Professor James McCanney argues space isn’t electrically neutral, citing solar system probe data and Tesla’s lost atmospheric energy tech—potentially disrupting oil-dependent economies. He claims Apollo moon landings (1969–72) were faked due to untraversable Van Allen belts, with Hubble images allegedly hidden, and speculates China will populate space with 100,000 people in five years using Russian tech. McCanney links ancient civilizations like Atlantis to electromagnetic propulsion, though skeptics demand proof, while Bell promotes his books—Atlantis to Tesla among them—on solar system physics and secret societies. [Automatically generated summary]
Happy New York, good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be across cosmos and all the time zones involved.
Here begins the weekend version of Post to Post AM.
I'm Mark Bell happy to be here.
Hopefully, George Cook is time travel trip that is back.
We'll find out if there are any news on that score, or is it the beat on the item?
I'm all confused on the point.
Anyway.
A reminder.
Big, big, reminder.
Beginning tomorrow night.
Beginning of the program tomorrow night.
We're gonna take predictions for the year 2004 now.
This is uh actually it's gonna be two nights of complete open line.
It's gonna be tomorrow night and Wednesday night.
My predictions are numbered.
I will assign a number to each predictions.
Each prediction of it.
And you will not be allowed to make predictions incidentally by email, facts, even in person.
I've had people try to stop me in person and record a prediction.
We don't do it that way.
All predictions are taken on the air.
So there can be no question.
The archives are imprinted.
The predictions were made.
There is no fudging.
Later, each one assigned a number, and then a year later we look at them.
And the difference this year is I want quality predictions.
Now, how do we get quality predictions?
It's all dependent on you.
Beginning tomorrow night, between now and tomorrow night, at the very least, you must set aside a little bit of time and sort of allow your brain to go quiet and try really hard to think of a major event that will occur to a country, a person, the world, whatever, in the year 2004.
Now, we took predictions last year, which I will slowly reveal.
We didn't really take that many.
Batting average, actually not as bad as I originally thought when I looked at them.
Not quite as bad as I thought.
But I want this year's average to go up.
So that means spend a little time with it.
Don't just dial.
You know, really, really try.
Predictions can be made by average people, as I'm going to fill you in with regard to a story I've got tonight in kind of a bone-chilling manner here in a moment.
So you can do it.
It just requires a little concentration.
So really think this one through.
Go into kind of the best trance state that you can muster up.
And beginning tomorrow night, we will take a number for posterity and the following year's list, your predictions.
In the biggest rebel attack since Saddam Hussein's capture, suicide bombers and assailants with mortars and grenade launchers blasted coalition military bases and the governor's office in this southern city Saturday, Karbala, killing 13, wounding at least 172.
The death toll in Karbala included six coalition soldiers, four Bulgarians, two Thais, six Iraqi police officers, and one civilian.
Pretty bad news.
There are charges coming from various quarters that the good news, whatever that is, is not making it out of Iraq.
That just the bad news, and I'm sure that's true.
I mean, people don't report on buildings that are not blown up.
They report on ones that are blown up.
It's much like our news here, I suppose, and that is mostly bad.
That's what makes it into the news.
Investigators tentatively traced the first U.S. cow with mad cow disease to Canada, which might help determine the scope of the outbreak, might even limit the economic damage to the American beef industry.
In addition, some calves have a quarantined herd of 400 that included a male offspring of the particular sick cow.
That cow likely will be euthanized.
The herd was at a farm in Sunnyside, Washington, which officials refused to name, I would presume for their sake.
Now, I told you that occasionally predictions could be made.
The news coming from Iran is really bad.
Really, really bad.
Kerman, Iran, or is it Kerman?
Entire blocks of buildings lay crushed and survivors lined up blanket-wrapped bodies in the street after a devastating earthquake leveled nearly three-quarters of the Iranian city of Bam on Friday, killing at least 5,000 people, and they really don't know how many yet, and injuring 30,000 others.
The numbers could be much higher.
The quake also destroyed much of Bam's historic landmark, a giant medieval fortress complex of towers, domes, and walls, all made of mud, brick, and so forth, overlooking a walled old city, parts of which date back 2,000 years.
Television images showed the highest part of the fort, including its distinctive square tower, crumbled like a sand castle down the side of the hill, though some walls still stood.
Local officials said the death toll could reach up to 12,000.
Though the deputy governor of the province said an accurate count was impossible, with many victims obviously still trapped under the rubble.
Rescue operations are going slowly because of the darkness.
This Story was written by an Associated Press reporter, by the way.
The disaster is far too huge for us to meet all of our needs, according to the president, but all institutions have been mobilized.
They're getting international aid.
The temperature there falling to 21 degrees, so survivors are huddling pretty much by campfires next to their destroyed homes.
At Baum's only cemetery, a crowd of about 1,000 people wailed and beat their chests and heads over some 500 corpses that lay on the ground as a bulldozer dug a trench for mass graves.
One man in his 30s said, quote, this is the apocalypse.
There's nothing but devastation and debris.
And then the Associated Press goes on to quote the body of this man who had the body of his daughter in his hands.
And the Associated Press reporter says, quoting him, quote, last night before she, his daughter, went to sleep, she made me a drawing and kissed me four times, he said of his daughter, Nazanin, whose body he held in his arms.
When I asked why four kisses, she said, maybe I won't see you again, Papa.
Karimi told the Associated Press photographer as tears streamed down his face.
So you see, clearly his daughter may have had a premonition of the horrid earthquake that was about to occur in Iran and that she may never see her father again.
She didn't know, I guess, that it would be because she was dead.
I just thought that absolutely worthy of a sort of re-quoting.
It obviously impressed deeply the Associated Press reporter who wrote this story, and it impresses me as well.
The following from Whitley Strieber's unknown country, earthquakes, like the recent ones in California and Iran, affect everyone on Earth, according to a geologist named Ross Stein.
He says, you may not be able to feel them, but the entire planet is rung like a bell.
Mountains have probably been pushed up about a foot or so by the California earthquake.
That's mountains everywhere, I guess he means.
Eventually quakes in California, he says, will carve Mexico's Baja Peninsula off from the rest of Mexico.
Peter Anderson quotes Ross as saying, quote, for an earthquake this size, every single sand grain on the planet dances to the music of those seismic waves.
There's a 5 to 10% chance that the recent quake will lead to the big one that Californians dread.
Seismologist Susan Howe says the crust is getting mangled over a zone.
As the plates move, they are sort of grinding California into ribbons.
And Iran is like California, in that there are minor tremors there nearly daily.
The latest earthquake in Iran measured 6.7.
So why were so many more people killed there than in California 6.5?
Well, one reason, the California quake hit, of course, in a small town, while the epicenter of the Iran quake was centered on a highly populated city.
And we all know the other reason.
They make buildings of mud and brick.
And in California, we lost only one building, which was not up to California current earthquake standards.
Well, you know, the saucer that we suddenly discovered last week, which was an apparent relic of some member of the subgenius culture that had built it there for whatever reason, really was there, really was a saucer, but it really was identified.
Not all of them are.
There are many UFO photos that have never been debunked or explained and continue to thoroughly baffle researchers.
Incredible black and white photos of a UFO taken in 1950 by Oregon farmer Paul Trent, for example.
His wife and father-in-law saw the craft as well.
Wilson quotes researcher Jeremy Clark as saying, if authentic, they comprise significant evidence for the reality of intelligently controlled UFOs.
In 1958, 47 crew members on board a Brazilian ship, that's 47 people, folks, saw a UFO and photographer Amiro Baruna took pictures of it.
What did they show?
A disk about 50 feet in diameter moving at about 600 miles an hour.
Clark says, given the number of witnesses, the results of photoanalysis, both military and civilian, and the need for debunkers to reinvent the incident to, quote, explain it, end quote, away, it's most unlikely that the photographs were hoaxed in any way at all.
In Zanesville, Ohio, in 1966, Ralph Ditter took UFO photos of sightings that were made by law enforcement deputies Robert Schultz and Stanley Nepala, I believe it is.
These Polaroids, and they are Polaroids, so far there's absolutely no possibility that anybody tampered with the negatives at all.
And the list goes on and on and on.
I could read you so many reports that simply have no answer whatsoever.
Physicist Freeman Dyson, this is a very interesting story because in a way it's going to thoroughly point toward the guest we're going to have tonight, James McCanney.
Oh, what a conversation that is going to be tonight.
Physicist Freeman Dyson says that our scheme of Mars missions is excellent, but it has One fatal flaw: the fact that you are expecting NASA to do it.
NASA has become timid after their recent shuttle disaster, but private companies are apparently willing to take over the task.
Sir Martin Rees, the British royal astronomer, thinks rich CEOs like Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos is it will finance trips to the moon and Mars in the future, with NASA playing a supportive role.
On Space.com, Robert Roy Britt quotes him as saying, I think the future of manned spaceflight will only brighten if it's done by people prepared to cut costs, take risks in a fashion that's seemingly unacceptable to the U.S. public in a NASA project.
Bezos is rumored to have put together a team of experts to build a $30 million reusable spacecraft.
PayPal CEO, Ellen Musk, started a new company called SpaceX, which will send its reusable Falcon rocket into space next year, carrying a Department of Defense satellite.
Isn't that interesting?
Ari says, if humans venture back to the moon and even beyond, they may carry commercial insignia rather than national flags.
So the little patch could, I don't know, might say Coca-Cola or something, huh?
Does it seem likely to you?
Perhaps the pioneer settlers in space communities will live and even die in front of a worldwide audience, the ultimate in commercial reality TV.
Huh.
Talk about a reason to have a new reality show.
The moon.
Talk about, I don't know, 100 people trapped in a place they can't get away from and having to interact with each other?
What would they do?
Eliminate one person a week and shove them out the door?
Moon.
Anyway, will space radiation be a problem?
We'll touch on this tonight for astronauts on a private mission.
Robert Zubrin says a New York Times article by Matthew Wald grossly overestimated the danger.
Wald wrote, and this is very interesting.
The astronauts who went to the moon on Apollo 14 accumulated about 1,400, or make that 1,140 milligram, the equivalent of about three years on Earth in their nine-day mission.
The astronauts on Skylab 4, who spent 87 days in low Earth orbit, received a dose of about 17,800 milligram, equivalent to a 50-year background dose here on Earth.
That dose was near the threshold of radiation exposure that produces clinically measurable symptoms.
Longer-term effects like increases in cancer rates have not been observed in adults exposed to doses at that level, but experts presume the effect does exist.
By comparison, nuclear power plant workers are limited by law to exposures no greater than 5,000 milligram a year.
In this country, they are generally held below 2,000.
A round trip to Mars would be of a different order of magnitude.
Indeed, Brookhaven puts the exposure at 130,000 milligram over two and a half years.
That would be equivalent to almost 400 years of natural exposure.
Now, there are some people who claim, as you know, that we never went to the moon.
A Wayne Green, for example.
And if I read correctly tonight, with regard to James McCanney, he too believes we did not go.
Anyway, we'll get into that, and that's really a whopper in the next hour.
That and a lot of other things.
I know he wants to talk a lot about private efforts in space, and so I thought this article would fit right in.
At any rate, if you would like to do some open lines, that's what I'm up for.
And again, reminding you that beginning tomorrow night, tomorrow night, ladies and gentlemen, we take predictions, official numbered predictions for the year 2004.
And we will do that tomorrow night and Wednesday night, the last day of the year.
I've seen that footage, and it's very impressive to me.
Now, as you know, last night, Richard and I just rocked and rolled the whole time about various aspects of all this.
I am in basic agreement with him regarding the fact that I really do believe, I have come to believe, with some certainty, that there was at one time life on Mars.
Beyond that, and with regard to so much of what Richard has to say about NASA and the cabal and all the rest of it, I don't know.
I'm not so sure about that.
I am, of course, somewhat curious about the two-thirds and climbing number of missions that have failed to the red planet.
I was going to talk to you about this guy I worked with and just to tell people about the power of speech and how when you say things in your life, it can affect your life.
Well, just for instance, I was talking to a guy I worked with and he had a job working downtown and I told him he needed to quit his second job because it was a dangerous place to work.
Well, I'll tell you, I only have one rule with predictions regarding candidates or those already in office.
And that rule is that you're not allowed to predict their death, their assassination.
Other than that, if people want to predict their winning or they're losing, that's fine.
But anything else gets me knocks on my door by guys in dark suits with lumps, you know?
unidentified
I appreciate that.
Are you going to say you've never had second thoughts or third thoughts about what happened in 2000 with a couple of your guests predicting Bush coming in and then him slipping in by a hair?
And certainly you are now eliminated as the origin of the phrase, wake up and smell the roses.
unidentified
Yeah, it was to the point my present wife, I had told her about this, and we was, you know, we were very newly west, and we was going across an Ohio road in the middle of winter, and I smelled roses, and I told her, when I told her this, I knew she thought it was wormy, you know, but she smells roses too.
You're the first one, actually, that I've had the chance to ask.
So I will ask you, I'm not asking you for a prediction, but do you think 2004 is going to be a really good year for things, or do you see a shadow hanging above it?
unidentified
You know, I think things are what you make out of it, you know.
I think generally, I mean, you know, there's, hey, throughout time, there's always been terrible things going on, but, you know, I think that there's a lot of good, too.
I think people, if they'd maybe dwell a little more on that, maybe things would be a little more positive, that's all.
Well, that's the other thing we're going to talk about tonight is private space efforts going to the moon, going to Mars, going into space, not with the help of NASA, or maybe with the help of NASA in the background somewhere, but private people going to space.
CEOs, people with lots of money, and we've got lots of those In America, and a lot of them are beginning to turn their attention toward the space effort, the private space effort.
Yeah, sir, that's the entire idea of a probe that would be put on the moon.
Scientists, a lot of them believe that there would be what's called a Van Neumann probe put on the moon to watch what's going on on Earth, and that these probes would be self-replicating, and they would go from moon to moon to moon to moon and plant themselves waiting for the emergence of life.
Last night I listened to another show, and there was a lady on claiming that 40% of the Alzheimer's deaths in this country are contributed to mad cow disease, and they have not detected it.
And I don't know if you had heard anything about that or not.
Yeah, ever since you've been having all these debates about the moon, I've been going to the library, just renting out videos and books, and I found a lot of interesting stuff.
And did you know that they had the flag so close to the lunar module that when they left the moon, the rocket engines pretty much just blew the flag right over?
And then, I don't know, I just don't think that our I just can't imagine anybody like our government or NASA being stupid enough to pull up a hoax knowing that sometime in the future we're going to end up going anyway?
I quoted quite a number of pretty interesting numbers, quite a number of them, with regard to those who have gone to space and what they collected in Miller Ms. Yes.
unidentified
Right.
I was just wondering whether or not lead shielding would be possible.
You know, like when you go in to get an x-ray, they cover you up with a lead suit, you know, to protect you.
And the cost per pound is just astronomical to get things into space.
that's our really big problem it costs just like the help I'm not an expert in that area.
I don't know, but I presume fairly thick.
I mean, what you get put on you by the dentist or the x-ray tech is pretty heavy, and it's just a little sort of cover over one little party body, right?
So if you try to cover the interior, even part of the interior of a capsule in something like that, you're talking serious weight.
unidentified
Right.
One more question.
When I was a teenager, I used to work at the Cleveland Hopkins Airport, and right next door to us, there was a National Guard, an Army National Guard medevac unit.
This was back in the 73 or 74.
And these guys were coming back from their two-week maneuvers, and they were, for all intents and purposes, attacked by a UFO.
It made the newspapers mad.
I was just wondering if any of the guys that were involved with that are listening to the show and could call in and give more details on it.
Professor James McCanney MS is a physicist who has spent decades promoting his theoretical work showing that the solar system is ever-changing and electrically active.
These theories have been confirmed with space probe data and proved that there are definite Earth effects resulting from our sun's electrical activity.
He's openly opposed NASA's view that outer space is electrically neutral.
McCanney was a faculty member of the Physics and Mathematics Departments at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
He's researched theoretical celestial mechanics and plasma physics for the layman.
These are the studies of planetary motion and electrified gases in outer space.
And he's presented his theories at the Los Alamos National Laboratories and American Geophysical Union.
And along with a lot of other things, I was right.
And the story was suggesting that people who own big companies like PayPal, CEO, and so many others are getting the spark to want to go to space themselves.
And there's about to be a whole lot of private efforts.
I've talked to a sort of a zillionaire friend of mine in Las Vegas who also is going down that very same road.
And so I thought it might be fun to talk about the U.S. space effort and where we're going from here, as in probably privately into space.
Much more efficient, much more direct approach to exactly what they want to do.
If you take the frontrunners like Bert Rutan, Scaled Composites with financier Paul Allen, they have a very direct mission, and that is to take people up on the ultimate roller coaster ride, if you will.
So they have a very direct purpose, and that has a much larger purpose, but they're going one step at a time.
And unlike the government programs, especially in the U.S., which is multifunction and in some cases spread very thin, plus you have the very heavy weight of corporate, let's say, money that doesn't go directly to the project, which is overhead, let's call it.
So there's a lot of factors which allow the private space investor to go right to the heart of the matter, let's say.
What I meant is when you consider the world of privateers, people who might develop a rocket and launch it either into low Earth orbit, on up into, I don't know, higher orbit or even to the moon or Mars or whatever a space effort privately might be, how is somebody going to make money at it?
Yes, John Denver, not many people know back in the 90s, had already begun to work with the Russian space program to become the first civilian astronaut.
Well, my read on it is and has been all along, that was the open sign of what really has been the policy all along, and that is to keep civilians out of space.
I would think that ultimately, you know, it only makes sense that if you're going to have a manned space program where eventually you would have lots of people in space, you have to get lots of people in space to learn how to do it.
You can't send up five people and then extrapolate that to 1,000 people in space.
It just does not work.
So the programs that we've seen, let's look at it this way.
The U.S. has had less than 300 people in space in our 30, what, 42 years of manned space program.
The Russians, conversely, have had, I would say, 20 to 30,000 people in space.
Not many people realize that back in the 60s, Russia had a small space plane called Cosmos.
They had 1,600 flights of that between 1962 and 1977.
So where do you think our space program's going, James?
We've got a president who's about to make a speech, apparently now postponed until the State of the Union, that will probably lay out some goal for the U.S., like, I don't know, going back to the moon, or more probably, I would think, to Mars.
If it's going to be something everybody's going to jump up and down about, it's probably going to have to be Mars.
I don't know how excited people get about going back to the moon.
Well, that's another topic you and I have to cover.
You contrast that with the Chinese, for example, who have gone out and purchased Russian technology at a very low price, all the way up to docking mechanisms.
And within a very short amount of time, they're sending people into space at a very low price because they don't have the biggest.
Well, the real logical reason for going to the moon is, first of all, it's a stepping stone.
If you can't go to the moon and build a colony, how would you ever go to Mars?
True.
Just as an example, you would have to collect and orbit a good amount of space material and equipment to then go to Mars.
If two-thirds of our Martian probes, which are unmanned, fail going to Mars, what is our probability of sending a first-time craft out there with people on it, have it succeed?
Do you do, by the way, we spent some time on this last night.
Do you have any thoughts on the probably now beginning to exceed two-thirds, considering the fate of the vehicle, probably going past two-thirds of the missions failing, some in very suspicious ways?
I disagree with Richard on so much, but when it comes to the fact that there do appear to be clear traces of an ancient civilization there, the fact that there was atmosphere and water and that Mars was a viable planet, then there's every reason to jump to the possible conclusion that there's big life that was there or is there underground or who the heck knows, but something obviously occurred big on Mars.
Well, here is my read, and I've written this in my books, especially the Atlantis to Tesla book, that Atlantis or at least some ancient civilization on Earth met a terrible demise.
And I think there's a lot of people out there that agree with that.
But that there was space travel at least to Mars, which at the time was a vibrant water planet and in a much closer orbit to Earth as it passed around the solar system outside of our orbit.
It came at one point much closer to Earth than it does now.
Well, I can't say who developed first, but I believe there was travel and quite a vibrant, advanced society that moved between the two planets.
And I've developed, of course, this propulsion system, which I've talked about.
And in the month of August, where Earth passes through in our month of August, there's an electrical current sheet.
And with an electromagnetic propulsion system, you can ride that current sheet out to Mars very easily.
So it's basically a river of electrical current that you can ride out there with the proper propulsion system and then transfer between the two planets.
But be that as it may, let's get back to the point.
You know, for somebody who's considered to be a mainstream physicist, and certainly your credentials are pretty good ones, some of this stuff is pretty far out to be believing.
And there is a great deal of indication in the archaeology around the world that the things that we see, the Egyptian pyramids, the things which trace back to before the great catastrophe, which was worldwide, that there was very advanced civilizations on this planet.
And they were capable of drawing electricity out of the atmosphere like we should be doing and powering their civilizations and also space travel.
However, they did it could be open to interpretation and question.
Well, again, this is pretty far out for somebody like yourself to believe all of this.
I'm going to be very interested in finding out how you arrived at these conclusions.
I mean, certainly we can look at the Sphinx and the pyramids and we can argue about their date, but not too much.
I mean, we know pretty much when they were built, and I don't know that there's a whole lot of evidence for a human civilization that goes back, say, hundreds of thousands of years, but I'm certainly willing to listen.
And that we may have gone to Mars, maybe even done a little trade with Mars or something, interplanetary commerce.
Why not?
Think of the protests.
From the high desert, in the nighttime where we belong, it's coast to coast.
AM.
I'm Art Bell.
unidentified
No, I would not give you false hope on this strange morning day.
But your mother and child reunion is only a motion wave.
I lived on my mind.
I can't follow the life of me.
Remember a sad day.
I know they say let me.
I just don't work out that way.
In the course of a lifetime runs.
Over and over again.
Well, I would not give you false hope on this strange and awful day.
But the mother and child reunion is only a motion wave.
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art by calling your in-country sprint access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free, 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
It's a pleasure to meet with you in the middle of the night, this moment toward the end of the year as we're kind of winding things up.
my guest is professor james mckinney and we've got all kinds of totally fascinating ground to cover so don't budge Thank you.
All right, Professor, as an archaeologist, where would be the evidence that would convince you that humans were trudging around on the planet hundreds of thousands, millions of years ago?
My logic is very similar to Richard Hoagland's in we started talking about sabotaging missions to Mars.
Yes.
Let's do a little logic here.
If these probes from other countries are being sabotaged, and if they're being sabotaged by the U.S., what are the few things, the very few things that would cause our intelligence agencies to sabotage those missions?
If they thought there were just little microbes walking around or somebody was searching for water, nobody would care.
So let's look at the things that would cause the intelligence agency to sabotage spacecraft.
And my logic, and now you put this together with the probability we have had very advanced civilizations on this planet previously, and then what is our nearest real life-supporting planet in this solar system, really the only other one.
And if Mars, within certain recent past, had an ocean, water, and atmosphere, then it would be the likely candidate to travel to.
So all of these things, you put them together, and unlike, say, my theoretical physics work, this is a series of probabilities and depends on certain assumptions.
And so that's how I arrive at that conclusion, given that certain assumptions are true.
Well, then let me circle back to my first question.
As an archaeologist, even if it's a more recent vintage, where would be evidence indicating that man attained a high level of technological civilization at any point prior to his current known presence?
Yes, but we're trying to get to something that was archaeologically discovered here on Earth that you may have worked on or front door, back door, any other door.
In other words, where did we get this information?
Well, let's, for example, look at the Tesla-type technology That I believe was used in Atlantis to draw energy out of the ionosphere to power their city.
And once you, here's the thing: once you realize that these ancient technologies existed, they used glass, they had a good understanding and a working knowledge of glass, of metals, of electrical currents, of magnetic fields, and you put these together, the logical steps bring you to the electromagnetic propulsion.
Well, there again, I believe that it has been discovered in the South China Sea.
The U.S. Navy since the 90s has been excavating there.
And much of which the recent discoveries in Iraq, for example, relate back to electrical devices, including batteries.
I always find it interesting, for example, that the first batteries invented in modern times, for example, the Edison battery, was a carbon copy of the ancient seawater batteries.
And Edison used a slightly different chemical combination in his alkaline liquid batteries, but it was basically the same principle as the seawater battery.
Do you think that Tesla had a deal with somebody or an entity?
In other words, do you believe that the U.S. government or governments have been uncovering this secretly, this archaeological data, and passing it to people like Nikola Tesla and then allowing us to believe that that development came from Tesla or Edison or many of the great discoveries that we just talked about?
And that's one thing I believe I've done is finally discovered not only the basic principles of those scientific principles, but I've also discovered the source of energy, for example, for Tesla's tower.
And it turns out to be the electric field of the sun, which is produced when the sun puts out an excess current of positive charge.
There are electrons and protons and other ions in the solar wind, but it turns out there's an excess, a little bit more positive charge than negative charge.
And when this blows out into the far distant regions of the solar system, it creates a large capacitor.
And eventually, some of that current returns to the sun because you can't keep building up this charge forever.
And that current comes back at least one place where we pass through in the month of August in the solar system.
Well, we are strapped to an oil-based economy, and the people in charge of that, I mean, we have an oil president, and all of the industries and businesses that are built up around the world are based on this oil technology.
If we start handing out energy for free, obviously there's going to be some economic impact here.
For years, all the years I've been on the air, I've invited anybody with a machine which has more output than input to come and demonstrate its practical or even impractical application, even in the form of a toy.
And I have yet to have, I've just not been taken up on it.
And others who have been searching like mad, like Dr. Greer, who are so, so serious about this, also, to be honest, as of this date, can't say they've got it in their hands.
What that does to the atmosphere, now the atmosphere is a dipole or dielectric, which means the molecules in the atmosphere are randomly oriented as they move around and bounce against each other, and they have small dipole moments, electrical dipole moments, that means a plus and a negative charge separated.
If you took any capacitor and put two plates and a dielectric between it, and you drilled a hole anywhere in that dielectric between the plates, all the current would flow through that one path that you created.
So that's what he's doing in the atmosphere and allowing incredible amounts of current to come down that path.
Go to the webpage, folks, Coastacozaam.com, where you're used to going.
And tonight's guest, James McKenna, click on his website.
And when you get there, just go down the main page to the point where you see Nikola Tesla's Tower, circa 1900.
I have never, in my life, until now, seen an actual photograph of Tesla's Tower.
This is really fascinating stuff.
And again, it literally drilled a hole in An upward direction until it reached the ionosphere.
And at that point, the ionospheric difference, the capacitive difference, like a giant capacitor, current, I guess, voltage and current flow began down toward this tower and then was self-sustaining.
Do you know offhand, James, what kind of energy was harnessed once that was accomplished?
I've had my own hints that there's definitely power to be obtained from the atmosphere.
I've just had little hints, you know, I've got this monster antenna up, and I've had some pretty jolting hints, actually, that something really is up with this.
And seeing Tesla's Tower is incredible.
I mean, it's just incredible.
I had no idea it was here.
Definitely go up to the website, CostaCoastAM.com, click on tonight's guest website, and then just scroll down on the main page just a little bit, and you'll bump right into a picture of Tesla's Tower.
Probably the one in Colorado.
It's hard to say, but clearly, this was a structure designed to tap free energy.
And it was explained by Professor McCanney that you would literally, in effect, drill up through the atmosphere until you connected with the ionosphere.
And when you did, a path would be born that would be then self-sustaining, delivering large amounts of both current and voltage to that tower.
Professor McKenney, if Nikola Tesla's papers are no longer a matter of national security, I mean, they were seized a very long time ago, and certainly by now a review of his lab papers would have been thoroughly done.
So if they're no longer a matter of national security, then why have they not yet, still not yet been released?
Well, my only read on it is, like I said earlier, we live in an oil-based economy, and the people running the show are oil people.
And providing free electrical energy that could drive our cars, our buses, our trains, and pretty much everything else would overnight change the economy of the world.
The amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted in the process of burning this oil, and the fact that the North Pole and South Pole are starting to melt on us, and new seas are being created, the weather is changing, these little matters that are staring mankind right in the face.
Of course, I've done a lot of weather work, and I've done shows with you on my weather work, which show that hurricanes, cyclonic storms, are actually powered by this same power source.
If you simply calculate the amount of energy in a hurricane, there's no way that the Earth solar energy allotment from visible light coming in is sufficient to give you the amount of energy in that hurricane.
Isn't there almost every reason to believe that hurricanes and I guess the Pacific side, we call them something else, but they're really here to cool our atmosphere.
They provide a cooling effect, a control, a thermostat-like effect for the atmosphere.
And the atmospheric scientists who I follow all the time are struggling with trying to understand what they call the current balance in the atmosphere.
Well, let's take an example of a hurricane like, say, Floyd, big one.
That hurricane has enough energy in it, if you could, say, convert it to one-to-one with, say, a 25% efficiency that we normally have converting energy from one source into electricity.
There's enough energy there to run our country for about a year.
It's just that standard meteorological science has not caught up with that fact yet.
But a simple energy calculation, something that every freshman physics student is taught to do, has not been done by our meteorological international community.
Wouldn't you think that if Tesla had successfully tapped the energy from the ionosphere, that he would have done measurements which would be included in his research papers?
And so the size of the hole drilled in the ionosphere by such tower would determine the amount of voltage and current energy, in other words, that he received.
And another big factor which I've discovered in addition to what Tesla did is that in the temperate climates, the ionospheric belts move easterly, and the ions, the positively charged ions, are up in the ionosphere.
Around the equator, the ion belt up there is literally electrons, and it moves westerly.
And that's far more efficient to tap into that one than it is the temperate climate belts which move easterly.
So we would build these around the equator and then trunk the power up to the places where we use it.
And here's the situation, because of course, there have been many people on coast to coast talking about this issue.
And they've talked about everything from the flag not waving to the fact that the lunar lander was not developed properly, that the lunar rover could not fit in the lunar lander.
Those are all what I call extraneous, but good possible arguments, but they all lead down the road of everybody arguing over it.
The one argument that I Use is that we did not have the know-how or the ability and still do not have the ability to get through the Van Allen belts.
Very simple.
We are surrounded by belts of relativistic particles, which is a very important component of our overall magnetic field.
But these high-energy electrons and protons moving around in counter-rotating belts around the Earth, when you put a metal spacecraft in that, then all of a sudden you're sitting in an X-ray chamber.
And I know from my own personal communication with the Russians that they understand this, and they know that the Apollo craft never went through that Van Allen belt because they tried to do it back in the 60s, and their cosmonauts came back very roasted.
All right, let me read you something from a story that I had on a little earlier.
I want to read this and I want to get your reaction to it.
This just is in part.
Will space radiation be a problem for astronauts on a private mission?
Now, this is discussing the private aspect of space.
Robert Zubrin says a New York Times article by Matthew Wald grossly overestimated the danger.
Wald wrote, quote, the astronauts who went to the moon on Apollo 14 accumulated about 1,140 millirem equivalent of about three years on Earth in their nine-day mission.
The astronauts on Skylab 4, who spent 87 days in low Earth orbit, received a dose of about 17,800 millirem equivalent to a 50-year background dose on Earth.
That dose was near the threshold of radiation exposure that produces clinically measurable symptoms.
Longer-term effects like increases in cancer rates have not been observed in adults exposed to doses at that level, but experts presume the effects exist.
Okay, now I have seen that article that you just read, and that is by medical doctors who are also medical physicists.
So they understand radiation dosage, etc.
What they don't understand is the problem in the Van Allen belt.
Now, for example, one thing that NASA still doesn't understand, and remember there's a couple things that they don't talk about.
One is called shuttle glow.
When they get the shuttle up into too high an orbit, it starts to glow.
And they took the astronauts in the shuttle one time up to about a 500-mile orbit, and their eyebrows began to glow, and they brought them down right away.
But the point being here, NASA doesn't understand what's going on here.
I'm going to bring up another point that's related.
And at one point, NASA had a program called the Tether Program.
They let a tether, a carbon tether, out of the shuttle bay, and they were going to let it out a couple kilometers.
And they didn't get the thing out more than a couple hundred yards, and the electrical discharge that came down that tether nearly took the shuttle out.
And now, this is, NASA still doesn't understand what's going on here.
When you put a spacecraft out in those electrical fields that are associated with those high magnetic fields in the Van Allen belts, you discharge those local batteries.
And not only do you get the cross-sectional radiation from the Van Allen belts, you also discharge that, increasing by 100 or 1,000 or 100,000-fold the amount of electrical activity that's hitting that spacecraft.
So the guy that wrote that article and NASA still do not understand these principles.
And they certainly didn't understand them back in 1969.
My explanation is that it is discharging the local capacitor there in outer space, and basically it's like the bug in the backyard bug killer.
It's discharging a capacitor and causing the electrical current coming from that.
It's very similar to the Tesla tower in that when you have a capacitor and it starts to discharge through a single point, that's where it's going to unload.
And the same thing happens when you send a spacecraft into a non-uniform electric field like you have in the Van Allen belt region, you are then going to cause an electrical discharge in that region, thusly increasing, like I say, thousandfold, 100,000 fold the amount of electrical current hitting that spacecraft.
And all of that is going to turn into X-rays.
Now these are relativistic particles, so the X-ray level is going to be extremely high.
And so that article does not take that into account.
Now, the other thing is the radiation badges that the Apollo astronauts wore was simply for alpha and beta particles.
They did not know about the X-ray hazard at that time, so they have no X-ray badges on.
So I know all About this, and the Apollo astronauts had no measurement of X-ray activity at the time.
Yeah, and here's what happened, my read on it, 1969.
We're about ready to go to the moon, and the word comes down.
And I know for a fact the lunar lander was not ready because they were having trouble flying the thing and landing it because of just the dynamics of that clumsy vehicle.
Professor, you say that the Chinese will have a standing population in outer space of 100,000 people in five years.
How are they going to manage that one?
And if they do, in fact, achieve that, how will the United States suddenly have gone from the world leader in most things space connected to end of the line?
Well, first of all, let's look at the early Russian launches.
We've seen 1,600 of the Cosmos launches, and the U.S. military intelligence knows that those were cover launches for much bigger launches.
That little space plane was just part of the cargo on those 1,600 launches between 1962 and 1977.
So we know it's easy to get in space and get a lot of stuff in space.
The Chinese have purchased the Russian rocket technology, the space capsule design.
Everything you saw in that one guy going around the Earth with a Chinese astronaut was Russian.
They have recently purchased the docking mechanism from Russia, one of the hardest things to develop.
Now, the next thing that the Chinese are going to learn is that they can replace the heavy lift rockets with a runway-to-orbit airplane.
And as soon as they get there, they are minutes away from putting those 100,000 people in space.
And the way they'll do it is they'll learn how to construct very large containers in space, possibly using something the equivalent of the Goodyear blimp and hooking them together in large arrays, basically looking something like the 2001 space station that we all thought we would have by 2001 in this country.
Well, you know, I've spoken to some pretty brilliant people in the past, Professor, who have suggested that the solid-fuel boosters, or the boosters that the shuttle has anyway, could be,
instead of dumped into the sea and retrieved, taken into orbit and turned into a virtual 2001-type space station with enormous room for people to live and work and even hotels and imagined all kinds of things that NASA could be doing with the current tanks.
But if you design a system that, in fact, was designed to take those tanks up there, my read on it is that you don't leave the launch vehicle up there.
You have a reusable launch vehicle.
It goes from runway to low Earth orbit and basically opens up and out comes the tank that you're going to leave up there.
So you don't mix the launch vehicle with the thing you're going to leave in space.
For example, you could take a standard 727 airframe, which there are lots of.
You know which one that is with the two engineers.
So you're saying that this kind of doing this sort of thing in space is indeed possible, and you believe the Chinese are in the process of being on the way to doing it.
They're going to learn very quickly how to do all of these things that, for some reason in this country, have been bypassed.
For example, our shuttle system, the Russians had that design also early in the, say, the 60s, like that picture on my homepage shows the very first picture.
And they nixed the idea.
They said, no, it's not viable.
And they used all the reasons that we're finding out the hard way.
And they said they went to a heavy launch system because most of the launches that you put up there really don't have people on them.
It has equipment.
So why launch people, which are really unnecessary, when you're just trying to get equipment up there?
So there's a certain rationale for that.
But the Chinese are going to learn the principle.
And now, take, for example, let's just talk about the private space programs for a second.
What Bert Ruttan is doing, what a lot of other people are doing.
They're going from a runway up to five miles.
People don't understand that when you see that big tank on the shuttle or on the Saturn V booster back in the Apollo program, 95% of that fuel was spent in getting up to five miles at a low speed, up to maybe 500 miles an hour, because that's the thick part of the atmosphere.
I don't understand how all of this, how this story comes out.
On the one hand, we have all kinds of secret technology.
We are to imagine that there are many secrets in space That, for whatever reason, we don't want the world to know about.
But, gee, we've got the Chinese, we've got private industry people, we've got the Japanese are getting space happy.
I mean, the Europeans are launching quite a bit.
More and more of the world is getting set to go into space.
So are we just, have we found out something so dire that the United States just said, we pass, we're not going, you know, and maybe we can't stop the Chinese, but once they get out up there and figure out what it is, they won't want to tell their people either or what?
But they're going to be populating the moon, and by the time we get there with our congressional funding and our current plans for moving in space, there's not going to be a square inch of it left.
We're in a stage right now in world history which is very similar to the discovery of the New World.
And look at how the nations that were most powerful back then shook out.
And they made some very serious mistakes, some of which were becoming involved in petty little earth wars when they should have been going out and populating this globe.
And some of them are in a very backseat position today when they were world powers back then.
The thing that the Russians learned very early and are still making great use of is very simple things.
When NASA needed some kind of a pen to write in space, they spent a tremendous amount of money and now they have a ballpoint pen that'll work in outer space.
The Russians use a pencil.
When we develop a valve, we have triple redundancy, can be controlled from Houston, from the ground, and all this electronics and computer controls, and the astronaut types in a command on a keyboard, and the valve opens.
Yeah, and they could their big rocket development program, and of course, there's a limit to heavy-lift rockets, and they've pretty much hit it with their big rockets today.
And we have literally no rocket ability.
One of the points of that Cosmos spacecraft, that little mini-shuttle, one of the points I wanted to make about that is that is what NASA now is proposing for our replacement to the bigger shuttle, but we don't have any rockets to launch it.
And just sort of as a political side note, what is going to cause the United States to politically sit on its duff while we see the Chinese beginning to build in moon craters or whatever?
Well, something I've been inv involved in way back into the 80s were the propulsion systems.
And we have certain things on the drawing board, but all require fundamental physics improvements in, like, say, the handling of fission or fusion systems of dealing with large-scale systems in space.
I mean, none of them could be built today.
Let's put it that way.
I mean, you can draw a nice picture, artist rendition, laser sails or ramjet fusion technology, but literally none of them are feasible with today's technology.
So I don't know, you know, I don't see the that part of what I've seen in the secret world of space.
Well, sure enough, a lot of what you have said tonight is almost like science fiction.
I mean, honestly, you know, thinking we didn't go to the moon, secret space efforts, technology from humanity that was here before the current run of humanity, at that time, perhaps even trade and commerce with Mars, which, you know, was alive and well at that time, ancient civilizations.
I mean, you've got to admit, you're a little bit out there on some fronts.
But I guess my sounding in my theoretical work on how the solar system works allows me a certain amount of latitude when I get to those other subjects.
Heinrich from Riverside, California asks the million-dollar question.
High art, he says, with the political climate of the 60s, if we did not go to the moon, the Russians and the Chinese would have jumped all over the failure of the U.S. to reach the moon since the whole world was watching and tracking.
And of course, I run into that, say, for example, just on this show.
I have to pick and choose very carefully how I say things or how I build them into the total picture of what I'm saying.
Because that's the same with any international political situation.
You have to estimate what that other group of people are going to believe.
And if they're not going to believe what you're saying, then you're actually creating a bigger problem for yourself than you are by trying to tell what you believe to be.
So their point of view was then that if they had exposed us as a fraud, people would have said, oh, baloney, the only fraud here is the Soviet Union, and it's a bunch of damn sour grapes.
But their big gripe is that we're sort of like being kept down on the reservation, as it were, vis-a-vis the moon.
And my question is, if we really were interested in the moon, why didn't we ever put a satellite in orbit around it, a permanently, or more or less permanent one?
I wish my opinion, Art and Vinny, is that, for example, we should have hundreds, if not thousands, of very similarly designed spacecraft that are crawling all over this solar system, in orbit, on planets, on moons.
And, you know, when NASA designs a spacecraft, everyone is different.
Everyone is particularly designed.
And the cost is enormous.
If, for example, the Voyagers, if we built 50 Voyagers, A spacecraft, the cost would be per spacecraft very minimal after you built the first one.
So the question is, why don't we have a whole bunch of things on the moon, walking around and robots and orbiting the moon?
All right, you're going to have to kind of yell at us here.
unidentified
Okay, I'll speak up a little bit.
Much better.
My follow-up question to Vinny's question just now is our guest said that we couldn't get to the moon because of the Van Allen belt.
Does that just affect people as opposed to we can still send robots and things to the moon?
And then the original question I had is when or if we get those drills all around the equator to tap into the ionosphere, how will the electricity be distributed to the people and won't that create an industry that we ultimately still have to pay for to get our power?
And there again, we have radiation-hardened electronics.
The thing with the electronics that was available, say, in the 60s and 70s, the gates on the transistors were much bigger and therefore not subject to radiation damage like the small high-speed gates of today.
That's why we need radiation-hardened electronics today, because the gates are so small, one X-ray through there will damage the gate and cause the electronics to fail.
But to answer her question, of course, it's easier to get robotics and machines through the Van Allen belts because of the fact that we can shield that.
There's a lot less weight.
There's a tremendous amount of weight due to the human support system that goes up there.
So with any spacecraft, weight is the key factor.
How much weight can you put up there and get to where you're going?
So with a human spacecraft, you have very little payload, so to speak, other than the humans.
And the second question involved the distribution of the power that one might glean from a worldwide facility at the equator, drawing this power from the ionosphere, how it would get from point A to point B. Right.
Well, it would create an industry while destroying another one, but yes, and we already do that.
We get hydropower from Canada, which has been generated for free for decades with the big hydro dams up in Canada.
We have our own Tennessee Valley Authority dams, which were built back in the 30s, still providing electricity for free, and that power is distributed.
So it would be a very similar technique.
I've looked at the situation in the United States of distributing Tesla technology power, and Florida turns out to be an extremely electrically active region.
Also, your neck of the woods down there turns out to be quite electrically active.
So those would be areas we could put powers right in our own country.
My suggestion, of course, was to put them at the equator, and long-distance trunking of power is something we do all the time.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. McTanny.
Hello.
unidentified
Hello, Art and the professor.
I think you both are very brilliant men.
I actually had a comment first and then a question.
My comment was I had been on the air a few weeks ago talking about the flag that was on the moon.
And actually, a girlfriend of mine had, her grandmother was approached at a company in Milwaukee by the U.S. government to hand-sew the flag that would be going to the moon.
Well, in her instructions, what she did is she actually hand-sewed her name in the corner of the flag.
So when I called a couple weeks ago, the screener actually asked me, so, well, how do you know it's even there?
Listen, I appreciate the call, but I'm not sure that I get the point, because the point would have to include evidence that that particular flag made it to the moon.
and then the realization obviously of uh...
having seen the signature would mean something but if Well, to the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor McCanney.
Hello.
unidentified
Hey, I've got a couple things here real quick, Mr. Bell Professor, and you don't have to have a background in physics like the professor to get your mind around this one.
We've all been taught that space is an icy cold vacuum.
Now, the astronauts who are going to generate heat from the machinery on their suits on the moon in the radiant light of the sun, they're going to generate a lot of heat.
Sitting on the moon in the lunar module, we're going to generate a lot of heat.
Now, in a vacuum, heat has no medium of conductivity.
See, heat is molecular vibration between mass, and a vacuum does not conduct heat.
So the heat generation would have no medium of exchange.
Now, NASA told us that they had cooling tubes in their suits.
However, in a vacuum, air conditioning and refrigeration doesn't work because there's no medium to absorb the heat.
Just think of a vacuum thermos.
See, a vacuum is a perfect insulator for heat.
Now, the command module facing the sun, the skin is going to heat up.
As it rotates around, NASA told us that the icy, cold vacuum of space dissipated that heat.
Well, like I say, these short-term stints, which they were involved in, and we also see that in spacewalks, you know, there's obviously you're not going to go out there for two weeks in a spacesuit.
But those questions, there's a lot of questions that I consider peripheral.
And you could argue about this back and forth quite a bit.
What I want to do when I get to an argument, when I'm really talking about did we go or didn't we go, I want to get down to the nitty-gritty, the things that are not arguable, let's say.
unidentified
Well, it seems like the peripherals of the no stars and the multiple shadows can all be argued away.
But if you take a 10-pound mass and heat it up to 100 degrees and put it in a vacuum, aside from photon emissions, there's no conductivity.
That item is going to sit there and stay hot.
Now, if they walk around on the moon and the surface of the moon is 100, 150 degrees, the only place their heat could go would be down through their shoes.
Now, if you say, well, it was a short stint, then they got back into the lunar module, well, the lunar module will sit in there baking, too, with no air conditioning.
Air conditioning doesn't work.
As the lunar module sat there on the surface of the moon, baking in the sun with no atmosphere, the skin of that lunar module is going to heat up, heat up, heat up, and there's nowhere to vent that heat.
Well, okay, then let me stop you both and ask you, the time the lunar module spent on the moon, is there a way to calculate if what you're saying is correct about there being no heat transfer, how long it could have stayed there without becoming uninhabitable for human beings?
Do you understand how difficult it is for people like myself, and I watched our moon landings, I watched our first step on the moon live, and I never doubted for one second.
Professor, do you understand how difficult it is for somebody like me to even begin to consider the idea that we never went, that it was all a ruse done in Hollywood or whatever?
From the high desert, I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast, Coast A. All we do when you're lonely for my way by your side, you've been alone, I know what you are.
unidentified
You know it's just a fool's man.
Oh, yeah.
I can't say.
But my love is up to you anytime today.
It's all love that you need.
And I try my best to make everything succeed.
Tell me what is my life.
I try to know.
Tell me who I'm by.
It's not true.
Bye, bye, bye.
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
The first-time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
To talk with Art Bell from East to the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From West to the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country spread access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free, 800-893-0903.
From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast A.M. with Art Bell.
It certainly is, and I am who I am, and, you know, people like Richard C. Hoagland, the passionate Richard C. Hoagland that so many love and hate, or probably James McCanny, too, tonight's guest.
Unlike everybody else, and I kind of cherry-pick.
Like the moon thing, for example.
I do believe we went to the moon, but that may be some old, I don't know, prejudice of some sort.
Maybe I'm just not sufficiently cynical or something.
And I've become pretty cynical over the years about a lot of things, you know, finding out we subjected our own people to radiation, experimented on U.S. citizens, that kind of thing.
That all threw me for a pretty good loop, but I'm not sure the loop was good enough to include we faked the whole thing to the moon.
And so I tend to cherry-pick.
On the other hand, the Tesla stuff that I heard tonight from Professor McCann just blew me away.
I mean, absolutely blew me away.
And I take a hard big bite out of that one.
So I tend to cherry-pick.
And with Richard, certainly agreement there's something on Mars.
How it all got there and whether or not we're Martians, I don't know about that part.
so unlike every other human being i tend to sit here as i do the program and i kind of charity or Once again, Professor James McKinney, so can you appreciate the fact that I kind of cherry-pick as we go along, Professor?
One day, some guy who didn't know better from NASA showed on the internet an entire picture of the full moon taken with the Hubble Space Telescope.
And we all jumped up and down and screamed.
And I think Richard Hogan will remember this: that we went and said, Hey, you guys said you couldn't take a picture of this little teeny patch of the moon because it was too bright.
And here's the guy taking a picture of the entire full moon.
But a couple years ago, they put a new camera in the Hubble, and that was about the size of a small refrigerator, and they proceeded to take a picture of the planet Pluto and Charon, its moon.
And with that pixel count on Pluto, I was able to calculate the resolution, the real resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope.
It is very capable of resolving the lunar landing sites.
And we have telescopes on Earth which have much more resolving power.
And it's a logical discussion that, okay, go back to Atlantis, given that they did have mirrors, they did have glass technology, they had very highly advanced metalworking technology.
If you take all of the legendary material and put it together, they would have had the ability to create the Tesla energy source, like we were talking about earlier.
And that would be one route to get into space using an electromagnetic propulsion system.
Well, for example, the Egyptian pyramids, which are said to have been a colony of Atlantis, the pyramids themselves were alleged to be related to electrical generation.
So to answer your question, there is a series of deductions here that once you understand the principles of electromagnetic propulsion.
Particularly with perhaps the way the Chinese think about things, if there are 100,000 Chinese in space or on the moon or in Mars, wherever, then there is no longer the absolute mutual assured destruction any longer, is there?
I, too, you know, came to my conclusion that we happen to not walk on the face of the moon reluctantly.
I saw those machines take off myself from Cocoa Beach.
I stood inside the compound.
But as you look and review this evidence, it does become insensible.
One of the statements I recently read was from Pete Conrad.
He claimed that he walked, he and his partner, Wally Sharon, I think it was, walked away from the LM in a short distance.
He called it a short distance, and then he couldn't see it anymore because of the curvature of the moon was so apparent that this 21, 23 foot high vessel disappeared on the horizon.
And I calculated that out, and you'd have to walk a mile, a mile and a half for that to happen.
And so I just don't believe it.
It's another good example of the fact that they weren't there.
The problem with cooling is another one of these problems.
You'd have to exchange that heat in a tank of water or some kind of coolant, and there just aren't any ways that they did that.
Look, I've got to admit, some of these arguments are quite compelling, and I don't know the answers to them, but I'm not driven over the threshold.
Perhaps I've not studied it as much as the two of you, but I'm just not driven over this threshold.
unidentified
I've got one for you, Dennard Art, that may drive you over that.
It drove me over it.
If the three of us went together to the moon, we would bond.
We would become the greatest of friends.
And I've done kind of a lot of exploring by myself, and one time got separated from my diving buddies in a cave, and suddenly, you know, in a scuba suit, and suddenly I was alone down there.
And that was different than being with my comrades and my friends.
Now, the man, the command module pilot that went around the dark side of the moon did this repeatedly.
And that man, six men in the world, six men have been on the other side of the moon, out of radio contact with the Earth, completely and totally alone in a way that no other men have ever been alone.
Why would you think that experience would be as profound as you're suggesting?
I mean, they were busy, they were given tasks.
unidentified
Well, they weren't busy, and then you're suddenly, you know, you're in a van-size object, perhaps even a pickup truck-size object, in the dark of space on the other side of the moon, and you're alone.
I mean, in a way you've never, you're not, you don't have anything to do with that.
Well, what I've done for the show, Art, is a three-book special, and people can either order it on my webpage, and there's the secure ordering link there.
Or a lot of times people like to order by mail.
And the three books are the Planet X, Comets, and Earth Changes, which deals with the physics of the solar system, the electrical nature of the solar system.
And the second book is the Atlantis to Tesla book, which describes the physics of Tesla and goes back into ancient societies and talks about the secret societies that have come forward.
And that is a very unusual book for me to write, but I had been talking about this and people said, you have to write this down.
And in that book, I've also included the original paper from 1982 regarding my electromagnetic propulsion system, which is the basis of my own private space program right now.
So at any rate, the three book sets is $35 including shipping and handling to the 50 states.
And either on my webpage or people can send that, the $35 to JMCC P.O. Box 58 Navarre, Minnesota.
Once again, it's $35 for the three books, Planet X, Comets, and Earth Changes, Atlantis to Tesla, the Colverin Connection, and the pamphlet, which is Surviving Planet X Passage.
And send that to JMCC, P.O. Box 58, Navar N A V A R R E Minnesota 55392.
Let's talk in private a little bit about some of your questions, and we'll cover some of those areas, how to get through the Van Allen belts and my little demonstration, which I will be touring the Southwest in February.