of technology, I mean, begin to apply the probabilities, go crunch the numbers on You know, somebody like Canafi getting hold of something like this, and as long as the nation states are all separate, you've got to imagine that as a possibility, then your chaos numbers are really going to get you.
	But in a sense, you haven't even gone far enough.
	It's not rogue nations that we necessarily need to worry about, but as you pointed out earlier, the rogue human beings, even rogue Harry down the street.
	Exactly.
	Is that one world government going to be so powerful and so omniscient that it could keep the chains on every single person?
	I mean, I don't think, A, that anyone wants that, and B, I don't think that's actually possible.
	And so, I think we're confronted with the fact that we are what we are.
	Okay, well then, that in itself is a social comment.
	We're absolutely stubborn individuals who would never allow anything like that to happen, even though It was on the way.
	And so we'll be the same stubborn individuals who'll be toying with this new technology.
	We'll be toying with all aspects of it, though.
	We'll be toying with the upsides and the downsides.
	And I think that if you can encourage as much breadth, if you have children who understand it... Yeah, but how many bad days with grey goo do you need?
	Well, I mean, that's the question.
	How many bad days does your body have with bacteria?
	A lot of them.
	And yet your body manages to survive.
	And I think that if we look toward the natural world, we can see that we can sustain certain types of injuries.
	There might be some that would be a knockout punch, but most of them, our body is prepared for.
	Even for the ones we aren't prepared for, our body learns, adapts, and attacks.
	I think that's the metaphor.
	I think that's the reason why I have this optimism.
	Alright.
	Because we can look to the natural world for it.
	Alright, I'm not doing this enough.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	Good evening Art.
	This is Chris from Los Angeles.
	Yes, sir.
	Thank you.
	I'm at 640 KFI AM Radio.
	That's the way to do it.
	Okay.
	You guys have touched the subject that I'd like to get into.
	It's a little bit more on the wild side of this.
	This grey goo matter is pretty terrifying, but let's look at something else.
	What if we could take the nanotechnology, release it into a human body, it goes into our fat cells or sperm cells, whatever, and learns the T-cells, And becomes a cell management system that we can control.
	So as we're aging, and if there's any heart defects, the nanotechnology reports it, say, to a wristband that we wear, and it alerts us, and it automatically gets, we give it a signal and approval to go ahead and do the repairs.
	Now we take it a step further.
	Say we want to have available to us programs that we can insert.
	For example, we want to become a cat for an hour.
	We want to play with our cat.
	And we put in the program and the nano is going and for an hour we become an animal of our choice.
	Or say we want to become a football player.
	We can increase our size and our mass through the nano technology.
	Okay?
	Now to take it a little bit further, say this device we wear becomes an interface to computers or to communicating with other people.
	Sure, it certainly is going to destroy the steroid market.
	You know, what about these people who have frozen themselves and they're waiting for the technology to cure their diseases and this would probably be the only thing that could be capable of doing, reviving them.
	Or a dead person, you know, it would be pretty scary if we could It's funny that you should mention this.
	The first major book on nanotechnology called The Engines of Creation was published in 1986.
	of experience that he told us about.
	It's funny that you should mention this.
	The first major book on nanotechnology called The Engines of Creation was published in 1986.
	I read a very early draft of it in 1983 and there was an entire chapter which talked about
	exactly this.
	It was basically debating the...
	how much of the remains of someone did you need before you could reanimate them.
	And I mean, I read that chapter, I was frightened by it.
	And yet, at the same time, you can see that when the technology is sufficiently advanced,
	those kinds of applications become very easy.
	Okay.
	Well, you've got my real spinning.
	I don't know about you guys, but who needs a hologram if you can just become something?
	So then, in other words, if you had enough of a person's just basic DNA,
	which could come from blood or hair or skin scrapings or whatever,
	that might be enough information to rebuild a duplicate of that person?
	A real duplicate, not a clone, but a duplicate, right?
	Clearly, if you're talking about the person, the person is a combination of the body.
	It's not just the genes.
	If you're talking about Einstein, and I think they have Einstein's brain in a jar somewhere.
	They do.
	And so it's conceivable that you could reanimate someone with sufficient remains.
	Again, we think that most of the qualities of the person are kept inside the brain, although there's some argument about where it all is.
	So it wouldn't necessarily be completely faithful.
	But it would be a reasonable fact.
	You have a way of describing nanotechnology, which is both at the same time frightening and very understandable for the average person.
	I've had other experts on, and they engage in language that the average person simply cannot understand.
	So you articulate this very well.
	Did you do that in your book?
	Yes, that was really one of the main theses of my book, was to take these ideas that have been, in a sense, locked in the ivory towers And put them in terms that everyone can understand, because I look at children's toys and I show how children's toys, like Legos, can be used as a metaphor for understanding what that technology is.
	Legos, huh?
	Legos.
	Alright, listen, Mark, we're at a junction point where I always ask my guests, and you know, I can't even... Where are you?
	Los Angeles.
	You're in L.A.?
	I am.
	Alright.
	I always ask my guests right here whether they want to do the final hour.
	Or they've done too much and they're ready to rest?
	You don't sound ready to rest.
	No, you've got my wheels turning.
	And they turn pretty quickly at that.
	Alright, then hold it right there and we'll come back and do another hour.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Indeed, only in America.
	Actually, that may not be true.
	I wonder what the Chinese are doing right now in this area.
	Fortunately for us, they're very socially advanced over there in Communist China now.
	We don't really need to worry about what they're doing with this kind of stuff, right?
	Ha ha ha ha!
	I don't want to only mention with a tear in every room All I want to love you from is beneath the halo's moon
	But you think I should be happy with your money and your name
	name And hide myself in sorrow while you play your cheat room
	And find myself in sorrow while you play your cheap game But you think I should be happy with your money and your
	game Silver threads and golden needles, will I mend this heart
	of mine?
	And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm water why?
	But you think I should be happy with your money and your name
	And hide myself in sorrow while you play your cheat room game
	Wanna take a ride?
	Well, call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First line callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First line callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	And to reach out on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Feld on the Premier Radio Network.
	Certainly, as I was listening during the news to a guy, a very nice guy, who sells the Auric vacuum cleaners that we need today.
	You've got to wonder, in the future, you've got dirt around your house.
	But I don't think you're going to need a great big vacuum cleaner in the nanotechnological world.
	You're going to just need this little thing and you release it and it goes and it eats all the dirt.
	And I mean all the dirt.
	Once again, for all my friends overseas, give it a try.
	Take the plunge, whether you're in Europe or Asia or North or South America, wherever you are, save here in the U.S.
	and Canada.
	Try this.
	Call 800-893-0903.
	Worldwide, we'll pay the bill.
	Doesn't matter where you are.
	China?
	I don't care.
	We'll pay the bill.
	Worst case, get hold of the AT&T operator and have her dial 800-893-0903.
	All right.
	Back now to my guest, Mark Pesci.
	Mark?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So hanging in there, huh?
	Oh, yeah.
	Very good.
	All right.
	Well, lots of people want to talk to you, so here we go.
	West of the Rockies, you're on air with Mark Pesci.
	Good morning.
	Hi, my name is Ray.
	I'm calling from Mahogany, Utah to listen to you on 570k NRS on Salt Lake.
	Good for you.
	Okay, now here's the big problem I'm having with all this.
	I can mentally picture it, but there are so many things that bother me about it.
	I'm a martial arts enthusiast.
	I'm an amateur musician.
	And I'm a student of Zen Buddhism or Chan Buddhism, whichever you want to call it.
	And to me, without the human element of striving, struggling and aspiring, and I could just say to myself, Bang, I'm a master swordsman.
	Bang, I'm an enlightened Buddhist.
	Bang, I'm a really good musician.
	It would all be hollow and empty.
	It's a lot like another question we had, really.
	It's not an easy answer, is it, Mark?
	No, I think that it's going to displace some of the things that we think of as being worth striving for, and replace them with others.
	I think that it's in the human nature.
	Describe, to improve, to get better.
	And the question is when certain things become easy.
	For instance, I live in Los Angeles.
	It's a huge city, but it's very easy for me to get across.
	The transportation is not an issue, but I happen to be going around at rush hour.
	And so it's changed what I consider a challenge appropriately to my level of ability.
	So every time our abilities extend, what becomes important, what becomes challenging also changes.
	I don't believe that you'll be able to flick a switch and become the Buddha, because I think that's a spiritual change.
	We're talking about material manifestations of the world.
	We're not talking about the nature of spiritual changes, but I think that one of the things that this could foment, that the nanotechnology revolution could foment, is an examination of what truly is important.
	Once you've satisfied your basic material needs, what then is important?
	Another thing I did want to mention is that it sounds to me a lot that what we're talking about tonight has been more or less predicted in James Redfield's books, The Tenth Insight and The Celestian Prophecy.
	He mentioned something in one of those books about the possibility of there being such a synergy between humans and machines.
	I think that this is a real, I think that's a core part of it.
	The entire passage of human history from the invention of fire through the present day has been an increasing human ability to work with the material world, to get finer and finer levels of control over it.
	And we're now just in that last half mile, that last sprint before complete control of the material world, which brings with it a whole host of problems and a whole host of opportunities.
	All right, I appreciate the call, sir.
	I guess I would like to ask about Mr. Oreck's very nice fellow who sells his Oreck vacuum cleaner that still goes after 25 years.
	I was listening to his little commercial during the news.
	Not everybody might have caught it, but they know what I mean.
	You know, how's Mr. Oreck going to be doing there in another 50 years?
	Well, there's already been proposed what we would call household manites.
	Which will eat the dust off the floor.
	And in fact, use the dust off the floor as the thing that keeps them powered.
	How about cat barf?
	They'd be able to do it off of any sort of organic substance.
	It would be a general purpose device that would be looking for things that don't belong in the environment.
	And so they'd probably be talking to some device that has a rough idea of how the environment should be.
	Now, you don't want it to eat your books.
	No, but I mean a hairball filled cat barf.
	I'm sick of cleaning those up.
	That you can probably actually do something with.
	You might actually, maybe what you'll have is a magic wand in your hand, and you'll point it at the device, and that will then call the nanites in the room to run over and eat the cat barf.
	Nanites!
	Cat barf!
	Now!
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Mark Pesci, hello.
	Hello, uh, Mr. Bell.
	Yes.
	Great show this evening, or this morning, I should say.
	Yes, it is morning.
	A few questions.
	One, for you, have you ever considered a weekly television show, say like a sci-fi channel or something like that?
	I've been offered that by the Sci-Fi Channel and about a million others, and I've turned every one of them down.
	I'm not going to do TV.
	Okay.
	Good answer.
	Honest answer.
	Honest answer.
	As far as your guest goes, Mark, I have a question for you.
	The reason I'm asking this is because I'm finishing college and hopefully I'm going to be going into the military, but I saw a program about nanotechnology on the History Channel, and one concept that they put out was the use of nanotechnology for a skin covering, something that I guess you would inject into your skin or put on you, something that could change Colors like if you were a Navy SEAL or something that could provide a barrier for protection against the environment.
	Is something like that practical?
	How far away are we from that sort of technology?
	And would it be safe?
	It certainly would be practical.
	Depending on the qualities of that kind of covering, it's relatively easy to do because it's a polymer.
	And so really what you want is some sort of active polymer that can be controlled.
	Is it safe?
	They would probably design it to be at least as safe as a wetsuit.
	You'd have to do something like that.
	Now, if it binds directly to your skin, you're going to have another level of problems, because you're going to deal with perspiration and all sorts of issues like that.
	But I think you could definitely see those kinds of things.
	Those will happen, I would say, five to ten years out.
	Because those are almost the benefits of material science.
	And then the question is, how active are those materials?
	Enormous leaps that are being made in display technology now, where we have what they're calling bioluminescent LEDs and things like this.
	These are all parts of the same revolution that's going on with using materials for surfaces that have particular qualities.
	So I guess something like, for instance, if your skin, in the future, if you're in a bad accident and you get burned all over, I guess the idea of some sort of Yes, the potential for that is also there, although I think that by the time we do that, you'd probably also then be able to take your genome into high care and regrow new skin.
	One quick question, as far as like car technology, do you know if anybody's working on something to where you would be able to, like maybe you buy a car in just plain white, uh... by you know changing something spring something
	whatever you would instantly change the color of your car
	that is that is one of the things that people working on it but again a lot of
	work is going on the truth there's a big
	uh... push toward what we call digital ink right now which is another type of material which allows you to have
	a book but the book pages are actually active
	I used to be a police dispatcher.
	Boy, it would complicate that job.
	You're looking for a green Chevy, right?
	at the surface is very flexible and very unlike a book as you can see that is being a very easy extension from a
	book cover to a car cover
	you know i was just thinking as you're talking about the the car
	it i used to be a police dispatcher it would complicate that job
	you're looking for a green chevy right then you're looking for a blue chevy and a yellow chevy
	and an orange chevy And pretty soon, you're not even looking for a Chevy anymore.
	You're looking for a Ford, because it just morphed into a Ford.
	No, but probably what the police officer would do would be to fire a dart of nanites at it, which would tag the car, and make it possible to capture it, no matter what the car looked like.
	Well said.
	Oh, Wildcard Line, you're on air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	This is Nick, another 640 man in L.A.
	Yes, sir.
	The Blockbuster program is one of the three best I've ever heard in several years.
	That last caller really leads into my double question because the two questions are related about productivity and about violence for hire.
	That's going to be great when your closet is going to start looking like a broom closet and you have a jar for every article of clothing you want to wear.
	You just spray and poof you're dressed and whatever you need to protect yourself.
	The two questions, this is on the other extreme rather than right next to your body, in the whole world you're going to have Sheep herders in Mongolia, you're going to have jitney drivers in Brazil.
	Millions of workers suddenly going to telework centers to support the new technology.
	That's great.
	Productivity is wonderful, but there's one downside is that everything they do will have absolutely nothing to do with their immediate environment, which will mean whole cultures will be just completely absorbed.
	Maybe you call it a kind of a cultural grave.
	group type of concept and at least of my main question which is
	you can have uh... boxing matches bare knuckles matches really brutal games that you know some rogue countries will
	be willing to supply real blood being shed real people being killed like
	in the movie gladiator and even far more uh... repulsive practices in which to
	participants are either drugged or coerced into participating even
	All for entertainment.
	Yeah, even torture for entertainment, and you can't stop it because it will go through the underground, through hundreds of servers, or email.
	There'll be three basic means of transmission, direct server networks, email, which is store and forward where the computers don't always have to be on, or just removable media like CDs and VHS and the like.
	I'll get off the air while you address the second problem because it's concerned me for a long time as I've studied the Internet and what the next step will be.
	Mark?
	Well, I mean, you can see the parallels already with sort of very far into the pornography industry.
	This is something that really is already in existence and some people will always be looking for certain types of things that will thrill them.
	I think that the thing that matters in a situation like this is that there are people out there who are monitoring, who are actively working to monitor this.
	When you look at the issue of productivity, of where people are going to go in a culture like this, I think people will find the issues that concern them.
	We talk about striving for goals, what goals are important.
	It may be that the goals of production will be left behind in favor of the goals for humankind, for the kind of greatest benefit, so that if you find Something like this that's going on at the subterranean level.
	Perhaps someone who's been freed from a blue-collar job actually would take an interest in finding and solving these kinds of problems.
	So that the social displacements that happen may be made up for.
	Gosh, you're an optimist.
	All right.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci, the optimist.
	Hello.
	Yes.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Your turn.
	Where are you, sir?
	Uh, Bluefield, West Virginia.
	Okay.
	Uh, they don't carry your last hours, so I'm gonna have to ask, if you don't mind, after I ask my second question, if you could keep them on.
	It'll be a short answer, I'm sure.
	The first one, both of you can give me your opinion on.
	Have you read, uh, The Cat's Cradle by, uh, Kurt Von Vonnegut?
	Absolutely.
	Yes.
	So, you know the premise of some kind of foreign agent being creative and getting out of the lab and destroying the world's not new?
	No.
	So I don't think with that history, and I'm sure it goes back further, I've read one that's older than that, that's still going to be kept on men's minds.
	So I think there's always going to be somebody that's going to be looking and watching out for that kind of stuff.
	Although, you know, there's no guarantees.
	You're an optimist too, aren't you?
	An optimistic realist.
	Oh, I'm not sure that works, but all right.
	The second question for Mark is, can those nanoprobes be turned against the Internet?
	Well, the Internet is coming through so many different media these days.
	It's either over a wire, or it's over the air, or it's over a fiber optic link, or it's over a laser link, or it's over a microwave.
	And so it's not clear that you could take out the whole internet in a situation like that.
	You could certainly, say, produce a nanite bomb that would take out the physical wiring somewhere.
	Or perhaps produce a microwave storm so that people couldn't get their calls through.
	So in a limited sense, you could do it.
	Whether it could do it in the global sense, that's not clear.
	I mean, certainly if you produced something that was just the gray goo, then that would take the internet out, because it would take everything else out with it.
	But as you See the Internet now, or even in its immediate future, its broadband future, nanotechnology would not directly apply to destroying it.
	You could take out sections, but I don't think you could take out the whole thing.
	Yeah, right.
	Exactly.
	All right.
	Good.
	At least there's some limit there.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Good morning.
	Hello, gentlemen.
	This is Lee out of Seattle in Como.
	How you doing?
	Yeah, Art, I agree with you in a hundred thousand spades that this man is a cockeyed optimist.
	Let me say, I'm not a Luddite.
	I read a tremendous amount of science fiction.
	I read about this, but it just scares the hell out of me.
	The combination of this, especially with our breakthroughs in genetic technology, is just astoundingly scary.
	To me, it would be like In our present form of society, I believe it would be like giving a group of cannibal headhunters an armed atomic bomb and just letting them play around with it.
	I'm going to address the military question in a minute, but let me make a couple of other observations.
	I came across a very interesting thing that applies to this.
	There's a quote from someone that says, experience is a hard teacher.
	It gives the test first and the lesson afterwards.
	And when we start dealing with these super technologies like we're getting into now, we're only going to have one chance for a world-changing mistake.
	I think particularly the thing that scares me with this technology is its application to tyranny.
	As you said, Art, let's look at the examples we've got.
	As Mr. Fuller pointed out 50 years ago, we could feed all the world and we could manage all our energy needs.
	We've got everything we need under our current technology, but we're not doing so.
	Right.
	That's right.
	And that's because people are making money and they're controlling power with it.
	This is just going to be that ramped up a hundred times.
	What if a dictator, for instance, wanted to secretly assassinate someone?
	He could key one of these things into their genome, have it so it would only strike one person, it would hunt them out, it would go into their brain, pop a blood vessel and they would destroy themselves.
	It would look like he had a stroke and no one would ever know.
	Let me cite an example from The Outer Limits.
	I know some people you had on just recently.
	They did a show about this.
	Incredibly interesting and frightening.
	This was going to take a tremendous amount of programming to make these work.
	They're incredibly specialized, but yet they're very stupid because they're so small.
	This guy was a medical application and they injected these things inside of a body for experimental first generation nanites.
	And they told him to protect and repair his immune system.
	So they went in there and they repaired him alright, but then they discovered he wasn't good enough.
	So they started changing his skin, adding ribs.
	Pretty soon his head started itching in the back, and he discovered he had a second pair of eyes in the back of his head.
	They made him better than he was.
	And that was because the programming wasn't done properly.
	Oh, but look.
	Programming is always done properly.
	I mean, some Windows 98 ever crash?
	Exactly.
	I would never want to inject anything like this in my body.
	Not if I can help it, but the problem is, you know, it could be spread around the world and you wouldn't even know it was there.
	So how does the guest address the tyrannical aspects of this?
	I think that the thing we're going to need to develop is a very powerful defense.
	There's no question about that.
	I think that we're going to need to take a look at the human body and use that as the model and really inflate the idea of the human body and its elaborate defenses against penetration and say, OK, we need to replicate that in a nanotechnology world.
	We need to bring those defenses not only inside the body, but outside the body.
	How about this could be targeted against specific people, and you wouldn't even know it was in your environment until it killed you.
	But you would because you'll have nanites in your butt that are checking for foreign invaders.
	You know, the people that have the power right now can control it.
	They can do that kind of programming, but the common people won't be able to do it.
	Well, they'll have it first, and the people with the money will have the bots, and everybody else will have... well, they'll be in the pots.
	The haves and the have-nots, bot-wise.
	Nanotechnologically speaking.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Good morning!
	Teaching the made up.
	You know, I was just thinking, listen to the words of this.
	I was just thinking, listen to the words of this.
	It really defines the current social human condition on Earth.
	Almost perfectly.
	Are we ready for nanotechnology, huh?
	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 reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First-time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	And to call out on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them
	dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nine.
	Now come on, get off your worldwide duffs and give me a call, internationally.
	Figure it out.
	Call the operator, the AT&T operator.
	Beg her, she'll help you.
	800-893-0903.
	That's 800...
	8-9-3-0-9-0-3.
	It's actually free from anywhere in the world.
	Oh, look what Ben in Calgary, Alberta says.
	He says, Hey Art, if you think Microsoft on your computer is unpleasant, can you imagine it in your body?
	Once again, the Prince of Micro...
	I prefer not to say that.
	Mark, welcome back.
	Thank you.
	Would it be possible, do you think, this is just an offhand question, to design a nanotechnological something or another that would literally go around the world and destroy every single cell phone?
	Is that a yes?
	That's an I don't know.
	I think once you get GPS in all of them, it'll certainly be easy to track them down.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hello.
	Oh, good evening, Mark.
	John from Kauai, KQNG 570 listening to you out here.
	Thanks again for making us all stop and think.
	Good morning, Mark.
	Good morning.
	My question's twofold.
	Could nanites be made to, like, be dispersed and then sit dormant, maybe recharging on solar power until they were globally awakened?
	Yes, absolutely.
	The question with that is, what signal do you use to awaken them?
	Right.
	Secondly, if I had a nanite and I took it in for inspection, could it be detected under a normal laboratory microscope at, say, 250 to 500 power?
	It would depend on the scale of the nanite.
	Most nanites, we think, will be Between the size of a bacterium and a virus, it would depend on the complexity of them.
	And so, you can't really see a virus with a 500x microscope.
	You can see a bacterium.
	My last question to you, Art, is would you ask him if it could be sprayed in an aerosol form from an aerial tanker?
	Ah, sure.
	And for you, Caller?
	Regarding the signal?
	We all know what it is.
	Let's clap off.
	Alright, thank you, and later.
	I don't think you would have to go to the extreme of spraying this stuff from anything, would you?
	Or would there be instances where you would?
	Well, I guess it would depend on what your needs were.
	I mean, if there was an immediate problem and you wanted an immediate application, it's the same thing we use normal materials for.
	You use a spray when you want to apply something directly over a particular area.
	And then you know it's there, rather than waiting for it to find whatever its target is.
	Gotcha.
	Grey goo?
	Grey goo.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	Yeah, hi.
	This is Franco Cullen from L.A., KFI.
	Yes, sir.
	Yeah, Mark, would it be possible to use nanotechnology to help us, like with the supernatural sector, the area as far as helping detect, you know, all these, you know, shadow people, the ghosts and the spirits?
	And I'll listen up here.
	Thank you.
	Very interesting.
	In other words, to learn something about what we now consider to be the metaphysical.
	Well, it would depend on whether there's anything measurable by a nanite in that area.
	Now, clearly, the one thing that a nanite can do is it can make very, very precise and fine measurements to a detail and to a degree that normal scientific instruments aren't normally able.
	And so if there is something that is physically present in a phenomenon, a nanite might be able to detect it.
	Hmm.
	All right.
	Eason Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Yes, hello, where are you?
	Okay, this is Mark from Grafton, Wisconsin.
	Alright.
	Okay, um, when you mentioned the Grey Goo in the beginning, um, it was really fascinating, and it kind of reminded me of, um, I don't know, the Big Bang?
	Or at least the theory of the Big Bang?
	Yeah, it's kind of like the Big Bang in a way.
	An expansion, right?
	If you count from this, um, it's kind of a not-so-down-to-earth comment, but, um, like the ultimate nanite, I guess, if you can look at it.
	The Big Bang released stuff.
	Maybe the ultimate nanites are nuclear material itself.
	What we build everything with in science is some stuff that already exists.
	Nuclear atoms, molecules.
	From the Hindu and Buddhist perspective, we live in an interactive universe.
	You know, these alternate nanites that I call nuclear material.
	I mean, we're interacting with them all the time, you know.
	The way the Buddhist and Hindu philosophy goes is that there's, you know, for everything there's a cause.
	There's just an endless chain of cause and effect.
	So we know we're interacting with something.
	My point is we're interacting with these ultimate nanites, I call them, you know, the stuff of the universe.
	So... Well, you're getting metaphysical on this.
	Well, it's metaphysical.
	My point is that this, again, is...
	Even everything that we create, you know, like even, I remember when the Cray, Cray computers, you know like Cray?
	Yes, of course.
	Cray computer systems.
	Yes.
	Um, their computers were approaching even the human form because they, they started using, um, artificial blood plasma to, um, cool the computer systems.
	So, the point is, um... Well, I guess you could think of it as artificial blood plasma, but I don't, I don't... What, my point is, Mark, is what does, um, you know, with respect to Well, it's going to be a complete transformation of the material world.
	Now, because we live in the material world, because we interact with and are engaged in a chain of causality in the material world, if we completely transform the material world, there is no choice but to completely transform what we are.
	Humanity on the other side of the nanotechnology revolution does not look like the humanity of the early 21st century.
	As Art points out repeatedly, there may not be any humanity at all.
	We may have pressed the wrong button, or maybe there was a software glitch and Microsoft and our bodies decided to just melt us all down.
	That said, it is possible That this transformation will take us somewhere else.
	I wonder what they'd call that operating system.
	Wilson of the Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	Hi, this is Clinton in Portland.
	Hello, Clinton.
	I have two comments, and the last caller kind of led up to it, the first one.
	My opinion is that technology is a way to reflect back to ourselves by our own makeup.
	I mean, we learn about, like you were saying earlier, you know, we create a A mechanical, emotional human, and we learn about our own emotions.
	And I think that nanotechnology really gets down to the level of quantum physics and consciousness.
	And once we get into that level, we're in the arena of our consciousness affecting reality.
	Now we are using technology to do that but I think that we already have that ability
	already within the human form.
	I mean I'm thinking of someone like Jesus who manifested the loaves and fishes directly
	out of energy in the universe.
	And so I just see that nanotechnology is kind of a stepping stone to a spiritual awakening
	because like you say we are getting into a time when we will be directly manipulating
	physical reality.
	That's exactly correct.
	If we have that kind of ability right now, a direct control over matter, it's latent.
	It's not something we normally imply.
	And yet, technologies are the way we present ourselves, that we have control over the material world.
	And so nanotechnology is, in a sense, that last step of control.
	But at some point, nanotechnology, for example, would allow a virtual duplication of every miracle or pestilence that occurred from God or Jesus when he was on Earth.
	control of the material world, the world is always latent.
	But at some point, nanotechnology, for example, would allow a virtual duplication of every
	miracle or pestilence that occurred from God or Jesus when he was on Earth.
	All of these things could be manifested by nanotechnology.
	In the twinkling of an eye.
	So then how, in a twinkling of an eye, so then how do we separate ourselves from God at that point?
	Well, you'd have to, I think, be careful about psychological ego inflation.
	That's probably going to be one of the major psychiatric disorders of a nanotechnology world.
	I'm sure.
	People believing that they are the entire universe.
	And so, there's going to have to be a balance.
	And again, when you strike the sort of cautionary note, what we're saying is that we have to find that balance between ...are incredibly realized abilities as individuals, and the fact that we need to keep existing as a species.
	Is there any way for people to get in contact with you, Mark, email addresses?
	My email address is right there on the website, right on the front page of PlayfulWorld.com.
	I encourage everyone.
	I got a couple of emails during the program.
	Well, okay.
	What is it, just for grins?
	Mark, with a K, at PlayfulWorld.com.
	That's easy.
	Okay.
	Mark at PlayfulWorld.com.
	That's really easy.
	All right.
	First time caller on the line.
	You're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Yes, you have hum.
	Yes, I'm a first-time caller.
	Yes, sir.
	I'm calling from El Paso, Texas.
	All right.
	On KTSM 690.
	Right.
	And my name is Gary.
	Okay, Gary.
	Fire away.
	Yes, sir.
	Is this our bell?
	It sure is.
	One question, sir.
	Well, I have two questions.
	One, first of all, are we live across all 50 states of the United States of America?
	Say that again, please.
	Are we live across the whole world?
	Yes, the entire world.
	Yeah, okay.
	My name is Gary, and I'm calling from El Paso, Texas.
	I got that already.
	Okay.
	The reason I'm calling, sir, Mr. Bell, is because I was going to say that from my understanding of physics and the universe and astronomy, One time I posed a question to a man that was a Planetarium Director.
	All right, you're going to have to get on subject here.
	We're going to have to move on.
	Oh, I've got a guest.
	Do you have a question for him?
	Yes.
	What is it?
	It's about the nanoworld, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I just want to ask one question.
	What is the definition of nanotechnology?
	Yes, sir.
	All right.
	That's probably something we should have really defined at the beginning of the program.
	What is your definition of nanotechnology?
	Nanotechnology is the human ability to build devices out of individual atoms.
	So if you take a look at the natural world, if you take a look at a piece of wood, it's carbon atoms and oxygen atoms and hydrogen atoms that have been grown by nature's nanotechnology, a tree, biology.
	And so nanotechnology is our ability to take individual atoms and assemble them in any way we want to create anything we need.
	Um, International Line, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Um, where are you?
	Where are you, sir?
	I'm in Canberra.
	Uh, England?
	Canberra, Australia.
	Australia.
	And, um, I think that's just a comment.
	I mean, I think it's pretty good.
	First of all, I want to say hi to Maastricht, um, in IRC.
	My comment is, um, you were talking before about the possible deployment of nanoprobes.
	Maybe, if you think about it, some chemtrails are just that.
	Well, it could be.
	And there might be some applications where it would be sprayed.
	There are a lot of people who believe that we are being sprayed with one thing or another, Mark.
	That's what they mean by chemtrails.
	Again, would that be an effective way to disperse some early forms of nanotechnology?
	If you're looking to disperse things into the environment that would be protective, things that would protect against grey goo, You'd probably want first to test them very carefully in the laboratory to make sure that they are not dangerous.
	And then after that, release them first to controlled levels and then very widespread levels into the environment.
	And this way, we will end up constructing an immune system that will help us defend against a Grey Goo.
	Kind of a Grey Goo SDI.
	Yes.
	A Grey Goo Antivirus.
	Gotcha.
	Wildcard Line, you're on there with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	Yeah, greetings, Art.
	Greetings, Mr. Pesci.
	I think one thing it hasn't been properly really touched on, a few people have addressed it, but putting this in the contest of a national security state and the exponential erosion of privacy that we've had in this country through surveillance technology and what was originally military technology applied to civilian law enforcement, basically I think maybe we should Introduce Mr. Pesci to Nick Begich.
	I think Mr. Begich, if you put in the context of that, of electronic mind control, of mind control technologies, of which there are patents, of the CIA's history of mind control experiments, and again, of this growing, it's a cliche, but this growing police state.
	The means of Mass control of individuals is never-ending.
	You can determine each individual's reality, not only the perception but the response to it.
	I've been listening to this just absolutely glued.
	It's like listening to Michio Kaku in the sense of how theoretically fascinating it is in practical application.
	That the end result of this is going to be nanological change.
	All right.
	Well, Mark, in other words, there we are again.
	The one world government, the iron fist upon all of us.
	He somehow sees that completely tied into the development of this technology.
	I mean, in some ways, I see why he fears that.
	Because we're kind of moving in that direction now.
	Yeah.
	I mean, what if they have the tools to really make it so?
	The question here is, is there a they in this situation?
	Nanotechnologies will be both probably very easy to make, which is a great benefit and danger, and very easy to distribute.
	And so in the sense that we don't really have to worry about a centralized state, Trying to control nanotechnology, there probably won't be a single point of focus for control.
	That also means that if there are control nanites in the environment, someone clever will develop anti-control nanites in the environment.
	At least we'd have to want to work to that kind of thing.
	I mean, again, perhaps the biggest, most important issue in nanotechnology is the issue of defense against Nanotechnology.
	But that really is almost a bigger part of the problem than anything of the benefits that we get.
	All right.
	Not a lot of time.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
	Hi.
	Hi, this is Justin, listening in Minneapolis on AM 1500.
	Yes, sir.
	KSTP.
	Yep.
	I have a question about how could you possibly power all these trillions of little nanites in a sustainable way?
	That's a very good question.
	There are a lot of proposals on the table right now.
	Some of them involve using microwaves, ultraviolet light, sunlight, and infrared light.
	You can use the photoelectric effect on these devices.
	Now, if you have an anode that's floating around inside your body, it might be metabolizing sugars that are in your body.
	It might be beaming microwaves at a very low level into your body to keep them activated.
	Now, one of the upsides of this sort of thing is it provides a way to turn them off.
	Because if you deprive them of whatever their power source is, you've effectively deprived them of their ability to function.
	But it's one of the issues that researchers are looking into right now when they're studying how to make these devices work.
	And also, if they're electronically based, what would happen if you aimed extremely high-powered ENPs at them?
	Or high-powered microwaves?
	Or what if they got hit by a solar flare?
	Would that knock them out?
	It would probably knock them out in the same way that our computer chips these days can be knocked out by solar flares.
	Alright.
	Thank you very much.
	I never even considered that aspect of it.
	In other words, There might be things in the environment that would kill a nanotechnological project of some sort, better than a doornail.
	Absolutely.
	The smaller you get, the easier it is for them to break.
	All right.
	Once again, your book is called Playful World, and your book is available all around the playful world right now, right?
	Absolutely.
	Bookstores and on Amazon.com.
	Website, all the rest of it.
	We've got a link to your website up there right now.
	And your email address is mark at playful dot com.
	Playful world.
	Playful world, I'm sorry, dot com.
	Dot com.
	So easy.
	Well, you're going to get a lot of emails.
	Are you able to answer them?
	i'll try uh... uh... uh...
	would you say you're looking forward to the development of this
	technology Or you are wary of the development of this technology, or both?
	I would say I'm guardedly optimistic.
	I believe the basic principle of chaos theory is sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
	And I think that we need to make the best possible world for nanotechnology.
	We need to make the best possible awareness for the public, for the government, for the researchers.
	If we do that, we stand the best possible chance of navigating this incredible transition.
	Well, it sure has been a pleasure having you on the program, and if you're up to it, we will definitely do it again, because we've hardly scratched the nanotechnological surface here.
	And so, will you come back?
	Absolutely.
	I've had a great time.
	Thank you very much.
	You're very welcome.
	Good night, Mark.
	All right.
	Tomorrow night, Linda Moulton Howe will be here in the first hour.
	She was, uh, displaced, um, and she volunteered to be displaced, and she got a lot of very important information.
	But as you know, Richard Hoagland had also some incredibly current important information in tonight's first hour, so she will be here tomorrow night in the first hour.
	I'm Art Bell from the high desert, where finally the devil winds have let up a little bit.
	High pressure is settling in.
	A great big, or is it a little tiny, nanotechnological pothole.
	From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good
	morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be in all the world's time zones.
	And both of them are pretty dark.
	Did we talk to him this time?
	How you doing?
	I'm Art Bell, and this is the weekend version of Coast to Coast AM.
	As a little follow-up to last night's program, we're going to be very busy tonight, but Trenton, New Jersey, Associated Press.
	Alina Slow, documented as the world's oldest woman, died today at the nursing home where her daughter died three days earlier.
	She was 114 or 15, depending on which source you believe.
	Her daughter had died at the same nursing home a few days earlier.
	Her daughter was 90 years old.
	Now, come and imagine Being old enough to watch your 90-year-old daughter die.
	Being old enough to watch your 90-year-old daughter die.
	Holy mackerel.
	Anyway, so much for longevity.
	Tonight, we will examine the story of the Claw.
	Actually, we're going to do many things, but the Claw is going to be first.
	Dr. Roger Lear is here.
	Dr. Roger Lear, author of his book is Aliens and the Scalpel.
	Intriguing title, isn't it?
	And it's said to be one of the world's most important leaders that we're about to interview in physical evidence research involving the field of ufology.
	He and his surgical team have performed nine surgeries on alleged alien abductees.
	This has resulted in the removal of ten separate and distinct objects suspected of being alien implants.
	These objects have been scientifically investigated by some of the most prestigious laboratories in the world.
	Their findings have been baffling.
	Some comparisons have been made to meteorite samples.
	Dr. Lear anticipates performing yet more surgeries in the future and will investigate the physiological and biological aspects of the abduction phenomenon.
	He has also formed a non-profit organization for this specific purpose called A&S Research, Inc.
	In a moment, Dr. Lear will relate for you the story of the claw.
	By the way, in the next hour, Richard C. Hoagland is here with some shocking information.
	Then we're going to have a discussion with Mike Heiser in the hour following that about ETs and religion.
	That's going to be very interesting.
	I plan to play the part of a right-wing religious Fundamentalist fanatic, and we'll see how they do with me.
	In the meantime, we're about to hear the story of The Claw, delivered serendipitously one day to Dr. Lear's front porch in a large box.
	He opened it, and it came directly at him.
	He just barely cut it off.
	No, that's not the story of The Claw, but here comes the real story of The Claw.
	Dr. Lear, welcome to the program.
	Nice to be with you again, Art.
	Great to have you.
	We're going to have to treat this, though I know the claw has been under investigation for a long time.
	Really, this is going to be more the story of how things are investigated the real way, when something anomalous shows up.
	It doesn't happen frequently enough, you know.
	They go in drawers and closets, and they're forgotten, and they're never investigated properly.
	So, let's tell the story of the claw.
	Well, Art, this is a non-implant case that we've been investigating for some years now.
	And as far as abduction cases go, it probably has more physical evidence than any case in the books that are on record.
	And that's why I got interested in it, and I don't mind to say the name because people will recognize it if they've been following it for so long.
	So this, we're talking about the Gary Lowery case.
	Gary, well, give us a brief overview of that case.
	What happened?
	He's a gentleman with a family who was a fireman, and his job in the fire department was that of an arson investigator. So he was sort of a professional at
	collecting physical evidence in the first place. He and his family have been involved
	with the alien abduction phenomena for some years now and during the course of this there's been a
	lot of physical evidence, things that go on around the house, which there's magnetic anomalies.
	There's...
	So in other words, they're victims of abduction themselves?
	Correct.
	That's correct.
	It involved him and the whole family.
	Now, to shorten the story so we can get basically to the point, one of the things that Gary was doing was trying to collect footprints.
	And he did this in a very simple manner.
	He took a towel, which was the same color as the rug on the floor, and he laminated a piece of heavy tinfoil on the back side of the towel and then placed that down on the floor in front of the wall area where he saw these whatever come through.
	And he successfully got some footprints, which he casted.
	So he got one set of prints.
	Why not get more?
	That's right.
	So he tried doing this for several times and was relatively unsuccessful.
	So whoever or whatever was stepping on the towel decided maybe they would step over it or something.
	And he got a few scratches and things but no more prints.
	But one morning he woke up and looked at the towel and he could see a dark object that was kind of hooked.
	In the loops of the towel that he called his wife in, who had seen him place the towel on the floor the night before, and was aware of the fact that it was clean, there was nothing on it.
	In fact, she was the one that laundered the towel.
	So here we have two eyewitnesses to this thing that's caught up in the fibers of this towel.
	So we took a look at it, and it's an object that's Maybe about three quarters of an inch long.
	And it's dark in color and sort of has a point that goes down at the end.
	So he looked at it and he said, hmm, this looks like a claw.
	And got a hold of me.
	I said, you know, I'd be very much interested in seeing this.
	So I made a trip up to Bakersfield.
	Looked at the towel and looked at this thing and by golly, it looked like a claw and it felt like a claw.
	So here's where it all began.
	We've got to find out, you know, what this thing is because we may really have something here of scientific importance.
	So, we sent it off, first of all, to the University of California in Berkeley, to the Department of Zoology, and a professor there who was head of the department looked at it, and he couldn't identify it.
	He didn't know what kind of clone it was?
	He didn't know what it was.
	So, we went back with a letter written and signed by him.
	He couldn't find out what this is.
	What about the basic, is it animal vegetable mineral?
	I mean, did they do any initial tests to try and find out whether it was biological at all?
	Oh, yes.
	Because the next thing we did was we sent it to my very good friend and friend, the Whitley streamer, Bill Mallow, who passed away last year.
	At Southwest Laboratories.
	And again, I don't mind saying the name of the laboratory because Bill's gone and we'll never get in there again.
	So, no sense hiding the laboratory anymore.
	It was Southwest Labs in San Antonio, Texas.
	He looked at it, and he looked at it microscopically, and he had a couple of people look at it at the University of Texas.
	He ran some tests on it, and in the first place, under the microscope, he found a vegetable layer on the outside of this thing.
	A vegetable layer?
	A vegetable layer.
	So he called me on the phone and told me what he found, and I said, well, you know, Bill, that may not be too unusual, because if it is a claw or a nail, one of the most common things is they become infected with fungus.
	So he would find a vegetable layer.
	Yes.
	So, he thought that sounded okay, and he went ahead and proceeded to do some more tests on the inner layers, and he found that they contained a proteinaceous substance which was very close to keratin.
	Keratin is what makes up our fingernails.
	So, with that ammunition, we were pretty well convinced that it was a claw.
	Now, it went from there To a primate zoologist, PhD, at the San Diego Zoo.
	We took it down there personally, and this kind lady looked at it, and pondered over the books, and got on the internet, and looked at it under the microscope, and probed it with a probe, and couldn't identify it as any primate claw that she ever saw.
	Okay.
	So now, by now, you're really starting to think you've got something on your hands.
	Yep.
	Now, we could have started tooting horns at any time, including right at that.
	Hey guys, I think we got a call from an extraterrestrial.
	But we didn't do that because that's not the way I work.
	I try to get some scientific basis.
	So we knew what we had to do at that point was obviously to look at the DNA.
	Right, of course.
	So specimens were very carefully taken in the manner in which they should be taken, which wasn't done in the OJ case.
	And we sent these sterile specimens to a very world famous genetic researcher, who I can't mention his name.
	That's alright.
	And he started doing the DNA studies, and he was funding it himself at the beginning.
	As we got onto it, the reports that we started getting back were absolutely earth-shocking.
	In what sense?
	They came back as non-terrestrial DNA.
	So we said, oh boy, we got a tiger by the tail.
	But nevertheless, DNA, huh?
	In other words, recognizable.
	Recognizable DNA chains, but these chains didn't match anything in the database.
	Not human, not primate, nothing.
	So, we went on, and as we went on, we had to raise some more money, and if you don't mind me mentioning their names, Bob and Zoe Hieronymus.
	We're very, very responsible for getting us further funding.
	I don't mind at all.
	So you raised more money.
	So we raised more money and continued the research, which virtually went on for about two years, still getting reports of stuff that we couldn't match for any terrestrial animal.
	So we had to go Yeah, I think by now anybody would have declared, hey, we've got something biological not from this earth.
	I mean, once you had... DNA would seem to be, would seem to be, stand by folks, because there's more to this, a pretty conclusive hunk of evidence.
	If you get DNA but it's not human or not known DNA, you've got it, I would think, but maybe not.
	Well, as I said, you know, the temptation was there to really toot the horn about this.
	That's probably one I would have tooted.
	It was a great temptation, believe me.
	I mean, you know, I certainly believe in the scientific method and scientific approach, but when we get reams of paperwork and DNA analysis that comes back that tells you you got something that's not from here, You know, and to keep your mouth shut, of course, the people that were involved kept saying, I think we should keep our mouths shut, because the eventuality here was to get an article written in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.
	Sure.
	And by doing so, this would have been a first for not only phenomenology, but certainly for the field of UFOs and particularly that of abduction.
	Okay, so you lip-sealed.
	The lip sealed and I stopped talking about this case on television, on radio, and traveling about the world.
	Yeah, I remember when you began to shut up about it.
	Yeah, and of course, you know, you get all the character assassination stuff, that he's hiding something, he's burying something, he's not going to do the usual stuff.
	Well, you actually were.
	Yeah, for the moment, but certainly not forever.
	So anyway, we had to do something to really push this through organized science.
	And so I got my good friends at the National Institute for Discovery Science involved again.
	And as we know, they've produced some scientific investigation of this portion of phenomenology Bob Bigelow has become quite famous in the field for certainly putting up funds for these investigations.
	Of course, now he's branched out in other things with Bigelow Aerospace and so on.
	Nevertheless, over the years, Bob Bigelow gets a lot of credit for being there with the money for the real serious research when people needed it.
	Over the years, he's done a hell of a lot of that.
	You bet, and for those out there that aren't familiar with the whole story, the stuff and the rumors and everything they've heard, I'm sure you'll agree, Art, that Bob has not only put up money for this stuff, but in many cases he's put up money and never taken credit for what he's done.
	I'm very well aware of that, yes.
	So, as far as I'm concerned, you know, they've been very good, good friends to me, and they've pioneered some, you know, fantastic research.
	Their Roper polls, of course, everybody knows, but there's a lot of investigation they don't know about.
	And, of course, there's a lot of rumors that things go into a pit that never comes out, and so on.
	So that's far from the truth.
	As a matter of fact, if folks want to go up on your website or my website or the NIDS website, they'll see not only photos of this object we're talking about, but there's a complete giant DNA report of every facet that we went to.
	So, again, on with the story.
	They've got the claw now, the specimens, the DNA, all the data.
	We have meetings, a plan of attack is formulated, and we start getting some first confirmatory results.
	If you got something and you got something that's this unusual, and believe me, it was unusual, what you want to do is to get somebody else to confirm it.
	That's right.
	So, that's the way science works, and if it would stick with the science, I think we'd all be better off.
	And so, what happened?
	So, we got some confirmatory data.
	And then, as this was going on, the original genetic researcher kept working on the object along with these outside sources, and developing new techniques, and looking at this, and looking at this piece of DNA, and on and on and on.
	Then we sent it out to a third laboratory, which was doing some more work on a different aspect of the DNA, and we were looking at more primate things, you know, what could this be closest to, and so on and so on.
	So, as this is going on, I mean, we are getting real close now to getting this first article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
	As a matter of fact, we had a big meeting in Las Vegas.
	It was an all-day meeting, and believe me, I'm not ashamed to say that three-quarters of the material presented at this meeting was way over my head.
	I'm not a geneticist, and I don't have the background and expertise in this field.
	Well, even when they go into courtrooms with genetic material, you mentioned the OJ trial, they have to talk in numbers, and they have to make very simple charts for people to try and understand, and even then it goes right over the heads of a lot of the jurors, so it's tough.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, I'll tell you, at one point, I felt privileged.
	To be there and just sit there and listen to this stuff.
	Shaking your head every now and then like, oh, yeah, I got it.
	That's it.
	And they're talking about multi-cost tests and this test and that test.
	Well, alright, let's get to the bottom line because I do have a lot of other stuff I want to ask you about.
	I mean, the bottom line here is...
	So we got a plan formulated.
	What we were going to do is to get the results published in a small scientific journal that was peer-reviewed, and then we talked about the criticism that we were going to get.
	We tried to obviate that and so on, you know, one jump ahead.
	And so things were going in that direction.
	We left the meeting, and everybody was jazzed, and we thought we had the tiger by the tail on some, you know, very strange DNA.
	So, researcher number one, we'll call him, goes back to the lab, and while NIS is in the process of writing the article for the journal, My original friend decides to look at the RNA.
	Hold it right there, Doc.
	That's a good hook.
	Bottom of the hour.
	I'm Art Bell.
	We'll be right back.
	Subscribe to After Dark.
	Call toll free 1-888-727-5505.
	Now it begins.
	Day after day.
	This is only a start.
	I'm the devil's shadow.
	There's no way you'll come to me.
	Baby, you'll see.
	You come to me, baby, you see But I'm too pretty, baby
	Who's gonna help me through the night?
	But I'm too pretty, mama Who's always there to make it?
	But I do Who's gonna love you, love you?
	Who's gonna love you?
	But I do We're gonna love you, love you, gonna love you.
	Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye from west of the Rockies at 1-800-9-4.
	Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye from west of the Rockies at 1-800-9-4.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	east of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	And the wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	To reach out on the toll free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them
	dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nine.
	It certainly is in a moment the claw makes its final scratch.
	Dr. Roger Lear is my guest and we'll wind this up and move on to other aspects of abductions
	and things, little things left behind if you'll just stay right there.
	Once again, into the night with Dr. Roger Lear.
	Doctor, welcome back.
	Alright, the final scratch of the claw.
	Yes, we can't leave everybody hanging like a chad.
	We started looking at the RNA, and of course that's ribonucleic acid, which is there before the DNA.
	Right.
	Doctor, do me a favor and back away from the phone just a little bit.
	Your phone has a sort of a pfft pfft sound to it.
	Okay.
	There you go.
	Oh, that's much better.
	Okay.
	So you looked at the RNA.
	We're looking at the RNA and suddenly we get a match in the GenBank.
	A database match.
	And?
	And it turns out to be in the family of molluscum, a mollusc, a snail, a slug.
	It was a slug!
	It was a slug, a terrestrial slug.
	Oh boy, and so I'm sure you felt like you just got slugged.
	Yeah, I sure did.
	But boy, at that time, I was just so tickled to death that I didn't flap my lips in the wind.
	Oh, yes, indeed.
	How would all involved look if we had published this article and someone would have come along with this?
	You'd look like slugs.
	You'd look like slugs.
	So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
	There's the story of what somebody has to go through To investigate something of this possible magnitude.
	Not a story of one that came out to be extraterrestrial, but nevertheless, that's the kind of thing you've got to go through.
	So if you've got a sort of a little anomalous something, don't be afraid to get hold of somebody like Dr. Lear, or the Bigelow Foundation, or somebody who can do the right kind of research, because maybe that's what it takes.
	Dr. Lear, you have removed Implants from people who have been abducted and had things put in them.
	Are you convinced, Doctor?
	After all, who better to ask than someone who's taken them out?
	Are you convinced that there really are abductions and that things really are being implanted in people?
	That's a straight out question.
	Well, let's take part one.
	Am I convinced, personally, that there is such a thing as an abduction?
	Yes, I am.
	I've been all over the world, and I've talked to people in many, many countries, and the things that they talk about here in the U.S.
	are the same as what they talk about in South America, or in Israel, or Czechoslovakia.
	And by the way, you know, China, too.
	That's not too well known, but the fact of the matter is, while China ...will not allow a lot of things to be investigated.
	For some reason, the Communist Chinese are actively even encouraging and backing UFO investigation.
	It's kind of strange.
	Yes, they've got the largest organization for investigation of UFOs in the world.
	Now, why would you think that would be, Doctor?
	I don't know.
	It's strange.
	I mean, given their governmental system and so on.
	Yes.
	That I have, along with many other things, have no answer for.
	And that's what I was going to say.
	If people come along, so-called experts in this field, and they claim to know the answers, put your fingers in your ears, flap your arms and run just as fast as you can, because it's nonsense.
	No one has the answer.
	All you wind up with, Art, if you follow the science, just follow the science, you'll wind up with more questions.
	And back to the claw, if you don't mind me just a sec.
	Here's some of the questions.
	How did the slug get in the towel in Gary's closet?
	And lose a claw?
	Yeah.
	How did the slug get mummified to the state in which it was found?
	Now, we just found out recently, and I haven't even published this yet, that slugs in the Bakersfield area are no longer than a half an inch.
	This slug was almost three quarters of an inch and it's mummified state.
	And when we look at the DNA, again follow the science, we got a 97% match to a slug from New Zealand and a 94% match to a sea slug.
	from New Zealand, and a 94% match to a sea slug. How did either one of those get into Gary?
	Well, maybe whoever it was who had been conducting the abductions had a sense of humor.
	And you mentioned that it had recognized apparently the towel with the aluminum foil for the footprint, so maybe it just said to its little alien self, hey, let's have some fun.
	Let's drop one of these New Zealand slug claws.
	or was it something that was on somebody's foot?
	And fell off.
	I know I discussed this with Whitley and he verified the fact that a number of different
	physical evidence cases showed things that were mysteriously there from the sea.
	Well you've had probably more experience with physical evidence than almost any other investigator
	save perhaps crop circle investigations.
	So, of those items that you have removed from people, how many, what percentage of those, only ten, but what percentage are anomalous today?
	Well, the total number of surgeries was 10 to date, and the number of objects was 11.
	One of these objects turned out to be a very expensive piece of glass.
	Not expensive from the manufacturing standpoint, from the standpoint of the research to find out exactly what it was.
	But the other 10 have all had anomalous things, both metallurgically and biologically.
	The two most outstanding things, or three, One is when you examine the individual prior to the time that they're removed, you found that these objects are emitting electromagnetic field of about six milligauss.
	Now that, as you know, Art, that's a pretty strong field.
	Yes, it is.
	It certainly is.
	And once they're out, they emit nothing, so they're obviously unplugged.
	Then you go look at the biological anomalies.
	We find that there's no inflammatory response by the body.
	Can I just stop you one second?
	The fact that the radiation ceases when it's removed from the body, would that indicate to you that it's drawing its power from the biological entities to which it's attached, or that it's just remotely, you know, shut off?
	I would say that the power source has been disconnected.
	It's been unplugged because one of the biological findings we find is that there's not only a lack of inflammatory response, but there's a large number of nerve cells which are not politically correct for the anatomical area that they're in.
	So it's modified the nerve structure near it?
	That's what it seems to be.
	And of course, the other startling things, you know, here's somebody that comes in the alleged alien abduction scenario, and the stories are all great.
	They're extremely interesting.
	I love them, want to hear them, catalog them, write them, and so on.
	But to me, you know, the thing is the physical evidence.
	Sure, of course, yes.
	So you look at the metallurgy, and I mean, that information comes back to me from laboratories like New Mexico Tech, Los Alamos National Labs, and on and on and on.
	Tell me, for example, they find iron, and the iron turns out to be amorphous iron, but yet the object is so magnetic they can't understand how it could possibly be magnetic at all when the iron in the object has no molecular structure.
	Doctor, is there anything in any and or all of the cases that would lead you toward a clue about function?
	Function is entirely theoretical as far as I'm concerned.
	I mean, there's a number of popular theories, one that could be transponders for location or modifiers of behavior, or they could be detection devices such as we use with astronauts.
	But I have another theory, and I think that they are perhaps, at least some group of them, are genetically, genetic detection devices to detect modification in our genetics.
	I believe, again, that going around the world, I think that the kids that have been born in the last 40-50 years are not the same human beings.
	Boy, you know you're not the first person to say that.
	Can you back that up with any science at all?
	I know that it's possible.
	I was talking to Colin Kelleher at NIDS.
	He thinks that we could do a study to look at old DNA versus new DNA and possibly pinpoint All we need is the funds to do it.
	But, you know, there's a large amount of books that are coming out now.
	The Millennium Children.
	I know.
	Oh, I know.
	Star Children.
	Indigo Children.
	Right.
	Okay, then let's try this angle.
	What do you think is the difference between these children and my generation?
	What's the difference?
	Well, I can tell you exactly.
	You asked me if they're scientific proof.
	They're statistical scientific proof because they've done a study on 17 functional growth characteristics.
	This has nothing to do with the child's mood, or their IQ, or anything else, or what they're wearing, or what they ate.
	It's just, you know, what age did they stand, what age did they raise their head, which age did they talk, and so on.
	Yes.
	And we find, looking at 17 functional growth characteristics in a 40-year period, 1947 to 1987, they've been accelerated from 16, that's one-sixth, to 80 percent.
	into 1987, they've been accelerated from 16, that's one-sixth, to 80 percent.
	Wow.
	You can't argue with that.
	That is a big difference.
	Wow.
	And how many mothers do you talk to that tell you their child has done this or said this and they don't know where to look at them?
	So then, Doctor, maybe all of these alien abductions and this interaction between aliens and humans, I mean, so many researchers think it's for genetic purposes, favoring them or favoring us, but genetic because of the examination of reproductive organs, that kind of thing.
	The cows, all of that, the genetics there, all of this perhaps could be to our benefit in the sense that right before our very eyes they're changing us.
	Well, I'll tell you, I tend to lean in that direction, but I hate to use the word all, because, as you know, folks like David Jacobs, a famous, well-respected researcher... I have a lot of respect for Dr. Jacobs.
	...think that there's some hybrid program going on, and I tend to agree that maybe just not the word all shouldn't be used, because maybe Different strokes for different folks.
	Well, what I respect about Dr. Jacobs is he's one of the very few people who has said with regard to ailing, hey, wait a minute now.
	All this warm, fuzzy stuff.
	You know, they may not be our friends.
	And we don't really know.
	And you've got to admit, we don't really know what they're doing.
	And so I'd say it's even money on whether it's good for us or perhaps not so good for us.
	Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head, and it just goes back to what I said before.
	If any one of us claims to have the answers, say you better put your fingers in your ears and run, because we don't!
	How many, this is just asking for a guess here, but how many people do you suppose are running around who are implanted Who, A, may not have the faintest idea of themselves they've been implanted, and B, nobody else knows as well.
	In other words, how many are out there that we don't know about versus the ones that have come and complained?
	Well, let's look at the few figures that we have from the Roper poll, for example, in relation to the amount of abductees, 2%, and we're talking about quite a few million people if we multiply this on a worldwide basis.
	And it would seem to me that in my experience, which is small and brief, that there's about 15% that might have objects in them for some reason.
	And this kind of goes along... What do we do with our implanting lesser life forms?
	About 15%.
	So, you're suggesting you do believe that 15% of the totality of the population is implanted?
	To the totalitary of the abductee.
	Of those who have claimed abduction?
	Right.
	Now, also, another thing you just hit on a minute ago, if things go the way they're supposed to go, I don't think you're supposed to know you've been abducted.
	I rather suspect not except in perhaps rare cases I don't think you're supposed to know you are either and if they're really talented at creating a situation where you don't remember and you don't know then most of them probably haven't been reported.
	I think one of the things that's going on is as we discussed with the kids is an expansion of consciousness and this can become a problem because it can become a problem for the abductor If one's consciousness is being expanded, then all of a sudden you're going to have a few leaked through memories of things that you may have not been aware of before.
	If you were aware, Doctor, that you had an implant yourself, would you remove it or would you leave it and see what happens?
	Oh, I would have to give you a very biased answer on that because if someone asked me if a craft landed and I was waved aboard, would I go?
	Of course I'd go.
	All fear would be outweighed by the scientific curiosity.
	Someone asked me, probably.
	Yes, I know, but your scientific curiosity in the case of an implant you knew you had in yourself could be, I guess, there's two directions for that.
	On the one hand, you could take it out and try and examine it.
	On the other hand, you could leave it in and try and figure out what it was doing to you.
	Oh, that's good.
	That's a good question because, boy, that sticks it right home.
	Again, scientific curiosity could go two ways.
	I think I would leave it in, and if I could get the test done that I thought should be run on it, I would leave it in there for as long as I possibly could to get the most amount of knowledge out of it before it was ever removed.
	Yes, well you know, the one that stood the hair on the back of my neck straight up was when Whitley and the surgeon I did the work on Whitley on the program and the surgeon said straight to me, Art, I got in there, I got near it with a scalpel and I watched it move within his ear.
	The implant moved by itself to a place where I couldn't get it without doing damage.
	Well, Art, the last case I did was a case of a lady who had an object in the arm that when you touched it, it moved out of the way.
	And when we went to remove it, the surgeon that did it had to put a finger on either side to keep it in the surgical wound area.
	Oh my.
	Really?
	And we got it.
	And you got it?
	And we got it.
	And was it moving after you got it?
	No.
	No.
	I guess all of this is going to remain very mysterious and unsettling until we can... I don't know how we move forward in this area, how we learn anything, but we've got to.
	It's too interesting.
	Where do you go?
	That's, I guess, a good question.
	Where does your research go now?
	Well, we've got to raise the necessary funds so that we can keep the fires of scientific research going in the manner that we did with the claw.
	The Claw should be a really good example of how academic science can be applied to phenomenology, ufology, or any other field that you want to investigate.
	Well, as you know, I was given a piece of material said to be from the Roswell Crash, which we had investigated by Carnegie and others, and is indeed anomalous, not from this world, and I still have it.
	And it's a kind of an odd thing, because when I got it, I really thought very hard about what to do about it, and I can tell you that most people, most people, Doctor, are going to just put it away as an oddity, and they're never going to turn it over to anybody.
	If somebody's got something out there, and you can bet your bottom dollar they do, and they want to get hold of you, to have you take a look-see at something, or test something, how do they do that?
	How do they get hold of you?
	Well, the easiest way is to go through my website, which is alienscalpel.com, with one S. Right, and by the way, your book, they might want to read, The Alien and the Scalpel, still out there, still, I take it, available on eBay or whatever.
	Yeah, they should be able to get it, and if they can't, again, go through the website, and we'd be happy to get them a copy.
	So one way or the other, they can get it.
	Sure, and my new one out that has one great story in it, the anthology that we wrote called Chopped Liver.
	Chopped Liver?
	Now there's a title for a book, Chopped Liver, huh?
	Chopped Liver.
	Alright, well as always, Dr. Lear, it's a pleasure having you here, and I want to thank you for all the work you do on behalf of those who want to know what the hell's going on out there.
	Thank you.
	You're welcome, Mark.
	Good night, Dr. Lear.
	It is a very odd world we live in, isn't it?
	All right, coming up, this is going to be really fun, I think.
	Richard C. Hoagland is coming on next.
	He's got some kind of breaking news for you on the face on Mars.
	And then we're going to move into another area which will be the subject of one of Richard's conferences coming up shortly.
	And I think it's been needed for a very, very long time.
	And that is what the world is going to do from the point of view of religion and all of that if They become obvious.
	How will we all handle it?
	That's what we're going to be talking about.
	I'm Art Bell and this is Host to Coast AM.
	I'm Art Bell and this is Host to Coast AM.
	Call now to start your after dark.
	Don't you love her as she's walking out the door?
	Like she did one thousand times before.
	Don't you love her ways?
	Tell me what you say.
	Don't you love her as she's walking out the door?
	All your love, all your love, all your love, all your love, all your love is gone
	And a single lonely star Call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	Want to take a ride?
	Call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at area code 775-727-1222.
	Or call the wildcard line at 775-727-8253.
	To talk with Art on the toll-free international line, call your AT&T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
	This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	It is indeed.
	A brand new weekend version.
	How y'all doing?
	And by the way, we're here all of Saturday and all of Sunday night, and so if your radio station doesn't carry all of Saturday and all of Sunday night, call them up and say, hey, what's up?
	What are you doing in the middle of the night when you could be doing something much better?
	Right on the mark is Richard C. Hoagland, a former space science museum curator.
	It's hard to picture him in that role.
	A former NASA consultant and during the historic Apollo missions to the moon was science advisor to Walter C. Cronkite, CBS News.
	For the past 19 years, Hoagland has been leading an outside scientific team in a critically acclaimed independent analysis of possible intelligently designed artifacts on Mars and annoying legions of people.
	In the past four years, he and his team's investigators have been quietly extended to include over 30 years of previously hidden data from NASA.
	That's part of why he's annoyed people.
	NASA, the Soviet and Pentagon missions to the Moon.
	He's a remarkable man and what I would suggest as a beginning point for all of us that are computer capable is that you immediately go to your computer for the conversation that's about to ensue and go to EnterpriseMission.com.
	There'll be a link certainly on the Coast to Coast AM website.
	Get to EnterpriseMission.com.
	And, uh, you're going to want to, and I know that everything's going to go berserk here, you're going to want to go to, uh, the page that shows, uh, there's a link there that says, Light Finally Dawns at Cydonia.
	And you're going to want to get that picture on your computer screen for what's coming.
	and it's coming next and here is Richard C. O'Glenden
	Yay, Richard!
	You know, we've got to stop meeting like this.
	It's been years and years.
	How are you doing, buddy?
	I'm doing great.
	And you?
	I'm just fine.
	There's a lilt in your voice that I have not heard in quite a while.
	You're like the old Dalmatian in the damn fire engine.
	I wonder if my cheeks have a little rouge tint to them.
	Anyway, look, you've got something pretty big, in my opinion.
	So you went and looked?
	Oh, hell yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, and you know what?
	I had Ramona in here just before showtime and, you know, she's seen the face many times.
	Excellent.
	And she just took a real quick glance at it and she said, what's that reflecting?
	You know, and that's total layman.
	Ramona's, you know, and she just, boom, hit it right on the head, and I said, yep, that's what it's going to be about.
	What the hell's reflecting that?
	It's a new... It might be a Robin test.
	Yes, it's in the way of the Robin test, yes.
	It's a new picture of Cydonia.
	Now, I'm sure Richard will tell us how they got it and what they used and all the rest of it, but a new picture of Cydonia.
	It's at EnterpriseMission.com.
	You ought to be on the way there already.
	And you should be going to the area I said, there's a link down there that says, the light finally dawns at Cydonia.
	You like the title?
	Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.
	So when, what took it, what mode was the satellite in, from what distance, and blah, blah.
	Well, oddly enough, this was released.
	I mean, it was taken over a year ago, and it takes them that long to kind of Well, I know.
	They probably feel like they have to have it in their desk drawer for a period of time to age it properly.
	Yeah, it was taken on the one-year anniversary, exactly on the one-year anniversary of the arrival of the Mars Odyssey spacecraft at Mars.
	And these guys, remember, they're into dates and anniversaries.
	So you say.
	Well, in their own published data, they took this on October 24, 2002, which was one year after they arrived.
	Exactly one year.
	They'd probably take it at 19.5 minutes after the hour and you're on, or something.
	So anyway, one year after the satellite went up, they'd take the photo.
	Well, the thing that struck me was, I was in Roswell the weekend that they actually released this image.
	They released it around July 4th.
	Right.
	And I had never gone to Roswell.
	I wanted to take Robin down there and see a few friends, you know, like Paul Davids was going to be there, and Larry Landsman from SyFy, and I'd never been part of the Roswell Circus.
	So while I'm there kind of taking a vacation, they released this picture.
	So I get back and I get caught up on email and someone sent me, you know, some links and said, take a look at this.
	And what was unusual, first of all, is that it was the first morning shot of Cydonia we've ever had.
	Showing with light on the eastern side.
	On the eastern side of the face and other structures.
	So you might explain to the audience, the sun actually on Mars at the moment this is taken, really is not over the horizon.
	That's right.
	If you go and look at the logs that they're required by law to post, if you go to the ASU website, Arizona State University website, which is the University team actually running the camera on the Mars Odyssey spacecraft.
	They have a website, which is linked through Enterprise, and you can go to the actual page.
	In the article that you have cited, we have extensive links to all the official information so that everybody can follow the bouncing ball.
	There's nothing here, no sleight of hand, no magic, no, you know, hidden stuff.
	We're blaying out what they have given the American people and the world.
	So I went to their official website, and I'm looking at this picture, first dawn image of Cydonia, and the first thing that rings a bell is when I look at the very bottom of the data block, it says, Cydonia face at night.
	At night.
	What?
	Huh?
	Uh, right.
	How the heck can you take a picture with this camera at night?
	They have trouble taking pictures when the sun is fairly low above the horizon.
	How the heck did they take it at night?
	So I looked a little closer, and in the data block, there's a whole bunch of angles listed.
	You know, the subspacecraft point, where the sun is, you know, the angle that the spacecraft is rolled to the ground, all that stuff.
	And there's one little line that says, phase angle, which is the angle between the sun, the surface, and the camera, which read 90.304 degrees.
	So the sun then, that would put sun then just below the horizon.
	Below the horizon.
	Three-tenths of a degree below the horizon.
	Alright, so then what in the hell is the story with this picture?
	I mean, obviously the entire...
	Eastern side of the face is lit up like it's made out of damned aluminum foil.
	I mean, it's impossible.
	Or not, I guess.
	Has anybody toyed with this photograph in any way, or if so, in what way?
	This is from what's called the official archive.
	You know, there's a whole procedure for putting things into the planetary data system.
	When things pop up on these websites, we're not supposed to believe the PR versions.
	You're telling me this hasn't been toyed with?
	No, no, no.
	This is exactly as they have given it to us.
	You've got to be kidding.
	And there are five bands represented from the near-infrared through the violet.
	You pick three of them, you put red, green, and blue filters on them, in essence, and you make yourself a pretty picture.
	And unlike the broadband filters in the CCD television cameras or, you know, film, these are very narrow band filters.
	They're one micron wide, more or less.
	So they're basically scientifically isolating The way the light is interacting with the ground, much more precisely than a normal color picture.
	Here's what's hitting me, and I could be wrong about this, but I think what we're seeing is the areas that we previously regarded as those that were damaged.
	Damaged, right?
	In other words, the face... Well, no, that was the general consensus, remember?
	Well, I mean, just kind of a general consensus.
	If you imagine the face to be whole and complete, then you would look at the areas that we're now looking at as kind of damaged areas, who knows, meteorites, whatever it is that did damage to the face originally, if you buy the fact that it was a full face at one time.
	These were then the damaged areas.
	Well, alright.
	When the 2001 image came out a couple years ago, the famous full-face image, you and I had such... By the way, Art, you know, I've been listening to you for years.
	I have known you for even more years.
	I'm not the only guy that you really argue with.
	That's not true.
	That's not true.
	Come on.
	That's not true.
	You give a lot of your guests a chance to just lay out their story.
	But you and I, either consciously or unconsciously, have decided that it's much more interesting if we really confront those things we don't agree with.
	Maybe it's just that you're fun to argue with.
	Maybe that's true too, and likewise.
	Back when that first full-face image was released in 2001, you took one look at it and told me to go into Storm Windows.
	Yeah, basically I said it's a cat box.
	It's got about as much interest as my cat box on a full day, and that was exactly correct.
	And you did not see What we saw, and a lot of other people saw.
	Yeah, I know.
	Which is that, no, it's not symmetrical.
	But remember, back at the UN, 11, 12 years ago now, I said it was not symmetrical.
	I said there were two different species represented from the western to the eastern half.
	And 99.9% of the other people looking at Cydonia seriously, people like Ben Flandern and a whole bunch of others, they have been, uh, Carlotto comes to mind, they have been expecting a symmetrical Or close to symmetrical representation, and I think that's what you expected too.
	When it did not look symmetrical or anything close to it, you guys threw your hands up and said, oh my god.
	Now, you threw it up in one way, they threw it up in another way.
	They have the damaged side, preserved side hypothesis.
	And everybody thought that the eastern side, the side on the right, was the damaged side.
	We said in papers we published on Enterprise then, that no guys, you got it exactly backward.
	It's the western side, the hominid side, the side toward the city, toward the pyramids, which is the damaged side.
	And it's the eastern side, which has been protected and has preserved the original casing, whatever that was.
	Now we fast forward the film to July of this year.

▲