Art Bell interviews retired FBI profiler Candice DeLong on Virginia’s sniper killings, including Dean Myers’ execution in Gaithersburg, where she dismisses mental illness as the motive, citing precision and military-style stealth like ghillie suits. Meanwhile, Ray Alden reveals a patented 3D invisibility tech—emitting electromagnetic radiation to mask objects from any angle—with potential for urban warfare, though Bell questions its feasibility against close-range detection flaws. Alden estimates $3M and 1–3 years for military prototypes, emphasizing defense over societal misuse, while callers debate civilian applications like cloaking wind farms or drones. The episode blends forensic speculation with futuristic tech, raising concerns about stealth’s ethical and tactical implications in an era of evolving surveillance. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high desert in 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 all of it.
The telephone from Venezuela trying to find us on the radio now, and he did.
1200 from Spanish Venezuela.
You guys done texted my one.
Speaking of affiliates, welcome to another, yet another new affiliate WSPG in Greenville, Michigan.
Greenville, Michigan, 1380 on the bottom there.
The operations director is Bruce Bentley.
Welcome to the USBC W WSTG.
Great to have you on board and 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, the gas station, shot in cold blood, was the latest victim of this serial killer there in the D.C., Virginia, Maryland area.
He was Dean Myers, 53 of 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, to 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 Donny 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 Unibomber in Montana, another serial killer.
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.
Well, okay, that's a pretty good beginning to assure, pretty sure 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 motive.
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 crime so that if you actually do get a suspect, you can confirm something the general public doesn't know.
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.
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 saturation to the public and the public turning them in, so one has to say, well, why would the chief be so upset?
Because somebody's 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 I believe the Washington Post explained was that there's a possibility that the killer also left the message and don't tell the public about this.
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.
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?
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 worked with people that did suffer from mental illness.
And sometimes people would claim that they 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.
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.
He finally got to a point where he said, all right, 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.
Of course, yesterday, the only serial killer, women 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.
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.
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.
Yeah, he left a message in a way because somebody, one of the politicians also come by NBC, essentially asked on the air, why would anybody do this, wanting an answer, obviously?
unidentified
So long ago, wasn't a dream, wasn't just a dream.
I know, yes I know, see something new.
All the times have come, we're here but now they're young.
Seasons don't feel the reaper, nor do the wind, the sun or the rain.
We can be like this, come on baby, baby take my hand.
We'll be able to fly, no, yes.
Baby, I'm your man.
We're very...
Very little point in fearing what you cannot control.
Candice DeLong was one of the FBI's finest, no question about it, field profiler.
She worked on a serial killer case, a very famous serial killer case, the Unibomber in Montana.
So she's the one to have on the air right now, and she's on the air right now.
Candace, Chairman Mao said that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
Now, having said everything we've said about the profile of this person, if it's a serial killer of the sort you're describing, there is one more thing to consider.
And it's this.
This is terrorism certainly, you know, at its finest.
But isn't that like the central core tenant 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.
And I just can't even imagine what's going through the minds of people and families with children in school and Virginia and Maryland, D.C. in that area.
Did you know there was a, and I can't remember whether it was NYPD Blue or one of those shows that depicted exactly this in a drama?
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 standing there.
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 and they received, I guess, a good report, a good reason for his having been there and all the rest of it.
From last night, 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.
That's unconfirmed that it was two people.
And frankly, at this point, with what has happened just the last Monday and last night, I'm really leaning toward this as one person.
You enjoined 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?
Serial killers can either go on a spree and do this for a while, then stop, maybe never do it again, or lay off for a period of time and then start up again in another city or another place or even the same place.
Or he could accelerate this thing that's going on to the end game and see how far he can take it.
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.
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 young man.
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.
And they don't, it would be called in 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.
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.
And people do turn in their weird brothers and their ex-husband that 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 you 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.
It said, Deira, 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 the system because we used it in Kosovo to locate sniper fire and call in artillery strikes on the sniper's position.
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.
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 how it's gone up 40 percent, but it's gone up a good 25 to 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, and monsters, whatever you want to call them.
But because of our TV, our cable, our news media, it's called infotainment now.
In a moment, we're going to talk about a cloaking device.
A real cloaking device.
We're going to 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 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, even thousands of them.
But this one, this one, this is a real, oh my God, look at this picture kind of picture.
It goes on 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 Body, 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, rpell.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 Ghost, because we're going to do that on Ghost Ghost coming up on Halloween.
If you have a really good idea for a line that I can 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.
I do think there's a good chance he's losing it, 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.
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.
Then email me.
I'm Art Bell.
It's artbell at mindspring.com.
That's me.
Artbell, A-R-T-B-E-L-L, at mindspring.com.
So any thoughts on a good open line topic for tomorrow night?
Artbell at mindspring.com or artbell at aol.com.
All right, coming up in a moment, Ray Alden is attempting to patent a three-dimensional cloaking process.
It's a process, an apparatus, that's a machine, right, for concealing objects and people.
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 a 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 the proposed refrigerant wheeling utility.
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?
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.
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.
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 some advantage to what has been proposed in the patent application that's now been accepted and will issue as a patent.
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 independent for each observer that's in different spaces.
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.
So that's 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.
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 where from any angle, under any lighting conditions, whatever it is, is gone.
exponentially go up you would think so but 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.
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.
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 of 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, and the United States.
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 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.
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.
Like a little shift or a little, 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.
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.
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 universe.
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, you know, there's a lot of that running around right now.
I mean, I've had, 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?
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 approach.
Some velvet morning when I'm straight I'm gonna open up your gate And maybe tell you about Phaedra And how she gave me light
And how she made it in Some velvet morning when I'm straight Flowers growing on a hill Driving flies and die for dears
Learn from us very much Look at us but do not touch Phaedra is my name Go!
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 rechart at 1-775-727-1222 and the Wildcard line is open 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 from the Kingdom of Nai.
There will be a place that you can stand in front of that optic and you can see that pixel.
Now, so there's a field of view of that pixel.
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.
So, you have emitting structures that can be segmented by the trajectory of electromagnetic radiation that they emit according to their position behind the lens.
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.
So that's the emitting architecture.
Now, the sensing architecture is identical to that.
In fact, the sensing architecture is the same structure is exactly the same, literally the same.
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 an 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 not emitting.
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.
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.
And the 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.
The commercial spin-off 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 a sensor.
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 the background from multi-perspectives, you need to have a processor there that talks about what is that new relationship.
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...
it means that we've provided enough information for one skilled in the art the technologies involved to be able to construct one So you really can't for what reason can you not go beyond that with me here on the radio?
In other words, you could tell me, Yarrt, hey, 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?
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 up 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.
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, that would not be something that I was trying to achieve.
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.
unidentified
This is Coast to Coast, A.M. 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 Alcabone tried to make that town his own, and he called his baby to the toilet, let you have to be the bumpy home.
My demons can't move down the moon and start Where am I to go now that I'm going to go?
I hope I'm stepping into the twilight zone Where this is the last, feeling like being done My demons can't move down the moon and start Where am I to go now that I'm going to mark?
You were gone, no But the bullet has to fall You were gone, no But the bullet has to fall I'm falling down a spiral, destination unknown Double cross messenger, all alone Can't get no connection, can't get through Where are you?
Well, the night is heavy on his guilty mind Less far from the borderline When the hitman comes He knows damn well He has been cheating Recharge Bell in the Kingdom of Nye, from west of the Rockies, dial 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies, 1-800-8255033.
First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
Or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1295.
To recharge 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 our bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
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?
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.
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.
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 that's in the public domain at this point, I couldn't do that legally.
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.
Well, 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 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.
But 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.
And 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, they 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.
That was very interesting because, of course, it involved a rotating RF in 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.
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 would be in that field of view if that object or asset were not there.
So there's a commercial application there to have displays that...
Right.
You replace a two-dimensional TV that has one image stream coming off of it with a three-dimensional TV that has multiple information streams coming off of it.
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 building 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 this 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.
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.
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 the highest level of detection equipment.
There will be some of that out there, but a lot of them are running around with rifles.
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.
on order you're not alone about is that the 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, another stupid virus.
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.
So you're not being targeted alone, believe me.
But 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'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.
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 a basic tenant of life, right?
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 underestimating human beings' adaptability.
But gee whiz, well, of course, you mentioned lawsuits yourself.
You run into something that's not there, and somebody's going to sue you.
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, 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 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?
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.
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.
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 them, 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.
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.
So 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 this.
Well, 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 colors possibilities.
You see, if you're in the middle of the desert, one foot resolution is high resolution.
If you're even a mile away in an urban setting, one foot resolution might even be fine.
Or even 100 yards out in an urban setting, it might be fine.
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 a 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.
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.
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.
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, then 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 background of fixed land or sky, blue, or cloudy, whatever.
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.
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.
So the moment you would have something of that sort, you would have no problem presumably getting into somebody's office who would count and saying, here you go, look at this.
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.
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 Mark Bell from the High Desert.
is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified
Coast to Coast AM
Once a fun time, once when you were highlighted with a tiny beam Tiny Bow Page
Growing old White bird must fly Or she will die White bird must fly Or she will die The sunsets come The sunsets go The clouds float by
And the urgent soul And the young bird's eyes Do always grow And she must fly She must fly She must fly
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 rechart at 1-775-727-1222.
And the Wildcard line is open 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 from the Kingdom of Nigh.
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.
If 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.
So somebody standing there could see the roof, but the sides of the building wouldn't, and then the heat from that would be radiated upward.
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, you can't find this guy already.
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 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.
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 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 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.
unidentified
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 workman full application or for a defense application wouldn't it be negated by that technology i'm not sure that uh...
i think what he said was you could negate it with far less technological prowess and you just made I'm not sure, but again, I mean, 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 this 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 cloak objects in some respects.
And on the other hand, though, a lot of the fighting we do is in places like, oh, hell, Somalia, Afghanistan, GWIS, 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 or anywhere near even technological level.
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, 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.
We have a fiber optic embodiment of the architecture that we just discussed.
Instead of having electric senders, these slash emitters, emitters slash sensors, we have fiber optics in the same architecture.
So 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 from artbells.com.
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 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.
unidentified
You know, that's what I thought.
It sounded like fiber optics, but Art never asked.
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 dumb 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.
It sounds like it would work, but it certainly would change the world.
Thank you very much.
First time caller line, you're on the air with Ray Alden.
Hello.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi, Art.
Hello.
Hi, Ray.
All right.
I just wanted to follow up on a 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 killings, 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 kills the kid, and I guarantee that that tarot card note with that so-called warning or message, I bet, had a question mark at the end of it.
So he's maybe mocking the media and the police.
And I'm wondering if there's any tie-in with oil and espionage since so many of them were shot at gas stations.
Well, there would be obvious applications for the dark use of this kind of technology.
I mean, obviously.
What a horror.
Imagine an invisible sniper.
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.
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 at some certain distance, something would automatically become visible to an aircraft that might be in danger or to a person that might be in danger.
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 at 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 and practice, as you got closer and closer, it'd become apparent that it was there.
I mean, they're already all over these poor windmill people about birds smashing into a I'm not exactly sure about the likelihood that the fatality of birds would be increased or decreased.
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.
My question was, was you aware of the military working on suits that 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?
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 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, you know, I have a black building on one side and a white building on the other side, both of which observers could see me against.
If you got to an advanced use of this device and you achieved essentially real three-dimensional invisibility, Paul in Mesa, Arizona asks an interesting question.
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.
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 in 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 ma'am?
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.
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.
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 source off of a building, then the amount of electromagnetic radiation you're using can be minimized.
Well, I think in the electronic embodiment that 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 panspectral 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.
Well, we have a link to two patents pending that goes directly to the U.S. Patent Office with our 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.
Art, you might take this as in line with something you 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, 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 design.
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 or that is currently in the development stage because everything is compartmentalized.
And the only thing I can say is that our applications, our patent applications, did go through the DOD screening process and came back out into the public domain through the patent office.
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 of the military would be obvious.
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.
I mean, as I said earlier, Ray, if they haven't been working on this, if 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.
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 the end-of-the-world aircraft, Armageddon coming down, whatever.
I mean, let's say you had some enemy out there shooting either a radar system or a laser system to try to identify whether there's something there or not.
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.
In other words, those radars are not going to have a precision.
Well, then again, I'm not exactly sure how precise those antennas are.
I don't think the antennas would be precise enough to tell you if the signal is coming from a position 10 feet away or coming from a position.
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.