Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 10, 2002 - Art Bell

02:47:09

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Invisibility Technology - Virginia Sniper - Ray Alden - Candice DeLong - FBI Profiler

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the high desert and the great American southwest, I bid you good evening, good morning,
	good afternoon, wherever you may be in the cosmos, whatever time zone, because we cover
	Just had a call from Dennis Whala trying to find us on the radio dial, and he did.
	That's pretty cool.
	1200 from San Antonio.
	On down to Venezuela.
	I thought you guys down in Texas might want to know.
	Speaking of affiliates, welcome to yet another new affiliate, WSCG in Greenville, Michigan.
	That's Greenville, Michigan.
	1380 on the dial there.
	The operations director is Bruce Bentley.
	So welcome to WSGC.
	WSCG.
	Yes.
	Great to have you on board.
	Good luck to your listeners.
	It's a pretty crazy world out there tonight.
	They're just now confirming, as I'm sure you know, that the man killed yesterday in Virginia, at a gas station, shot in cold blood, was the latest victim of this serial killer there, in the DC, Virginia, Maryland area.
	He was Dean Myers, 53, in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
	He had just filled up his car with gas, and he was shot dead, and it was a sniper.
	There was a sniper loose there.
	Now, this is, if ever I heard an appropriate time for an FBI special agent, now retired, Come on the air, Candice DeLong.
	She's really something.
	For 20 years, Candice DeLong was indeed on the front lines of some of the FBI's most memorable and gripping cases.
	Some have called her a real-life Clarice Starling, a female Donnie Brasco.
	She's tailed terrorists, gone undercover as a gangster's mall, was one of the agents chosen to carry out the manhunt for the Unabomber in Montana, another serial killer, for the first time In her book, she talks about the dangers, rewards of her career as a field profiler in the FBI.
	A field profiler.
	Well, it just so happens a field profiler is exactly what we need in this case.
	What kind of animal would do this?
	So coming up in a few moments, Candice DeLong, I have a couple of announcements.
	First one I consider pretty important.
	I reject most ghost photographs that I get.
	Ah, but oh my God.
	I've got a really good one.
	I've got a really, really, really good one.
	It must be the month October, huh?
	I just, uh, I've never seen anything like this.
	Uh, anything like this.
	This is an apparition.
	Uh, clearly human, clearly female.
	Half there and half not there.
	It's not a double exposure because this photograph was taken with a digital camera.
	Now most people carry around digital cameras these days.
	And I implore you, I implore you, go to my website and get a look at this.
	It's blinking incredible.
	I, you know, I just don't send that many ghost photographs up to the site.
	This one hit me today about midday and I went Oh, my God, look at this going up right away.
	So it went up midday.
	It's under what's new first item.
	It says a great ghost photo.
	Believe me, it's a great ghost photo.
	I'd like to have your comments.
	Number two, the crop circle we talked about in the first hour last night, indeed, has been decoded.
	And tonight we have that decoded information for you.
	The specific decoded information, that crop circle, Says, in fact, beware the bearers of false gifts and their broken promises.
	Much pain, but still time.
	Damaged word.
	There's a damaged word in there.
	Then, there is good out there.
	We oppose deception.
	Conduit or closing bell sound.
	This has indeed been decoded and that is up there if you want to take a look.
	so with those notes taken care of in a moment about the sniper
	candace the law well i don't hear i think on the west coast doing something
	or another is candace uh... the long
	Candice, welcome to the program.
	Thank you, Art.
	Welcome back to the program, I guess.
	Great to have you back.
	And Candice, the country right now, particularly back East, you're out West right now, aren't you?
	Yes.
	Good place to be right now, I guess.
	West Coast.
	For 20 years, you were with the FBI.
	You were a field profiler.
	That's exactly, of course, what the FBI is doing right now.
	The late news is this latest victim, indeed, is a victim of this serial... He is a serial killer, technically, right?
	Technically, yeah.
	He or she?
	It's a he.
	If this turns out to be a woman, I'll eat my book on your show.
	We've never had a woman do anything like this.
	That would be very entertaining.
	You really would, huh?
	Yeah, I would.
	Well, okay, that's a pretty good beginning to assure You're pretty sure of statements, but that might be the last sure statement.
	I want to ask a little bit about serial killers.
	I mean, usually when the police are going to look for somebody and they have no suspects and no motive, and that's what they just said on the news, no suspects, no motive.
	It's not like every other murder, is it?
	In other words, in a murder, usually it's somebody close to the person murdered.
	There's passion or there's money or there's Right.
	There's motive.
	Revenge.
	Profit.
	Yes.
	Motive.
	Something to be gained.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Even revenge.
	I mean, the police will naturally look to all of these things and usually end up catching killers.
	Uh-huh.
	But they don't seem to catch serial killers too quickly.
	Correct.
	Serial killers are smarter than the average bear.
	And this guy's smart.
	This guy, you know, there's all kinds of talk about killers and, oh, they really want to be caught and Don't you think he wants to be caught because he's doing this and he's doing that?
	Yeah.
	This guy does not want to be caught and he's going to, he's taking pretty good precautions to see to it that he's able to escape after he does his thing, after his shooting.
	And he has no interest in being caught.
	He left this tarot card with the words, Dear Policeman, I am God.
	And so You know, as you're doing a profile, if you get something like that, and by the way, I should say that the police chief there was pretty angry about that.
	And I know that a lot of times they don't like to reveal all the details of a crime so that if you actually do get a suspect, you can confirm something the general public doesn't know.
	Correct.
	Is that right?
	Yes, that would be a reason for not revealing a detail.
	Any other?
	Well that's the best one.
	I think that the Washington Post had a pretty good explanation today for why the police chief might have been so angry about it because recall that they already told the public that they found a shell casing.
	Right.
	And as we've all seen this past summer with the spate of child abductions and a number of the suspects were identified and apprehended as a result of The media, um, saturation to the public and the public turning him in.
	So one has to say, well, why would the chief be so upset?
	Because somebody is going to go, well, hey, wait a minute.
	That sounds like my brother.
	He's into tarot cards and he missed work today to stay home and clean his guns.
	So one would have to say, why is he so upset about this?
	Well, one reason that, that I believe the Washington Post explained was that, uh, there's a possibility that the killer also left a message and don't tell the public about this.
	Now I don't know if that's confirmed or not.
	But my take on the tarot card thing is this.
	Don't tell the public about this.
	Yeah, don't tell the public about it.
	That's a possibility.
	I'm not saying I buy it or not.
	So then, in releasing this information then, would... I'm not sure I quite get this.
	In other words...
	Why would he not want the public told about it?
	And then what would be the reason for telling the public about it?
	Just to enrage him into doing something else?
	Well, apparently, it's my understanding that a Montgomery County employee of some kind, which could be anybody from someone on the police department to someone in the lab to a secretary typing a report, leaked the tarot card information.
	And the Washington Post speculated that the chief was so angry about it because there were also instructions, don't let the public know about this.
	Now, I agree with you.
	What possible reason would the killer have for that?
	This is not someone who's trying to keep, he's certainly trying to keep his identity a secret.
	Do you have that on any authority counts?
	No, just what I heard this morning on the radio and it was based off a Washington Post story.
	And it doesn't make sense to me.
	It doesn't make sense to me at all.
	My take on the tarot card is I don't know if this guy is in the mysticism or any of that.
	He puts the death card down and he says, I am God.
	I am God.
	He does not really think that he is God in terms of he is not delusional.
	He is not.
	I don't believe he is suffering from A severe mental illness such as a type of schizophrenia.
	Oh really?
	No, I do not think so at all.
	Which would, people sometimes actually believe that they are God or that God is talking to them and God is telling them to kill people.
	Then you perhaps must mean, let me guess, that with respect to the police and his abilities to elude them and to continue doing what he is doing, he is God?
	Yes, he is acting as God.
	He is involved in God-like behavior.
	He is deciding who lives and who dies.
	And he is in charge.
	And that's how I took his statement to mean, I am God.
	I'm in charge.
	I'm the one taking life or allowing someone to live.
	It's me, not you.
	And you can't stop me.
	That's how I took the tarot card message.
	I could be wrong.
	That's just simply my impression.
	But I was a psychiatric nurse for 10 years.
	I work with people that do suffer.
	That did suffer from mental illness, and sometimes people would claim that they, or believe that God was talking to them.
	It's extremely rare, extremely rare.
	I mean, I was in the field for 10 years in maximum security, never came across anyone that actually believed that they really were God.
	And here's the deal, Art, when someone is severely mentally ill, and that is a severe mental illness, to actually believe that you are God, or that you are hearing voices, Generally speaking, when people suffering from that kind of condition commit a crime, they're caught within days because their thinking is very, very disorganized.
	So they make mistakes.
	Their crime is disorganized, exactly.
	They make mistakes, they leave evidence, and they're caught within a couple of days.
	That is not the case with this man.
	This man is not mentally ill.
	He is very much in control of himself.
	He is doing exactly what he wants to do, how he wants to do it, and he's getting away with it.
	Any idea what could push somebody to something like this?
	I mean, this is so far off the cliff, Candace.
	Well, the method and the style is not something we have seen.
	It's certainly not something I've ever seen.
	When I was a teenager in the 60s and 70s, we periodically saw someone climb a clock tower or walk into a McDonald's and just take everybody out that they could.
	Precisely.
	And they knew the minute that they went in that clock tower or the minute they pulled that first trigger in the McDonald's, they were gone.
	That it was a suicidal act as well as homicidal.
	Indeed.
	That is not what's going on here.
	However, what we do see in cases of people that you don't wake up one morning when everything's fine and go, I think I'll go kill some people today.
	There's always a precipitating event and it's usually the proverbial straw.
	That broke the proverbial camel's back, and something happened in this man's life that he just... I refuse to use the word snapped.
	He didn't snap, but this has been building, the tensions have been building, and something pushed him over the edge.
	Yeah, snapped is a good word to be used in the courtroom, right?
	Right, right.
	I don't want to use that.
	He finally got to a point where he said, alright, I'm in charge now.
	I'm taking charge.
	I'm going to make people pay.
	Can't they see?
	How worthy I am.
	I think, you know, that police say there's no motive.
	Well, the motive's not apparent, but there is a motive.
	The most significant thing about this series of killings, to me, is not what's in it for him.
	It's not about the killing.
	It's about the sniping.
	Let's look at sniping for your listeners that may not know much about it.
	There's a lot more to it than looking down the scope of a rifle and pulling a trigger.
	Yes, that's sniping if you're far away from your target, but there is the stalking, the stealth maneuvers that need to be put to be employed for the shooter to get into position.
	Real trained snipers with the military can sometimes take Not only hours, but days, crawling on their stomachs slowly in a ghillie suit, it's called, to slowly get upon their target and not be noticed.
	Take their shot when it's safe, kill no one else but their target, and then it's not over.
	Then they have to get away undetected.
	And that is what this is all about, I think, for this man, for this killer.
	It's about the sniping.
	He is showing the world he's the best.
	Is this a trained, perhaps military trained, sniper?
	Quite possibly.
	Military or law enforcement trained.
	I'm not saying he was in the military as a sniper or was in law enforcement as a sniper.
	He might have been.
	I think he might have been kicked out.
	Or he wanted to be and he didn't make it.
	He may be self-taught.
	Are they looking at that?
	Are they looking at that, Candace?
	Well, I'm not privy to the investigation.
	Could they not be looking at it?
	In other words, is there any way you can imagine they wouldn't look at what you just talked about?
	No, I can't because one of the things about profiling, one of the things that it's useful for is developing leads.
	If we've got this behavior, then we can deduct from this behavior that we might have this kind of person motivated by this kind of need or whatever.
	Then what can we say about that?
	Well, he might be former military.
	He might be former police.
	He might be a reject.
	He might be a wannabe.
	Let's look at everybody that's applied to state, local, and federal police.
	Let's look at everybody that's in state, local, and federal police, applied to SWAT, and didn't make it.
	Things like that.
	Sure.
	Wow.
	That's a big field.
	It's a big field.
	It's a chilling thought, but I'm going to stick with your he, because you're really sure this is a he?
	And if you're sure of that, why?
	Is it because of all history regarding serial killers or what?
	Very much so, more than anything else.
	It's historical.
	Of course, yesterday, the only female serial killer that was motivated by anger and a lot of negative reasons why she killed her victims was executed yesterday at her own request in Florida.
	Women do become serial killers, usually for profit.
	They'll marry a rich guy, poison him, he dies, they get the insurance, marry another rich guy, he dies, they get the insurance.
	The Black Widow thing.
	Yeah, nice work if you can get it, ladies.
	But that's generally what women do when they kill.
	Or the Angel of Mercy, the nurses that we see.
	There has never been a case of a woman doing what this offender is doing.
	And a sniper rifle is Not a woman's choice of weapon when she does kill.
	Right.
	And so for those reasons, I'm saying, if this is a woman, I'll hang up my profiling hat.
	You said you'd eat the book.
	And that too.
	You know, it is kind of a chilling thought, but it occurred to me just before the show, and this is the one thing I said to you before the show, just before we got on the air, that this person, there's a high likelihood this person is listening to you right now.
	Yes.
	Really a high likelihood.
	Both in terms of some of the material covered on this program, the fact that you're here, the fact that it was announced that you'd be here talking about him tonight.
	Anything you would say to this person?
	I mean, given the opportunity.
	I saw the politician, NBC was showing how the politicians apparently were instructed by some authority to call this guy a coward.
	Oh my goodness.
	Yeah.
	And then, you know, the authorities said, well, the children are safe, and then he went and killed a child.
	Right.
	And then they said, well, then they were geographically profiling him, so then he began to move around.
	And this is not your average serial killer.
	This one's several steps above.
	Exactly.
	He's very smart.
	So if you were to say anything to him, what would that be?
	Please stop.
	Please stop.
	Don't kill anyone else.
	You've made your point.
	You have made your point.
	I wouldn't ask him to turn himself in because I don't believe he would, just because I asked.
	But please don't kill anyone else.
	You've made your point.
	And his point is he can do it at will.
	He can essentially be God giving and taking, or taking life when he wishes, the instant he wishes without being caught.
	Very good at it.
	He picks a target.
	He only kills that target.
	And that's the totality of the message?
	Well, that's my interpretation of it.
	When and if there's ever an opportunity to talk with him, perhaps he'll be able to enlighten us more.
	He may not even be in touch with why he's doing this.
	I suspect, to a degree, he is.
	Do we all know why we do everything we do?
	Especially something of this magnitude?
	Yeah, I guess not.
	Hold on, hold on, Candace.
	He left a message, in a way, because somebody, one of the politicians, also covered by NBC, essentially asked on the air, why would anybody do this?
	wanting an answer obviously but
	i'm not sure if i'm going to be able to answer that question.
	We're fucked now, let it count Seasons don't feel the reaper
	Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain We can be like they are
	Come on baby Don't feel the reaper
	Baby take my hand Don't feel the reaper
	We'll be able to fly Don't feel the reaper
	Baby I'm your man Very, very little points in fearing what you cannot control
	And I'm going to be back.
	And yet...
	People still do.
	And that means something.
	We'll talk about that in a moment.
	To recharge Bell in the Kingdom of Nye, from west of the Rockies, dial 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222, or use the wildcard line 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 on the Premier Radio Networks.
	Candace DeLong was one of the FBI's finest.
	No question about it, field profiler.
	She worked on a serial killer case uh... very famous serial killer case
	the in bomber in montana
	so she's one i have on the air right now and she's on the air right now and i a
	can decide chairman mal said uh...
	the political power flows from the barrel of a uh... having said everything we said about the profile of
	this person if it's a serial
	of the story you're describing uh... there is one more thing to consider
	and it's this
	Peace.
	This is terrorism, certainly, you know, at its finest.
	I mean, it is terror.
	Domestic terrorism, for sure.
	Well?
	Of a personal nature?
	Maybe.
	The government yesterday, somebody made an inquiry of somebody high up.
	Are they sure this is not a foreign terrorist action?
	And they said, well, no, we're not sure.
	Are you?
	Well, I'm not sure, but it would surprise me, and if it is, I think it would turn out to be some lone wolf kind of renegade guy doing it.
	Let me tell you why I say that.
	Another, like, American Taliban wannabe?
	Kind of like that.
	If you're a terrorist, why would you pick targets one person at a time?
	It's so not what terrorists do.
	They want the highest body count they can get for one act.
	One bomb, This just doesn't make sense that this would be a foreign, some foreign terrorist who's being guided to do this or directed to do this from a foreign source.
	Now, like I said, that wouldn't rule out some renegade terrorist wannabe, but that's real far down on my list.
	Gotcha.
	Alright then, back to profiling.
	What about The victims so far.
	Now profiling I would imagine in a case like this would also certainly attempt to extend to the victims as well.
	Do you see any commonality?
	Is there anything at all linking the victims?
	I guess you always try to look for that, right?
	Right, try to look for that.
	Doesn't seem to be anything linking them.
	It almost seems to me like the killer is making sure that he has a crossbreed of victims.
	He has both genders.
	He has a variety of races.
	I think Caucasian, Hispanic, Black, to my knowledge.
	And he has youthful, you know, he's got the 13-year-old, and he's got young adults, and he has middle-aged people.
	It almost seems like he's going overboard to say, I can get anyone.
	Which would also go along with his God-like behavior.
	If we're all God's children, then he can kill any of us.
	Men, women, and children.
	Isn't that like the central core tenet of terrorism itself, that you can be randomly picked off?
	And I understand that the magnitude of the crime is not what you'd expect of people who knocked down buildings in New York and killed thousands, but still, it sure is terrorism.
	I just can't even imagine what's going through the minds of people and families with children in school in Virginia and Maryland, D.C.
	in that area.
	Did you know there was a, and I can't remember whether it was a NYPD Blue or one of those shows, that depicted exactly this in a drama?
	No, I didn't know that.
	NYPD Blues, my favorite show, too.
	It might not have been.
	I'll tell you what it was.
	It was Homicide, Life on the Street.
	Life on the Street, okay.
	That's right.
	Which, by the way, is a pretty good series.
	Do you like that?
	Oh, very much so.
	Excellent series.
	Homicide, right?
	That's right.
	My wife just reminded me.
	It was exactly this.
	It turned out, I believe, there were two snipers that were essentially having this godforsaken contest.
	And you were right about one thing, even in that, the idea was get the target, do it efficiently, get away, and they were having this contest.
	And this ran, I don't know, not even weeks ago.
	That's interesting, I didn't know that.
	I'll tell you what, I would go for that scenario before I'd go for a foreign terrorist doing this.
	There's even been a suggestion that there may be not one but two.
	For days, that was the report.
	Now, I am not privy to inside information.
	People think I am, and they go, yeah, right, you're a retired agent, people are talking to you.
	They're not.
	You probably have people you can talk to.
	Well, actually, they're not.
	They'd be in violation of the law if they were to tell me anything.
	And if I were to use it, well, I'd be exposing them, wouldn't I?
	So that's certainly not something I would do.
	And I don't have the information, however.
	When a crime like this happens, a very high media case, high profile, there's not a lot of accurate information out there and you're getting a lot of reports coming in.
	We don't even know for sure.
	About the white van.
	Someone says they saw this white panel truck.
	Actually, they're beginning to rule that out tonight.
	They're saying that they actually believe they've interviewed the person who was in that vehicle.
	From last night, right.
	And they received, I guess, a good report, a good reason for his having been there and all the rest of it, so.
	From last night.
	Yeah.
	But from last week, they have a report that they're looking for a white kind of delivery truck that had two people in it.
	Okay.
	Here's the deal with that.
	If that is valid information, and if that was the killer, and there were two people in that truck, that very much changes a lot of things.
	For one thing, and I've been saying this for a week on TV when I do commentary, if there's two people involved in this, it's probably they're on the more youthful side, less than 25, and it probably is something like what you just described.
	Target practice some kind of competition some thrill-killing between a couple of guys However, I'm not willing to say that that's what's going on It's that's unconfirmed that it was two people and frankly at this point with what has happened In just the last Monday and last night.
	I'm really leaning toward.
	This is one person You Uh, and joined him to stop doing this at the bottom of the hour, but how likely is it that he'll take this to the end game?
	Uh, serial killers can either, uh, go on a spree and do this for a while, then stop, maybe never do it again, uh, or, uh, lay off for a period of time and then start up again in another city or another place or even the same place.
	Yeah.
	Or, he could accelerate this thing that's going on, uh, to the end game.
	And see how far he can take it.
	In other words, begin killing more and faster.
	What are the possibilities?
	Well, they're endless.
	It can be any one of those things.
	How about Unabomber?
	Probabilities.
	The probability, I think, is that he is not going to stop for a while yet.
	Initially, when this started last week, there was a bombardment The greatest intensity of the murder spree was last week.
	Five people in 36 hours or something, a very short amount of time.
	Then it slowed down.
	One of the things that we saw, we have seen in some other types of serial killers, not shooters, there's no sexual motivation, there's nothing going on sexually between this killer and his victims, that's obvious.
	But in other types of killings and killing sprees, what we see is initially A lot of victims, and then it slows down.
	And it's almost like, imagine that you're very, very angry with someone.
	And if you're prone to violence, and you're going to lose control and wail on them... In other words, you begin to satiate yourself.
	Yes!
	You know, you start to calm down.
	There's an expenditure of energy and anger, and it's gone.
	You're spent.
	It's not to say his issues are resolved.
	The reason that he's killing in the first place has not gone away, and he's proven that by the shootings Friday afternoon, Monday morning, the 13-year-old boy, and then last night.
	But he has slowed down.
	This is not to say he might not pick up over the weekend.
	The Unabomber maimed and killed for nine years, and then went dormant for five.
	Now, he went dormant because he was seen placing a bomb, and that's when the composite came out.
	So there was a reason why he went underground.
	Well, we knew more.
	We knew more about him than we know about this killer.
	We knew that the Unabomber was killing technological types, right?
	We knew later.
	We knew later in the Unabomber's career, and the reason we knew is he was communicating with the press.
	Right.
	Right.
	Not a word so far, except this, uh, Dear Policeman, I'm God.
	I would not be surprised If this individual does reach out and either communicate with the police or the press.
	Really?
	Try to explain why he's doing what he's doing.
	Really?
	Okay.
	It wouldn't surprise me.
	Okay.
	Earlier tonight, one of the politicians on NBC they were interviewing said something about, I hope to God one day we understand why this is happening.
	It's almost like it was an invitation From the authorities investigating this, putting words into a mouth that will be seen moving on TV, to try and communicate some sort of what's-this-all-about type deal?
	It could be that, and it also simply could be this particular individual expressing his consternation at why someone would do such a thing.
	Most of us cannot relate to this kind of activity.
	So we say, why would someone do this?
	How could someone do this?
	Et cetera, et cetera.
	He has very good reasons for why he's doing what he's doing.
	And he's not insane.
	And his reasons, when they are explained, you'll listen to him and you'll go, OK, I understand why you did it.
	You may not agree with it.
	Certainly, I'm sure you don't.
	But there'll be a motive there.
	There'll be a motive, a clearly understandable motive.
	It won't be because spaceships are drying up his blood and he had to kill the aliens.
	It won't be that.
	And in a lot of cases like this, we picture, I guess, a lone middle-aged White guy, maybe still living at home with mommy, that kind of thing?
	Yeah, the boilerplate profile, huh?
	Is that a boilerplate profile?
	The loser loner profile seems to have floated to the surface so much in the last ten years, it's almost become a joke among the public.
	I'm not exactly willing to say that's what's going on with this guy.
	Yeah, the loner part for sure.
	Do I think this guy's a married man with a family?
	No, I don't.
	Well, a lot of times.
	In fact, almost always.
	And it is almost a joke.
	You know, when they finally do catch somebody like this, they always go to the neighbors of the person.
	And the neighbors are always on TV saying, oh, but he was such a nice, quiet young man.
	Yeah.
	The operative word here, quiet.
	Yeah.
	People that do these kinds of things generally are Not the same kind of individual that, if they have a beef with you, will deal with you in a straightforward, direct manner, work it out, and then let it go.
	They hold grudges.
	It would be called, in the mental health circles, maladaptive coping mechanisms.
	You know, if you can't cope with something and you're maladaptive in the way you do, you might throw something, break a glass, hit somebody that you're angry with, or shoot someone.
	What are the odds he'll be caught?
	Well, this is a very, very difficult crime to solve.
	If, I would imagine, if he gets caught, it may be because he makes a mistake, it could be because he's going to be actually seen doing something that he's doing, or someone that's paying attention to the media is going to go, you know, I think the person that's doing this could be so-and-so.
	So-and-so.
	And if that's the case, then they may pick up the phone.
	Now, I'm aware of cases where over the years I've worked with people that knew a family member was involved in unspeakable acts and did not report them.
	Unabomber case, right?
	Yes, well, Dave reported his brother.
	Dave had concerns, but Dave is a different kind of guy.
	Yeah, but right now this is so incredibly high-profile, top of every newscast.
	That the FBI must be getting flooded with, you know... I had a brother who was in the military, and boy, he's got a bad temper, and I haven't seen him in years, and I've got a feeling.
	You can be sure of that.
	How in God's name do they filter through all of this?
	Very difficult.
	I've been on a number of hotlines over the years, starting... My first one was the Tylenol murders back in 1981.
	I remember.
	And my last one was the Unabomb investigation, and people do tap in They're weird brothers and their ex-husband has missed an alimony payment.
	One of the ways investigators sort out the reliable from the unreliable, or the helpful from the not helpful, is if you have information that may be helpful or you have a feeling, you know, you call the hotline and you give them your name, address, phone number, how they can get in touch with you, and what your information is.
	If you're not willing to do that, They're not going to be taking your call too seriously, because they can't.
	They have to move on to reliable information.
	Okay, what I'm about to tell you may be now irrelevant, because he's widened the geographic circle so much, but a fellow called last night from Los Angeles, and he said, you know, down in South Central, the police have a really interesting deployment.
	They've got microphones placed around South Central, And when there's a shot, a gunshot, they're actually able to triangulate with sound.
	That's interesting.
	Isn't it?
	On where the shot came from.
	Now, I got an email today that said, Dear Art, a person calling in about the use of the technology to triangulate the sniper's position is right.
	The U.S.
	Army has, or maybe had, a mobile version of this system because we used it in Kosovo to locate sniper fire and call in artillery strikes on the sniper's position.
	Had you heard anything about this?
	No, that's absolutely fascinating, and I know nothing about it, but I'm going to learn more.
	Okay, that's exactly how it hit me yesterday.
	Gee, isn't that interesting.
	So, from your point of view then, we can probably expect more?
	He's not done?
	I think that's very much a possibility.
	I would not, certainly would not, Being so naive as to say, I think he's done it, I have no reason to say that.
	I hope that he is, but I have no reason to say that.
	And I wouldn't presume to think that he is.
	Are we historically creating more of these monsters now than we historically have done?
	Well, here's the deal, Art.
	Reporting on everything is so much more intense than it ever has been in the past.
	We have something now we never had before.
	We have four competing 24-7 cable news networks and you watch cable enough to know they get a story it's like a pit bull with a bone.
	That's right.
	They don't let go of it and so stories that used to be regional such as Samantha Runyon, the little girl taken off her porch, five years ago that would have been a regional story It might have been a national story when her body was found.
	This time, because of all the cable news, one hour after that girl was kidnapped, people in Washington and New York know what happened, her picture, and any other details about it.
	And that's great because it resulted in her offender being identified and apprehended very quickly.
	So, in answer to your question, are we creating more monsters?
	I don't think we're creating any more monsters relative to the population.
	We're just getting more information on them.
	For example, for the last 15 to 20 years that the Department of Justice has been keeping statistics on stranger abduction and murders of children, even though the population has gone up 30 or 40 percent in the last, well, I don't know if it's gone up 40 percent, but it's gone up a good 25 or 35 percent since 1980, the number of children being abducted by strangers and murdered has not gone up.
	But reporting of it has gone up.
	So, you're always going to have people in society who have issues, who have problems, who are misfits, or monsters, whatever you want to call them, but because of our TV, our cable, our news media, it's called infotainment now, and we're just much, much more aware of it.
	Infotainment.
	Infotainment.
	Yeah, I guess it is that, isn't it?
	Listen, I really want to give you a chance.
	Your book is Special Agent My Life on the Front Lines as a woman in the FBI, and we did, I think, two full shows with you, and so I feel so fortunate.
	Is there any chance, Candace, that they would call you back or solicit your opinion on this?
	Highly unlikely.
	And I'll tell you why.
	There are a lot of really fine, talented people still employed.
	And it's their turn to step up to the plate.
	And they have no interest in calling back former profilers.
	They all want to do their job and show what they can do and they'll be fine.
	Will they?
	That's the question.
	And it's not that I don't have faith in them.
	It's just that he seems to have really taken care and really been taking care not to get caught.
	This is going to be a tough one, and profiling a wisp of wind is not an easy job, is it?
	No, it isn't.
	And people need to not expect too much profiling.
	Never put anyone on death row.
	Candace, we've got to go.
	Okay.
	Thank you and good night.
	You're welcome, Mark.
	Candace DeLong, former FBI profiler.
	Tryin' to get myself ashore for so long, for so long Listenin' to the strangest stories, wonderin' where it all
	went wrong For so long, for so long
	But hold on, hold on, hold on, to what you got For so long, for so long
	Be it sight, sound, smell, or touch There's something inside that we need so much
	The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sound, or the strength of an oak with roots deep in the ground.
	The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
	Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing?
	To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing?
	To have all these things in our memories whole?
	And they use them to help us survive Why?
	Why can't she just take this from me?
	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.
	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 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.
	Indeed, from the King... Good morning, everybody!
	I am Art Bell.
	In a moment, we're gonna talk about a cloaking device.
	A real cloaking device.
	We're gonna talk about invisibility, with a man who is patenting a device.
	To provide three-dimensional invisibility.
	Three-dimensional invisibility right now!
	So that's coming up in a moment.
	Again, I just want to remind you of two things that, uh, I consider to be very, very important.
	One, I've been sent the ghost photo of ghost photos, in my opinion.
	And I turn away hundreds, uh, even thousands of them, but this one, this one, This is a real, oh my God, look at this picture, kind of picture.
	It was done with a digital camera, and as far as I know, there can be no double exposure with digital cameras.
	And so what you're seeing here, in my opinion, is in fact a ghost.
	And it's a very clear photograph.
	In my opinion, again, it is a photograph in the woods, on a path, Taken just of the foliage, but in the photograph is a young woman, partially materialized, and yet very clear, not at all fuzzy or something you cannot see, but partially materialized.
	There's no question about it.
	That's what I've got here.
	This was sent in by somebody named Daniel Boddy, B-A-D-I, and it was taken In Helen Hunt Falls, Colorado, on June 22nd of this year.
	You've got to see this photograph.
	It's the first item on my website, rbill.com, under Great Ghost Photo.
	Good title, Great Ghost Photo, because it's one of the best I have ever seen.
	Now, tomorrow night, we're going to do open lines.
	And tomorrow night, if you would like to provide me with a theme, For open lines.
	Bearing in mind, not ghosts, because we're going to do that on Ghost2Ghost coming up on Halloween.
	If you have a really good idea for a line that I could open tomorrow night, then I will do so.
	A lot of people are saying, why don't you open the line for that killer?
	I don't know about that.
	You know, I do think there's a good chance he's listening, but I don't know about that.
	I have to think about that.
	The ins and outs of that.
	I mean, all that's going to get me is another visit from the FBI and the Secret Service and all kinds of people like that, which I really hate.
	It's happened a bunch of times.
	But maybe.
	You know, I'm open to it.
	So, in other words, if you have any idea for something that would make a really good open line program, maybe I could do it in conjunction with something like that.
	It's really tempting.
	I do have to say it's tempting.
	and then uh... email me i'm art dates are bell at my spring dot com as we are
	telling our tbv l l at my spring dot so any thoughts on a good open line topic for more on art
	bell at my spring dot com or art bell at a l dot com
	all right now coming up in a moment of real is attempting to patent
	a three-dimensional cloaking process the process
	and apparatus that's machine right for concealing objects and
	He has two decades of business experience, including a decade of professional marketing experience in products and services.
	Ray personally sold over $5 million in services in 2001 to Fortune 50 companies.
	He's real McCoy.
	He's invented, evaluated, designed, and engineered, patented, and marketed over 100 new product concepts.
	He owns five patents and has over 20 U.S.
	patents pending.
	Ray received his MBA in marketing from City University, Bellevue, Washington, holds a bachelor's degree from Western Illinois University, and studied engineering as an undergraduate.
	He owns Equity and Drama View Technology, Inc., 3D camouflage, and a proposed refrigerant wheeling utility.
	This should be very interesting.
	Invisibility cloaking.
	Coming up next... Did you know, Ray, that nine out of ten American men, when asked what they would do with invisibility, would answer as the first item, go peek in women's bedrooms?
	Well, Art, as a matter of fact, I did know that because I've searched...
	You did know that?
	I searched some chat rooms on the internet and there was some chat out there about this and that was one of the comments that was in nearly every forum.
	I don't know.
	So here we are talking about this, but we're really very seriously talking about this, aren't we?
	In other words, you have a machine.
	Do you have a machine?
	I do have a machine.
	What I'd like to tell you is two things.
	Things have changed slightly since we last spoke in that I'm no longer just attempting to patent a three-dimensional cloaking process and apparatus, but I have now a condition of allowance from the U.S.
	Patent Office, which means that it will in fact issue, the first patent will issue.
	But I'd also like to tell you that... Well, where is that in the world of patent pending?
	I mean, people say that.
	It says, oh, it's pending.
	But they've given you more now.
	They're saying they are going to issue this.
	So that is a level higher or what?
	Well, technically, it's still patent pending until the patent actually issues.
	But it's been found in a condition of allowance, which means that the examination process is completed now.
	There's no longer a question as to whether or not there's novelty or All right.
	What are we talking about here?
	What is your definition or the definition of invisibility?
	I know what mine would be.
	will issue as a patent alright uh... what what are we talking about here what is
	uh... your definition or the definition of invisibility i know what
	mine would be uh... what what what is the one that's operative for you
	with respect to what you have created
	right uh...
	well the thing about invisibility is
	making every point on a structure or an asset emit electromagnetic radiation in a number of trajectories
	concurrently that are
	that are independent for each observer that's in different So the analogy would be a window where if you look through a window you see one thing, if you move in a different perspective relative to the window and you look out the window you see something else.
	Right.
	A three-dimensional definition of invisibility whereas in the prior art there's examples of cloaking objects that are two-dimensional where there's a let's say a screen or something in front of an asset and as you move relative to the screen your view of what's on the screen never changes.
	So invisibility is the act of sending Many trajectories of electromagnetic radiation in multiple directions concurrently, such that an observer looking at an asset from any perspective cannot see the asset but sees through the asset.
	From any perspective?
	Right.
	Multiple concurrent perspectives.
	I can imagine two-dimensional invisibility rather easily.
	I can imagine how that could be achieved in perhaps a number of ways.
	But in my wildest dreams, I can't imagine this three-dimensional invisibility that where from any angle under any lighting conditions, whatever it is, is gone.
	This is where the novelty is.
	We have four different architectures that achieve that.
	It is a leap forward in terms of signature management or stealthy cloaking.
	I have a whole list of synonyms here that this achieves.
	And then also, what if the asset, as you call it, I assume this can be either a person or an airplane or, I don't know, a car.
	In other words, whatever.
	If whatever it is is moving, then the level of difficulty in achieving this must exponentially go up.
	You would think so, but... You would, yes.
	The architecture, there are systems that can operate In parallel processing mode, if it's an electronic version, for example, so that there is no processing involved.
	So whereas prior art signature management or cloaking devices are using a camera and then trying to simulate a view based on a camera and knowing where the enemy's position is and trying to process an image.
	This technology here connects sensors directly to emitters in the electronic embodiment, and so there's no processing.
	It's all real-time.
	Boyer, are you going to have to explain this?
	I can understand, again, how 2D is done.
	In other words, you have a fixed object at some point, and you would have like a screen, and then you could take a picture of what's behind that object, and project that picture to a screen, and so to the viewer, who's looking straight on, It's like that isn't even there.
	You're looking at what you would be seeing if that object was not there.
	Hence, optical invisibility.
	But that's got to be a million miles from what you're talking about right now.
	And I can't picture in my mind the technical way you would achieve three-dimensional invisibility.
	So, kind of lay it out for me again.
	Can you talk about all of this technically without Blowing a patent away or getting in trouble or whatever?
	Well, it's important to realize that I can only talk about what information is already in the public domain and that would be patent applications that have been published or basically patent applications that have been published.
	How much of what you know can you not talk about, percentage wise?
	At least between 25 and 50 percent.
	That's a lot, that's a whole lot, up to half of what you know you can't talk about.
	That's true, but let me say one other thing, and that is I do not have any secret clearances from the government, so I'm not privy to any information about any secret projects that the government might be working on that are not available to the general public.
	So nothing that I say tonight is intended to communicate any existing capabilities or limitations of capabilities.
	Or future capabilities or limitations of capabilities.
	The U.S.
	Department of Defense, the U.S.
	Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Special Forces.
	Yeah, but if what you have is real, then you are going to be involved with the military.
	If you're not yet, you will be.
	Well, that's true.
	That is the objective, is to be involved.
	But the point I'm trying to make is, I can't speak to what is actually out there.
	The DOD, the Defense Department, is very compartmentalized.
	So there can be all kinds of projects that nobody In one person, one area is not going to know what is going on in any of the other projects.
	It's not possible.
	Right.
	There's probably not one person in the whole system that knows everything that's going on.
	So, I can't speak to what is already out there.
	I just want to get that out on the table.
	Do you expect that the military will walk in on you soon?
	That's a broad stroke.
	I don't care.
	Some government agency or some arm of the government will grab you.
	Well, I hoped actually that that would be the case because if they pulled me in then it would be a good indicator of the level of interest.
	There's a process when you file a patent.
	There are 35 patent agents that specifically screen patent applications for military significance.
	Uh-huh.
	And national security significance.
	And they screen them out and they put them over to the Department of Defense.
	Yes.
	If the Department of Defense wants to pull them out of the patent process, they can do it.
	Yes.
	And if they were to pull it out of the patent process, would they pull you with it?
	I mean, is there going to be one day when my producers call to get another interview with Ray Alden and Ray Alden is not at this address anymore?
	Well, that would be nice.
	Well, you really think that would be nice?
	Well, the point is that the process has already expired.
	My stuff went to the DoD.
	And DoD said, no, we don't need to pull this into a secret loop.
	So at this stage, everything is in the public domain.
	Yeah, but that doesn't make sense.
	Unless the military is well down the road on its own invisibility projects.
	Of course, they've got stealth.
	And we can talk about that a little bit, but I mean, they've obviously proceeded past stealth, and if they haven't, they aren't the military that I know and love.
	Right?
	I mean, they're already down that road somewhere, so either they're going to grab you up, or they've already gone down this road and already are well down this road.
	What do you think?
	That's an interesting question, and that's really the concern that I came to also.
	I do know that the Patent Office is issuing a patent on this.
	The government has the authority to utilize the patent any way they like, really.
	They can have any third party produce the patent without me.
	If I'm aware of it, I can seek redress through the federal government.
	But the normal patent process where you can, let's say I go to some defense contractor and say, you can't produce this.
	Well, if they have a contract with the government that says they can produce it, they can produce it.
	And I can't stop them.
	So a lot of the rules When you're in a national security area, don't apply.
	It's a difficult environment to operate in, especially if you're a little small-time inventor trying to advance a technology.
	It's a very difficult environment, especially where the technology is in a black area.
	What are you able to achieve?
	Are you able to make a car invisible?
	Could you make me invisible?
	Theoretically, we can make anything invisible.
	The question is, what resolution do you want to pay for How much money do you want to spend?
	And so if we say I need a tank invisible at 100 yards from three-dimensional invisibility, there's a cost associated with that, and then there's an architecture that's required to achieve that.
	What if I want to make a tank invisible at 20 feet?
	There's a cost associated with that.
	In other words, the only thing associated with achieving it is cost, not technical capability.
	Theoretically, that's true.
	There are some difficulties.
	Just the predator on the Schwarzenegger movie is a good analogy because there is some disturbance in the light that you can see if you look closely.
	And this would be something similar to that.
	There are optical structures involved that cannot perform perfectly.
	So there's going to be some imperfections in the system.
	Like a little shift or a little... You would notice a little shift or a little...
	a slight blur for a second or I'm sort of reaching out trying to figure out what it might look like if the resolution wasn't quite high enough at the distance from which we were observing.
	If it was a low-resolution issue then what you'd be looking at is big pixels so for example if you had something standing in front of a tree and it was a black background with a birch tree which is a white tree you would see jagged pixel edges.
	That's a resolution issue.
	Uh-huh.
	Even if you have a high resolution, so let's say you don't see jagged edges, there are optical structures there that are not going to handle the light perfectly, so you will be able to detect some structure there.
	You'll be able to detect some structure there.
	Suppose it's an airplane against a blue sky, or a cloudy sky, or probably more problematic, a partly cloudy sky.
	I don't know.
	What about that?
	I mean, an airplane is usually at a pretty doggone good distance from the viewer.
	Yeah, the airplane scenario, which the stealthy technology addresses partially, and other experiments have addressed, is a relatively simple problem because, in effect, you're dealing with a two-dimensional... All you need is a two-dimensional resolution there.
	You don't need three dimensions.
	If I have a blue sky above Nearly any vantage point on the ground that's looking at a plane in a blue sky, if I color the bottom of that plane blue, they're going to see a blue sky.
	They're not going to be able to detect anything other than the blue bottom.
	Well, do you know there's a lot of that running around right now?
	I mean, I can't tell you how many reports of people who hear a jet very strongly directly above them, and even leading them a little bit as we normally look for jets, there is nothing.
	So isn't it Probable, that's a good word to use here, that the military already has this and in fact is using it right now and they have invisible airplanes?
	Isn't that probable?
	I don't know firsthand of any information like that.
	I would say certainly on a two-dimensional level I would agree that there's lots of stuff in the public domain about two-dimensional things where you can change color and The chameleon type of coach.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Hold on, Ray.
	While we're at the bottom of the hour, we'll be right back from the high desert.
	this is Coast to Coast AM. I'm Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Some velvet morning when I'm straight I'm gonna open up your gate
	and maybe Tell you about the faith and how she gave me life
	How she made it in some velvet morning when I was trained Flowers growing on our hill, dragonflies and cacophonies
	Flowers, learn from us very much, look at us but do not touch, Vedra is my name
	I Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye 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.
	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 Nye.
	That is exactly what it is.
	We're going to try and find out as much about this machine of Ray Alden's as we can.
	And there's a lot that I want to understand about exactly how he's doing this.
	I bet he won't be able to tell me a lot about it, but we'll probe.
	Stay right there.
	Once again, here's Ray Aldin.
	Ray, welcome back.
	Hi, Eric.
	Hi.
	All right, Ray.
	I want to, in my mind, I want to try and understand this.
	I understand that computer processing has become fast and small and very, very efficient.
	And I assume that that's at the nucleus of what you do.
	Would that be correct?
	No, the preferred embodiment really would not use processing.
	Really?
	Because when you start talking about, you know, things like we've been talking about, I don't see how you could do it without computer processing.
	You start talking about resolutions, that implies projections of some sort, in some sort of spectrum, and that would have to be altered, and how do you alter that without processing?
	We could get down to the nuts and bolts of this thing.
	Well, I want to understand a little bit.
	Yeah, I want to understand a little bit about the nuts and bolts.
	As much as you can talk about.
	Right.
	If you put an optic in front of a pixel, so you have an emitting pixel, and you put an optic in front of that, there will be a place that you can stand in front of that optic and you can see that pixel.
	Yes.
	And there'll be other places that you can stand in front of that optic and you cannot see that pixel.
	Now, so there's a field of view of that pixel.
	Right.
	Now, let's say you put a whole string of pixels behind that lens.
	There's a whole bunch of different places you can stand and look through that lens and see a bunch of different colors if each of those pixels are different colors.
	Right.
	So, you have emitting structures that can be segmented by The trajectory of electromagnetic radiation that they emit.
	Okay.
	According to their position behind the lens.
	Okay.
	So that's how you have a number of different views possible.
	Now, that lens really is a pixel, and then behind it, those aren't really pixels, those are sub-pixels.
	Okay.
	So your lens is a pixel, and now you cover the surface with a whole bunch of pixels like that.
	So that anywhere that you stand, you see these lens surfaces emitting different colors of electromagnetic radiation depending on what your position is.
	Uh-huh.
	So that's the emitting architecture.
	Now the sensing architecture is identical to that.
	In fact, the sensing architecture is the same structure.
	It's exactly the same, literally the same.
	In what bands or frequencies do you emit?
	Before we move to the sensing.
	In what bands or frequencies do you emit?
	In the human visual frequency range?
	Or do you go into the infrared?
	How much cloaking do you do?
	These architectures can apply to any frequency.
	Any frequency?
	Any frequency?
	There becomes a difficulty.
	The main advantage of a system like this is to defeat unparalleled threats.
	You're a helicopter.
	You're in Somalia.
	You've got a billion dollar helicopter.
	Somebody shoots you down with a pea shooter.
	Yeah.
	If I can't see you in the visible spectrum, You can't shoot me down with a rifle.
	If I go into infrared, now there's no one frequency infrared.
	There's a whole range of frequencies.
	That's true.
	If you're using emitters, unless you have some emitters that are not known to me, you can only emit and select wavelengths.
	So all I need to do is I need to have a infrared headgear or infrared observation system That enables me to see any wavelength that you're not emitting.
	Or enables me to see only wavelengths that you're emitting.
	Or put another way, you can emit in any wavelength that a person could choose to try to see you in.
	That's true.
	So again, it's probably going to be just a matter of money.
	It's a matter of money, but it's also a matter of knowing what the enemy is trying to look at you with.
	Anything they can see you with would be the answer.
	Right.
	I mean, once you achieve optical invisibility, then the enemy That's true.
	If you know what they're looking at you with, if it's the eyes, obviously all you need is visible.
	read uh... any number of ways i don't know radar was whatever
	the enemy is going to try and see you anyway you can to take that shot
	that's true if if you know what they're looking at you with the put the
	i've obviously all you need is visible
	and you can achieve visible relatively simple just like we do on the display screen
	came a little too sensing part of this
	You've got to somehow project, your emitters have to project essentially what would be there if you were not, correct?
	Or if the asset was not.
	That's true.
	This differentiates it, by the way, from the stealth type of situation.
	With the stealth technology, you're painting it with radar, but the background behind that is also black.
	Right.
	So, the only time that something is there, you get a signal back.
	All you need is to deflect that radar.
	That's a relatively simple approach, but when you actually have a background behind an object, and let's say I'm shooting a radar beam at it, and no signal comes back from that area, and I know there's supposed to be a building there, then I know there's an object there.
	Right.
	So, uh, this, uh, it can, uh, I'm sorry, what was the question, Art?
	I lost my train of thought.
	Well, the question was very simple.
	The question was, in talking about the sensing, you have to be looking, or you have to be sensing and reproducing what would be there if the asset was not.
	Yes.
	And the sensing, the emitting structures we described as being a bunch of pixels behind a lens, behind an optic, and the emitting, the sensing structures are identical.
	As a matter of fact, The emitting structures can also function as sensing structures.
	That would make sense.
	The photoband gap material is able to, in a first biased state, an electronic biased state, emit.
	And in another biased state, it's able to receive electromagnetic radiation.
	That works with audio, for example.
	You can take, on an old-fashioned telephone, You can take the receiver, the headpiece, on telephone.
	I'm taking mine apart right now.
	Here it is.
	You can take that and you can listen to somebody talking to you.
	It acts as a speaker.
	Or, if you want to wire it in a different fashion, it acts as a microphone.
	So, for audio, it works exactly the same way.
	This has a different mechanism behind it, but it does work that way.
	It's a good parallel, though.
	Other important aspect about that is, if you have the sensors being emitters, now I have, let's say, a sensor on one side of the asset, which is switched into a sensing state, and I have an emitter on the opposing side.
	That sensor, I don't need a processor to tell the emitter what to do when that sensor receives a signal.
	Gotcha.
	I can direct wire that.
	However, you might need some processing with regard to The strength of the emission.
	In other words, you've got to control that emission.
	You're modulating, in essence, right?
	And so you've got to control the emission in some way.
	Otherwise, optically, it's going to be too bright, or without enough contrast, or in some way not matching the background as it should be seen, right?
	You have to amplify the signal.
	Exactly.
	And that's going to mean somewhere you've got to have control.
	Well, you have control to the extent that you're having a signal that's coming in as an analog signal.
	The signal going out is an analog signal, too.
	You don't need to put it into digital and process it to figure out what we need to do here.
	But you do have to control the amplitude of it.
	You do have to control the amplitude, but that is a simple amplifier type of electronic.
	It's not a processor where we have all this information coming in and we need to process what to do with it.
	So you're really not using processing, per se, in any aspect of this?
	For this embodiment here, there is no processing.
	The one that we're talking about.
	There are other embodiments as well.
	That's really intriguing.
	Think of the commercial spin-off of that, though.
	Now I have a display on my telephone that I look at, and it's also a sensor that's sensing me.
	And what practical effect is there?
	The commercial spinoff from that is a display that you can do teleconferencing with that also acts as a three-dimensional sensor that can sense your image.
	So you can teleconference in front of a monitor that the monitor itself is the sensor.
	Wow.
	So that would provide three-dimensional two-way communication?
	Yes.
	Oh, that would be so cool.
	Three-dimensional two-way communication over a phone line.
	That is possible?
	Yes.
	In the real world, I thought that had to be a holograph.
	But it doesn't?
	Well, on the computer, you're still looking at it in a two-dimensional display.
	That's right.
	Let me rephrase that.
	The delivery system is going to be a two-dimensional delivery system.
	It looks like a two-dimensional surface, but behind it, you have to have the same architecture.
	You have to have lenslets, a whole array of tiny lenses, and then sub-pixels behind those lenses.
	So you're looking at a two-dimensional surface, but behind it is an architecture that gives you a three-dimensional view.
	Now, when you talk about processing speed, in that application, now that becomes an issue.
	It does, yes.
	Yes.
	But not in this cloaking device that you are in the middle of getting a patent for.
	It's not an issue there.
	Not an issue.
	Now, would this be conceivably so portable that a person could be rendered invisible in three dimensions?
	Yes.
	There are some difficulties with doing it on people or any articulated elements.
	For example, You're not going to have a floppy shirt and spandex suit or something made out of this.
	It's going to be a rigid structure.
	So you need an external body armor type of system, which is what the military is going toward anyway.
	The military wants an individual warrior that has the firing capability of a helicopter and the survivability of a tank, practically.
	If you put this system on a warrior like that, the warrior can be rendered invisible.
	Now, the parts that articulate, for example, if I move my forearm up and down, now you get into a problem of processing.
	If I'm going to make that guy invisible... That's what I thought.
	At some point, I thought that processing would be inevitable.
	Right.
	When you get into articulated components, And you need to tell one component where the other component is relative to it so you can give a true representation about what is a background from multi-perspectives.
	You need to have a processor there that talks about what is that new relationship.
	That's moving faster than the eye can, essentially.
	Right.
	That gets you into problems of speed now.
	The processing right now, if you look at any display, you're basically looking at a two-dimensional display.
	Right.
	For something to be invisible, in reality actually invisible, you need an infinite number of displays, an infinite number of perspectives, which obviously is not possible.
	So without warping time and space, it's not possible.
	Just bending light, you can't make an infinite number of views possible.
	So you have to take some finite number of views and then represent those enough to fool whatever kind of Sensing device it is, whether it's an eye or... What have you done so far?
	In other words, I take it that you have put together, to some degree at least, this technology and have achieved something with it in the real world.
	In other words, you've gone to some degree beyond the theoretical.
	You've got a working model of something.
	Well, we have a constructive reduction to practice.
	What's that?
	That's a legal term.
	I can't go beyond that.
	Oh.
	Repeat that legal term again, please.
	It's a constructive reduction to practice.
	Constructive reduction to practice.
	Can you define that legal term?
	it means that we've provided enough information for one skilled in the art of
	the technologies involved to be able to construct one
	so you really can't you can't do you think you can't do it for what reason can
	you not go beyond that with me here on the radio In other words, you could tell me, Yard, hey, I've got... I've built this, I've got a machine, I've made so-and-so invisible to the eye, and you could have that hidden away somewhere, and what would be the harm?
	Well, it's just not...
	An area that I'm prepared to go into at this time.
	I can accept that.
	Alright.
	Then for this, you obviously want the military to come knocking on your door.
	And if they don't come knocking on your door, then you're going to be left with commercial application for this technology, correct?
	Yes.
	Presumably, yes.
	What would be the first A type of corporation or application that you would pursue if it gets to that?
	The commercial application for the actual cloaking or hiding of objects, other than the police, let's say, would be, for example, off the coast of Martha's Vineyard out there in the Northeast.
	There's a visionary that's got an idea of putting a whole bunch of wind generators out there in the ocean.
	Oh yes.
	And there's a lot of people that have issues with the new view that they would have of these giant windmill farms.
	Oh indeed so, yes.
	So this would be something that you could cover the surface of those devices with this structure.
	In fact, the structure itself could be made out of it.
	The cloaking device could be the structure of the thing itself.
	It doesn't even have to be on the surface of it.
	It could actually be the surface.
	So you mean, to all intents and purposes, it would disappear and the wonderful view from Martha's Vineyard would not change?
	That's true.
	In reality, they would be there.
	You just wouldn't be able to see them.
	That would be true.
	I mean, I don't want to think about the legal implications about if somebody ran into it with their yacht or something, but that would be true.
	That's incredible.
	If your technology was eventually deployed widely, it would be like we were living in a matrix world, almost.
	There would be the world we could see, and then there would be the world that we couldn't see.
	That's kind of disturbing, right?
	It is disturbing.
	I can't really see that far in the future and see what sort of In the short term, I'm not sure if that would be the case.
	Yeah, but it could be in the long term.
	It could be.
	I'm not sure.
	I mean, I'm sure that Oppenheimer said a lot of things to himself like this when, you know, when the atomic bomb was in the early stages.
	And look how it's changed the world.
	I've thought about that a little.
	I'm not sure what the implications would be.
	Oh, how would you feel about Being the author of the beginning of a world that the people really couldn't see.
	Well, I think it's like any other science or technology that it could have some negative effects.
	In the short term, you know, we have some problems that this technology may be able to help advance the civilization.
	Whether there would be some negative implications over the long term, it's difficult for me to know.
	I would, obviously, if something, there was some kind of world that was, you know, dominated by people that had invisibility versus those that didn't.
	Uh-huh.
	That would not be something that I was trying to achieve.
	Uh, right.
	Well, okay, hold on, Ray.
	A lot of times, though, inventors, you see, achieve things that were not their original intention when they, you know, when the light bulb went off.
	I'm Mark Bell from the High Desert.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Daddy was a cop on the east side of Chicago.
	Back in the USA.
	Back in the bad old days.
	In the heat of a summer night.
	In the land of the dollar bill.
	When the town of Chicago died.
	And they talk about it still When a man named Al Capone Tried to make that town his own And he called his friends Al, I'm steppin' into the twilight zone Playin' in the madhouse, feelin' like King Kong My lead guns can't move, I'm the moon and the star Where am I to go now that I've gone too far?
	I hope I'm stepping into some twilight snow This is a mess, feeling like being numb
	I keep on getting moved by the moon and sun Well I know now that I've fallen too much
	You were gone, gone When the bullet hits the bone
	Take you to a calming zone When the bullet hits the bone
	I'm falling down the spiral Destination unknown
	Double cross messenger All alone
	Can't get no connection Can't get through.
	Where are you?
	Well, the night is coming on his guilty mind.
	It's this far from the borderline.
	When the hitman comes, he knows damn well he has to To recharge Bell in the Kingdom of Nye, from west of the Rockies, dial 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	1-800-825-5033. First time callers may rechart at 1-775-727-1222 or use the wildcard line
	at 1-775-727-1295. To rechart 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 on the Premier Radio Networks.
	My guest is Ray Aldrin.
	He has invented a cloaking device.
	A device that will cause things, people, even articulating things in people, to become invisible.
	To the human eye.
	And more.
	We'll be right back.
	Once again, here's Ray Aldin.
	Ray has a patent, and even a little better than, on a device to cloak to make a person or a thing invisible.
	And I get these questions by computer, Ray, as we're doing the program, and here's one of them.
	This is Tim from Birmingham, Alabama.
	Who notes you're an inventor, but you're also a businessman.
	I think you would agree with that, right?
	That's true.
	I have an MBA in marketing and I've been a businessman for about 20 years.
	As such, if you didn't get interest here, either in the governmental sector or even in the civilian sector, but a foreign government were to come to you, would you do business with them?
	The answer to that question is no, and as a matter of fact, I couldn't legally do business with them.
	We have Signature Management, this is called Signature Management or Signature Control, and it's listed by the Department of Defense as one of the 20 critical technology areas, so anything that the government puts in the public domain, I mean the Patent Office printed two of my patents And the World Patent Office printed a third, so there's three patent applications in the public domain.
	My goodness.
	So the foreign governments already have access to that, and that wasn't through any fault of my own or any action that I took, but beyond that, if they wanted me to design a system for them or enhance what I've already given to them that's in the public domain at this point, I couldn't do that legally.
	You couldn't?
	No.
	In other words, this is covered, explain to me how this is covered again.
	There are areas of development or areas of invention that are absolutely across the board restricted from export?
	I mean, how is it covered?
	Well, there's a regulation called ITAR that regulates what sort of information can be exchanged with foreign governments.
	And then for signature control technology specifically, Which this is called signature control.
	There's a lot of synonyms for cloaking, such as stealth, signature reduction, signature control, active camouflage, low observables.
	All right, and so it's right in the middle of that.
	It's one of the 20 critical technology areas.
	So the answer is, I can't export any information about it or work with any other countries about it.
	And I wouldn't anyway.
	yes but uh... certainly from a pure business perspective a gigantic disadvantage
	the analysis that we've done i mean we have a business plan We're ready to execute a business plan where we're looking for venture capital.
	There are certainly some big challenges to working in this environment.
	The first challenge is not that you can't sell it foreign.
	The first challenge, and there might be some potential foreign sales, but they would all be authorized and approved by the military.
	The real challenge is one that we've already discussed, and that is that it's a black area, so you can't really know when anybody's telling you yes or no or maybe.
	Nobody can really give you a straight answer about anything, so it's a very difficult environment from a business standpoint, from a marketing standpoint.
	But from a foreign government standpoint, it's very clear.
	And in terms of the market size in the U.S., see, the U.S.
	military is going through a process called transformation.
	They use Afghanistan as a case in point of why the current structure is not as optimal as possible.
	They have the M1A1 Abrams tank, for example, that could not deploy in Afghanistan because it's so heavy.
	And what they want is they want light armor systems, but they want to have the same survivability as a heavy armor system.
	Invisibility would certainly achieve that.
	Right.
	So one of the critical technologies in order to achieve that objective is signature reduction, signature control.
	So if you can't see a target, you can't hit it.
	And the only, again, the only thing standing in the way of how much reduction you want, reduction is an interesting word.
	It doesn't necessarily mean you're totally invisible, but there are degrees, apparently, of invisibility.
	Would that be fair?
	Yes, that's fair.
	And there's different, you can do it in, there's many different ways in terms of resolution like we discussed, or the number of views that you're making available, or pixel size.
	Alright, so, okay, I see exactly what you're saying.
	So then, for example, a tank at a mile to the human eye would be a pretty small target.
	Right.
	And it wouldn't take a whole lot of pixels to fill that area in and virtually make it invisible.
	Yes.
	Is that accurate?
	That's very true.
	This could be put on ships.
	A ship could be made invisible.
	Well, there are stories they tried that in Philadelphia.
	A photo experiment, anyway.
	I listened with great intensity to your interview that you had a few years back.
	Oh, did you really?
	Yes, I did.
	That was very interesting because, of course, it involved A rotating RF and magnetic fields, which is not exactly, of course, what you're doing, but there is a certain, I don't know, a certain relationship with the technologies.
	Well, I think the objective is a shared objective, but the technology that they employed is a little different.
	Yeah, they were perhaps actually doing what you We're talking about earlier, and that is the warping of time and space.
	Right.
	I can only bend light.
	I can't warp time and space.
	You can bend light.
	We talked about the telephone.
	What other possible commercial applications do you imagine?
	For the display application, there are other ways to use that display as well.
	For example, let's say we have three people sitting in front of the display, each in a different position.
	Right.
	Each of them can receive separate video streams from that display.
	In other words, they're seeing the view from their angle of what would be if that asset wasn't there.
	Well, that's true.
	Well, in the display application, they're not seeing what if the display wasn't there.
	They're seeing some video streams.
	So they're watching some media on a display.
	It could be their favorite program.
	You watch Championship Wrestling and somebody else watches PBS.
	They're both sitting and looking at the same monitor, but they're both seeing two different information streams.
	Yeah, but those information streams would have to be, to have any degree of invisibility, those information streams would have to contain the information of what it would be in that field of view if that object or asset were not there.
	Yes, but I'm speaking of a display application that would be in your home.
	So it's not something of making it invisible.
	I've got you, okay.
	So there's a commercial application there To have displays that... Oh!
	You mean a replacement for TV?
	Right.
	You replace a two-dimensional TV that has one image stream coming off of it... Yes?
	...with a three-dimensional TV that has multiple information streams coming off of it.
	Wow!
	3D TV!
	Well, it's 3D TV and it also can provide different programming to multiple viewers concurrently.
	The Broadcasters are going to love you.
	Oh There are some good positive spin-offs, too, Art, other than The Matrix Society.
	What about a building?
	While we're on the subject of invisibility, could a building be rendered invisible?
	It could.
	That's a very stationary object, right?
	It could, and that could be done relatively cheap.
	I mean, think of a potential terrorist trying to attack a building that, when they show up, it's not there.
	I mean, if it was known that they were going to attack that building.
	Uh-huh.
	Um, unfortunately, I can imagine the biggest advantage going not to the people who would have rendered the towers invisible, but I'm afraid to the terrorists who would have the airplane, the invisible airplane, coming at the known location.
	So I'm afraid that I, sadly, see more advantage in the world of terrorism than I do Our world, at least right now, if this were actually workable right now, it's terrorist one, people with fixed buildings zero.
	Well, I think it's something that ought to be considered, but one should also consider the fact that our capabilities to detect would defeat the system at its current state of readiness.
	So we could defeat the system with our capabilities to detect, but many of our enemies couldn't.
	Now if we were facing, let's say, an advanced technology that was on an equivalent with our own, then they could defeat, in many different spectrums, this technology.
	But if we're facing an unparalleled threat, which is where the real advantage would be, think of an urban environment where, see the two-dimensional approach where you have a warrior, let's say, that changes to green when he jumps in a pile of bushes, and then when he goes into some dead grass he changes to brown.
	That's a nice thing, but if you're in an urban environment, where you're standing next to one building that's white and another building that's black, as a chameleon, what color are you going to be?
	Are you going to be gray?
	Are you going to be black?
	Are you going to be white?
	No matter what color you become, you're standing out at least against one of those backgrounds.
	Well, if you're really invisible, you have to be white to the white background and black to the black background.
	Exactly.
	So that's where the advantage is.
	It's in an urban type of Unparalleled threat environment where our guys are invisible against the black background and they're also invisible at the same time against the white background.
	And the enemy is walking around not with infrared scopes and you know the highest level of detection equipment.
	There will be some of that out there, but a lot of them are running around with rifles.
	And if they see you, they can shoot at you.
	If they can't see you, they can't shoot at you.
	That's true.
	So there's a whole space when you're dealing with unparalleled threats that Even just if you're effective in the visible, with against the naked human eye, you have a big advantage.
	Have you really thought a lot about whether the world, socially, is ready for the reality of invisibility?
	That's sort of a hard question, I suppose, for you, but I mean, in terms of the process you've gone through in inventing this, you have to have considered that.
	How it's going to be greeted, how people are going to feel about it, How it will change our world.
	You've thought about all that?
	Well, I am getting some feedback from the world at this time because somebody keeps sending me a bunch of viruses in my email, but... Oh no, you're not alone.
	That is, listen, there is an epidemic of viruses going around right now, but you know what?
	I don't even run a virus program.
	I have them, but I don't run a virus program because these viruses, to anybody who's Semi-computer literate are so obviously viruses that when you open them you go, sheesh, another stupid virus.
	I get about 30 or 40 of them a day.
	Well, I get a lot of email.
	I'm not in your league.
	A good 30 or 40 viruses a day and I'm used to them and to me they're absolutely obvious and they're also stupid.
	Usually things like A Japanese girl versus Playboy and you go inside and it says fun.exe or eyeball.bat or leg.pif I mean these are stupid, stupid obvious viruses but they're absolutely rampant out there right now.
	Well you've just done a service to your listeners because if you see the extension of the file you just throw it away.
	Or, I'd like to have this for you to review, please.
	You know, something obviously written by somebody in the Bacaw Valley somewhere.
	I don't know.
	I have no idea.
	Please do you review to see if you like this.
	.exe Anyway, we're straying away here from invisibility.
	These are not invisible viruses, but they are everywhere right now.
	You're not being targeted alone, believe me.
	We were talking about how the world is going to view this, and aside from those who get angry and might send you viruses, how do you think this will be greeted?
	I mean, it's going to change the world.
	If there are buildings and there are, I don't know, wind farms and things that are not really there, we're going to begin to enter a world Where you cannot necessarily any longer believe what you see.
	I mean, that's a really different kind of environment to imagine.
	It is.
	It is.
	It's also an environment where there's a lot of potential legal liabilities where people can drive into things that they don't see.
	So you have a big lawsuit on your hands.
	But I really, from a sociological standpoint, I can't really It's difficult, really, for me to understand that.
	I mean, when I invented it... Not for me.
	Because, Ray, we've always been able to depend on at least a few things here on Earth, and one of them is you can believe what you see, usually.
	In other words, if you're standing somewhere and you're looking at a building or a city off in the distance or, I don't know, whatever, that's one of the things you can take to the bank, what you see with your own eyes.
	And if that's not going to be true any longer, that's going to change Basic tenet of life, right?
	I think I can make an analogy with the computer.
	People can enhance photos and things like that in such a way that it's difficult to detect what is reality.
	I agree.
	So there's something similar to that.
	I'm not... I would... But our own eyes have always been, you know, good old reliable.
	Our own eyes.
	We're not going to be able to Where it's going to be like living in this matrix world, or it could conceivably be if this technology, even if it develops only to non-articulated things, I can imagine a world that just isn't what we see.
	A world with buildings and things that are there, but they're not there to be seen.
	Maybe oil refineries.
	They're pretty ugly.
	An entire oil refinery would just sort of blank out.
	Right.
	Well, I think, I guess there probably would be some kind of psychological effects of that.
	I think to some extent people already maybe already have that.
	Like you said, well, you know, there's all kinds of jets flying around like that right now.
	So maybe to some extent that already does exist in that you can't really trust necessarily what your eyes see.
	Well, yes.
	But when you take it from the jet in the sky, when you sort of puzzle over the noise you're hearing but not the aircraft you're seeing, that's one thing.
	When you look in the distance and you don't see a city and a skyline where there used to be one, that's something else entirely.
	That's really something else.
	And the world is going to start changing in ways that I'm not sure people could adapt to, or maybe I'm under Estimating human beings adaptability, but gee whiz, of course you mentioned lawsuits yourself.
	You run into something that's not there and somebody's going to sue you.
	That's true.
	Have you addressed that?
	I mean, as you consider applications commercially, for example, that's got to be something that enters the picture.
	It should be something considered.
	We're not really that close to any commercial applications in terms of making things invisible at this stage.
	And for the military applications, since they get paid to break things, the legal liability is not going to be there.
	And so there could be some, in the private sector, there could be some liability issues, but it's difficult really to predict what the effects of things can be.
	How many years, Ray, before this technology is If it were pursued right now, at a very fast pace, before this technology could make anything invisible, hold that answer until after we do our break, coming up here at the bottom of the hour.
	How many years of development, I wonder, does Ray think there would have to be before anything could be rendered invisible?
	That'd be quite a different world out there, wouldn't it, everybody?
	If you couldn't depend on what you were seeing with your own eyes anymore, at all, I can feel it coming in the air tonight.
	Oh Lord.
	What is it good for?
	Absolutely nothing.
	What is it good for?
	Absolutely nothing.
	Say it again y'all.
	Wow! Who's a good guy? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Listen to me! Oh wow! I despise constant mere
	destruction of innocent lives. Warn me in tears that I was a mother's wife when I struggled to fight and lose their
	lives. I said Why I can just see the future advertising, you know, do you
	want to become invisible?
	Are you tired of people seeing you?
	Are you running from your ex-wife?
	Are you fed up with the law coming after you?
	Order Invisibility 2000, and your troubles end.
	Ray, let me ask you this.
	Let's say, just for the sake of conversation, that the military has already done what you are doing.
	And let's say that somebody like myself comes to you in a suit, a couple guys probably, and they say, Ray, frankly, we are not really interested in your invention because we know all about it and we're using some form of it right now.
	But what we are interested in is defeating the technology.
	In other words, We know that our enemies, probably on a development line very much like ours, also have this technology.
	And frankly, what we need is to be able to see, not to be able to cloak.
	You have been in the business of inventing this cloaking device.
	What we really need is a way to de-cloak it, to detect it, so that we can fight it, which will be an equally important technological application very quickly, I would think.
	Yes, and when a technology, any kind of technology emerges, it's always trying to defeat it as an important aspect, and then they do a cost analysis.
	If it costs less to defeat it than it does to build it, then they don't build it.
	So, because, well, it depends on, that's not exactly probably the equation they use, but... And then why'd we build the B-2?
	Well, it's, let's say, may not apply to everything.
	The fact is that as soon as any technology like this here, I'm sure that people are already aware of how to defeat it or are working on how to defeat it.
	How would you defeat it, Ray?
	Well, in the electronic embodiment, which is what we've discussed, you're having emitting pixels.
	Emitting elements that emit electromagnetic radiation.
	Now you have to pick what frequencies you want to emit.
	There's no, to my knowledge, there's no emitting structure out there that can emit across a range of frequencies and select what intensity of each wavelength will be emitted at any given point in time.
	So assuming that you can't do that, now you need to cherry pick which frequencies you want to deal with.
	So all you need is a sensing device that can sense across a range of wavelengths that are other than what this device is working on.
	That's one aspect of how to defeat it.
	So, that being said, there might be more civilian application than there would be military, because the military will already know how to handle it.
	Well, I think that if we were going to, let's say, redo the Cold War and we had an adversary that had everything that we had in theory, then this technology has one value.
	But we're not in that environment.
	We're in an environment where we have adversaries and potential adversaries that they may have some of the best technology and they have some troops equipped with the best technology, but they have a whole slew, i.e.
	millions or hundreds of millions, that don't have that technology that can carry a rifle.
	And if I can make assets invisible to a guy with his naked eye in Somalia, my helicopter doesn't get shot down anymore.
	I'm not fighting the Russians with their top tank with an infrared viewing capability and night vision.
	I mean, this is why the United States right now owns the night, because we have technology that exceeds the technology of our enemies.
	What this technology does is it says, well, we also own the day now.
	The day as well, yes.
	Yes, indeed, we own the day.
	Do you think, I mean, we are about to go to war, that's pretty clear.
	I mean, we've got, you know, the Congress, now the Senate, late tonight approving the President to do whatever he needs to do, and the President pretty apparently wants to go to war.
	So we're about to have a war, I guess.
	Do you think That we're likely to see a demonstration of this kind of technology in any war we're about to have.
	I think that we saw already some demonstration of stealthy capabilities obviously in the jets but me and my organization which is inventricity.com will not be offering or let's say giving any capabilities that we're speaking about today will not be available in that short time horizon.
	We have a business plan that your listeners could access if they were interested in detailed analyses of how we would unroll this technology over the next three years that they can access by linking to me from your website.
	We have a link right there of course.
	There's a very detailed plan but the short answer is we would Basically, get investors.
	We're looking for $3 million in cash.
	Get investors, and we have a one-year development effort that would give something that we could put on the Navy's desk or put on the DARPA's desk and say, let's get busy with it.
	You're telling me you could get there for $3 million?
	That's nothing.
	And then, what we would do is we would continue the development effort beyond that, and then somewhere around the third year we would begin deploying units.
	Now, the initial units would not be the highest possible resolution.
	I mean, this would be something that would have a continued development effort beyond that.
	In fact, the development effort might continue for a decade or so.
	Oh, yes.
	I can imagine so.
	The initial units might be very coarse and rough compared to what you would eventually achieve.
	With more money and more resources and more of everything you would need to do it.
	But I understand what you're saying.
	I was going to ask you about timeline.
	So you're saying you think in three years you could put something on somebody's desk?
	Well, no.
	I think in one year I could put somebody on somebody's desk.
	I think in three years we can put them out in the field.
	That's quite a claim, Ray.
	That's the objective.
	That's what the business plan calls for.
	How realistic is the objective?
	I think it's realistic.
	All the enabling technologies, whether it's emitting structures or lenses or optics and things like that, are all available.
	The technology, what the leap is, is it's a conceptual leap of, I want to make something invisible in three dimensions.
	What does that mean?
	What does it really mean to be invisible?
	And the answer to that question about what it means is, I need to have electromagnetic radiation coming off every point of an asset on every possible trajectory.
	If I can do that, it's invisible.
	And that electromagnetic energy exactly matches the background electromagnetic radiation on those same trajectories.
	If you can do that, you have something invisible.
	So conceptually, that's what invisibility is.
	Now, we deliver an architecture that has an optical structure with electronic elements that can deliver Electromagnetic radiation to a finite number of different trajectories.
	All right, well what about this?
	And this again is with regard to the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation.
	I can understand that if I were standing a mile from a tank, pretty easy job to make that tank invisible using the technology you're talking about.
	But as I approach closer to that tank, or even perhaps farther away from that tank, then the amount of electromagnetic radiation reaching me has got to Change for the cloak to remain up, in effect.
	Would that not be true?
	Well, no, that's not... It does change, but it doesn't change as a function of anything you need to do.
	It'll change as a function of the law of the way electromagnetic radiation radiates.
	So, in other words, the closer I am to the radiator, the stronger it is proportionately, so it remains invisible back there, or up closer.
	Yes?
	That's true.
	It's just a question of... Oh, that's interesting.
	It's just a question of resolution at that point.
	If I'm five feet from it and it has resolution of a pixel size of one foot, then that's different than pixel size of a quarter inch.
	If you have one foot resolution, how far away do you have to be for that object to be rendered
	invisible to the naked eye?
	I don't actually have the definite calculation on that.
	But I can tell you that a resolution of one foot would be something that would be in an urban environment where you have sharp contrast and color possibilities.
	You see, if you're in the middle of the desert, one foot resolution is high resolution.
	Yes.
	If you're even a mile away in an urban setting, one foot resolution might even be fine.
	Or even a hundred yards out in an urban setting, it might be fine.
	It depends on what the background contrast is.
	I see exactly what you're saying.
	So desert warfare, for example, would be a real snap.
	Yeah, there's all kinds of different things.
	The way that I look at it is there's three different problems in cloaking.
	There's the problem that stealth shapes solve, which is we have an object, a hard object, in the middle of nothingness.
	We have this black space above us, and there's a hard object up there.
	Well, we know that's a target.
	And how do I find that target with radar?
	If I have shapes that deflect the radar in odd angles, everything up there is black again.
	I can't see anything.
	Right.
	That's one problem.
	That problem is solved by stealth structures.
	There's the problem of the visible light that comes off of an object, and the visible light that comes off of an object is a result of either direct sunlight or indirect sunlight that's diffused throughout the atmosphere and off other objects and hitting a structure.
	Now, if I find a way to deflect all that light off of that structure, so that there's no image there in effect, I now have a black hole in the environment.
	So that can't work.
	What is needed is, again, to paint the object, the color of the background, from multiple perspectives.
	So that's another kind of problem.
	And then the third kind of problem is the electromagnetic radiation that the object itself is radiating, which is what the IR sensing capabilities do.
	So, the stealth technology falls into those three areas the way that I see it.
	How much electromagnetic radiation do you need to radiate above and beyond background to achieve this to the human eye at some given distance?
	You shouldn't have to above.
	You don't really want to radiate above and beyond the background.
	You want to radiate at the background.
	Equal to the background.
	So that's really negligible.
	So there's not going to be any radiation issues with this at all?
	There is going to be IR issues.
	Yeah, you're going to have IR issues if you have a whole bunch of emitters on it.
	I mean, if you're using photodiodes, I'm sorry, light-emitting diodes and using, say, even OLEDs, organic light-emitting diodes, they're going to heat up.
	They're not going to heat up like a light bulb.
	A light bulb is very inefficient, like 90% of the energy is going into heat.
	In the infrared spectrum, only 10% is going into visible.
	But to a sensor, there would certainly be heat.
	There'll be a signature there, so that's another issue that is part of the equation.
	I mean, I can make it invisible by matching the background radiation, but there's a lot of other things out there that can cancel out the IR signature that's going to come off it.
	So, it really, in some ways, and it seems to me, well, there is military application, of course, but it seems to me civilian application is gigantic.
	I mean, you mentioned the blight of wind generators.
	Personally, I think they're really cool, but a lot of people think of them as a blight, wind generators, and you could virtually make those invisible.
	Towers could be made invisible.
	Of course, airplanes wouldn't like that.
	But they could be rendered invisible.
	A lot of things that we consider blight on the land, or some people, I guess.
	I certainly, I want to state here, I don't consider towers a blight.
	I consider them a thing of beauty, but I'm in radio, so you could expect that.
	Some people think of them as a blight.
	They're not.
	They're structurally pleasing to the eye.
	But that kind of thing could easily be rendered virtually invisible, generally either with a A background of a fixed land or sky, blue or cloudy, whatever.
	That shouldn't be too difficult, right?
	No, it shouldn't be difficult.
	It's important to realize that we've been discussing here before the electronic embodiment.
	There's also an optical embodiment that doesn't use electronics at all.
	So, in an application like that, ideally that's what you'd like to use where there's no energy required.
	Once you put the Once you put the pixel structure in place, it's just dumb.
	It's just a dumb system that passes electromagnetic energy through it the way you want it to.
	How about how expensive is it?
	That is going to be a function of resolution and the number of wavelengths that you want to work in and the number of trajectories you want to reproduce.
	So it could be... Give me an example.
	I mean, you know, cook something up for me though.
	Well, I think At this stage, if we were to produce something that we could put on your desk, we would be looking at a figure probably in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	And that thing that you would put on the desk, what would it be able to do?
	Well, ideally it would look just like a window to you.
	It would be a box that you put on your desk.
	Right.
	And let's say you were looking out the window through the box, and there was a tree outside there, and that's what you'd see through the box.
	It would just look like a glass box.
	But inside of the box, it's a structure.
	It's a structure, yes.
	So you'd see right through the box and see your desktop.
	That would be very convincing, particularly when you reached down in the box and threw the switch and turned it off.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	You'd have the box hollow on the inside, and what you would do is you'd put your hand in the middle.
	Your hand would basically... You wouldn't see the... It would disappear into the box into nothing, right?
	Right.
	So you have... If you come up with that, you won't have to sell it really beyond that point, will you?
	I mean, you just take the box in, set it on the guy's desk, and there it is in its essential nothingness, and you take your hand and put it in.
	Your hand disappears.
	Sold.
	That's what I'm hoping.
	I mean, that's what the plan is.
	Like I say, year one, we would bring it to that stage, and then we bring it to DOD.
	Yeah, I mean, at this time, we're not sitting around waiting for the phone to ring.
	I mean, we're actively marketing this to the various branches in the DOD.
	We've met with a number of them, and we're actively marketing it to the top 15 defense contractors.
	When you speak to the DOD, What kind of reaction do you get?
	Well, there is always the concern about it.
	We're dealing in a secret area, so those types of issues come up.
	You know, I tell them that what I have right here is already in the public domain.
	I mean, initially I was doing all my communications through down internet channels, but now for me to send a patent pending that's already been published, there's no Penalty or nobody can say anything about it.
	It's already in the public domain.
	But the way that they react is nobody can really confirm or deny anything, of course.
	So nobody can tell me if this is something that's, you know, the best thing that ever came along or it isn't.
	And they probably wouldn't.
	I do know some folks that work with the Marines and some other areas that would like to see a desktop display, a desktop prototype.
	So the moment you would have something of that, Sure.
	You would have no problem presumably getting into somebody's office who would count and saying, here you go, look at this.
	Right.
	And that's why we're doing the development, some of the development using the private sector.
	I mean, a lot of, most of the big contractors, most of the money, a lot of the money they derive is just purely development money.
	They don't really, there's no system sold.
	There's a development effort.
	And then they may or may not get the contract to provide the systems, or they may not even want that.
	They may just purely be a developer.
	Is that the case with you?
	We... Inventricity.com is basically a marketing company.
	I mean, we have a business plan that involves developing an organizational structure that is a legal entity and would develop this and then market it and then... But I mean, would you like it if somebody came to you and said, look, We can clearly see what you have.
	You've got a patent.
	We would like to buy a license from you or just plain buy the technological capability from you and have you go away.
	I'm meeting with two of the top 15 defense contractors over the next two weeks to discuss that very issue.
	So the answer to the question is I would like that.
	The thing is, though, believe it or not, I can add a lot of value to the process because I'm able to develop an architecture as an inventor that has been able to solve some problems that were posed to me.
	Well, there's some problems.
	Ray, hold on.
	We're at the top of the hour.
	When we get back, I'm going to begin taking some phone calls for Ray Alden, who's got a workable, real patent.
	For a cloaking device, a device to render things, or people, or assets as he calls them, invisible.
	Invisible to the human eye and beyond.
	If you have any questions about this emerging technology, we'll open phone lines at the top of the hour here, after the top of the hour, and see what Ray has to say.
	I'm Art Bell from the high desert.
	this is Coast to Coast AM.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Once when you were mine, I remember your sighs.
	The dreams of the aspen tree, with the diamond ears, turning gold.
	But the white bird just sits in the cage, growing old.
	But the white bird just sits in the cage, growing old.
	White bird must fly, or she will die.
	White bird must fly, or she will die.
	The sun sets young, the sun sets gold, and the clouds float by, and the earth turns sold,
	and the young bird's eyes do always roll.
	And she must fly, she must fly, she must fly.
	you Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye 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.
	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 Nye.
	Does this all sound crazy to you?
	Well, if we were to take a television back to, uh, I don't know, somewhere in the 1800s, they'd say that was crazy.
	That was black magic.
	That was impossible.
	Is this?
	No.
	Ray Alden's world is just about upon us.
	The world of invisibility.
	Consider what it means.
	We'll take calls from you on this subject and from Ray in just a moment.
	Stay right where you are.
	Okay, once again, here is Ray Alden who has invented a cloaking device.
	A device to make things invisible.
	It certainly is going to change our world.
	Ray, are you there?
	I am.
	All right, I would like to allow the audience to ask questions, and they're certainly going to have questions, so it'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
	What do you say?
	I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the audience.
	Well, then, here it comes.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Ray Oldman.
	Good morning.
	Hi, how are you?
	I'm okay, sir.
	Where are you?
	Santa Barbara.
	Santa Barbara, okay.
	My question is, you mentioned the application of that for buildings, for cloaking buildings.
	Yes.
	Where's the thermal energy go, say from the sunlight?
	Does it absorb it?
	Is it passed straight through?
	Or is it reflected?
	Well, for a building type of application, what you would want to do is, basically, the energy would go to, in the electronic embodiment, the energy would go into a photodiode.
	It would be absorbed.
	It would be converted to an electrical signal.
	And then the trajectory that that electromagnetic energy was received on would be simulated on the other side of the asset, assuming that the trajectory would have passed through the asset had it not been there.
	Now, if the trajectory, let's say, is directly into the ground at 12 noon, somebody standing on the roof, maybe you don't need to cloak the roof.
	Um, so somebody standing there could see the roof, but the sides of the building wouldn't, um, and then the heat from that would be radiated upward.
	Okay.
	I think it depends on the application and it depends on the time of day and the angle of the sun.
	In that application you'd actually get rid of your thermal load on your building as well as have a large photo cell to generate power.
	Not really, because the thermal energy that's absorbed by the photodiode would still be there.
	There'd still be radiant energy there.
	There'd still be heat.
	And then, in addition to that, you'd have to generate additional radiant energy on the other side when you're powering an emitter.
	So the thermal equation winds up being hotter.
	And there'd be more thermal net heat generated.
	You get it?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Alright, thank you very much.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Hi there.
	Hello.
	I'm calling from... Hello.
	Yes, sir.
	Yeah, I'm calling from Winnipeg, Canada.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Just a question in regards to cloaking.
	I'm thinking of the bad side of it, maybe.
	And without asking this question, I have to apologize, because I understand you're going through a lot of problems down there about this guy shooting everybody.
	So I'm thinking that if it was on a human aspect, and having it so, like, covering windmills, you know, like, what type of security would you be looking at?
	Because, in the wrong hands, we can't, or you can't find this guy already.
	So I mean, cloaking him would be... Understand my question?
	I do understand, and it's something that, when this has occurred, I did think of that aspect of it.
	I think a good analogy and I doubt very much that I mean he could be wearing a ghillie suit or some other cloaking technique that is not something that we have or some kind of other cloaking could also be employed.
	I'm not I don't know whether it is or not obviously but for our technology it would be similar to a bulletproof vest in that when bulletproof vests were first made available citizens could own them at one point and then There became laws passed that prohibit them from owning it.
	This would be the same thing.
	I mean, they can fall still into the hands of civilians, but generally there's laws against that, so this would be the same kind of thing.
	There would be laws against anybody possessing it.
	Okay, thank you.
	You know, I didn't know that, and that's ignorant of me.
	I had no idea that it is not legal for civilians to own A bulletproof vest.
	Is that correct?
	I believe that's true.
	Gee whiz.
	In light of what's going on right now, that seems unreasonable.
	After all, a bulletproof vest is a defensive mechanism, not offensive.
	And if we can sell guns, we ought to be able to sell vests.
	I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but I mean, we got some guy out there shooting people.
	Why not be able to own a vest?
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, I can't really... You make a valid point, Art.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, and so you think that perhaps this technology would be restricted to the military and the police?
	Is that the kind of world it could be?
	I believe that that would be true, yes.
	I don't think you could go down to the store and buy one of these things.
	Inevitably this sort of thing does become available to people with enough money though, right?
	Well, that may be true.
	I'm not sure that they would be inclined to be sneaking through the woods with a rifle though.
	Okay, East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Yes, hello Art.
	This is Frank from Western Pennsylvania.
	Yes, Frank.
	I have one question.
	I found the show most interesting this evening, and it deals with the 3D contours of a physical object, such as a building in the city.
	If, let's say, this has a defensive application, let's say an incoming missile or something is looking for a specific target, and this cloaking system is Working.
	I understand from the thermal contours how it probably would cloak, but let's say you had one or multiple low-power pulse lasers with a rotating mirror or specific lenses that could actually do almost like a 360 degree hit on a contour that would actually show the coordinates of this.
	Wouldn't this sort of defeat it from a military perspective?
	Well, you don't need to go that complicated to defeat it.
	Let's say from our our missiles are not going on site.
	I mean some of them are taking paths that are related to site, but that was maybe technology that was used 11 years ago, but right now it's all global.
	It's GPS.
	It's satellite driven.
	Okay, but theoretically you could have this laser platform in a satellite and you could actually send these pulses down with great precision with the state-of-the-art optics and things that exist in the defense area.
	So I'm wondering For missile application or for a defensive application, wouldn't it be negated by that technology?
	I'm not sure that... I think what he said was you could negate it with far less technological prowess than you just need.
	Isn't that what you said, Bray?
	I'm not sure, but again, I would say that for some high-end adversary, That is willing to spend as much money as it takes to defeat us and they have the resources to do that.
	You can defeat the system.
	Putting a satellite up, we can count on maybe two hands right now the number of countries that can put a satellite up.
	So if we count those as adversaries then this technology at its current state might not be the right technology to defeat or to Okay.
	Cloaked objects in some respects.
	Okay.
	Thank you very much.
	You're welcome.
	And yeah, that's a good honest answer.
	And on the other hand, though, a lot of the fighting we do is in places like, oh, hell, Somalia, Afghanistan, even in the Middle East, on and on, in very low technological Applications.
	The kind of modern warfare we do seems to be in countries that don't have, you know, they're not meeting us at an even, anywhere near even technological level.
	Plus the willingness of our society to accept any losses is very minimal.
	We have a very low threshold.
	We sure do.
	So our people need to have the best possible technology so that there's no or minimal losses.
	You're absolutely right.
	I mean, we're about to have a war and if the losses mount, As you point out, our threshold for acceptance of casualties is so low that one has to wonder if we ever really get in a war, how we would ever sustain it.
	Well, I think the way that we would sustain it would be similar to what happened on 9-11.
	In other words, at that point, when it becomes apparent that you have a choice of fighting or dying, it's an easy decision to make.
	It is.
	If you're sitting back watching TV and there's no real threat, Then, you know, it's a big question about why are we doing this.
	Okay, well then, G. Ray, let me put you on the political spot for a moment.
	With respect to what we're obviously about to engage in, and that is we're about to butt heads with Iraq, which is not exactly technologically limp.
	They're not on our par with us, but they're certainly not bereft of technology either.
	Do you think that The kill or be killed case has been made by our president sufficient to sustain an effort against Iraq, even with casualties.
	I'm sure you didn't expect that question.
	Well, it's not really my specialty, but I believe that politically at this point, I think the consensus is, and it's not unanimous, is that The answer to that question is yes.
	I would tend to agree with you.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hit the button.
	Now you're on the air.
	West of the Rockies.
	Yeah, hi Art.
	I've got a comment before I ask my question.
	Ray, are you in the U.S.?
	I am.
	Yeah, it's legal for a citizen, a private citizen, to own a bulletproof vest.
	The interesting thing is convicted felons are not, and they would be the ones who would probably most need them.
	But that is the case.
	Oh darn, I wasn't aware of that.
	Alright, so convicted felons can't own them.
	They can't, but regular civilians, they can have a whole closet full if they want them.
	There are catalogs dedicated to private civilian ownership of vests.
	I would imagine there's a pretty good market back east right now.
	Well, all over.
	People are buying them.
	I mean, Kevlar clothing is very big among celebrities.
	They're all worried about headshots, but they don't mind a body shot because they're all wearing Kevlar clothing.
	But okay, getting to my question, Ray, now we all know that fiber optics can receive and send.
	So, how important would fiber optics be to your technology?
	And, if they were important, would you admit it?
	Well, it's not a question of admitting it or not.
	We have a fiber optic embodiment of the architecture that we just discussed.
	Instead of having electric senders slash emitters, emitters slash sensors, we have fiber optics in the same architecture.
	If you want to see a pending patent application that describes that very thing that you just said, you can link up to our inventricity.com website and from artbells.com.
	You've got the patent up there now.
	They can read it, right?
	Yeah, the patent is there and if you download some free software you can see images, but there is a fiber optic embodiment.
	Fiber optic works exactly the same as emitters and sensors because the emitters and sensors we have are in In parallel processing mode, which means you have one sensor connected to one emitter.
	And the fiber optics work exactly the same way.
	You have a two-way channel between two different lenses on the opposing sides of an asset.
	So it's the same architecture.
	You know, that's what I thought.
	It sounded like fiber optics, but Art never asked.
	No, Art never asked.
	Although, it almost went without saying.
	It would have to be transferred in that manner, right?
	Without processing, which I did ask about, that would be the only other way you could do it.
	Well, fiber optics are so low power, so he could get by without a lot of processing.
	Yeah.
	Well, there's actually two different embodiments.
	One is electronic, where you're receiving photons, you're converting them to electrons, there's an amplifier that will take that signal and amplify it, and then you put that out to an emitter.
	There's no fiber optic there.
	And you have parallel processing, you don't need to process any information.
	It's just a dump system that receives and amplifies and then emits.
	And with the fiber optic embodiment, you have a lens with a whole array of fiber optics behind it.
	Each of them receiving and transmitting light at a different trajectory from the same pixel.
	And then each one of those fiber optics that's behind one pixel on one side is each behind a different pixel on the other side.
	Not only one pixel, but behind tens of pixels.
	So that if I have one pixel on the front, let's say, and there's electromagnetic radiation that hits the pixel from a certain trajectory, that trajectory may be emitted by a fiber optic on the side of the asset.
	Another trajectory may hit that same pixel in the front, may be emitted on the back of the asset.
	Makes sense, Caller?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, me too.
	I think this would work.
	It sounds like it would work, but it certainly would change the world.
	Thank you very much.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Hi, Art.
	Hello.
	Hi, Ray.
	Hi.
	I just wanted to follow up on the previous caller's possibility of cloaking and terrorism.
	And the first part of my question would be what other countries do you think have this technology?
	Because I'm more inclined to agree with Art already.
	That he's more in line with what they would call the wackos that he mentioned in this key that the media had reported after the first day of killing at least he hadn't shot any kids and then boom a kid was shot and then I heard these talking heads on TV saying this serial killer has a god complex so then he You're kind of drifting here, Collar.
	guarantee that that error card note with the that so-called warning
	or message at a question mark at the end of it
	maybe mocking the media and the police
	i'm wondering if there's any time in with loyal
	and espionage than so many of which are gas station
	you're kind of drifting here color uh... how does this uh... relate to my guests
	uh...
	what he thought about if there's espionage that goes on with that kind of technology.
	Huh.
	Uh, yeah.
	Well, um, there would be obvious applications, uh, for the dark use of this kind of technology.
	I mean, obviously, uh, what a horror.
	Imagine an invisible sniper.
	Uh, and, and it's not that far off because Ray is imagining a soldier With this technology, virtual body armor, which would be made entirely out of this technology, which would render that soldier, or that sniper, if you want to use that word, invisible.
	Right, Ray?
	Yes, that's true.
	You know, there's lots of weapon systems that the U.S.
	has that the average crackpot is not running around with.
	Thank goodness.
	You know, there's lots of technologies that Uh, that, uh, you know, in the wrong hands would cause a lot of problems, but they're not in those hands.
	So this would just be another technology that would be a tool for us to protect our people when we have a necessity of conflict.
	With the information that you have in your patent pending, Could somebody build a device?
	Would they have enough information in there to build a device, Ray?
	If they wanted to commit enough resources to do it, they could.
	They could.
	So there is enough information in that patent, if you were to read it and apply it, to build it.
	Right.
	Alright, Ray, hold on.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	Ray Alden is my guest.
	We're talking about cloaking.
	Rode his wings cross autumn skies Kissed the sun, touched the moon
	But he left me much too soon His ladybird
	He left his ladybird Ladybird, come on down
	I'm here waiting on the ground Ladybird, I'll treat you good
	Ah, Lady Bird, I wish you would.
	You, Lady Bird.
	Oh, pretty lady, you're a lightnin' flash.
	You may still have time, you might still get by.
	Every time I think about it, I wanna cry.
	The bombs and the big bombs, and the kids keep coming.
	No way to be easy, no time to be alone.
	To recharge Bell in the Kingdom of Nye, from west of the Rockies, dial 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222 or use the wildcard line 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 on the Premier Radio Network.
	It certainly is.
	My guest is Ray Alden.
	He has invented a cloaking device.
	This cloaking device would render objects, assets, people, buildings, whatever, invisible.
	Invisible to the eye, and maybe more.
	One click of the switch, a crack of the thunder, and you're gone.
	Actually, I was being very dramatic.
	There would be no crack of thunder prior to invisibility.
	There would be, in fact, perhaps the throwing of a switch that would be so silent that you would never hear it thrown, and whatever it was would just disappear.
	Or conversely, Perhaps one answer to the litigation problem that you spoke about would be the rendering of something that had been invisible on getting within a certain distance visible.
	In other words, in order to prevent accidents, in order to generally cast aside this liability worry, Yes, as a matter of fact, with the windmills off the coast of Martha's Vineyard as an example, while you're sitting on the beach of Martha's Vineyard or driving up the coast or whatever, you wouldn't be able to see it, but if you were out there on your yacht in practice, as you got closer and closer, it would become apparent that it was there.
	And if you were a bird?
	I mean, there are already all over these poor windmill people about birds smashing into them.
	I'm not exactly sure about the likelihood that the fatality of birds would be increased or decreased.
	I'm not sure if there would be any effect at all.
	If something gets close enough to it, they would be able to detect it.
	Hopefully in time.
	Right.
	I don't know I wasn't aware that that was a big problem as it exists, but certainly... Oh, listen, they've shut down a lot of the windmills in California because the environmentalists complain the birds are smashing into them and getting sliced up.
	Yeah.
	It would be a real concern with buildings, too.
	I mean, right now, buildings, the mirrored glass buildings reflect the blue sky or the trees around them and birds can't see them.
	Yeah.
	So there certainly is some risk for the birds, that's true.
	Okay.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Sure, where are you?
	I'm calling from Hutchinson, Kansas.
	Okay, middle of the country.
	Oh yes.
	My question was, was you aware of the military working on suits?
	I was watching a thing on TV about the history of camouflage, and they were showing the suits on a computer animation of troops running through an urban city, and their suit would change color.
	And so no matter where they went, like if they were in the wintertime with snow or in foliage, it would change automatically.
	This is kind of along the lines of what you're working on, but a little bit different.
	The polymers would be in the fabric, I guess.
	And then I guess really my other question is what kind of power source is your device going to work off from it?
	Is it self-sufficient?
	Very good question.
	Or does it draw its energy from, like, a power pack or, you know, batteries?
	Or is it proprietary information?
	Yeah, well, that could be, too.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Ray?
	Yeah, well, the first part of the question about the History Channel recently ran something on camouflage, and they had an animated soldier running and changing colors.
	That's a two-dimensional type of approach, so that soldier, each pixel on that soldier's outfit can only be one color at a time.
	It can't be two colors at the same time.
	So if one pixel is colored black and I'm in front of a white building, and I have a black building on one side and a white building on the other side, both of which observers could see me against, you'd be dead.
	I can only be cloaked against one.
	Right.
	So a three-dimensional approach allows me to be black to one side of the field and white to the other side of the field at the same time.
	Truly invisible.
	It's an advancement above the two-dimensional Yeah, that's clear to me.
	I understand.
	Second part of the question about the power requirements.
	Right.
	In the electronic embodiment, it is not self-sufficient.
	It has to preferably use a fuel cell.
	So probably a hydrogen fuel cell.
	That would be the preferable mode.
	There's a lot of work being done in that area.
	If you go to any military conference at all, there's tons and tons of people that are working on fuel cells.
	If you got to an advanced use of this device and you achieved essentially real three-dimensional invisibility, this Paul in Mesa, Arizona asks an interesting question.
	What about the object casting a shadow?
	What about shadows?
	There would be no shadow.
	Because a shadow... How could that be?
	Well, the shadow If I'm standing in a position and I have the sun shining on me, that's going to cause a shadow.
	Right.
	The sun is coming to me at a particular trajectory of electromagnetic radiation.
	Now, if I know that trajectory and I repeat that trajectory out the back of me, then the part of the ground that that light would have hit had I not been standing there, which caused me to have the shadow to begin with... Is not being hit anymore?
	It wouldn't be hit.
	There'd be electromagnetic radiation hitting in that spot.
	Holy mackerel.
	You run into the problem of how much energy do you need to generate a light source that's equivalent to the power of the sun.
	I mean, that's a difficult problem in itself.
	So, we might own the day, but we might own it at 12 noon better than we own it at early in the morning or early in the evening.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Ray Aldin.
	Hello.
	Hi, Art.
	Karen from Iowa.
	Hi Karen.
	WMT.
	Yes.
	I have a concern about using far too much electromagnetism.
	We've been experimenting with it in the past years and we have no... I don't think people realize the effect it has on our sun and sunspots and changing our weather.
	Now, bringing a lot more electromagnetism into use, don't you think that would disrupt Humans, as far as their biological rhythms and sun rhythms?
	Ma'am, I think the answer to that is no.
	I actually asked about that earlier.
	In other words, the amount of electromagnetic radiation, and it would be no more, if I heard Ray correctly, than the present background radiation is right now.
	In other words, to become invisible, you would not want to project energy beyond that which would be in the natural environment right now, because that's what you're duplicating.
	Did I say it right, Ray?
	I think that's fair.
	You wouldn't want to be shooting off a bunch of lasers in every direction.
	That could be a little dangerous.
	But it kind of reminds me of the observer that said that at the rate that we're currently using electricity, if we continue at that pace, we're going to run out of electrons soon.
	So does that answer your question, ma'am?
	It does, but still, overuse of electromagnetism does concern me.
	Yeah, it concerns me a little bit as well, and I deal on it all the time.
	Thank you very much.
	Take care.
	You would be, essentially, I'm not sure, maybe in military applications there would be some questions about this, where you'd be really, or would it be exactly the same, Ray?
	In other words, would there be applications for the military where you would be using pretty strong electromagnetic radiation to achieve The cloaking effect?
	Well, I think if you were going to try to use electromagnetic radiation to mimic the sun, that you would be hard-pressed to... You could probably run into some effects, but if you're mimicking light that is being diffused as a source off of a building, then the amount of electromagnetic radiation you're using can be minimized.
	So it would depend on the application?
	Right.
	Um, East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Hi, Doug from Michigan.
	Yes, Doug.
	Okay, I've got a couple of questions.
	Okay, first of all, you're not altering the molecular structure of the object itself.
	It sounds like you're doing like pixel grafting or something.
	That's true.
	And you remember those x-ray specs that you could buy?
	from the magazine the old type magazine they used to advertise
	you mean the uh... the season?
	women's garments and all that stuff what if one million Chinese had some way or say
	one million Russians had a way to click on their little device and
	now you see it now you don't now you'd see it again yeah well
	i think in the electronic embodiment that um the fact is that there would be ways to defeat it using
	that technology that you just said There are other embodiments that are not electronic.
	If you go into fiber optics, you are pan-spectral now.
	In other words, you're carrying all the frequencies.
	The only problem is with fiber optics is that you have a lossy environment in there where the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation that's coming through is less.
	It's insufficiently You would have to have it amplified to achieve the effect, right?
	Even with those optics.
	Right.
	And in order to amplify it, then you'd need a pan-spectral amplifier, which would amplify all the frequencies.
	Not necessarily outrageously impossible, either, is it?
	I don't know the answer to that question.
	I don't know what technology is out there to emit pan-spectral electromagnetic radiation.
	Probably more than we think, Ray.
	A terrific show, you guys.
	Okay, take care.
	Probably more than we think.
	There may be all kinds of developed technology that would just lead your technology right down the path very quickly.
	You never know.
	West of the Rockies, you're on air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Is this West of the Rockies?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I was wondering, in your application, would you consider an individual soldier to be probably the most difficult?
	Good question.
	Tougher than a building, right?
	Anything that articulates is more difficult.
	So would a human being or a soldier be the most difficult, Ray?
	I don't know that that would be the case.
	I think there would be some elements that you'd have to add.
	I mean, you can have a soldier in a An apparatus, let's say an apparatus or a cloak, that does actually think like a regular cloak.
	I mean, it can cover the appendages.
	It could, in effect, you don't need any articulating movements.
	You just throw the cloak over them, they're invisible.
	And then, if they need to articulate parts, it's behind the cloak.
	I mean, they might have to, there's some trade-offs involved in this.
	In other words, you might be able to take different approaches that could make it easier But if you were going to, let's say, have a body armor like we said, that would be a complicated problem to solve.
	We, of course, have a link up on my website if people want to investigate this further, and they are going to want to.
	You've got some files that are viewable, right?
	What kind of things do you have they can view on your website?
	Well, we have a link to two patents pending that goes directly to the U.S.
	Patent Office.
	Patent pending numbers listed there so they can go right out there.
	And then we have two illustrations that are illustrating the three-dimensional nature of the cloaking process.
	And then we have an invitation for investors, angel investors or venture capital or defense contract people or even DOD to contact us to receive a white paper that describes the technology in greater detail.
	My guess is you'll hear from somebody.
	And also business plan is out there.
	All right.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Hello, Art.
	Yes.
	Hi, Ray.
	Hi.
	Art, you might think this is in line with something you've said before, like with Area 51 and when they developed the self-bombers, that technology is said to be 25 years old.
	And I was wondering if Ray thought that it's possible that the government already has this technology.
	Yeah, I mean, that really is a valid question.
	I'm sure it's one Ray has thought about a lot.
	Yeah, and it's a question that's impossible for me to answer.
	I mean, I have my hunch that they may, they may not have certain architectures that we designed.
	They may or may not.
	And I don't think there's a person within the government that can definitively answer what is available right now because, or that is currently in the development stage, because everything is compartmentalized.
	The only thing I can say is that our patent applications did go through the DOD screening process and came back out into the public domain through the Patent Office.
	So, I'm not sure what that tells us about... Well, common sense, though, tells us that if Ray Alden's working on this, that the military, who would have an extremely high interest in something of this sort, absolutely has been working on it.
	I mean, you just know they've been working on it, Ray.
	Well, they're working on anti-gravity right now.
	So they're certainly working on invisibility.
	I mean, the application from the military would be obvious.
	Right.
	I'm not sure who did any work in three-dimensional invisibility.
	That's really the question.
	There's no prior art at the Patent Office available on three-dimensional invisibility.
	And if three-dimensional visibility was a high-end deal that everybody's been working on and got wrapped away somewhere, They're going to pull my stuff right out of the patent process.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, as I said earlier, Ray, if they haven't been working on this, it's by some chance three-dimensional invisibility or three-dimensional cloaking is not something they've been working on.
	Then next time I call you, I'm going to get, I'm sorry, this number is no longer in service and there's no new number.
	And Ray Alden's going to be gone.
	But am I going to a better place?
	Well, Ray, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Whether it's a better place or... Well, I would have my doubts, Ray.
	It will be a different place, with different positives and negatives, and you'll get to work with a bunch of really weird people.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Yes, hello.
	Hello.
	Yes.
	I had a question about the possibility of using this technology to produce the opposite effect.
	In other words, Could you take maybe a small drone or something and have it appear as a huge aircraft or possibly a UFO?
	Oh, that's actually a superb question.
	In other words, using this technology to project a sort of a Wizard of Oz type thing.
	Taking a little drone and have it look like, you know, the end of the world aircraft, Armageddon coming down, whatever.
	Yeah, you could do that.
	I mean, let's say you had Some enemy out there is shooting a laser at either a radar system or a laser system to try to identify whether there's something there or not.
	Right.
	All you do is you fire back a signal with greater intensity than the profile would otherwise emit.
	But I'm not sure if you necessarily need this type of technology in order to do that.
	This would be like a real high expensive way to do that.
	Well... In other words, those radars are not are not going to be have a precision.
	Well, then again, I'm not exactly sure how precise those antennas are.
	If the if the I don't think the antennas would be precise enough to tell you if the signal is coming from, you know, a position 10 feet away or coming from a position, you know, can they if they can't see something 100 feet in distance?
	Then you don't really need this to do that.
	However, your technology could be used to do the opposite, to make something very much more visible than it is.
	And if you can produce a three-dimensional image, for example, on a telephone, then you can project a three-dimensional image, for example, in the sky of something that would truly terrorize.
	Yes?
	Well, we're not necessarily really doing projection here.
	I mean, this isn't like a No, no, not truly projection, but you could still make something appear to be in the sky that was not really there.
	Well, I mean, you could, let's say, have a two-dimensional display up there.
	You still need a display, though.
	OK.
	You still have a big thing up in the sky, but you make it look ugly.
	I mean, there's still a big thing there, though.
	I understand.
	East of the Rockies, not a lot of time.
	You're on air with Ray Alden.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Yes, sir.
	Where are you?
	Hi, this is Bob near Buffalo, New York.
	OK, fire away, Bob.
	What about the scenario of, say, the tracks being left by a tank, or the dust that it kicks up, or a ship?
	You might be able to make the ship invisible.
	What about the weight that it's leaving?
	Very good.
	Very, very, very good.
	Ray, not much time.
	How would you answer that?
	These are all different areas of signature management that are being addressed by other people.
	Oh, really?
	Really?
	There are people working on this.
	Sure.
	There's wake minimization, sound minimization.
	There's all kinds of signature control and aspects of signature control.
	All right, Ray.
	Well, listen, if you get her working, bring it over.
	You and I will go meet some girls.
	OK.
	In the meantime, thank you for appearing on the program.
	And good night.
	Thank you, Art.
	Good night.
	Oh, by the way everybody, don't forget, tomorrow night we're gonna rage through
	open lines all night long.
	Anybody with a suggestion about what might be good, you can reach me at Art Bell at mindspring.com.

▲