Mark Pesce and Richard Hoagland join Art Bell to explore nanotech’s military potential—DARPA-backed nanobots could weaponize clay or target genomes, while NASA plans Mars deployments by 2011—highlighting "gray goo" risks and decentralized safeguards. Roger Leir reveals DNA/RNA tests on alleged alien implants, including slugs with non-terrestrial sequences and 10 anomalous surgeries, suggesting genetic experimentation. Hoagland dissects the Face on Mars in Sidonia, arguing its 2002 lighting reveals an intact eastern side, contradicting earlier claims of damage. If extraterrestrial life is confirmed, societal and religious paradigms may collapse, reshaping humanity’s understanding of existence. [Automatically generated summary]
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.
I personally would want to focus on the positive applications of nanotechnology.
The 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 this, and then convert it into edible food.
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.
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 environment strain scenario where something is created that can't be contained or controlled and will destroy any population in countries.
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 with 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.
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 of doing it.
Because even if you lose half the spacecraft, you still have 50 million spacecraft.
If you're talking about Mars and releasing something on Mars, then why not release some form of the gray 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.
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.
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.
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 16th 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.
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, their 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 my project with Sega, the video game company, developing a head-mounted display.
And we got it all the way through the design process and 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.
Company that actually did the testing, SRI, went and retested on their own dimes 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.
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.
It's going to make a difference for us, but wouldn't it 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 than the worlds 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.
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.
Well, I think that there's a more direct equivalent of drug abuse, which is that we could probably engineer nanocytes that would directly stimulate centers of the brain.
So you're not even talking about formulating a Raquel-Wellstahl.
You're talking about generating what you would think of as probably a superheroin and be 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 are discovered, 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?
If we had all that ability right now, we'd probably do ourselves in, wouldn't we?
Our children are used to all of this blurriness, 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 about the trouble we have with guns today?
Yes, 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?
I mean, 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?
In America, certainly any major materials 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 tunneling 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 1981 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.
And so you have research centers like IBM, like Chulik, Packard, like Intel, and they need nanotechnology in order to stay ahead of the curve, in order to be able to provide us the next level of 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.
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.
And so what they want to do is to keep the public informed.
So they phrased 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.
And so it might not wipe out the earth, but it could easily wipe out the human race.
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, that 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.
So 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?
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 developed antivirus software after viral infections, 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.
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 gray goo.
I'm not sure how fast, how rapid that would be because part of the sort of break on a gray goo 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 that you can break a chemical bond and the amount of heat that can be sustained.
Finally, as it covered the entire Earth's 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.
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 nano-computer.
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 a thousand 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.
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 nanotechnology?
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 out the earth or cure someone of cancer.
And we have to understand that there's an individual responsibility there and a social responsibility.
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.
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.
Cannot think to myself What a wonderful world Wanna take a ride?
Call our dell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255 East of the Rockies 1-800-8255033 First-time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222 The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295 and to call Art on the toll-free international line call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
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.
It 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?
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.
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 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 120-watt light bulb in terms of the amount of energy we use.
And, yeah, I wonder if we're the long-lasting light bulbs or 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.
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.
think that it would be given to making decisions that we would not normally be given to make ethically morally I think that this is the 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.
That's the way I love people doing promos for their radio stations.
Everybody do it.
All right, go ahead, sir.
unidentified
Yeah.
Oh, good to have you back.
All right.
And Mark, I was wondering, I was at Disneyland with my wife, well, this is back in the early 70s, and at their, I guess they call it Haunted Castle, where they have these holograms or whatever you call them.
Yes.
And 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?
Well, I think that what you're talking about is not typing a program in, but typing a reality in.
So you're 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, in that future that you're describing, not all that far 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?
Majestic was described by the president of Electronic Arts, who is creating the 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 give it your phone, your fax, your email, your cell phone, and you give it the hours it can call 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 is 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 becoming 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 it's completely in your living room.
500 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.
But taking leaps ahead, not to majestic, but farther 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 in 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, classic, 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.
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 is going to be in medical technology, that we will be able to both observe the human body in incredible detail.
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.
And to bring us back to the Grey Goo versus the anti-Grey Goo, the virus versus antivirus scenario, that's a war of creativity, of design, not a war of materiel.
Although more of this information is starting to migrate now to voice systems on the telephone, so that 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 and rich discounts.
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?
Yeah, well, as you were saying a minute ago, computer people do, 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 centre with those, Bob.
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.
Go ahead, Carler.
unidentified
Oh, yeah, well, they're basically ruling us in the Art Bell IRC chat room already.
What I would like to know is about if there's software for this nanotechnology, you know, if we're going to have a problem such as a Microsoft software and buggy beta testing and all sorts of drama with it, or if it's chemical or how it works.
Well, right now, they're thinking to design nano computers 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.
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.
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?
There's no question that the way we visualize or philosophize about what human ends are, what our purpose is 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.
But we also think that if you take a look at the pyramid of needs, as 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.
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.
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.
I mean, that's the 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 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.
unidentified
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.
From coast to coast to coast to coast to coast to coast to coast.
unidentified
Well, I think instead of looking at 20 million people in the Art Bell audience, we ought to start seriously and realistically talking about a 2 billion 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 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?
It's my favorite line in the entire Star Wars trilogy when Princess Leah turns to General Tarkin and says, 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.
Yeah, but chaos, 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 is incredibly beneficial.
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?
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 somebody like Gaddafi 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.
Okay, let's, 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 nanos go in and for an hour we can 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 nanotechnology.
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.
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?
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 IFRE 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 anotechnology is.
Okay, you know, 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.
Okay, 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, or bang, I'm an enlightened Buddhist, or bang, I'm a really good musician.
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 to strive, 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.
Transportation is not an issue unless 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.
Now, 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 sort 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?
unidentified
And 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.
Well, there has already been proposed what we would call household mannites, which will eat the dust off the floor, and in fact, use the dust off the floor as the thing that keeps them powered.
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 cause all the nanites in the room to run over and eat the chat bars.
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?
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?
You take a look at the 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 sorts of parts of the same revolution that's going on with using materials for surfaces that have particular qualities.
unidentified
So I guess like something like, for instance, if your skin, you know, in the future, if you're in a bad accident and you get burned all over, I guess the idea of some sort of skin covering that would basically mimic your own skin, I guess, you know, the potential for that is also there.
Yes, the potential for that's 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.
unidentified
Well, one quick question.
As far as 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 by changing something, spraying something, whatever, it would instantly change the color of your car.
That is one of the things that people are working on.
This is again a lot of work that's going on in material science.
There's a big push toward what we call digital ink right now, which is another type of material which allows you to have, say, a book, but the book's pages are actually active.
They're not printed so much as they are electronic and they portray something, and yet the surface is very flexible and very thin like a book.
And so you can see that as being a very easy extension from a book cover to a car cover.
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 then make it possible to capture, no matter what the car looked like.
Hey, 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.
But that's going to be great when your closet's going to start looking like a broom closet.
You have a jar for every article of clothing you want to wear.
You just spray and poof your dress 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 sheepherders 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 gray goo type of concept.
And that leads to my main question, which is you're going to have boxing matches, bare knuckles matches, really brutal games that 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 repulsive practices in which the participants are either drugged or coerced into participating.
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 storing 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.
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 that some people will always be looking for with 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.
And it may be that the goals of production will be left behind in favor of the goals for sort of humankind, for the kind of greatest benefit, so that if you find something like this that's going on at a 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.
So, I don't think with that history, and I'm sure it goes back further, I just haven't 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.
The second question to remark 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, it 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 grey goo, then that would take the internet out because it would take everything else out with it.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hello, gentlemen.
This is Lee out of Seattle on Como.
How you doing?
Yeah, I agree with you in 100,000 spades that this man is a cockeyed optimist.
You know, let me say I'm not a Luddite, and I read a tremendous amount of science fiction.
I've 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 a military question in a minute, but let me make a couple other observations.
I came across a very interesting thing applies to this.
It was a quote from someone who 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.
And as you said, Art, I mean, let's look at the examples we've got.
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.
We're still killing the world with out-of-date petroleum pollution.
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 then they would destroy themselves.
It looked 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 them to protect and repair his immune system.
So they went in there and they repaired him all right, but then they discovered he wasn't good enough.
And 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.
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, okay, we need to replicate that in a nanotechnology world.
We need to bring those defenses not only inside the body, but outside the body.
unidentified
How about this could be targeted against specific people and you wouldn't even know it was in your environment until it killed 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?
Yeah, Mark, would it be possible to use nanotechnology to help us, like, with the supernatural sector, the area as far as helping detect all these shadow people, the ghosts, and the spirits?
Well, it would depend on whether there's anything measurable by a nanite in that area.
And 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.
So the point is Well, I guess you could think of it as artificial blood plasma, but I don't.
unidentified
My point is to Mark, what's his, you know, with respect to scale or the end, how far we can go from now on technology, that's why I bring up this kind of metaphysical point.
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.
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 our own makeup.
I mean, we learn about, like you were saying earlier, you know, we create 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, you know, once we get into that level, we're in the arena of our consciousness affecting reality.
Now, we're 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 spiritual awakening because, like you say, we're getting into a time when we'll be directly manipulating physical reality.
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 convince ourselves that we have control over the material world.
And so nanotechnology is, in a sense, that last step of control, That last actualization in which we've managed to prove to ourselves that we really do have the degree of control over the material world, that was 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.
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 our incredibly realized abilities as individuals and the fact that we need to keep existing as a species.
The reason why I'm calling, sir, Mr. Belt, Art Belt, is because I was 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.
Nanotechnology is the human ability to build devices out of individual atoms.
So we take a look at the natural world, they 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.
If you're looking to disperse things into the environment that would be protective, the things that would protect against Greygou, 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 at control 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 Grey Goo.
Wildguard Line, you're on the air with Mark Pesci.
unidentified
Aye.
Yeah, greetings, Art.
Greetings, Mr. Pesci.
I think one thing that hasn't been properly really touched on, a few people have addressed it, but putting this in the context 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 it 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 cliché, but this growing police state, the means of mass control of individuals is never-ending.
You could determine each individual's reality, not only the perception, but the response to it.
And while I've been listening to this just absolutely glued, it's like listening to Michi Okaku in the sense of how theoretically fascinating it is in practical application.
I'm afraid that the end result of this is going to be nanological chains.
The question here is, is there a they in this situation?
Nanotechnologies will be both totally 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 for that kind of thing.
I mean, again, perhaps the biggest, most important issue in nanotechnology is the issue of defense against nanotechnology.
That that really is almost a bigger part of the problem than anything of the benefits that we get.
Now, if you have a nanite 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.
unidentified
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?
It's the weekend version of Coast to Coast A.M. As a little follow-up to last night's program, we're going to be very busy tonight, but Prince, New Jersey, Associated Press, Lena 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 story she believed.
Her daughter had died at the same nursing home a few days earlier.
Her daughter was 90 years old.
Now, can imagine being old enough to watch your 90-year-old daughter die.
Being old enough to watch your 90-year-old daughter die.
Anyway, so much for longevity.
Tonight we will examine the story of the claw.
Actually, there are two 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.
It's an 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 10 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 phenomena.
He has also formed a non-profit organization for this specific purpose called ANS Research Inc.
In a moment, Dr. Lear will relate for you the story of the claw.
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 tin foil 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 centerprints.
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.
So 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 and 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.
I said, 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 to look at it, and he couldn't identify it.
Because the next thing we did was we sent it to my very good friend and friend, the Whitley Friever, 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 will never get in there again.
So, no sense hiding the laboratory anymore over 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, and 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.
So he called me on the phone and said, 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.
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.
Now, it went from there to a primate zoologist, PAC, 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 their microscope and probed it with a probe and couldn't identify it as any primate claw that she ever saw.
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.
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, boy, 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.
Yeah, and of course, you know, you get all the character assassination stuff that he's hiding something, he's burying something, something he's not going to do.
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.
So as far as I'm concerned, they've been very good, good friends to me, and they've pioneered some fantastic research.
The Roper poles, 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 and it 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.
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 and a different aspect of the DNA and we were looking at more primate things.
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 at MIDS.
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, you know, 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.
There's a 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 Big Low Foundation or somebody who can do the right kind of research because, baby, 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?
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.
I mean, given their governmental system and so on, 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 are, 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 a towel in Gary's closet?
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 in its mummified state.
And when we look at the DNA, again, follow the science, we got a 97% match to a slug from New Zealand.
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.
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, the total number of the 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 are 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.
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 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.
And of course the other startling things, you know, here's somebody that comes and they allege an alien abduction scenario, and the stories are all great.
They're extremely interesting.
I love them, love to hear them, catalog them, write them, and so on.
But to me, the thing is the physical evidence actually.
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.
And they 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 and the object has no molecular structure.
Function is entirely theoretical as far as I'm concerned.
I mean, there's a number of popular theories.
One, they 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 within the last 40, 50 years are not the same human beings.
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 very famous, well-respected researcher.
He thinks that there's some hybrid program going on, and I tend to agree that maybe 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 aliens, 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.
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?
Now, also, another thing you just hit on it 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 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 leak-through memories of things that you may have not been aware of before.
Oh, I would have to give you a very biased answer on that because, I mean, if someone asked me if, you know, a craft landed and I was waved aboard, would I go?
all fear would be outweighed by the scientific curiosity you know someone asked me probably 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.
That's a good question, because, boy, that ticks it right home.
Again, scientific curiosity could go two ways.
But 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.
Well, you know, the one that stood the hair on the back of my neck straight up was when Whitley and the surgeon who did the work on Whitley were on the program.
And the surgeon said, straight to me, Art, I got in there, I got near it with the 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, 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.
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.
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.
Target picture him in that role.
A former NASA consultant and during the historic Apollo missions to the moon was science advisor Walter C. Krunkite in 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.
Now, 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 Coast AM website.
Get to EnterpriseMission.com.
And 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 the page that shows, there's a link there that says light finally dawns at Sidonia.
And you're going to want to get that picture on your computer screen for what's coming.
Well that's if you 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 hidden stuff.
We're laying 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 Sidonia.
And the first thing that rings a bell is when I look at the very bottom of the data block, it says Sidonia face at night.
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 can 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 sub-spacecraft 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.
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.
When the 2001 image came out a couple years ago, the famous full face image, you and I have 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 about the only guy that you really argue with.
Normally, you're come on.
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.
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 99.98% of the other people looking at Sidonia seriously, people like Ben Flandern and a whole bunch of others, they have been, Carlado comes to mind, they had 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 had 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.
Odyssey takes a picture precisely at the one moment of day art where you can decide the issue.