All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2004 - Art Bell
02:51:48
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Sir Charles Shults III - Signs of Martian Life
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
🎵Music🎵 From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid
you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be in the world.
I'm Art Bell, and this program, Coast to Coast AM, covers all the world, one way or the other, and a lot more of it this morning, because we're having a free Streamlink weekend, and I'll tell you more about that, but first, there is some upsetting, shocking news, and, you know, it may be something, or It may turn out to be hopefully not too much, but Whitley Streber was scheduled in this hour to talk about a story down near home for him in Texas.
A story about the possibility of chupacabra, actually.
But I'll tell you what, as I am accustomed to doing, I called my guest, I called Whitley about an hour prior to the program.
And he picked up and you could hear a lot of shuffling around and he said, Art, I can't be on tonight.
Ann just collapsed and hung up.
Ann is Whitley's wife and a very good friend of ours.
And so I hope you will join me in saying a prayer that Ann is all right.
If we should get some sort of update during the program tonight, I will definitely give it to you
But he sounded you know just In absolute panic as you can imagine a spouse would be
So would Lee Streber not with us this hour and again just a very time for a very quick panic and just collapsed call
he told me and click as As it should be you know his duty was to
Immediate duty was to his wife, and I have no idea. I have no details beyond that whatsoever
Except to tell you that I'm very very very concerned So join me, please, in saying a quick little prayer for Ann Streber, and hope she's all right.
And again, if there's any updates during the program, I'll get them to you.
He was going to discuss this creature, and you can still go to his website and see a photograph of it, and it is definitely bizarre.
The headline is, Another Texas Chupacabra.
Local animal experts are having a very hard time indeed identifying whatever in the hell this is.
Again, if you want to see it, it's at unknowncountry.com.
Some are saying it might be a dog.
I think that Whitley was going to break news that there had been genetic testing and that it didn't come right, didn't come back for a dog.
I mean, it's a... Well, actually, here's someone who says, a researcher, 20 years experience working at the Ellen Trout Zoo, says, I'd bet my lottery ticket that it's not a dog.
The animal's blue-gray skin is almost hairless, appears to be covered with mange.
A closer look at the animal's jawline reveals a serious overbite, to say the least, and four gigantic, sharp canine teeth and a long, rat-like tail that crawls behind the animal's emaciated frame.
The reason they've got it is it was shot before noon on Friday.
And so they've got another case of what in the hell is this in Texas?
And you're welcome to go take a look if if you wish but again I think I think Whitley had told me that there was late-breaking news about this animal and that a genetic test denies its canine roots or something.
Had he been here he certainly would have caught us up on that and again I'll update you on this emergency If I'm updated.
Please say a prayer for Ann.
Nationally, obviously we'll go into open lines in a moment.
President Bush turned the table Saturday on Senator Kerry declaring the best way to avoid the draft is to vote for me!
And he pledged to oppose mandatory military service.
The Democrat, on the other hand, stuck to his domestic issues, blaming Bush for a shortage of flu vaccines.
Kerry also opposes a draft and has suggested that re-electing Bush would greatly increase the prospects of one.
The President feeling that young voters may be swayed by the charge.
Fire back, the person talking about a draft is my opponent!
How many of you are going to be glad when the election is over?
You know, you get to a national election, as we're right on the cusp of right now, and you get to the point where you've had it right up to there.
See, there is more.
You know, this is actually pretty interesting.
Eight states, just eight states, mind you, worth 99 electoral votes are up for grabs in the closely fought presidential race.
It may come down to eight states, and we're one of them!
I'm one of them.
Essentially, a Florida, of course, right?
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico are what it will come down to, they're saying.
And so here I am, in a swing state.
Can you believe it?
We may actually determine the outcome of the election.
In part.
Little Nevada.
Well, actually, it's Big Nevada.
Little Nevada, population-wise.
In Iraq, explosions hit five churches in Baghdad, killed two U.S.
Army helicopters, crashed elsewhere in the capital, so two American soldiers are dead, two others wounded, as violence continues to flare in Iraq.
This is an odd piece of news that I'm about to read to you, and I don't know what to make of it.
But something's going on.
You all remember NIDS, right?
Colin Culloher and NIDS, backed by Robert Bigelow.
Well, I found this on the net today.
I occasionally, let's see, surfing the Apocalypse Network, I occasionally surf the National Institute for Discovery Science, NIDS, their website, to look at There are articles on cattle mutilations, the Skinwalker Ranch, and black triangles.
In fact, it was NIDS who provided the mainstream science.com website with an article on the triangles, black triangles, as a possible secret aerospace technology.
This was quite recent, certainly within the last month.
Suddenly, though, the entire NIDS site has been pulled and replaced by a static page.
The page announces that, well, I'll read it to you in a moment.
At any rate, it announces, essentially, their suspension, I guess would be the word.
And this, the person writing here, says, I think the possibilities are, one, NIDS was becoming financially and or politically inconvenient to its founder, Robert M. Bigelow, even though he was previously Committed to it.
In other words, he acquired, for example, the ranch in Utah, which was the source of paranormal phenomena.
Or two, Nid's informed guesses about Black Triangle's earthly origins or other matters were simply too close to the bone and the research was suppressed.
Or three, Nid's actually discovered something earth-shattering and was shut down thereafter.
Or it was never Bigelow's aim to share this information publicly.
And to be sure, I'm a friend of Robert Bigelow's.
He's quite a guy.
He's a billionaire and has provided many, many grants to people studying in these fields.
And a lot of money for research into things that all of us on this program want to know more about.
So this really does come as a shock.
I tried a quick call to Robert Bigelow and didn't get through.
But it is odd.
So I immediately, of course, went to the website myself and it says, and I quote, We at the National Institute for Discovery Science have come to a time In which a decision must be made as to the direction of the Institute.
We have labored long and hard coming to the conclusion to place NIDS in an inactive status.
The reasons for this decision are as follows.
One, we have not had the need to do any major investigative work for well over two and one half years.
Two, In view of that fact, we have decided to reduce our staff.
Three, our administrator, Colm Culliher, has taken a position outside of Nevada to do cancer research.
Colm's ambition had always been to do cancer research and was employed in the field prior to his employment with NIDS.
We are sorry to see him leave.
It goes on, it is unfortunate that there isn't more activity As there was in the past that warrants investigation, however, we will still retain our secretary receptionist who will remain at NIDS to answer your calls.
Her name is Mary Allman and can be reached at area code 702-798-1700.
She will be taking a talking daily, rather, to Mr. Bigelow's assistants, Janice and Donna.
Should substantial activity occur with a need for investigation, then NIDS will be reactivated with new personnel.
And so, I must say, this is quite, quite a mystery indeed, and as was speculated by the writer of the, uh, what is it, the Apocalypse Network?
It was posted by I-L-M-A-R-I-N-E-N, whoever that is, is interesting.
And that perhaps it became financially or politically inconvenient to Robert Bigelow to continue it, or the informed guesses about the Black Triangles hit too close to home, or Nids perhaps discovered something very big indeed.
And in fact, I would say of Robert Bigelow, and he is quite a guy, You can't rule out number three.
Robert has always played things very close to the vest, and I guess you have to do that.
He's a kind of a mysterious man.
You may recall I interviewed him, and he has an aerospace company and wants to get tourists into space.
He's quite a guy.
But he does play everything very close to the vest.
And so could they have discovered something really major?
We'll be right back.
Good morning, everybody.
I'm still jolted and shocked by the very short, very emotional words from Whitley, who said, Ann collapsed.
I've got to go.
Can't be on.
Click.
And so, something's happened to the Strebers, and Please, again, just take a second out and say a quick little prayer for Ann Streber, and of course for Whitley.
In a lot of ways, it's always tougher on the spouse.
I mean, it's unimaginable to me.
You know, you find your life mate, your soul mate.
Life is such a strange thing, isn't it?
It gives and it takes away.
There's no doubt about that.
It takes away.
And I hope it's nothing anywhere near that serious.
But it's, of course, what every husband's, every wife's nightmare.
First time caller line, you're on the air.
Hi.
Yes, good evening, Art.
Good evening, sir.
Where are you?
I'm in Texas.
What part?
Deep southeast Texas.
Big thicket country.
Okay.
About two hours south of Lufkin.
Okay.
And I believe I've had an encounter with what I think is the same animal, though, in that picture.
This happened, though, approximately two years ago.
Okay, you've seen the photograph then on Whitley's site?
Yes, and previously I saw the pictures from the one from around San Antonio.
Uh, and I thought it looked similar to that, but it didn't have the spots and the ears look a little bit different, but the picture that I saw just tonight looked what I believe is exactly what I saw.
Um, I was mowing my hay field and I stirred the thing up.
Um, it, it, it kind of ran off and I've never seen anything like it.
I just thought it was a little gray hairless dog or something until, you know, this recent activity that's come out.
Yeah, I wonder if we've got something totally new on our hands.
I wonder could this really be what's called the Chupacabra?
Do you recall how fast this thing moved?
Actually, it wasn't aggressive or seemed to move very fast at all.
I was on my tractor and it was like it was kind of bedded down.
My hay field was real tall, thick.
And it was like I kind of stirred it up.
I don't know if it maybe had some babies.
It was kind of hanging around, and that's the only thing I could think of why it would kind of hang around if it was a mother or something.
But I actually came back and went back to the hay field and encountered it into another area, and this time I had some livestock in the area, so I kind of fired some rounds in the general direction, and it ran off.
But I haven't I've never seen anything like it since.
Again, this was about two years ago.
Well, you've heard all the stories about Chupacabra, right?
That is correct, yes.
Do you think that's what we're dealing with here, or just something else new?
I think it's something new.
As I said, the encounter I had was not aggressive, did not seem threatening.
We do run goats here and I haven't had any problems even with coyotes or we've heard some big cats last year also in the area.
And just one thing I wanted to note is I've done a little bit of research locally and found that there's just up State Highway 105 on the Trinity River just say 10 miles west of us there's been two Bigfoot sightings this year.
Well, I'll tell you, Texas.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Texas really is a place where a lot of this stuff goes on.
I've just been handed a note that Richard Streber, who's Whitley's brother, called.
And apparently, Ann is in stable condition.
And they're not sure, but it could be a possible diabetic reaction of some Hey Art, how you doing?
will call when he's able to so that is the latest richard streber
saying that it it may be some sort of uh... diabetic reaction and uh... as of
right now and it is stable so thank god for that and uh...
please uh...
extend those prayers a little bit a wildcard liner on the air hello
they are that was good news uh... about friends it is
uh... look at that was a strange note in today's newspaper here in columbus
By the way, this is Steven.
About a guy that watched the day after tomorrow, after drinking nine or ten beers and seeing the movie, decided to set his own house on fire instead of the world was coming to an end.
Oh, well then it should be blamed on the beer.
It's got to be.
He decided to set his own house on fire.
Well, that's just plain idiotic, isn't it?
I think that just goes beyond idiotic, isn't it?
Well, in the category of idiotic, let me make a couple of ads here, alright?
These are possible Darwin Award nominees.
For example, James Burns, 34, a mechanic of Alamo, Michigan, was killed, tragically, In March, as he was trying to repair what police describe as a farm-type truck, Burns got a friend to drive the truck on a highway, get this, while Burns hung underneath so that he could ascertain the source of a troubling noise.
Well, predictably, Burns was later found actually wrapped around the driveshaft.
Troubling noise.
And then Charles Berger, 47, accidentally shot himself to death in December in Newton, North Carolina.
It seems he awoke to the sound of a ringing telephone beside his dead and steady answer to Smith & Wesson 38 Special.
Which, with predictable results, you know, he put it to his ear and, uh... Police said that a lawyer demonstrating the safety of windows in a downtown Toronto skyscraper crashed through a pane with his shoulder and plunged 24 stories to his death.
A police spokesperson said that Gary Hoy, 39, fell into the courtyard of the Toronto Dominion Bank Tower early Friday evening as he was explaining the strength of the building's windows To visiting law students.
You know, it was sort of, well, hey, check this out!
No matter what you do, ARGH!
And then, from Bloomberg, a terrible diet and a room with no ventilation are being blamed for the death of a man who was killed, hmm, tragically, by his own gas emissions.
There was no mark on his body and You can imagine, they did an autopsy of course.
It showed large amounts of methane gas in his system.
His diet had consisted primarily of beans and cabbage and a couple of other things in parenthesis.
It was just the right combination of foods, a tragic combination indeed.
It appeared the man died in his sleep from breathing the poisonous cloud that was hanging over his bed.
In his nearly airtight bedroom.
According to the article, he was a big man with a huge capacity for creating this, in quotes, this deadly gas, in quotes.
Three of the rescuers got sick and one had to be hospitalized.
So, you know, there's a lot of that going around.
Going into open lines past the bottom of the hour break, which is coming right up.
in the darkness, you're listening to Coast to Coast AM, I'm Art Bell.
I'm Art Bell.
Coast to Coast AM.
What's the bottom time? What's the bottom time?
What's the bottom time?
Once when you were mine, I remember your eyes Reflected in your eyes
I wonder where you are I wonder if you think about me
What's the bottom time?
In your wildest dreams To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code
0.
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.
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 Art at 800-618-8255. International callers
may reach Art Bell 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.
And then there was Michael Anderson-Godwin, who made the news of the weird after he, well, passed on.
It seems he had spent several years awaiting South Carolina's electric chair on a murder conviction before having his sentence reduced to life in prison.
and then one day shortly thereafter while sitting on a metal toilet
in his seat trying to fix his small tv set
he bit into a wire and was electrocuted
once again we've got a free stream link uh... going on this weekend
You know, like HBO and Showtime every now and then give you a free weekend, right?
That's what we're doing.
To sort of introduce you to Streamlink, it's the audio service on our website, www.coasttocoastam.com, that allows you to listen to, and I don't know if you knew this, the last 90 days of shows on Coast.
For about what amounts to 15 cents a day.
Now, back in March, we added what's become a very popular feature, as you might imagine, that allows people to actually download and then burn to MPEG-3 any of the last 30 days of shows.
And indeed, we also bring on, every now and then, an absolutely classic program.
So that's going on this weekend, free of charge, anywhere in the world.
You can listen to Streamlink, and that's really cool because I know in a lot of other countries this morning they will be listening because it's free if they happen to stumble across it, I suppose.
Well, sadly, I must report for those amateur radio operators and shortwave listeners, and this is really more of a blow than you might imagine, The Federal Communications Commission decided on October 14th to go ahead and allow broadband internet access over power lines.
They have approved it, ladies and gentlemen, despite all the protest.
It's going to give the cable and phone companies a little competition.
It's a sad day, though, for shortwave listeners, definitely for hams.
The new service will cause extensive interference to receiving shortwave signals from around the world.
Even if they somehow manage to notch out the handbans and make the handbans livable, if you're one of those people who likes to listen to, well, I don't know, the BBC, what's left of it, Radio France International, and a million other worldwide broadcast stations, this may well end your listening career.
And people like Tom, who sent this to me, I think that it will prevent, it's virtual jamming in a way, it will prevent Americans from listening to the broadcasts of other countries.
It will literally completely interfere with all shortwave broadcasting.
Now they will of course attempt to make aircraft frequencies free of BPL and that sort of thing, I think it's probably the worst news you could imagine for international shortwave broadcasting and it will virtually bring it to an end, the listening that is, in this country.
Should it be deployed nationally, why, that'll be the end of that and that's a very important news source in my mind, gone.
So the implications of this decision are very widespread and very dire indeed.
First-time caller line, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hi, Art.
Hi.
This is Rick calling from Wichita, Kansas.
Yes, Rick.
And I've been searching for an outlet to ask a question, and I figure you're the foremost authority of it.
What I'm wondering about is, I think that there is proof of extraterrestrials, and I think it's just the opposite of what the government says.
The government says that we as a nation can't handle it if they told us the truth.
Indeed, if there was E.T.
out there.
And the proof is found in the Bible.
And the proof is that 1 Corinthians 15 40 says there are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial.
so i'd like to know please i don't allow uh... according to the bible here's
just a just give me the the gist okay well it's not that
there's a lot of bodies and bodies for us real
and if you go to webster's dictionary and look it up
and the terrestrial bodies are those outside of our universe
the celestial bodies or in our universe and it says
that they're different different.
And I'm afraid that since it's stated in there specifically, the government says, well, we can't handle the truth.
Well, the truth is what's in there, and the truth specifically says that there is bodies that are on Earth and bodies that are in space in different universes.
You know, that is the truth as your faith sees it.
In other words, you have absolute faith in what you read in the Bible, and so for you, that is the truth.
The truth, I guess, is somewhat subjective.
And I'm far from... Don't make me out to be any worldwide authority on extraterrestrials.
I'm not.
I've never met one, never seen one.
So, I do interviews with people who speculate on this sort of thing, and even I speculate on it, but the world's foremost authority, no way, Jose.
Not even close.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hi, it's Barry from Pennsylvania.
It's good to talk to you again.
What I'm calling about is the high price of gasoline.
I'm a small businessman.
I have my own delivery service.
Yes, sir.
And I'm here in Pennsylvania.
I think I'm buying it cheap.
It's $1.99 a gallon.
Oh, that is cheap.
I mean, I was looking out in California.
I see it's $2.45.
And, you know, I don't hear these presidential candidates talking very much about it.
Yeah, I know.
I know.
Well, number one, they can't do much about it.
So there's no point in talking about it.
They really can't do much about it.
I think that The price of gasoline on the spot market, you know, per barrel, is out of control of the President of the United States.
They can release strategic reserves if it gets really bad, but other than that, and that is sort of working at the margins of being able to affect anything, they really can't affect it.
I mean, I know a lot of small businessmen.
We all own our own routes.
And we're forced to buy the gasoline.
There's no two ways about it.
I mean, I would love to have a truck that gets 20 miles to the gallon.
Unfortunately, you know, there's no such thing out there.
No, you've got to buy it.
That's all there is to it.
And if the price of gasoline continues to rise at the rate it is presently without relief, you know, the price, of course, at the pumps lags the price per barrel that we see, which has gone through the roof.
Then we will have another recession, if not A depression as a result of it, and that's why you don't hear the presidential candidates talking about it a whole lot.
There's not much they can do.
It's affected by many, many things, and it was completely predictable that the price rise would begin, and I don't think we're going to see it go back down again.
Or if we do, it'll be a very small cyclical downturn at some point.
when supply rises finally but never gonna go back to the prices we used to see it never will and it's going to continue to go up and it will indeed precipitate a gigantic crisis worldwide crisis when we sneeze the world catches cold and the world is beginning to sneeze.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hi, this is Chris calling from Alabama.
Yes, sir.
I'd like to just, I just wanted to call in.
I'm not one to be like a doomsdayer.
I like to be positive and whatnot, but the way that I've been watching TV and stuff lately and seeing the way that society is sort of going downhill and younger people are turning to the language they use on TV.
You can't watch TV these days without everything being bleeped out, and if we're supposed to be so evolved and moving towards a better society and everything, it seems that we wouldn't Be so backwards in what we let go, you know, how we, uh, how we do, how our manners are and our mannerisms in the world.
And it just seems like that.
We're becoming less civilized.
Yeah.
And, and that's, I believe that's one of the final things of a civilization before it collapses, that people go and go to the, the poor and the lower class and what some people would call the middle class, but I would even call it just the, just the uneducated, It's almost like producers and people are selling out our own society just to make a buck.
You know, just because you make $400 million selling records or whatever, doesn't mean
that people in society should listen to you or want to be you.
It's almost like producers and people are selling out our own society just to make a
buck.
And the next thing I could see happening would be we would turn to a dictator or something
after we lost our civilization because of, you know, the slippery soap effect.
Before you know it, we're going to be overrun with, you know, immigrants and everything and something bad's going to happen.
And then next thing you know, somebody's going to come around and say, let's just put martial law into action.
And next thing you know, we'll be just, you know, we'll go right into it and say, yeah, we need martial law.
And it's really our own fault for not stepping up right now.
Well, what what you say, sir, is one possibility.
One cannot deny it.
It's one possibility.
There are no guarantees.
I know people think of America as a forever thing, and I think that every major world power at its zenith and somewhat past it have thought of themselves as, well, I don't know, just, you know, the unsinkable, the unbeatable, We're just eternal, but it ain't that way.
In fact, there's something like 200-year cycles, and we're out toward the end of that one.
So we'll see.
Lester the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
Yeah, this is Maddie.
I'm in Alphadena, California, listening on KFI 640 AM.
And I was going to talk about high gas prices.
I still am.
I think we should have an alternative energy day.
Something like Earth Day and get people out there promoting hydrogen power and don't you have solar power?
I do.
We better have more than an alternative energy day.
This nation had better start on something with the urgency of the Manhattan Project for alternative energy or what you just heard this last man say and others It's going to come true.
We're going to fall.
Well, you know, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
And without oil, our fall will be pretty hard, sir.
Yes, it will.
Here in California, Governor Schwarzenegger had something about a car that he was fueling with hydrogen, but isn't hydrogen rather difficult to put in a car and store and so forth?
Well, they're talking, sir, about hydrogen fuel cells as a solution, and I don't know that they are a solution.
It takes energy to produce them.
And so, I don't know, everything comes, there's no free lunch, yet, that we're really aware of.
I know there are those who will argue and say, oh yes, there is!
Dammit, I've got the invention, it is free!
Well, not that I'm actually aware of yet, and short of that, We're going to have to have something, or, you know, the end is in sight.
Oh, yes.
Well, all I can think is that maybe someone will get effective batteries for an electric car, and we can use those for a while.
Well, once again, now, here's the way I want you to think.
Batteries for a car, okay.
Yes, there are electric cars, but if you have batteries in a car, you have to charge them.
And I know that a lot of people think what comes out of the wall is, you know, not free, but freely available, and it's not.
It, too, comes at a cost.
The electricity is generated by one of many means, you know, burning coil, coil, oil, or coal, or perhaps hydrothermal, or hydroelectric, or whatever.
But in other words, it takes energy to charge the batteries in that electric car you're talking about.
Nationally, we've got to figure out an energy source that makes sense and is long-term and renewable and all that baloney or else.
On the international line, you are on the air.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
How are you doing?
Quite well, thank you.
Where are you?
I'm in freezing cold Winnipeg.
Freezing cold Winnipeg.
All right.
What's up?
I just wanted to see your movie that you, well, not your movie, but the one that they based on your book.
In a way, my movie, in a way, and Whitley Strieber's as well, our book, The Source, for the day after tomorrow, which is now out on DVD.
Oh, okay.
I'll have to check that out then.
Came out Tuesday.
Ah, that's why.
Okay.
I'm a very analytical and critical person, so it's amazing I only found a few things to criticize and only mentioned one of them.
This wasn't regarding you, it was actually regarding the movie Slant, as to their reasoning as to why we're having the situations we're having.
Yes.
It would have been nice if they would have put a greater emphasis on what's happening with the Earth core and what's happening with the Sun itself, and that yes, us humans are partly responsible, but not nearly to the degree that the movie hinted.
Well, the movie really talked about ocean currents, sir.
Yes, it did.
As the base cause of what was happening.
And if you look at what's going on in the world right now, for example, the story right in front of me, Squid Catch Stuns Scientists.
Sitka, Alaska.
A large, humbled squid caught offshore from Sitka is among numerous sightings of a species seen for the first time in waters that far north and the first of the species recovered from British Columbian waters.
The five-foot jumbo flying squid was shipped this week to California to be kept for research at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Now, let me tell you something, folks.
The fact that this squid is that far north Means that ocean currents are changing.
In other words, where it was warm, it may be getting cold.
Where it was cold, it may be getting warm.
I don't know.
But as these currents change, the fact will be illuminated by stories like this.
Finding sea animals and fish in places where they ought not be.
And they are there because of the changing ocean currents and temperatures, and that is what drives the world's weather.
And that was the basic premise in The Day After Tomorrow, that the ocean currents change, among other things, and we end up with drastically altered weather.
Now, of course, it was an exaggeration for a movie, but if you look at what's going on in the world right now, it sure does read like that movie.
First time caller line, you're on the air, hi.
Hello.
Hello.
What do I do?
I don't know, what do you want to do?
I want to talk to Art.
Okay, well, then you're really in luck, because that would be me.
That would be you?
Yes.
I sent you an email regarding Meditation for America.
Meditation for America?
Really?
Yes.
I know you don't really like to get into doing those.
Everybody tuning in, we're doing it for Whitley right now, for his wife Anne.
No, what we're doing is saying prayers and I hope that keeps up.
At any rate, you're right.
I'm hesitant to get into this mass concentration business for obvious reasons.
You know the story.
Yes, yes.
Well, I have been made aware of a prayer, a meditation for America that is going to happen tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Pacific Standard Time.
And what is it endeavoring to accomplish?
America and granting the United States of America the courage and the wisdom.
Okay, so we don't allow URLs to be given out on the air, so I had to bleep that out.
Oh, okay.
So just tell me, it's a prayer for America to what?
To recognize and resist the misleading words of leaders who deceive us into doing harm to others.
To do no harm.
To help us deal swiftly with those who bear false witness, who covet what is not theirs or ours here and abroad.
I guess you're talking about the politicians.
That's a pretty tall order.
Well, no, it's about world leaders.
Those are politicians.
It's about peace worldwide tomorrow.
Peace, alright.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with that.
But that, too, is a pretty tall order of peace, that is to say.
A very tall order.
All right, coming up in a moment is a very, very, very bright guy.
His name is Sir Charles Schultz III.
And he really is a fascinating guy.
He's made some discoveries about some photographs that NASA ostensibly, well, Released recently, and it's his contention that they might not be all they're cracked up to be.
From the high desert, I'm Art Bell.
I'm a little girl who's lost her way.
I'm a little girl who's lost her way.
The Light of Day Be it sight, sound, smell or touch,
there's something inside that we need so much.
The sight of a touch or the scent of a sound, or the strength of an oak who moves deep in the ground.
The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again,
or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing?
To have all these things in a memory store?
And they use them to count us?
Ha ha ha!
Take this price, on the strip, just for me.
I'll take up the law, take my price, a person is for free.
To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 7.
The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
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 out 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.
Oh, it's very interesting, isn't it, when we begin getting that many calls just in an open line session one hour on the price of gasoline and energy and worry about the whole thing.
That means the public is beginning to wake up a little bit.
Louise in Grover Beach, California fast blasts me the following.
She says, Hey Art, we need an Energy X Prize.
Well, hey, Louise, that's a pretty good idea.
An Energy X Prize.
Perhaps ten million dollars coughed up by somebody who would come up with a provable free energy source, or if not free energy, then close enough as to change the likely outcome if we run out of oil, which it appears we're in the process of doing.
You know, we could use a little race like that.
Kind of like the Space Race, huh?
Only here on Earth, with our own hides at stake.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Coming up in a moment is Sir Charles Schultz III.
Sir Charles Schultz worked at Martin Marietta Aerospace for 10 years on weapons systems and computer-based automated test equipment.
He wrote the nuclear EMP test software for the Pershing 2 missile system, worked on Patriot, the Copperhead tank killer, And advanced attack helicopter systems.
Wow!
He has performed research under grant on nuclear fusion, was knighted and received a long-term grant for his present research in robotics and artificial intelligence, one of my favorite topics.
He has written many technical publications, magazines, articles on space, astronomy, the atmosphere, space resource development.
In addition, Sir Charles has also appeared on several TV and radio programs, this being definitely one of them.
in a moment he'll be here sir charles schultz
uh... has been on the program previously He's a brilliant fellow.
And if you'll go to coasttocoastam.com and click on his name, you will then be escorted electronically to his website where among other things you will see pictures taken on Mars of what amount sand dollars they are sand dollars I think it's a it's almost well I guess not irrefutable but it appears very close to irrefutable evidence and he may say he may use that word I don't know that there was life on Mars the discovery of life that had been on Mars without
Nearly any question.
I suppose there's always a little question when you're not actually there.
But aside from that, the photographic evidence appears to be almost airtight.
Sir Charles, welcome back to the program.
Well, hi, Art.
Thanks.
I'm glad to be on the show again.
And we're certainly glad to have you.
All right.
Well, you know, your discoveries were earthshakers.
They were really quite amazing.
and now there's been enough time I think for NASA to have digested your information and
to have responded. How's it going?
Well, the interesting thing is, while there's been no official confirmation by NASA, I have
been contacted by a number of people who work for both NASA and JPL. And while they are
not allowed to speak publicly because of the non-disclosure agreements that they have signed,
they have confirmed to me by telephone and by email that my findings are
correct So, under the table, it has all been confirmed.
But out in the public, no.
Perhaps you could expand a little on these non-disclosure things.
If there was life on Mars, and NASA knows it unofficially, why would they be hesitant to admit it officially?
I mean, what's the hang-up here?
That's really a good question, and it has been suggested to me by a number of people that they're able to prolong their funding for missions and exploration as they stand right now, because some feel that if this question is answered, they're going to lose some funding.
I on the other hand, along with a lot of people, seem to feel that findings of this nature would actually drive more funding into exploration, not less.
Well, Sir Charles, gee, I've had NASA people on the program, and when I talk to them about that, they're adamant.
I mean, it's not even a close call.
My God, Art, I think this is almost a direct quote.
My God, Art, if we found evidence of life on Mars, we'd be jumping up and down and telling the whole world about it, because it would provide funding.
You know, we'd have ourselves a manned trip to Mars scheduled, for sure.
I mean, we would never keep silent about something like that.
That's nearly a direct quote.
I know, and it's just an amazing thing to me.
So many people have come to me and given me confirmation That otherwise, due to the nondisclosure agreement, they would end up in a federal prison, and they would lose their academic credentials.
Why?
It's all in the nature of the agreement they have signed.
They're not allowed to speak without the permission of NASA.
And the point that comes to mind here is NASA is not a private space industry, as we've often been told.
It is a division of the government.
And if you just go to their website, everything ends in .gov.
They're very clearly a part of the government.
Their reasons are inscrutable at this point, and I have no idea what they're doing or why they're holding out on this, but it's very clear there is life on Mars.
There was life on Mars.
There's water and there's fossils.
Well, wait a minute.
Those are two separate things.
I think it is clear that there was life on Mars.
Now, there is life on Mars.
That's a whole horse of a different color.
That's true.
And, you know, one of the most interesting pieces of evidence has also apparently been silenced is a fellow by the name of Formosano, and I know that Richard Hoagland has discussed him in the past, who found traces of ammonia and methane in the Martian atmosphere.
He was scheduled last July to make a release about the ammonia findings and he was essentially silenced.
And then he did emerge with a paper on the methane and how it could be Produced underground through volcanic methods or how it could be the product of biological processes.
And to show some interest in the methods of methane being emitted from the ground is one of the things that you've got to pursue.
Where does the methane come from?
He's got evidence of geysers that completely backs up what I've found.
And so at this point, there are people who are making findings that corroborate this, that there must still be biological activity, and the evidence of water has been there all along.
Yes.
It's a very good and strong indicator that if there was life and there's still water, there still is life.
Surely, Sir Charles, although you don't know and you find inscrutable the reason, you must have some guesses.
I mean, why would they hold back?
And, you know, there are all kinds of theories.
And the strongest one at this point is still that they feel that the public just isn't ready for it.
And I can't believe that.
I mean, half of every movie that comes out is based on extraterrestrial life these days.
Everybody knows what an alien is.
And to discover that we have neighbors next door that are no more complex than old sea life, well, that's hardly threatening in the least.
I wouldn't think so.
I mean, at that level, right, I wouldn't think so.
Now, intelligent Martians, that might be another story entirely, but let's think about this a little bit.
Let's try and delve a little deeper.
Could it be that there is a contingent of very religious, faithful people out there who, even with life at the level that we're talking about and demonstrating, certainly on your website, ...would find that heresy, that life was only bestowed upon the planet Earth, as described in Genesis, and there is nothing else.
And so is it that group of people they're concerned with?
Well, I would certainly hope that those were not the people in control of discovering new facts.
However, historically, that's often been the case.
And so I suppose this is a possibility.
I did work at a local science center for a number of years, And we often ran afoul of some of the things that we could say or do because some of the funding came from local churches and religious groups.
And so that's an amazing thing to discover that a science center would actually suppress certain things or would not allow you to say certain things because some of their money was coming from religious sources.
Well, is the evidence That you have uncovered and others now I'm sure that you've spoken with.
Is it?
How conclusive is it?
Could you go into a court of law and prove it?
I believe that I could.
I've shown this to a number of people, some of whom were attorneys, and they had no doubt once they examined what I had that this was indeed the signs of false a life.
Are there any reasons other than the one I just proffered about the religious, any other reasons that you can imagine or even guess at Well, I've had a number of people communicate to me, typically through email, that they felt that there were aliens and people knew about the aliens and the government and this was being suppressed, and to admit such a thing would mean that they'd have to come clean about other conspiracies or things that have been covered up in the past.
If that's true, then I can see that there would perhaps be a reason to try and cover it for a while.
But then again, with the findings we have, it only makes sense to admit the facts and move on.
Alright.
There are those Sir Charles, and of course this always happens with photographs, who are saying that, you know, you're seeing what you want to see, and it's really nothing.
It's just, you know, Sir Charles seeing what he wishes to see.
Well, that's interesting because there has been Phil Plait, who's the bad astronomer, who has appeared on the show a number of times.
He has come up with a term, pareidolia, for seeing things that aren't actually there, and one of his examples was seeing the face of Lenin in his shower curtain.
But of course, you know it isn't actually Lenin, it's a shower curtain.
And other people have said, well, I can see faces in the clouds, but you know that those are clouds and not actual people.
There must obviously be a converse sort of malady where you can't see what actually is there.
Do you have a new name for it?
Maybe anti-pareidolia.
Anyway, that's something to think about.
Because obviously when you look at a fossil, you know what it's made of, you know the environment it's in, and the conditions that were there in the past.
And all the fossils fit together into the same sort of context, they live in the same environment, and there's a very strong case for it being exactly what you see it is.
What are the implications?
Assuming that NASA suddenly announced that, yes, Irrefutably, these are photographs of life, and frankly, we have the signs that there's probably continued life on Mars, even now.
What would the implications be?
Well, first off, it would mean that many of the conclusions that they had drawn, and stuck to very publicly over years past, were in fact completely wrong.
And so you could see that any of the things that they'd said about the conditions on Mars would then be called into question.
And there are a lot of very good people who've done research and posted things, and their name is a tacitus, and their reputations would suffer.
And there obviously would not be everyone in on such a plot, you know.
Surely there are many very good and honest people working on this data, and they're just dying to say what they've discovered.
And they're obviously being told by someone, no, you're not allowed to say that, or well, we'll eventually get around to saying that.
Implications, well, I suppose there's not very many government agencies I trust.
I don't know about you.
No.
When I was young, Sir Charles, I did trust them, and most Americans did.
I'm old enough, I'll be 60 in June, and so I can remember a day when, boy I'll tell you what, when the FBI came on TV and said something, you could take it to the bank.
Absolutely.
I mean, there was that day in America, and we have had so many lies told to us, and so many conspiracies that frankly have come true, that Americans have become rather cynical, and I'm one of them.
That happens with age, as you watch these things unfold.
And so, no, we don't trust government.
Well, and that's exactly the thing.
When I was a child, I thought NASA was the greatest thing there ever was, and I was very inspired.
And the actions of the astronauts, very courageous people who went and risked their lives for exploration and discovery, without a question, that's a fantastic thing.
And it took a great number of very honest, hardworking, and technically minded people to put that program together, to get things to work.
And to then make discoveries of this sort over the last few months, It really is disheartening, to say the least.
I've got almost no confidence in anything presented by NASA at this point.
Well, gosh, Sir Charles, when I first interviewed you, it was a very electrifying interview indeed.
You were still, I don't know, pretty trusting and not so quick to be suggesting that something Photographs might have been tampered with, or NASA might have done something wrong.
I mean, I recall the hesitancy in your voice, and now, just a couple of interviews later, you're beginning to sound, well, Sir Charles, just a little cynical.
You say that's accurate?
Yes, I do.
Unfortunately, it is.
In fact, in the course of doing this research, I've discovered that in the past, NASA was caught tampering with images.
There's an article in Mars News from November 8, 2002 that they had presented a low-res cropped image in place of a much higher resolution image that they had, and this was discovered by, of all people, Richard Hoagland.
Now, why would they have done that?
Well, and that's a question that nobody has ever really resolved.
They presented less data than they actually had, a smaller cropped image with lousy resolution, and said this was the best one that they had, and then three months later they released the actual image It had already been obtained by both Keith Laney, who's a contractor for NASA, and by Richard Hoagland, and they had exposed the fact that NASA had indeed tampered with the data.
And the interesting thing is, many of the Mars research community attacked them and accused them of fraud.
Somehow they had cooked up this higher resolution image, when in fact... You know, you can cook up lower resolution, but you can't cook up higher resolution.
That's true.
In the end, it turns out that the researchers who made the accusations were dead wrong.
So, NASA does, in fact, tamper with data from time to time, and there's a history of it.
Now, this photograph that you referred to, the low-res presented by NASA first, and then later the high-res, what was the photograph of?
It was a photograph of the Cydonia region that Richard has such great interest in.
Of course.
And when the high-res version became available, what shocking information was on that that would have justified the presentation of a much lower-res image?
Well, that's the interesting thing.
There's nothing really shocking or outstanding about it.
It's just a better picture.
And I've looked at the image and I don't see anything outstanding about it.
It just proved that they did not release the highest-res image they had, that they in fact lied about having the higher-res image.
And failed to release it until later.
Well, could that not have been a simple mistake?
Well, it's a possibility.
It's a possibility.
But at this point I have my doubts about such things.
And I've run across a number of cases just recently with the opportunity images, particularly panoramic images and navigation images from Sol 167 and 168 where they have obviously been deliberately tampered with.
Uh-oh.
They have cut away or cropped parts of the images so that it looks like there's an edge of a crater wall with the sky showing.
When in fact, if you look at the identical images side by side, all of that area is filled with rock and other details.
And in later edits showing up on Sol 168 particularly, somebody has left their signature or vanity mark in the white, cropped away area of the image.
And it looks like a little space invader, and it's unusual in how it's hidden, and to find it takes a little bit of skill and photo editing program, but it is definitely there, and that's listed on my site as well.
Wait, you're suggesting that somebody put a little... It's like a watermark.
Inscribed as sort of an initial?
Or some sort of little symbol?
It's a little symbol.
It looks rather like... Have you ever seen the The game, some of the Japanese video games that have the small, like the Space Invaders figures.
Sure.
It looks exactly like one of those, and it's embedded in the white portion of the image, and the way they did it so it would be invisible is they picked colors that were so close to white that you can't see it with the human eye, but it does show up with a computer.
So, the implication is they're tampering with photographs.
They are indeed tampering with images.
Now, I looked at other images taken by the navigation cameras on the same saw, wondering what it might be, if they were trying to hide something, what it might be.
Yes.
And of course I found previous images showing evidence of geysers and water flow.
And when I magnified one specific image, it showed dark objects in the sky, and it showed, when I did a contrast enhancement, what appears to be the jet of a geyser erupting in the same direction.
Oh!
So, whether that's actually what it is or not is difficult to say, but it certainly looks like a geyser erupting with enough force to throw a couple of stones into the air.
Well, gee, um, let's speculate.
Why would they want to hide that?
Well, I don't know, and they have not yet admitted that the geysers are there, and yet they're clearly there, and so are the signs of recent water activity.
All right, hold tight.
Sir Charles Schultz is my guess.
Recent water activity, geysers.
Let's think about that.
Why would NASA want to hide that?
To the degree they'd actually change photographs.
That's the allegation made by Sir Charles Schultz.
He's my guest.
This is going to be a very, very interesting morning if you don't touch that dial.
The sun is setting like molasses in the sky. What's happening? Everything...
card line at area codes 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.
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 Art at 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art Bell 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.
Sir, Charles Schultz III has chosen, like Richard Hoagland, a very, very, very difficult path indeed.
When you begin finding things that NASA won't admit, are there and you begin alleging that NASA is tampering with photographic evidence for whatever reason.
Believe me, you have chosen a very difficult career path indeed.
I mean, they're going to be all over you.
All over you.
You know, the bad astronomers, the good astronomers, and NASA in general and that sort of that whole world out there.
They're just going to be all over you and your career path may be about to take a sudden turn.
So I'm really quite surprised.
Well, in some ways, I'm not surprised to hear Sir Charles beginning to take this path.
I suppose if you're an honest, ethical person and you see something that cannot be denied, To sort of put it on the shelf along with everybody else and deny it is to become them.
We'll be right back.
Sir Charles, I think it would be valuable, since not everybody's heard the previous programs that we did
that you've found so far that leads you to the conclusion, nearly, just irrefutably, that there was a man who was a
together, for you to summarize, if you would please, the evidence
man.
Well, certainly.
Starting out with the Sol 14 images from Opportunity, I saw what was clearly what appeared to be sea urchin fossils.
Since then, I've located trilobites, seashells, many different types of marine organisms, squid, And recently, we have found a perfect sea urchin.
There's just absolutely no way of refuting that sea urchin.
It's at the very top of my webpage.
We also found evidence of recent water activity, wash areas, geysers, and many features that you only find due to the action of water.
And altogether, it shows that there was life on Mars, there are many fossils, and there's presently liquid water on Mars.
And that leads you to the conclusion that there must be some surviving organisms, very likely.
Alright, I'm looking now at your website.
Let's stick with the sea urchin for a moment.
I can't say that's irrefutable to me, looking at it.
You've got a green circle around it, right?
Yes, it's a little magnified and I believe it became somewhat blurry in the magnification.
There's a much better image of it just below and on a page showing a whole gallery of urchins in comparison to terrestrial urchins.
Okay.
On the other hand, the Sand Dollars, boy, these are Sand Dollars.
I don't know what else they could be.
And that's what convinced me.
When we did the last program and I looked at the Sand Dollars, yes, they really do look just about irrefutable to me.
So, continue, please.
Okay, well of course there are many different organisms that other people will recognize because they're a little more familiar with them.
Those images appeal to them more or they're more easily spotted by them.
But overall we have many many different fossils.
The seashells are very clear.
We have excellent image of coral from Sol 15.
So all together it states that Mars was an ocean covered planet and there are many many fossils all over the place and We found similar structures in both Gusev Crater, which appears to be in the lower layer very similar to what's in Meridiani, which is where Opportunity is.
And so overall, the planet must have had oceans all over the place.
And when they dried up, lost because of the thin atmosphere and low gravity, they left the salts and the fossils behind.
But there's still quite a bit of water in the soil.
Yes.
I've seen pictures from Richard, for example, of very dark areas that look like it's been fairly recent runoff of water.
Do you agree with that?
Yes I do, and in fact I have a couple of very good pictures, the third link down under the new material on my page, and it shows the runoff channel where water has cut down next to a rock, and I've got a stereo image and a color image of that.
And then below it shows where they have pressed the instrumentation up against the soil in two different areas.
One, from Sol 123, shows what is clearly wet mud and the ring pressed into it is shiny.
The sunlight is coming directly at you and reflecting off of it.
The mud has bulged where it's stuck together and been pressed by the instrumentation.
I believe it was the x-ray spectrometer.
Directly below it is a picture of the same effect in dry sand, and it is completely and radically different, and you can see with your own eyes the difference between wet and dry soil on Mars in those two images.
You heard me mention, coming into this half hour, that doing what you're doing right now Talking about life on Mars, then and now, talking about modified photographs coming from NASA, this is a career damaging move.
Certainly Richard, I've been friends with Richard for a lot, a lot of years, and I've watched him take an enormous amount of really severe personal criticism.
I mean, it just really is a career, if not ender, certainly, It's the beginning of real trouble for anybody who starts talking about the kind of things you're talking about right now.
What brings you to this point?
I've got to be honest, you know, I've got to show people what I've discovered and I cannot allow politics to stand in the way of that.
I've got to put the facts out there.
I'm always going to be able to make a living no matter what.
I have many skills and I've done many things in the past and I'll continue to work in the future regardless of the outcome of this.
So I'm not worried in the least.
Let's for a second, just say every bit of this is true.
Life then, life now.
What does that mean for us?
I mean, what does it potentially mean for us?
What benefits?
That is an excellent question, and really what it comes down to is number one, it confirms that we're not unique in the universe, that life is probably everywhere.
And number two, and this is something that many people might not have thought of, just as we search through the rainforests and in the seas, For new chemicals or medical treatments, think of the new possibilities that are opened up with alien organisms.
And they're dangerous.
And of course, dangerous.
That's absolutely true.
We end up with a whole new understanding of biology.
We will increase our understanding of how genetics and how chemistry and biochemistry work by studying alien organisms.
We'll discover amazing things.
You think there would be enough benefits to Just High going forward?
A lot of people criticize the whole space program, say, what the hell has it ever done for us?
Well, actually, quite a bit, hasn't it?
Oh, absolutely.
I can think of, let's see, the last time that I took account, there were something like 150,000 products that were direct spin-offs of the space program.
The advances in microcircuitry in computers, the advances in plastics, metal alloys, power sources, batteries, Materials, optics, lasers, we have developed so many products and the industries that have spun off from space research have just been amazing.
Our whole way of life is based on things we've learned in the space program.
Our whole way of life right now is, to some degree, increasingly threatened by the energy crisis that lays ahead.
And it may well be that one day we're going to need some other place to hang our hat.
That's true.
Is Mars a potential candidate for terraforming?
Yes it is, and in fact, because of the fact there is much more water there than we've been told, it will be a much easier task than we've been also told.
It would be easy enough for us to bring some sort of, let's say, a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere to raise the temperatures, perhaps to place reflectors in orbit around Mars to raise the amount of sunlight it gets, And that alone will allow us to melt some of the ice.
Recent estimates say there is enough ice under the soil of Mars to equal the amount of ice in the ice cap covering Greenland today.
Well, we have lots of practice in warming planets, don't we?
We certainly do.
We seem to be practicing nicely on this one.
Well, that brings me to another interesting point.
You know, we had three major hurricanes here, and I live in Orlando, Florida.
Yes.
And I have to admit that during those hurricanes, I thought about your movie, which I saw, and I found it was quite entertaining.
It was entertaining.
Of course, it was an exaggeration.
True, but it has a message.
But it has a message.
That's right.
And we're increasingly seeing signs that the ocean currents that drive, in part, our climate are changing radically.
And when you look at the North Pole, and you look at the South Pole, and you look at them over, say, ten years, if you don't get rocked back in your seat and go, oh my God, you know, the top and the bottom of the world appear to be melting.
Exactly.
I mean, that simplifies it, but that's what's going on.
They're melting.
Yes, and you know, the thing is, the people who do research in climatology don't even agree between themselves whether it's a man-made effect or a natural effect.
My position is Whether it's man-made or natural, we need to study it and know what's going on so we know what to do.
My exact position is, well, not only that, but projecting ahead, if there's nothing we can do about it, and it certainly wouldn't appear there is, then we need to begin adjusting so that humanity goes on eating as it has become accustomed to and living as it has become accustomed to.
I mean, that may mean shifting agricultural areas and all kinds of things.
Well, there's an easier solution than that, and it goes right back to the same sort of deal that I was talking about with the orbital solar power stations.
If we change the amount of sunlight we receive in various parts of the world, we can alter the climate to suit ourselves.
In other words, we put large solar mirrors in orbit.
We can increase or decrease the sunlight in certain areas and alter the climate to our liking that way.
Oh, isn't that interesting?
Are you saying we now have the technology to do that?
We could put solar mirrors up at any time.
I know that the Russians put at least one good-sized solar mirror up to project a spot of sunlight on the ground on the night side of the Earth.
And it was just a matter of time before somebody figured out that it could be used for advertising.
Of course, they put the lid on that very quickly, because nobody wants huge, brilliant beacons in the night sky talking about the latest products.
Yes, Sir Charles, how well did that work?
I mean, I heard about the experiment, but I never really heard how it worked.
It was partially effective.
The real problem was stabilizing the mirror itself.
Aiming it, I don't think, would have been a great problem, but the structure of the mirror they used made it a little bit difficult to manage.
They did receive some results, but it wasn't as good as it could have been.
How good could it be?
Well, if we put large, let's say, rectangular arrays of mirrors that were stabilized with some sort of structural material like, say, a metal frame, and we set them up like Venetian blinds or louvers, we could use a computer to control their aim, where they end up, and how much sun we either aim at the earth or shut off from the earth.
We could cool areas by blotting out sunlight in some areas, And we could heat areas by adding sunlight to others.
And now, of course, that is tampering with Mother Nature.
And there's always a possibility of, I don't know, unintended consequences when you do that sort of thing.
And that's true.
But of course, we also have to argue that we've probably already done that with the climate, with our industries as it stands.
All right.
Somebody just before you got on said, you know, there ought to be an X Prize for energy, the way we just had the X Prize, which has now been a one for, you know, what is it, a craft that will carry as many as three into low-Earth orbit?
Into space within a two-week period, without any pieces being dropped off.
It was astounding.
Just an absolutely astounding flight.
Do you have any comments on it?
I mean, is that the beginning of You know, people are able, eventually, to take rides into space.
Oh, that's absolutely true.
Think of the barnstorming era, the beginning of the last century, and how quickly aircraft spread all over the world.
Now that it's been shown that it's nothing more than some complex plumbing and some computer control, and that anyone with a little money, not necessarily a government, can accomplish space flight, I think that what it means is NASA, as we know it, is on the way out, and private industry is going to pick up the the ball and run with it, we're going to have a huge
increase in space flights in the very near future. I believe Burt Rutan did this
with about 20 million dollars to win. That's right, and think about it, he did
three flights that took people into space. One person per time, but
he could potentially have had three people in the ship each time.
How do you think NASA felt about that flight?
I couldn't even begin to speak for them.
I know that it makes some of them wonder why it takes them many billions of dollars to fly seven people in a shuttle, and for twenty, twenty-five million, we could have had nine people up.
We had three individual flights that cost very, very little, and completely reusable at that.
Well, I'm sure publicly they're cheering for it, but I wonder if privately they're not cheering.
I don't think they're that incredibly happy about the prospects.
of losing a large chunk of their, let's say, satellite launcher transport business.
And let's, you know, look at that from that other standpoint.
NASA is essentially a transportation company to get stuff off the planet.
And while they do a huge amount of research in other fields, they were basically founded to get people off the planet and satellites off the Earth.
What's this going to mean?
I mean, if the private sector is not stopped, And we begin to have people, you know, little space hotels and motels and people spending periods of time in space.
Is that what lays ahead?
I certainly see it laying ahead.
And here's an interesting thought.
Burt Rutan's ship could easily be modified to launch a satellite from.
Now keep in mind that they don't go into orbit at this point.
They simply break atmosphere and then re-enter shortly afterwards.
But imagine that instead of sending up Spaceship One, they send up A booster with a satellite on it.
Well these days satellites can be made the size of a baseball.
That's right.
And so you could load a couple dozen micro or nano satellites into the nose cone of a small booster, carry it up to 50,000 feet and launch it just as their ship was launched.
Now you don't have to bring the whole ship back.
You can increase the amount of fuel you have and you can put these satellites in orbit.
He could put a dozen satellites in orbit.
Huh.
Would there be any law that would stop him from doing that?
Well, presently, you do have to have the proper forms and regulations observed and filled out.
So, yes, it's still controlled by the government.
So, in that respect, it could be stopped legally one way or another.
They could always find a method.
But I don't think they'd really want to when you come right down to it, because if NASA, as we know it, ends up not being able to shoulder the load, who's going to do it?
But here's the other thing.
If we go back to the way we opened the program, and there really are all these secrets that are being kept from the world by NASA, and I would presume as well the Russians and others who have been to space, the Russians certainly have had probes on Mars and so forth and so on, so they must know these things too, these giant secrets that would disturb the force as it is.
I mean, the private sector would eventually get hold of these secrets, and you know they're going to start screaming and yelling?
Yes, they will.
And maybe that's why there's such a curious silence about things right now.
Maybe that's the reason.
Well, I mean, would they go so far?
If these secrets are that important that they would lie to the American public, modify photographs, allegedly, then They certainly would go ahead and stop any effort that would reveal all of that, wouldn't they?
I would expect that there would be a move to do that, and they could easily do so with any number of regulations that are in effect right now.
For instance, they could say, gee, we're at a state where perhaps terrorism is a threat and we're not allowing anyone to launch anything right now for fear of what it might be.
I can think of probably a dozen regulations that could be Pulled out of a hat and used to stop somebody from launching something.
Um, then this really must be a really gigantic secret.
I mean, the implications, maybe I'm just not seeing them clearly.
I do understand the religious possible disturbance that would be created and I guess some others, but I just don't see anything massive enough to hide such a gigantic It makes no sense to me either.
I can't imagine anything great enough or large enough or dangerous enough that they'd want to keep everything a secret.
This is one of the things that just doesn't click for me.
But there must be that reason.
I mean, there really must be.
There must be something.
There obviously has to be a reason for them to make the choices they do.
As to what it is, once again, I can't even begin to speculate what it might be.
Uh, there are all kinds of wild thoughts and rumors about it, and of course, you had, uh, Edgar Mitchell on, uh, Dr. Mitchell from Apollo 14, uh, on the, uh, fourth.
And he basically stated... That was George.
Yes, that was George interviewing him.
That's right, I guess.
He basically said, more or less, that, uh, the government had alien hardware stashed somewhere.
If you really listen to what he said, he didn't say it in so many words, but by implication.
And that's a very unusual thing to hear.
Somebody of that background say.
Well, one of the men who walked upon the moon is saying that, and the astronauts are saying a lot more, too, if you listen very carefully.
Even Neil Armstrong has said things intended to get the real thinkers out there energized and really thinking.
From the high desert in the midst of the darkness, I'm Art Bell.
What will you do when you get lonely?
Oh, I'm waiting by your side All our times have come
We're fucked now, never found Seasons don't feel the river
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain We can be like them
Come on baby, don't feel the river Baby, take my hand, don't feel the river
We'll be able to fly, don't feel the river Baby, I'm your man
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.
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 5 0 3 3 From west of the Rockies call 800 618 825 5
International callers may reach art by calling your in-country Sprint access number pressing option 5 and dialing toll-free
800 893 0 9 0 3 from coast to coast and
Worldwide on the internet. This is coast to coast am with art Bell
It is, and my guests are Charles Schultz III.
This is interesting.
Kim writes from Manhattan, Kansas.
It is wrong to extrapolate that life on Mars implies abundant life everywhere.
It could be that we're just in a unique center of life in the universe, and life can be found only near Earth.
So, there you have it.
Even if there is life on Mars, there are a lot of people who are going to think that The Earth is the center of everything and the only reason
it's found on Mars is because it's here on Earth.
I think it's very important you know who you're listening to.
Sir Charles Schultz worked at Martin Marietta Aerospace for ten years.
And he did a lot of weapons systems research, computer-based automated test equipment, wrote nuclear EMP test software for the Pershing II missile system, worked on the Patriot, the Copperhead tank killer, advanced tank attack helicopter systems.
Charles has performed research under grant on nuclear fusion.
He was knighted, received a long-term grant for his present research on robotics and artificial intelligence.
He's written many technical publications and magazine articles on space, astronomy, the atmosphere and space resource development.
I mean, this is a man of a lot of accomplishments and so I wonder how you get from that, Sir Charles, to the kind of work you've done here on whatever this big secret is.
Searching robotics and trying to build simulators and Researching the things that NASA is doing so that the robotics and simulation can be as realistic as possible.
And in the course of analyzing the data and making these discoveries... You found this stuff.
Absolutely.
And this is the sort of thing that you're not going to turn your back on.
It's so fascinating and so interesting and has a lot of long-reaching implications in the end about life and biology and the universe in general.
It certainly does.
Has your opinion of Richard C. Hoagland's work changed as you have realized the things you're talking about tonight?
Well, I don't think there was intelligent life that arose on Mars.
I don't really believe that intelligence had an opportunity to arise on Mars.
In that respect, I differ from Richard a lot.
On the other hand, I do see what he runs into when he tries to get people to look into the things that he's studying.
So you don't look at Cydonia, that region, and see some sort of monument?
No, I don't.
In my opinion, If there are any artifacts on Mars, they had to be put there by somebody else, not from Mars.
Oh, so you're not ruling them out?
No, I'm not ruling them out.
I'm simply saying that at this point it's very unlikely and that I don't see any life on Mars ever reaching a stage of development where it would be building monuments and artifacts.
But you do see primitive life?
Oh, absolutely.
There's lots of primitive fossils and a huge body of evidence that there's probably life today.
Well, again, Again, it's impossible not to come back to this, Sir Charles, but so what?
I mean, really, so what?
But then we have this message from Kim, and Kim is saying, look, you shouldn't extrapolate that just because there's life on Mars, it's everywhere, or abundant.
You know, Kim thinks that we are unique, we are the center of life in the universe, and if there is life on Mars, it's simply because there is life on Earth.
Well, there'd have to be a reason for that, and the reason that life on Mars and on Earth is similar and developed at roughly the same time would be because the composition of those two planets and where those two planets came from was very similar.
And when we look at the composition of the clouds of dust and gas around other stars that we see in space, they're very close to what we had in our solar system when it began.
By extrapolation, we can say that the same sorts of conditions existed there as existed here, and it would be easy to say, given what we know, that there should be life everywhere.
Chemistry and physics works the same everywhere in the universe, and so we know that that's one of the rock-solid foundations of the things we know about science.
Well, maybe.
There are a lot of theoretical physicists now who think that there are Other dimensions, for example, where the laws of physics that do operate, as we understand them here, don't there?
Well, that's an interesting point as well.
Understand that the forces of nature, such as electromagnetism and gravitation, are geometric, and that if you change the number of dimensions that you model those forces in, you change the way those forces would act.
For instance, Because gravity works with the inverse square law, if you move from three to four dimensions, suddenly you find that gravity becomes weaker by one order of its exponent, and planets wouldn't orbit a star due to gravitation in a four-dimensional universe.
So, changing your number of dimensions changes how those forces act.
I'm reading an article, or I have an article that I'm going to read to the audience.
I haven't yet, but the headline is, Air Force pursuing anti-matter weapons program was touted publicly.
Then came official gag order.
Anti-matter weapons program.
Interesting.
Anti-matter weapons program.
So, do you know anything at all about that?
In the work that you do, it seems to me you might have bumped into something.
As a matter of fact, yes I do.
Anti-matter is identical to normal matter except that the charges and spins of the particles are reversed.
Think of it as mirror matter.
Anti-matter can be made quite easily and some of it is made in the course of normal reactions.
For instance, there's a process known as beta decay.
Where certain radioisotopes break down in a manner that produces either electrons or antimatter electrons called positrons.
That's a natural source of anti-electrons right there.
We can make antiprotons by using a linear accelerator for instance, or a ring accelerator, and smashing normal protons into a block of dense matter such as tungsten.
And then some antiprotons will emerge from the other side.
Now there are sure to be much more efficient ways of making antimatter.
And they have even made anti-hydrogen by putting anti-protons and anti-electrons together, and done some small experiments on them.
Alright, well it's thought, Sir Charles, I'm sorry to interrupt, that matter and antimatter, when they come together, annihilate one another with a very large kaboom.
Yes they do, and it's more like a whoosh than a kaboom.
What happens is the particles are attracted to each other and they Eradicate each other, and you give off a huge burst of gamma radiation.
Depending on the type of particle that comes together with the opposite particle, it generates different output.
But in the end, it turns into a lot of gamma radiation.
And if you generate and store antimatter, it could be used as a wonderful source of power because it's basically the densest way of storing energy that we know of in the universe.
And it also could be a terrible weapon as well.
Exactly.
And number one, this whoosh, as you call it, would still be a destructive whoosh, like a boom.
It would.
Potentially with more power than even the atomic bomb, right?
Well, yes, very much so.
But without the radiation.
Well, now that's not exactly true.
There would be some short-term radiation effects.
Particularly when the explosion occurs, there would be a great deal of gamma radiation.
And gamma radiation is known to cause something called photofission.
It can induce otherwise stable matter to become radioactive.
So you can induce radioactivity in normal matter with a huge burst of gamma rays.
And of course, there's not ever a process where everything is 100% efficient.
So when you start using antimatter as an explosive, Then you end up with some debris in the process as well that you didn't count on.
And so that would be short-lived, but very radioactive material.
Okay, let me ask this.
If this is a true article, if the Air Force is pursuing antimatter weapons, well you understand the military, of course, would look at something like this for its weapons potential.
Apparently it has quite a bit, but it would also have the potential to be a new Energy source, if we could harness it, right?
I got all these calls in the first hour, Sir Charles.
Everybody's beginning to react rather dramatically to the price of gasoline.
And of course, you know, the price per barrel of oil has risen, I forget where it is now, $52, $3, whatever.
That's insanely high.
Way up there.
And we think it's going to keep, a lot of us think, it's going to keep going.
And that the good old days of cheap energy are at an end.
Now.
So that's going to mean we need another energy source really badly.
Understand though that antimatter isn't an energy source, it's more like a battery.
You still have to come up with the energy to make it in the first place.
And at present we can only get a tiny fraction of a percent of the energy we put into the process as antimatter.
It's horribly wasteful at this point.
Okay.
So if we, I'll give you an example, present estimates say That to make one gram of anti-matter in the form, let's say, of hydrogen, anti-hydrogen, would cost about a billion dollars.
A billion dollars.
On the other hand, if you look at the energy it took to launch the Apollo moon ships, five grams of anti-matter would launch all that hardware very easily, and it would be cost competitive at the cost that it took to make the launches at that time.
With all the work that you're doing, Sir Charles, is there anything looming technologically that you're aware of that would be a savior for us in terms of energy?
Well, right now we have rather limited options for generating our energy.
We have hydro, wind, we have petroleum, and solar.
And solar isn't that good on the planet, and of course a major supporter of the effort to put solar power stations in orbit around the earth.
One of the things that we have to deal with is storage technologies and I know that for transportation such as airliners and vehicles like automobiles, petroleum is still the number one because it's so easy to process and transport and use and it has a very high density.
I just recently heard about a fuel cell vehicle that was just created that used apparently It could get 1,800 miles out of a single gallon of hydrogen.
Wow.
And that's a pretty impressive figure.
It is.
The thing is, right now it costs roughly five times as much energy to create hydrogen as it does that you get back out of it.
Alright, you said you were a big proponent of gathering energy in orbit and then presumably by microwave beaming it back to Earth.
How efficient would that be?
How well would it work?
Is it an answer to our problems?
And if so, then how come we're not doing it?
It would indeed be an answer to our problems, because even if we only in the very end got half of that energy back, compared to what we collected, we'd still be way ahead of the game.
We wouldn't have burned a gram of petroleum, and that energy is there as long as the sun shines.
Why we're not doing it?
Well, once again, the cost of transporting things into space has been pretty high, and the efforts to get a group together to design and put the package in place has been at a standstill because of the cost of starting up, which would be, in my estimation, about three billion dollars.
That's not much, really.
I mean, it is.
It sounds like a lot, but when you look at what we gain, the benefits in the end would more than outweigh the costs.
Have you researched it far enough, Sir Charles, to know What could actually be done?
In other words, how many kilowatt hours could we bring down?
Well, we can bring down many billions of watt hours.
I think the figures I quoted last time showed that a station the size of Manhattan Island would collect approximately 120 billion watts.
And if we got only half of that down to the ground, that's the equivalent of 60 major power plants.
It sure is.
So that in itself shows that it's worth investing in the effort.
And once it gets set up, It would spawn whole new industries that we don't even imagine right now, just as the spinoffs from the space program did.
So you can expect that when we start a venture of this sort, the research involved will lead us in new directions and give us a lot of things we don't have now, we don't even conceive of.
There was a book called Sunstroke in which such a device was sent into space, and of course, inevitably, the fail-safes went bad.
It wandered and began frying people on the Earth as it wandered.
Any legitimate concerns in that area, or would everything be okay?
Well, we all love a good disaster flick.
That's right.
Actually, the chance of that can be reduced to near zero by making your receiver on the ground half of your circuit.
That way it will only work when it's aimed at the receiver.
And so there's a solution to that problem right at the outset.
So you're really thinking nothing could go wrong?
I think that this would be our best bet at solving our energy problems.
Well, it would be... Would it be clean?
I was about to say it would be clean, but you're beaming by microwave or some method all of this energy gathered so easily in space back through the atmosphere, right?
That's correct.
To Earth.
Would it be safe in its passage, not in any way corrupting or changing the atmosphere it passes through?
The figures show that if we pick the right frequency of microwave and pass through the atmosphere so efficiently that the heating effects would be less than that from the light of the full moon.
So it would be an extremely tiny amount of heat deposited in the atmosphere and almost all of that energy would reach the ground.
And you're saying this could be done for in the low billions?
That's correct.
We could get started today if really there was a push to do it.
Well, I just finished watching the presidential debates, as did many of my listeners.
I watched all three every minute.
Didn't get bored and walk away, as many of my friends did.
And I did and do wonder why what you and I are talking about right now, with the rising cost of oil and it beginning to affect people, they're getting angry, why it wasn't at least part of the great debate.
I think it's because politicians aren't physicists.
Very few of them really understand energy and physics and how it's transported and what it really means.
And so the issue of generating energy or collecting energy in space to beam it to the ground never arises because most of them have never even thought of it.
Well, Ronald Reagan was not a physicist.
Nevertheless, he was able to articulate the Star Wars program to the point for the world that it scared the holy you-know-what out of the Russians and may have caused them to say, we give up.
That's true, and you know that's what an admirable result.
Without a shot being fired, we basically ended the Cold War.
Yes.
And when you consider the sorts of things that we could do if we bent our efforts toward energy, I think there would be no limits to what we could do.
We just have to get people aware of it, get the issues out in front of them so they know what the options are, and find some way to fund this project.
If we can get this ball rolling, we'd have it made.
You know, I just haven't heard a word in the mainstream press about anything like this.
And I don't think that, certainly for most of my listeners, the concept of collecting energy in space and then transmitting it to Earth is something they can rather easily understand.
Honestly, I don't think it's that tough.
And if it's a viable alternative to, well, let's see, we'll probably have wars about oil if we're not already having them.
I think that what we really need to do is find a way to make people aware of it.
We need some sort of venue that will expose people.
And in some cases, this is done with movies or fiction.
In other cases, it's done with a government initiative.
We've got to get people aware that this capability does exist, and it can be put into practice very easily, if they're willing to commit some money to it.
And looking at the price of petroleum, it would be an easy choice, I think, for anyone.
This would have to be a government effort, wouldn't it?
In other words, the private sector is nowhere near ready.
I would think that... Or are they?
I think that it could be done by a couple of large companies that were interested in doing it.
And maybe one of the reasons it hasn't been pursued is because, up until now, the only way to get hardware off the planet has been through government agencies.
Maybe because of the XPRIZE being won through the efforts of Rutan, for instance, Perhaps this will spur some companies to look at what the regulations really are and see if they couldn't, in fact, invest in such a venture.
I could think of four or five companies that could easily afford to do this.
Have you actually penciled this out, knowing how much hardware would have to be in space, how many pounds would have to be taken into space, at what cost to achieve doing this?
I have done some rough figures, and some of them are based on studies done all the way back in 1970 by of all organizations, the U.S.
Navy.
And they estimated that a 60-ton factory on the moon and a 90-ton factory in Earth orbit could, over the course of three years, produce over 100,000 tons of manufactured goods made from lunar materials.
And these goods would be the power collectors and generators used to put these solar power stations in orbit.
Now, the figures back then, monetarily, are a little different.
Today, my estimates of about $3 billion are based on the same sorts of technologies and the same sorts of figures.
And I think that those numbers of 60 and 90 tons could be scaled way back, because we have a far better understanding of many of the processes and materials needed to do the job.
I'm thinking that we could probably put about 20 tons of hardware on the Moon.
It would be more or less a perpetual factory, and probably about 20 tons of factory in orbit.
They could set the whole thing up.
So you're looking at maybe 40 tons of hardware plus whatever it takes to get it to the moon and up in high orbit.
And then the rest would be either done by remote robot or by humans on site.
All right.
Hold it right there.
This is a lot to contemplate.
Why do you think we're not doing it?
Anybody else out there have any thoughts on what the big secret is they don't want us to know?
And why we're not doing what Sir Charles is talking about right now from the high desert in the middle of the
darkness. I'm Art Bell And I'm Art Bell.
Oh Oh
Oh Sweet dreams are made of the ins and through and mine to
disagree I travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused Good morning.
I'm Art Bell.
My guest is Sir Charles Schultz.
And we've got, in a moment, I'm going to try, we've got news on Ann Streber.
I think I'm going to be able to get Whitley on the phone here in a moment.
And it's more serious than we first thought.
So stay right where you are and let me see what I can do.
I'm going to ask Sir Charles to be patient with us for a moment.
At the top of the program tonight, I told you that Whitley Streber was to be with us, but he was not because his wife, Ann, collapsed.
I mean, I called him and that's all I heard was, Art, I can't go on the air.
My wife, Ann, has collapsed.
And that was it.
The connection broke.
We had word from Richard Streber.
Which brother that Anne is stable and possibly had had a diabetic reaction of some sort.
Well, that was very early information.
Now a couple of hours, I guess, have passed.
A little better than a couple of hours, actually.
And I believe that we have Whitley Strieber on the phone.
So let's find out what's going on.
Here is my co-author and my very good friend, Whitley Strieber.
Hey, Whit.
Hey, Art.
How are you?
What really happened?
What has happened is this, Ann had very suddenly and absolutely with no warning and no symptoms whatsoever, a severe stroke.
She has got bleeding on her brain and I would like everyone to pray, if you wish, for Ann tonight because we are in desperate, desperate straits.
The good news is she is still She's conscious, her blood pressure is normal, so they think the bleeding is not continuing.
If you are, however, connected in the official capacity with the Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Los Angeles at Sunset and Vermont, and there's anything you can do to help speed up the process of getting her into surgery, please call the hospital and do that.
Is that what you're facing?
Is it surgery?
It has to be surgery to remove the blood and another CAT scan to find out whether or not the bleeding is continuing.
And the thing is that this needs to be done quickly but it's quite slow.
So if there's anyone out there who can speed it up, do not call them unless you are officially connected with the hospital and know the right numbers to call.
There's no sense in calling the main number.
Do not come to the hospital because we're Really not able to do anything about that, but I love you and all of you and the bond is very deep, you know, with us and you.
Yes.
So good night and God bless.
Whitley, thank you and Godspeed.
Thank you.
Take care.
That's Whitley Strieber.
So it wasn't diabetic, but instead a very serious stroke with bleeding on the brain.
And so please pray.
Please pray as Whitley requested.
It works, you know.
We found out over the years and over the last many months and years now that without a doubt there have been study after study after study after study irrefutably proving that prayer does work.
It works!
That's all there is to it.
Back to my guest, Sir Charles.
Welcome back.
Yes, thank you.
That was my co-author, you know, with the global superstar, Whitley Strieber, that became The Day After Tomorrow.
Yes, indeed.
I extend my best wishes to him, and prayers as well.
You know, that is sort of another side of science.
You're in the hard sciences, Sir Charles, but they've done all these incredible double-blind studies, and maybe it would be interesting to have the opinion of somebody like yourself in the hard sciences.
Which prove again and again, I mean irrefutably prove, that groups prayed for heal much faster than those who are not prayed for.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Does a hard scientist think about things like that?
Well, yes.
If you're honest, you know, about your science, you have to admit that sticking to the hard and well-known rules is one thing, but also acknowledging the things that happen in the world around you that you can't explain is another part of science.
I think a lot of scientists fall down in that area.
They don't look at both sides of the coin.
I know that thinking appears to have some sort of effect, a quantum mechanical effect perhaps, and a number of experiments have been done that show that, for instance, the generation of random numbers sometimes appears to be affected by what people think.
That's right.
So perhaps there is an effect that we're just beginning to learn about and something worthy of study.
And it wouldn't surprise me in the least, knowing that there appears to be an effect, that there might truly be one.
Yes.
Yes, there really does appear to be.
And so, do you think that the hard sciences, and what we now call the metaphysical, will ever sort of meet, and one actually prove the other?
I mean, science loves to prove things and have them be repeatable.
Well, at some point, it's going to get too repeatable to ignore.
There may very well be a time when the two come together.
I know that I often tell people that I don't profess a belief in psychic abilities at all.
However, when my intuition speaks, I jump.
So do I. And I've become convinced that those who are more successful in life, some of the more powerful, well-to-do people in the world, have become so by jumping when their intuition speaks, as you put it.
Absolutely.
Is nothing but a series of decisions all your life.
You're making decisions.
Do this.
Do that.
Think up something new and go in that direction.
Whatever.
It's a series of forks in the road.
And you're making constant decisions and traveling one or the other.
And a certain series of decisions carries you to a very good place.
And another series of destructive decisions takes you very quickly in another direction.
That's right.
An observation does affect the system.
That's a known fact.
There you are.
At any rate, drifting back for a moment to this idea of a platform in space, what would be there, Sir Charles?
Would it be a series of solar collectors?
What do we have up there?
What would we put there?
Well, the first approximation of the system included very large solar cell panels.
But later refinements showed that because the efficiencies were low, particularly compared to how much they mass, it would be much smarter to use very lightweight silver reflectors, like mylar plastic that's been silvered as a collector for the sunlight, to focus it on a boiler for water.
So you'd basically have a closed cycle steam turbine generator.
And that's the most robust and common technology for generating Uh, electrical power on the ground today.
That's really fascinating.
That's the most efficient way to convert the sunlight into usable energy.
That's right.
Boil water.
I'll be damned!
I mean, that does go back a ways.
You know, early steam boilers, and here would be the most efficient way to do it in space.
That's amazing.
You would think there would be a tremendous Uh, somehow there'd be a tremendous... Well, maybe not.
I mean, you'd heat, you'd have boiling water, you'd drive a turbine, you'd create immense amounts of electricity, and then... And then what?
And then you run microwave generators or infrared lasers and you beam it to the ground.
Now, an interesting note here is that we can reduce the mass of the generators greatly by going to superconductors.
And those are now commercially available for many applications.
So we can reduce a lot of the weight we would have to put into space by using superconductor generators.
And the beauty of this system is, since mylar plastic weighs almost nothing, it's thinner than the wrapper of a candy bar, then the area of sunlight you collect can be absolutely huge, hundreds of square kilometers, and weigh very, very little.
So the main area of collection is the tiniest part of your mass.
The generator weighs the most, and its capacity can be increased by going to superconductors.
All right.
Maybe this is a silly question, but if you had a virtual collection farm for sunlight in space, between the Earth and the Sun, then that means that a lot of sunlight, which would have reached the Earth, now is not going to.
Or is it not a factor?
Actually, it's not a factor at all.
You place your collectors in a polar orbit, and they would never Be in the shadow of the Earth.
Right.
And they would never blot off sunlight to the ground.
Or if you place them in an equatorial orbit, that's a slight inclination.
Once again, they will never cast a shadow on the Earth.
Really?
And they'll never block off the sunlight to the ground.
Huh.
So there are many schemes for placing those satellites in orbit and capturing thousands of square kilometers of sunlight and never once casting a shadow on the Earth.
That can be done very easily.
Why aren't we doing it?
Well, once again, it comes back to getting the starter hardware together.
The initial investment, the initial launches, etc.
Now that we do have a small but growing private space industry, I expect that pretty soon we're going to see people test fly hardware.
And once this happens, once we have privately built, launched, and maintained satellites with no government involvement, I think we're going to see this thing begin to turn around.
As you mentioned, a sort of energy XPRIZE would certainly be an admirable way of getting this thing started.
Perhaps a smaller scale model, but nevertheless launched and proven technology.
How about that?
That's right.
A proof of principle is all that is needed.
Now here's another thing that we can also extend this technology to include.
And that is, when we look at the travel times for spacecraft in our solar system, we typically see travel times of months or years.
Right.
And there is a simple way around that.
Now recently they were talking about using magnetic beams of particles or ions to push spacecraft around, and that's quite fine, you know, and it cuts travel times from Mars, for instance, down to a couple of months.
But there's an even better system.
Using the same methods as the solar collecting satellites to generate the power to run an engine and using, let's say, water as your reaction mass or fuel.
If you used a solar-powered engine it would be a very simple matter to create a spacecraft that runs under a continuous thrust.
Most rockets, and a lot of people don't realize this, when they're launched they burn their fuel out in a minute or two and that's it.
That's right.
And the rest of the time they are coasting.
It's a purely ballistic or thrown If, in fact, you turn around and use a powered trajectory, your travel times cut way down.
Because your speed is way up.
That's right.
However, what is it to go to Mars now?
18 months?
18 months is pretty typical, but if you had, let's say, 1g of thrust, the same amount of force you feel standing on the ground, you could do it in just about 5 days or so.
Five days?
Yes.
But isn't there a thing here where about halfway through the trip, you are accelerating like crazy, but then you've got to begin to slow down.
That's exactly correct, and it's called a midpoint turnaround.
Midpoint turnaround.
I can tell you've read your physics about it.
So in other words, you're still, even including that aspect of it, you're saying five days?
That's correct.
You accelerate to the halfway point, turn your engines off, turn your ship around the other way, and you decelerate the rest of the way there.
Holy mackerel.
And this could be accomplished with an engine, a boiler-type engine.
Well, it's a little more to it than that.
You would have a solar collector that was like a thin mylar silvered mirror.
You'd run the typical steam-powered generator, as I mentioned earlier, for the power station.
But now your electrical power would be directed through an engine.
For instance, you've seen people welding, and a tungsten arc can get very hot.
What happens if you inject water into it and convert it into live plasma?
You've got an engine exhaust.
Well, steam, right?
Well, it wouldn't even be steam.
It'd be much hotter than that.
But it would be an exhaust, and it would be power, and it would be... And the power comes from the sun and not from the fuel itself, which it could just be water.
You can also raise your temperatures even higher.
They've used microwave tubes in a cavity to get temperatures as high as 40,000 degrees Kelvin.
Which is far hotter than any rocket engine.
To give you an example, the interior temperature of the engine of the shuttle reached only about 5,500 degrees, if I'm not mistaken, about the boiling point of molten iron.
If you were to go to 40,000 degrees Kelvin, you'd have far higher impulse, or energy, coming out of your exhaust.
It would take less fuel to give you the same amount of thrust.
And once again, because it's electrically powered and it's running from sunlight, You have no limits to how long you can run it.
As long as there's sunlight, it will run.
And how many pounds would we have to get into space to begin putting such a thing together?
Actually, a demonstrator could be done for probably a couple of tons or less.
Really?
Yes.
Because remember, your collector area weighs almost nothing.
It's very, very thin material.
And when you deploy it, it opens up either like an umbrella or Well, let me ask you a question.
Suppose somebody like Bert Rutan, or somebody who was able to get to space, and we know Bert can do that now, took on launching a scaled-down version of what we're talking about right now, or they have that on paper, to endeavor to do that.
That's a lot.
And what do you think our government, how do you think they would react if that was the proposal?
Well, that would depend completely on whether they felt that this new source of transportation and energy would be a positive or negative thing for their means of operating.
Their means of operating?
You see where I'm going.
Yes, I know that it would be something that I would certainly be very happy to work on.
And I've done a lot of the pilot work here.
I've even built some solar-powered collectors that melted, for instance, brick in just seconds on sunlight.
Really?
I built a small-scale model that could refine iron from red earth using nothing but sunlight and hydrogen gas.
And the thing is small and light enough you can pick it up and carry it around.
Yes, tell me more about that.
In fact, what I will do is post a number of images on my site.
I've got some information on that and some of the experiments that I've done.
I'm going to post that on my site so everyone can have a look at that.
And it's very easy to duplicate.
Well, explain it to me again if you would please.
You're able to... Did you say melt a brick?
That's correct.
It's basically a very large lens.
That collects the sunlight and focuses it down to a very small area.
The amount of energy that ends up in that tiny area is comparable to many of the Star Wars weapons.
About six million watts per meter.
Like a giant magnifying glass?
It's like a giant magnifying glass, exactly right.
And at the focus of that glass you place the material that is your ore or raw material you want to refine your metal from.
Then you heat it until the point where it's molten and you blow hydrogen gas through it.
The hydrogen reacts with the ore and leaves molten iron behind, for instance.
Huh.
Very simple to make.
And what's interesting about it is it scales very nicely.
You could put these on the moon and you could refine lunar soil into metals and organics.
If there's any carbon present, you could get organic material made.
You can take the oxygen directly out of the minerals Because it binds with the hydrogen and produces water vapor in the process.
Is this the kind of thing you would want to patent?
I don't think you can patent it.
It's a known process, and all the bits and pieces have all been done in other places.
Perhaps if you put a machine together that did it all in one shot, that would be patentable.
I'm going to keep coming back to, then, why aren't we doing this?
That's the question.
Incredible to me with what the world is going through right now.
We should be hard at work at all of this and we're just not.
As I observed, it wasn't even really part of the great debate the candidates had.
This is true.
I think it's because it's one of the building bricks that goes into the overall system for getting humanity's industry off the planet and into space.
You know, it takes a large step to get started, but once you do, then all these small pieces get done very easily.
It's like any great initiative.
It takes a very large step to get going, a large investment, and then once you're in the air with it, it becomes very easy to make modifications or small variations and learn many things from it.
We've got to get that first step taken very soon.
We need that highway off the planet, we need that energy in orbit, and some way of replacing our diminishing resources on the ground.
Alright, it has now been Many decades since we went to the moon.
Yes, over 30 years.
We haven't been back.
We haven't even, well, I guess we've thought a little bit about going back, but we haven't, you know, made the sort of statement, we are going back to the moon, we are going to Mars.
Ah, you know, I know the president said something, but I mean, the nation is not cranked up to get this done as it once was.
Why do you think that is?
In part because nobody really sees it as a dollar to be made on it.
I mean, it's interesting and it's flashy and they see that, but they wonder what it's going to do for them.
And everybody surely was interested in getting to the moon before the Russians, for instance.
Yes.
Once that was accomplished and they didn't see that there was any particular direct benefit for themselves, I think that in part people lost interest in it because of that and because we'd done what we'd set out to do.
But now, we have another younger generation of people that have come along, and they believe this stuff, and they know what's going to happen.
This is what they're bombarded with, day and night.
Movies, games, presentations, everything they see centers around space.
I think that what we've really done is cultivate a whole generation of people, or maybe two generations by now, who know that it can work, and if we can get the message to them, they'll see it and they'll pursue it.
Well, you're certainly right about this generation being very Space-centric.
I mean, space is everything.
Video games, movies, the whole culture.
And yet, the reality of what's happening, other than this recent incredible move by Burt Rutan and company, everything else has sort of been sitting in place, or rocking in place, if you will, with respect to our effort to get space.
I don't know.
It's a mystery to me.
I'm Art Bell.
Oh oh oh oh, oh oh oh oh Oh oh oh oh, oh oh oh oh Oh oh oh oh, oh oh oh oh
All the night is my world City lights, painted girls In the day, nothing matters It's the night, time that matters
I, I live among the creatures of the night I haven't got the will to try and fight Against a new tomorrow, so I
guess I'll just leave it Tomorrow never knows, I said tonight
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 Art at 800-618-8255.
22. To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free at 800-825-5033.
From west of the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
International callers may reach Art Bell 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.
Thanks for watching.
weapons, he's pretty much done it all.
He knows of what he speaks, particularly with regard to energy.
If you have a question for him, we'll open up the phones this hour.
Stay right where you are.
Sir Charles Schultz III, my guest.
Sir Charles Schultz III, my guest.
Obviously, I'll tell you, Anne and Whitley have been very close with Ramona and myself,
and this really has thrown me off kilter a little bit.
Ann, apparently, if you heard the news, Whitley was on about 30 minutes ago, has had a stroke, a fairly serious stroke, I guess.
So, Whitley, and I are asking for your prayers for Ann.
I would certainly appreciate that.
So it's kind of thrown me off kilter a little bit.
Nevertheless, we will take questions.
Sir Charles Schultz obviously knows what he's talking about.
He's describing an energy system, for example, that could be implemented, could be built with technology we presently have, that would be an answer, at least in part, to our energy problems, which are looming awfully large these days.
Awfully large!
So, Sir Charles, welcome back.
Thank you.
I'm really stuck on why we're not proceeding.
I mean, is this something that could be done very quickly?
Many people who are sort of conspiracy-minded think that every last drop of oil that can be drawn in any sort of economical way should be drawn and profited on until we do anything perhaps like you're describing.
Well, it wouldn't make much sense to do that.
It wouldn't take very long to put this thing into play.
We have existing boosters that could easily place a small package of a ton or two in orbit so that we could test this flight hardware out.
And it wouldn't take more than a couple of years to build a pilot model and do all the testing on the ground to make sure that it was working.
So if we started at a dead start, in two years we could easily fly test hardware.
We had a dedicated team who knew what they were doing.
I guess I was implying that there are those who believe in conspiracies that think that we're not doing, there's only one good reason we're not doing it, because we want to continue to profit on the existing infrastructure as it's set up for oil right now, and not until the very last moment do they want to do this.
And that may be the case.
I would hate to think that is the case, but it makes a whole lot more sense for the people who have the money in hand to invest in the next system And be ready to make a profit off it as well.
At least I would think so.
One would think, wouldn't they?
All right, let's go and take a few questions.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
Hi.
Hi, this is Vince.
Vince, turn your radio off, please.
OK, give me two seconds.
Yes, indeed.
That's everybody.
The minute you get through, you have to turn that radio off right away.
That's two seconds plus few.
Come on, Vince.
Okay, I got two questions.
Yes, go ahead.
Could you hang that mylar material on telephone poles and wires and generate heat or electricity that way?
And could you use that magnifying glass thing to put it on a house or a car and generate a small generator, generate electricity all day while your car is in the parking lot?
Okay.
The first question about the mylar.
The mylar itself does not generate power.
It's nothing more than a passive mirror or collector.
So hanging it on a wire somewhere wouldn't do you any good.
You'd have to aim it at something that could generate power from the light that it collects.
The second part of your question.
You can place a small solar-powered generator anywhere, but understand that on the ground, the efficiency of those systems isn't very good.
Because the first time the clouds cover the sun, or the thing isn't angled properly, It's not going to generate enough power to be useful.
All right.
In magnitudes of efficiency, Sir Charles, one of these things on the ground versus one of these things in a polar orbit.
In magnitudes of difference of efficiency, how much different?
On the ground, at the very best you're going to get with the sun at noon directly overhead, you get about a thousand watts per square meter.
In space, At the same orientation, you get about 1400 watts per square meter.
Oh my God.
But the most important thing is, on the ground, it's dark half the time.
And if you factor out your average over the course of a day where there is light, you only get about one-sixth of the power that you can get from the same system in orbit.
Wow!
So it's about 6 to 1 advantage being in space.
Okay, and then how much efficiency in getting it from space to the ground, or how much loss, I guess I'd ask?
Even if you had a loss of 50%, you're still getting 700 watts of power on a continuous basis for each square meter.
Is a 50% recovery within understandable limits?
Absolutely it is, because we have quite efficient generators right now, and we have very good systems worked out for catching the microwaves and converting them back to electrical power.
There are very few steps involved, and the less steps, the more efficiency you get.
Well, we have very elaborate satellites in these kinds of orbits presently to spy on people, and they cost billions and billions and billions of dollars.
That's true.
So, one would think that people capable of that sort of technology would absolutely be capable of putting together what you're talking about?
Yes, they would.
But they're not doing it!
And that's one of the most frustrating things about the whole issue.
Yes.
First time caller on the line.
You're on the air with Sir Charles Schultz.
Hello.
Thank you.
This is George on Austin 590 KOBJ.
Hi, George.
Yeah, I had a question about Okay, so what is your question?
technologies using large progressive surfaces to harvest wind over large geographic areas
that would be pinnaculized into turbines. The statistics I've seen on those are quite
rivaled that of hydroelectric.
Okay, so what is your question?
Have you heard anything about this type of technology or anyone that is building scales
to test it?
I know that they have a number of large scale wind farms and turbines and I know they also
have a number of test pilot situations for solar in the deserts that use turbines as
generators.
The wind farms seem to do well in certain areas and not very well in others, and a lot of them economically have been on a losing basis.
If you lose the government subsidies to keep them running, they tend to go out of business rather rapidly.
As far as doing the same thing with a solar collector in a desert, that can be done on a short-term basis.
The only problem is storing the power.
It has to be used now because there really aren't very good storage methods for it.
Well, the implication of what you said, when government money is removed, they dry up and blow away.
No pun intended.
That means they're not economical.
And you know, I had heard that wind generation was probably the cheapest at somewhere down around, I can't remember, six cents, seven cents a kilowatt hour, something like that?
That may be correct and now that the oil prices have gone up it might be more economical to run wind generators.
But you know there's another source of power that we aren't tapping and it has a lot of potential and that would be wave generators that use the differences in tides and waves.
Now those sorts of systems could be put offshore and as the height of the water changes as the waves move over, it increases and decreases the pressure driving a bladder or a container underneath the surface And that runs your generators.
Huh.
And there's a huge amount of power available there.
And in areas where we have destructive waves hitting the shore, it would actually be an easy way to deflect some of that power and use it.
That's remarkable.
There's so much apparent power and capability around us, and I just marvel that we're not really exploring it.
We're just not.
These are the Rockies.
You're on the air with Sir Charles.
Hi.
How are you doing this evening?
I'm just fine, sir.
What's up?
I would really like him to give me an answer on the direction Tesla took, if he could.
I love his space program.
The direction Tesla took with the tower and your intent in the backyard.
It collects energy somehow naturally in our atmosphere.
All right.
Sure.
We'll explore that.
Why not?
Let's start with Tesla, Sir Charles.
Well, Tesla had a great amount of genius and invented, as many people don't know, our whole AC electrical system from the generators to the distribution.
He also worked in a lot of other fields as well.
One of the things that people often come up with is his broadcast power ideas.
That's right.
Now, one of the reasons that this is not very practical is because we have a lot of metal objects in our homes.
We like our computers, we like our cell phones, And when you start sending this sort of electromagnetic field through your home, things tend to intercept it.
It's not a practical system for broadcasting and receiving power because it interferes with things we do in our everyday life.
In other words, you may end up with pieces of metal in your home getting very hot or generating electrical currents where you don't want them.
Sure, sure.
So that's one of the reasons it's not in use.
Do you think that he was on to something, however?
Oh, absolutely.
The man was brilliant and he had a great body of work behind him and a number of huge ideas.
And he made a lot of great advances.
And I don't think people realize how much influence he has had on our everyday lives.
Some of the things that he designed, for instance, are a bladeless turbine.
And that has applications, special applications, in power generation or in moving fluids.
Tesla Coil is a standard for generating very high voltages and is recently being investigated as a weapon for the Defense Department.
What they do is they create a directed lightning bolt by using ultraviolet laser to create a conductive path through the air where the Tesla Coil discharges.
So there are many things that he worked on that have applications we haven't even thought of yet.
His work is still being studied today.
Alright.
But I don't think he had anything to do with death, rays, and aliens, as a lot of people imply.
Alright, here's another one for you, and I don't know whether it really means anything in the long run or not, but I've put up one of the world's largest antennas of its sort, literally in my backyard, over about five acres here.
It's on 13 towers.
It's a very, very large antenna, and it does collect Just an incredible amount of voltage, somewhere in the order of about 300 volts.
And it does that on a cloudless, windless, calm, blue sky, real nice day.
And, to answer another question that you might anticipate, it also does it When there's a power outage in my area, meaning that the lines adjacent to my antenna are not electrified or being coupled, we've tested that part of it at least.
Now, to also anticipate some of your questions, we put a scope, and there's AC and DC components both involved here.
And frankly, it's an antenna, so my interest was in taking all of this radio-killing stuff to ground and getting rid of it.
Which is what I've done, but it's still there.
I mean, I've just, you know, put in inductors to ground and resistors to ground to make damn sure that it doesn't damage my radios.
But that voltage is there, and somehow or another it involves thousands and thousands of feet of wire that are in the ground, or above ground rather, 75 feet or so, 68 and 75 feet respectively.
And this voltage is there.
From what I don't know, some sort of capacitive effect between the atmosphere and the earth, perhaps?
Who knows?
But based on what I've just told you, what do you think we might be dealing with, and might it have any real-world use?
And you know, we did talk about this on the first show that I did.
Yes.
Part of it is probably due to the space charge that is carried in the atmosphere.
There's a field That builds up in the atmosphere between the ground and the sky, and this is where lightning comes from eventually.
And so there's always some sort of a charge present, and that could be accumulating on the antenna.
And I've thought about it since, and what you mentioned about measuring the AC and DC components with an oscilloscope reminds me that it's also very possible that your antenna is acting as a tuned system and picking up extremely low frequency wavelengths.
Could be.
And so it may be operating in a resonating mode.
Now, as to what you could do with it, Try putting a small white bulb across the thing and see if it operates.
It'll probably... It does.
It just... It does more than... It actually does more than operate it.
The first few I tried, it just blew.
Right.
If you had a higher voltage bulb or a couple of dropping resistors, or let's say three bulbs in series... But I'm sure that whatever I've stumbled on, it's just sort of not an efficient way of collecting whatever is there.
I mean, this is only sort of a hint In my mind, that there is something real about this differential, and it is perhaps some kind of power that we should be looking into.
I'm looking past my little local amazement toward what it might mean.
Well, let's consider this.
Suppose that what you're drawing on is the charge difference that is normally responsible for the creation of lightning.
Okay.
And suppose you set these things up everywhere and start drawing off that charge difference.
What happens?
Well, lightning is responsible for the health and well-being of roughly 90% of the plant life on our Earth.
And the reason for that is, when lightning discharges, it creates oxides of nitrogen.
And those dissolve in rainwater and place the nitrates in the soil that plants depend on to live.
So if you begin drawing off this field, let's say you're able to use it.
And let's say you cease the activity of lightning.
What happens to all the plants that depend on those nitrates that arrive in rain from lightning discharges?
Well, let me tell you a little story that happened since the last time you and I spoke.
Okay.
One of the, since I've got 13 towers up, one of the things I'm very fearful of, of course, is lightning.
Sure.
You know, I've got a hundred foot tower and then 13 other towers that are 75 feet tall each, and so I'm naturally very fearful.
One day, We had a storm that literally, you know, sometimes you can get these thunderstorms that literally form above you in this valley above me here, in this part of the valley.
And it began literally raining lightning.
I mean, oh my God!
Flash!
Boom!
Flash!
Boom!
I could see lightning!
Get this, Sir Charles, actually striking in the center of the loop antenna, not hitting the towers, not hitting the wire, or anything.
It fried some plants in the yard.
That's how close it was.
I mean, it just scared the you-know-what out of us.
And it went on for four hours, Sir Charles, and not once did lightning ever hit any of my towers.
However, I talked to my tower guy who climbs for me.
I've got a commercial radio station I own in town.
And he said, hey Art, next time it happens, Take a pair of binoculars and look at the top of your towers.
You're going to see a bluish, purplish plasma ball forming and then you're going to get some lightning that's going to hit real close by and the blue plasma ball is going to go away.
And that's St.
Elmo's fire.
And that will happen and then go away and happen and go away and you're not going to get hit because you're in essence discharging some weird thing that I have not totally grasped Yeah, how it might work.
But would that make sense?
As a matter of fact, it does.
It does.
It used to be something that was observed on the masts of wooden ships many centuries ago.
It was called St.
Elmo's Fire.
And it happened particularly on very odd weather circumstances.
For instance, it could happen on foggy days or very dry days.
And it was just an undifferentiated glow, almost like a soft ball lightning.
that hung over the tips of masts or the tips of flagpoles and it has been observed for very long and in recent years some people have researched it as a means possibly of creating and containing hot hydrogen fusion.
Oh my goodness!
So there is a thing called the fireball fusion reactor which has been researched for a number of years.
I'm not certain where it is right now but it uses the principles that they've learned from studying such discharge effects.
I had heard there was a scientist who had managed to create and maintain a ball of plasma.
And this was some recent work being done.
Do we understand a lot about these plasma things?
Actually, it's much more complicated than people would have imagined.
Oh?
It turns out that to create a ball of plasma that's stable and self-supporting, it has to have many layers of magnetic field and electrical interaction occurring in it.
There was a fellow, I believe a Japanese man, who was using a microwave emitter to create a ball of plasma that was stable and could be contained.
Maybe that was, yeah, I think that was it, in fact.
I do remember he was doing discharge experiments and ball lightning experiments with microwaves.
And he felt that it could explain some of the odd things we observe in the weather from time to time.
So that's a very good possibility right there.
Wow, absolutely fascinating all the way around.
Well, if you ever get in the mood to, oh, I don't know, find out what's going on over here at my little antenna farm, you'd certainly be welcome.
And anybody else, I guess, who would have the appropriate test gear.
The whole thing is absolutely fascinating, and it's real.
It's just that I don't know what it means.
Sir Charles Schultz III is my guest.
if you have questions for him, that's why we're here.
I'm going to play a song for you.
you 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.
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, call Art Bell and get a free trial of the new Sprint app.
skeptic.
In fact, Dr. Michael Shermer is actually the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, so he ought to be right on up there with skeptics, right?
Skeptical about... Well, I'm sure nearly everything we talk about here.
So that's tomorrow night.
I tried to be fun.
Sir Charles Schultz and he's obviously a brilliant guy and And Sir Charles, I wonder, what do you do other than
I mean, when you're not on the radio with me, I don't see a book here credited to you, so you're not selling books.
You do have a website, which is good, but how do you earn a living the rest of the time?
Are you still working on missiles and such?
Well, actually, most of my research lately has been concentrating on Mars and, of course, is paid for by my grant.
On the other hand, I have a lot of robotics work and other research projects that I do.
And I'm also working on getting some more research grants written and some small contract jobs to do things with all the equipment I have in my shop here.
So there's no way I can help you by trying to help you sell a book?
Actually, you could.
I have thought about that.
When you have a message that's hard to get out, you write a book.
That's right.
Then people pay you for the privilege of listening to what you have to say.
That's right.
And I do believe that this is my next step.
I've started putting notes together.
And I have not yet written the book, but I have a great deal of material ready for one.
So I'm going to do that.
What would be the likely subject material?
Hmm.
It would definitely be about Mars and the findings there.
But it would also be a little broader as well.
I'd cover a lot of the other aspects of this.
Some of the things I've discovered about agencies in general that I've had to deal with.
I knew that there was going to be a different Sir Charles a couple of interviews ago.
I really did.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles Schultz.
Hi.
Yes, thank you.
I agree with this gentleman on his figures on power and outer space versus the planet, but to make use of what we've got here, why don't we use whatever power we can generate and put it on international semiconductor
or superconducting power lines are even better to get across the Atlantic
hydrogen gas transmission lines and no matter where you transmit the power you'd be
delivering it to the dawn and dusk neighboring you. Well there's one
slight problem with that and that is with a regular wire or with a superconductor because of the size of the world
there actually is a slight delay time.
So it's incredibly difficult to synchronize your power grid worldwide.
True.
So that would be one obstacle.
The other would be, you would have to actually make and install all the superconductor lines, if you were going to go with superconductors.
And there's a great advantage with them.
And one of them is, you don't have the losses associated with copper wire.
On the other hand, you have to refrigerate superconductors, typically.
What are you going to do?
You have to eat more power for refrigeration, you have to put superconductor cryogenic plants everywhere, and you end up with a lot of problems to deal with in that respect.
Sir Charles, are you pretty up on the latest superconductor research?
Quite a bit.
They've gotten some of them that can actually be chilled in the coldest parts of Antarctica and still show superconducting effect.
Well, I know there's been talk of superconducting things at room temperature someday.
Is that within the realm?
It is a possibility and it is the holy grail of superconducting right now.
Now an interesting development shows that the minerals called perovskites that exist in the mantle of the earth can show superconducting properties when they're very hot.
And compressed under thousands of atmospheres of pressure.
No kidding.
So the effect does exist in many different forms and many different materials and under a wide range of conditions.
It's just been very difficult to find something we can fabricate that will work at room temperature.
If we did develop a room temperature superconductor, how much difference would it make?
Well, you know, suddenly motors and generators and transformers would become incredibly lightweight and small.
The amount of copper we consume would change radically unless it was a copper-based superconductor, and many of them are at this time.
We would see extremely tiny motors in things.
For instance, as small as a grain of rice, or even smaller.
And the generators and alternators we use in a lot of equipment would be cut to maybe a half to a quarter of their mass.
So that would cut the energy use of the planet very quickly?
Well, yes it would.
And if you use them as power transmission lines, we lose anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of the power in transmission lines.
10 to 30 percent?
Yes.
Imagine when you see the power lines on a rainy day, all those arcings you hear and see.
Yes.
That's power from your power plant being dissipated into the atmosphere for no good reason.
Uh-huh.
If we go to superconductors, shield them and run them underground or something, we won't have those losses.
Fascinating.
International Line, you're on the air with Sir Charles Schultz.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi, where are you?
Austin, Texas.
Texas, on my International Line.
Not supposed to be, but you're here.
All right.
What's up?
I wanted to ask Sir Charles what he thinks of or if he knows about the glass tubes that have been seen on Mars.
Oh, the glass tubes.
Yes, yes, yes.
I'm sure you've seen the Hoagland photographs, haven't you?
I call them that.
Yes, I've seen a number of those.
And one of the most outstanding images of the glass tubes I looked at, it turns out the light is coming from the bottom of the image.
If you turn it upside down, you see that this particular one is a valley with a whole range of dunes running across it.
So it actually isn't a tube at all.
It's the opposite of a tube.
It's a depression?
It is a depression, and those are dunes in it.
The other two I haven't been able to resolve the same way, but because of the similarity of structures, I think they may also be the same thing.
Nevertheless, they're definitely worthy of study, because they are a very fascinating phenomenon.
Well, even you Mars Anomaly guys can't agree, huh?
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
Hi.
Hi, this is Escondido with Sir Charles.
Art, I have a theory why NASA is so allergic to life on Mars.
I worked on the Viking 75 program, and since that time, it seems that the geologists, I call them the rock hounds, have just gained complete control of the programs and budgets at NASA.
In fact, a recent guest on COASST said that even the next generation of Mars probes have no biology experiments.
Do you think it's just a matter of the geologists gobbling up all the money and taking over NASA?
It could very well be.
I have to agree with you.
They have a huge preponderance of geologists and very little in the works for biological experimentation.
Yeah, I think we've got to start demanding that the biologists be given an equal portion of that pie and that they take control of the planning for these marsh probes or else I think the public is going to lose interest.
Well, I'll tell you something very interesting that I discovered in the course of this work.
They have an oceanographer working on staff.
I am an oceanographer.
I wonder what that oceanographer has been telling them.
I would love to know.
With more biologists on staff, I think there would be far more interest and I think the public would respond to that as well.
Hey Collar, did you during your time in the program ever see anything, how can I phrase this carefully, politely?
Did you ever see anything manipulated?
No, I didn't.
I was at a low level.
It was one of my first jobs out of school.
I worked on the Viking 75 surface sampler arm.
It actually brought back the soil to the biology and GCMS, which were built by TRW.
But I was at a relatively low level.
I didn't see anything.
But since that time, you know, when they declared no life on Mars, the biologists have been shut out, even the principal investigator of the biology experiment himself.
I had a full-scale, it was an actual Viking Lander in my custody for about six months when it was in a display in a museum.
No kidding!
And I had the opportunity to see the sampling arm and all the hardware on it.
I went over the thing in great detail because I had a lot of curiosity about it.
That arm is a real piece of work.
It's basically two pieces of sheet metal.
It's a tape measure.
That's right, it's like a tape measure.
It extrudes off a roll and becomes a rigid arm.
Yes, it was built at Martin Company in Denver.
As a matter of fact, I think it was the serial number five that I had.
Wow!
Well, okay, so you think the rock guys have taken over, and the life people have been just, the biology people have been shuffled aside.
And you know those rock guys, they like to go out and tap, tap, tap, and sniff around, and all they think of are rocks, rocks, rocks.
They name them after cartoon characters.
Yeah.
It's so endearing.
And you know that antenna that you've got, Art, that's a tremendous induction area.
It's inducing current throughout its entire circumference.
It is.
It is something to behold.
It really is.
All right.
Thank you very much, caller, and take care.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Sir Charles Schultz.
Hello.
Well, hi, Art.
This is Tom in San Diego listening on 600 Kogo.
Hi, Tom.
Hi.
Sir Charles, I have a thought and then two questions related to your space power generation.
Okay.
My thought is that this microwave energy would be great to generate hydrogen to get some portable power, but I'm wondering if that microwave would disrupt radio transmission around the world.
My question was... No, that's BPL's job.
I heard that story up through the transmission lines.
My two questions are this.
One, would space junk or space dust upset the mylar?
Is there a safe place out there to put it that isn't full of junk?
And my second question is about recently the conversation... Oh, you're breaking up?
Recently there's been talk about a space ladder from Earth to space.
Would that be a practical... Elevator.
Elevator, that's what I mean.
Yes.
Practical way to get this mass up there that we need to generate this electrics.
Oh, what a wonderful question.
Very good question, yes.
You know, they're working on On it right now, actually, proposing it officially in NASA, an elevator to space.
What do you know?
Okay, I'll take the last one first.
The space elevator.
Basically, this would be made of fullerene compounds, a whisker of material made of carbon that's stronger than diamond.
And estimates that I've worked on show that a length 3,400 kilometers long could support its own weight.
Carbon nanotubes, aren't they?
Carbon nanotubes, that's the material.
And that would be a useful and economical method of getting things off the planet, just like an elevator.
So that is a potential, and it is being worked on presently.
Now, your other question.
The solar collectors made of mylar are indeed susceptible to space junk.
However, most of the junk is on the size of a paint fleck or a pinhead.
And since the area of the collectors is so great, All this material would do is punch or vaporize a tiny hole in it, and you still have, what, a pinhead out of many square meters.
But over time?
Over time, yes, you would replace those panels.
But understand, you're manufacturing them and putting them in right there.
And your material can all be recycled.
I just, you know, I've tried to shoot, and other than sunstroke and, you know, imaginings like that, I see no downside.
To this.
And nor do I. It's an amazing technology and it should be in force right now.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
Hello.
Hi there, Howard.
Hi.
Yeah, this is Roger calling from Omaha, Nebraska.
Listening to you on 1110 KFAB.
Yes, sir.
I have a question for Sir Charles.
Go right ahead.
My question is, the energy source that you claim to be able to beam back to Earth, Can it be intercepted or stolen?
Actually, no.
Your antenna to receive it is many kilometers or many miles on a side.
And if you're beaming it to the ground, you'd have to have an antenna that big in the way to stop it.
Okay.
You've seen a laser pointer before.
Imagine aiming a laser pointer at something and then having somebody miles away from you try and intercept the beam from the side.
They'd have to be in the path of the beam to intercept it.
Okay.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you very much, Caller.
Sir Charles, have you done any investigation or do you know anything about what's really going on up in Alaska with HAARP?
I have read a few things and I've heard a few things.
I couldn't really say to a great degree.
I really don't have enough information to comment on it.
Let me rephrase it then.
With what you know about the stated goals of HAARP.
Do you think that perhaps there's more to HAARP than we've been told?
Well, there easily could be.
I can imagine a lot of things you could do with equipment of that sort.
And I know a lot of people have felt that it was being used to modify the upper atmosphere or to influence radio communications or change the climate or create auroras.
I suppose all those things are possible with that sort of equipment.
Yes.
Well, with what's going on in the world right now, it would be almost hard to imagine that we're not trying to learn how to affect some of these things before they affect us in some final sad way.
Well, I know that if you're a scientist and you've got your hands on that sort of equipment and you have questions, you're going to try a few experiments.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles Schultz.
Hello.
Hello there.
You said that NASA was withholding Mars pictures and changing images.
Richard Hoagland said that NASA has been more helpful since George Bush has been president.
Peter Davenport said that the news media slants and censors UFO news and observations.
I was wondering, have you ever thought about liberals being an underground peace movement that's suppressing technological advancement?
I've considered the possibility that technical advancement was being suppressed, and indeed there are many science fiction stories that cover the same thing.
Many of Larry Niven's stories have a United Nations agency that suppresses advanced technology to keep peace all over the world.
In the real world, the same sort of thing is possible.
Although, it would be very difficult, because in many cases, researchers all over are working in parallel and don't even know it.
Many of the great inventions are arrived at simultaneously by many people.
So, suppressing new developments would be difficult.
It could be done, sure.
I don't know if there's any credible evidence that it is being done, but it is a potential possibility.
All right.
First time caller on the line, you are on the air with Sir Charles.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Hi.
Hi, this must be D.R.
Bell.
Sean, we don't allow you to put your last name on the air, so just Sean will do.
Where are you calling from, Sean?
Harwood Counseling.
Alright, get close to your phone and really make lots of noise.
What's your question?
Well, the reason why I called is because when you mentioned, when you mentioned Whitley and Anne.
Yes.
My heart went out to them.
I've been praying for them, but I can also reverse her disease.
I've got the technology.
Well, then, you're going to definitely want to get hold of them.
In the meantime, as Whitley wished, I hope somebody can perhaps help him out.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Sir Charles Schultz.
Hello.
Yes.
Hello.
Yes.
Pick your phone up, please.
Phone is up.
Okay, and turn off your radio, and then proceed.
Yes.
I was wondering why we're not using the flag-triangle-shaped crafts And trying to get into outer space.
What does he know about that?
I am a patent holder of one of the black triangle shaped graphs.
Okay, well, that's a pretty far out question.
A lot of people have been seeing black triangles that appear to defy gravity.
There have been a number of reports of that, I know.
Really a lot of them.
I'm one of the ones who's seen these graphs.
I can give you actually a very good answer for that.
Can you?
If you consider the supposed technology that flies those sorts of craft, and the sort of technology that we use, there'd be no advantage to going to that shape.
Well, advantage or no, they're real.
I saw one, Sir Charles.
And I can't argue with an observation.
I saw one so close I could have thrown a rock at the damn thing.
I mean, there was no question about it.
I know what I saw.
It's there.
So we have it, they have it, or it exists.
And so it's something or another and it's using a propulsion system that we clearly don't understand because it was doing about all 30 miles an hour.
So it wasn't flying, you know, not aerodynamic flight.
It was either defying gravity or it was demonstrating really spiffy lighter than air technology.
I don't know.
But we do have, we have made a lot of advances, a lot of them near me out in the middle of the desert.
And who knows what we really have.
Well, maybe you might have a hint.
You worked in all kinds of areas like that.
Is there a lot you know that you can't talk about, Sir Charles?
There are many things that I know that I can't talk about.
I knew it.
But, you know, you have to maintain some discretion.
What a place to leave somebody like me.
I'm truly sorry about that.
It has been a pleasure having you here.
It really has.
We're going to do it again.
Absolutely, my friend.
Take care.
Thank you.
That's Sir Charles Schultz III, and I would like to leave this program wishing Ann and Whitley Streber the best, the very best.
Ann has had a pretty serious stroke, and that's all we know at this hour.
With any luck at all, I'll have some good news for you of some sort tomorrow night.
We will have updates.
I imagine Woodley's going to be awake most of the night, as will I. From the high desert, I'm Art Bell for this night, anyway.
▲
Export Selection