Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 21, 2005 - Art Bell

02:27:12

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Sir Charles Shults III - Space Technology and Mars

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In the meantime, I'm taking a lot of time off and, you know, doing things that people who get time off do.
	At least I will be shortly, as soon as the summer heat leaves the desert.
	Now, I've got a pretty cool announcement coming up for you.
	About a kind of a secret website that I'm going to introduce you to, so I want you to get a pencil and a paper.
	Get ready to write it down.
	In the meantime, tonight's webcam photograph, I should let you know that both of the new bells, Tower Bell, our little bird, and Dusty Bell, are both doing swimmingly.
	Now, Tower is a little bird that fell out of my, you know, a bird made a cage, a couple of birds made a, not a cage, but a nest up in my tower at about 80 feet, and this little run of a bird fell down and was in shock and would have died, so we rescued it and got a cage and now the bird is growing up in a house with four cats, one of which is brand new, Dusty.
	Dusty, you see that photograph?
	That glad box there?
	We have spent, I don't know how much, on cat toys.
	But that happens to be Dusty's, by far, Dusty's favorite toy.
	Dusty is about to grow out of it.
	And you can see that picture taken, I think, day before yesterday.
	You can see Dusty has grown to the point where she can barely fit in, but she's still Wiggles into that box, and it's her favorite toy, and it cost what?
	Just about nothing.
	Absolutely nothing.
	Alright, here comes my announcement.
	Now, as many of you know, because I've talked about it over the years, I'm an amateur ham radio operator, and I thought, as a way to get people interested in amateur radio, something we very much need to do these days, we would introduce you to how it sounds!
	So, what I did was, I took a transceiver and put it at KNYE, and then I put an antenna about 100 feet up on the tower, and then I took the output of that transceiver and I streamed it on the web!
	So that you can actually listen to the frequency that I operate on during the week.
	You know, frequently late at night.
	I'm never going to change.
	I'm a night owl.
	So, anyway, I found this wonderful guy named Bob who runs a site called smeter.net.
	Now that is W-W-W dot the letter S and then meter, M-E-T-E-R dot net.
	www.s-meter.net and Bob takes the output of my stream and then streams it out to the rest of the world.
	Now there are about a hundred current slots available, or slightly more, and people can actually listen to the frequency that I operate on with a whole group, a whole spectrum of people from There's very interesting people on there, ranging from people who are physicists and ham radio operators as well, to teachers, to school bus drivers, to... you name it.
	I mean, there's just, you know, a whole spectrum.
	And then there's some bad guys, too.
	And so, it's a wild, wooly, anything-goes kind of frequency.
	Kind of like this one, the one you're listening to right now.
	Anyway, I thought I would open it up and give everybody an idea of what Ham Radio sounded like.
	Now, Bob runs this wonderful site that streams not just my receiver located here in Pahrump, Nevada, but several others as well, and it allows you to sort of listen into the world of shortwave, and we think in that way you may sort of build an interest and then eventually want to be on there yourself.
	So once again, It is www.s, the letter s, and then meter, m-e-t-e-r dot net, www.smeter.net, and I'll mention that again as the show continues, but most nights, most days, matter of fact, actually what we do is we record the period between 8 o'clock at night and 4 o'clock in the morning Pacific Time, then we play it back!
	Twice, covering the 24 hours of the day.
	And that can be heard on what's called the Pahrump Receiver.
	That one I built down at the radio station, KNYEFM, our alma mater, wonderful little radio station here in Pahrump, Nevada, 95.1, plug, plug, plug.
	So, by all means, you know, pick a time, and if it's full, just wait, you'll be able to get in later.
	There's only about 100 people going to be able to get in there at any given time.
	And I know they're going to get rushed.
	Very quickly, I do have another surprise coming up.
	In fact, let me read this to you and we'll cover the news.
	JC, how many of you know of the fellow named JC?
	I think this is real because I got an email from somebody calling themselves Edna Pringle.
	And I don't know who Edna is.
	Edna is maybe J.C.' 's biblical, you know, partner.
	I don't know.
	But I've had these before, and it reads real.
	It says, J.C.
	demands his time.
	It's been almost ten years, that's Y-E-E-R-S, since you let him talk to the audience.
	How dareth you?
	J.C.
	will grant you Get that.
	J.C.
	will grant you one hour to discuss his views on the new revelation, the war on media porn, glonal warming, and hell heating up.
	Hell and how people will be eaten by the devil.
	I wonder if he means eaten or beaten.
	Eaten by the devil, over.
	A-B-D, over.
	The Canadian Declaration of War on American Values, degenerate authors, the truth about George Norrie, evil cats, and the Antichrist will be named.
	Do you have the guts, Bell?
	Let's see, then there's one more here.
	Mr. Bell, we have sent you the phone number.
	This is a clamp safe house, whatever in the hell that is.
	J.C.
	will be down from his mountain compound to take the call.
	Do not harass this number.
	Do not give it G.I.B.
	Give it out to telemarketers, or even worse, George Norrie or Mike Siegel.
	J.C.
	want full honors as guest.
	You will play our national anthem, and darn it, stand up!
	Be warned!
	J.C.
	says that he's tried to be kind.
	Tried to be nice all these years.
	Softly tried to... Oh, please.
	Softly tried to ply you away from sin and destroying America.
	Well... Bell, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
	J.C.
	knows... J.C.
	knows we're gonna do this the hard way.
	So be ready for spiritual combat.
	The gloves come off.
	When, Bell?
	When?
	So, uh...
	Unless I lost the number, the paper with the number on it.
	I got it.
	I'll try that here in a minute.
	In the news, Sunnis warn against constitutional draft, Baghdad, Iraq, a day before the deadline for the new constitution.
	sunni arabs appealed sunday to the uh... u s and u and prevent
	she writes in kurds from pushing through a draft uh... but the parliament uh... without their consent
	warning that if they do it's only gonna worse in the crisis in iraq leaders of
	the sunni arab sheite and kurdish factions but plan final talks on
	monday uh...
	according to the officials of all three of those groups said one another optimistic at all
	so we'll see what happens there senator uh... actually
	this is pretty interesting uh...
	A Republican senator that I very, very, very much frankly have loved to have seen him become president, McCain, is warning that Iraq is starting to look awful, an awful lot like Vietnam.
	And I guess we were all wondering when somebody of substance would stand up and say that.
	Also he said that, well actually the senator took a A trip up to Alaska and came back with the impression that it's melting.
	And he says, anyone doubting the effects of human activity on global climate change?
	Ought to talk to the people of Alaska and the Yukon, said McCain yesterday.
	Fresh from a trip to Barrow, America's northernmost city, the Arizona senator said anecdotes from Alaskans and residents of the Yukon Territory confirm scientific evidence of global warming.
	We are convinced, this is a quote, that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role.
	End quote.
	That is Senator McCain.
	In a moment, if this is real, if Edna Pringle's communique to me is real, J.C.
	is just around the corner.
	It probably has been 10 years since I granted JC the the honor of, I don't know, spending an hour or so with the audience, so it appears to be real.
	Guess who, J.C.?
	It is I, J.C.
	Webster III.
	And you did not introduce me correctly, Mr. Bale.
	As usual, you are disrespecting me!
	There was nothing at all... Insultation!
	Insultation.
	There's nothing in this communique about the way you should be introduced.
	I should be introduced as the bringer of the new revelation.
	God's ten-star general in the war against media pornography!
	Okay, well let's find out exactly what this new revelation is.
	What do you mean?
	God is angry.
	That is the new revelation.
	He has been given to me to bring forth in the fight against media pornography, because you see, what has happened to our country, this God built this nation as his house, and his house has been overrun with media pornographers, degenerates.
	When our founding fathers fled those crazies in Europe, Because they wanted to get away from their decadent evil ways.
	They came here and God built a place in the wilderness for them.
	And his house has been overrun.
	And God, he tried to send his son.
	He tried to give us an easy way out.
	He tried to help us!
	Daisy, obviously you and Edna have a computer, or you could not have sent me this demand.
	We have access, and that's another thing I want to talk about.
	That's another thing I want to talk about.
	Before you get off on that, look JC, if you have a computer that means that you get all
	kinds of email with porn in it, right?
	Yes, and that's what I want to talk about is your filthy listeners have been sending
	so much filthy pornography.
	My listeners?
	Yes.
	Really?
	They have.
	I recall that we published on a website several years ago a couple of email communiques from Edna Pringle.
	You have the guts to put the New Commandments on your website.
	And yes, we are still getting pornography.
	Is Edna Pringle your biblical mate?
	No!
	She is not my mate!
	How dare you!
	Well, you didn't explain then.
	In what relationship to you is Edna Pringle?
	A servant!
	A woman in her place!
	Who knows where her place is and that is at the feet of the man who is bringing down the new revolution.
	She is at the feet of the general for God's war on pornography.
	She is my servant!
	Is Edna listening to all of this right now?
	No, I am angry at Edna.
	For?
	I'm not going to get into the details, but she seems to think that she wants to go off and find another man, and she has been questioning me!
	What in heaven's name could have brought her to a decision like that?
	She... A warm, caring person like yourself.
	I know exactly who is doing it, and it's the devil.
	It's the devil.
	And about the pornography, and I don't want people sending pornography to her anymore because you're corrupting her.
	So we have a new... If your listeners want to send You want to send filth and talk to me, they can talk to my cousin.
	And we have a new email, and it's boilingpitsofsewage at yahoo.com.
	So you send your filth to the boilingpitsofsewage at yahoo.com, and I will send a new commandment to you!
	Boilingpitsofsewage?
	Boilingpitsofsewage!
	At yahoo.com.
	Is that a real address you're putting us on?
	I am not a liar.
	Don't you call me a liar.
	Well, I asked if you were putting us on.
	You call me a liar.
	Well, I'm sorry you take it that way.
	Boiling pits of sewage.
	Boiling pits of sewage!
	Because that is where all the media pornographers are going to go.
	They're going to be tossed into the boiling pits of sewage.
	And they're going to have a body of excrement.
	And they'll be covered in red hot excrement for all eternity!
	Yes, yes.
	Look, glonal warming.
	G-L-O-N-A-L warming.
	Global warming.
	Global warming.
	Well, Edna wrote this.
	Well, that's right, because I do not encourage my followers or anybody... Or perhaps you wrote it.
	...to get into book learning.
	Book learning is evil.
	Perhaps you wrote this.
	I... I tell her what to write.
	Yeah, it has... it has the sound of... of JC to it.
	I... she... Listen, I will not touch a computer.
	Let me hear you spell global warming.
	I am not going to do what you tell me to do.
	This is not a spelling bee, Mr. Bell.
	This is spiritual combat.
	Global warming is a very important topic to me, so let's hear it.
	Let me tell you.
	Global warming, because hell, as you know, is in the center of Earth.
	And it is heating up.
	And this is what's happening, Mr. Bell, is that the dirtier the souls are getting, the more corrupt that they're getting, the more they're being pornographied by the media pornographers.
	They burn hotter.
	They burn hotter than hell.
	You see, a good person who does one bad thing and goes to hell doesn't burn as hot as a degenerate.
	It has been degeneratized by the media pornographers.
	Their souls are burning hotter and hotter in hell.
	I've got it.
	Degenerate souls, burning hotter, causing global warming.
	Global warming!
	Well then spell it right!
	Less book running, more book burning!
	More book burning.
	More book burning!
	You wouldn't book... would you burn books?
	I burn... I burn... we just had a book burning!
	We just had to burn the newest Harry Potter book because it's attacking and killing Christians!
	You burned a Harry Potter book?
	I didn't just burn him, Mr. Bell.
	I took holy sticks of dynamite and blew him up!
	And it's a compound.
	Uh, well that means you had to buy him first, didn't you?
	Mr. Bale, we confiscate them!
	And it's better that we buy them so that we keep them out of the hands of children who are going to be turned to the devil by Harry Potter!
	So you believe then that the particularly evil souls are burning at an ever hotter rate causing some of the heat to irradiate around the world into the atmosphere and that's why it's getting warmer?
	The heat, the throbbing heat of hell is radiating out and people can feel it!
	And that's why volcanoes are going off, and that's why the hot spots you're talking about are going off, and tsunamis, and earthquakes, and plagues, and floods, and fires.
	It's because those evil, corrupted souls that the devil wants so badly, the filthier the sinner, the hotter the burn.
	Why, JC, do you think that I am personally involved with the devil?
	I've always wondered about that.
	Mr. Bell, you are simply the most dangerous man in America.
	And in what way?
	You have created an intellectual terror of battle with your radio program.
	I want you to take a listen to me.
	Do you know a man named Stuart McBurney?
	No.
	Does that name ring a bell to you?
	It does not.
	Of course it wouldn't, because he was the voice of American Americanism.
	For years he held the line against the Soviet Union.
	He was the greatest You're not the greatest radio man ever, and you are on sacred ground, which is talk radio.
	This is the realm of the conservatives.
	We have been using talk radio to take back America from the hippie degenerate no-goods that have corrupted and degenerated our society over time.
	Then you actually consider yourself to be a right-wing talk show host.
	I should have my own show, and I will have my own show, and that is in the works, Mr. Bale.
	I can well imagine it might be.
	Do you really think you could keep up this phony baloney act for that long?
	Excuse me?
	You dare accuse me?
	You are the one with baloney, Mr. Bale.
	Do you really think you could keep up this act like that?
	This is not an act, Mr. Bale.
	This is the anointing brought forth unto me from God.
	You really feel all of this comes to you directly from God and not the devil?
	There you go!
	Revealing your true self!
	I am not being influenced by the devil, Mr. Bale!
	You are the one!
	You are the one creating the intellectual tower of Babel!
	Your voice, J.C., has a certain tone to it that we all wonder about.
	I want everyone out there in the audience right now to listen to this.
	This is the true voice of the man that you have been listening to for these years.
	He is the one trying to drag your soul down to Satan.
	So that you will be thrown into the boiling pits of sewage, skinned alive, dipped in salt, and eaten and devoured over and over again.
	Dipped in salt?
	Dipped in salt, Mr. Bell.
	What does salt have to do with it?
	Because it burns!
	Oh, I see.
	That's after you get scratches in the pit of sewage.
	After the devil sticks you with his pitchfork over and over and over again.
	And, well, you say here people are going to be eaten by... Did you mean eaten or beaten by the devil?
	Eaten and beaten both.
	The devil is going to eat your body up, and he's going to take it and eat it up, and then you're going to be excreted out!
	Give me that sound again, please.
	What sound?
	That eating sound.
	No, I don't have to do what you say!
	Come on.
	Mr. Bell, you're trying to get me off my message.
	That's not hard, JC.
	And my message, I am trying to save America from the utter destruction of the satanic Soviet Union!
	The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, buddy.
	Yes, it does.
	That's a lie that you and your friends in the media love to perpetrate.
	The Soviet Union crumbled, Jay, so you know that.
	I know you know it.
	That's a lie, Mr. Bell.
	It is a deception from the devil!
	The devil's deception.
	Everything bad is from the devil, isn't it, JC?
	Everything is from the devil.
	You know what I think?
	I think you're consumed by the devil.
	I am not consumed by the devil, and I am insulted that you would even insinuate such things.
	You disrespect me continually.
	You know, a lot of people are curious, JC.
	What part of the country are you from?
	Where do you originate from?
	I am not going to disclose my secret location.
	God will reveal to those who are faithful to come calling to our new ground.
	Well, how can all these people come if they don't know where you are?
	God's going to tell them.
	He's going to speak to the hearts of the faithful.
	we are going to be relocating anyway to a new compound in idaho
	cute little furry cats They're beautiful.
	Cats are demonic creatures, Mr. Bill.
	Say what?
	They are lycanthropes.
	Demons in disguise.
	They are not.
	Yes, they are.
	They are the sweetest little furballs you'll ever want to meet.
	They're evil.
	No, if you think cats are evil, JC, then let me tell you, brother.
	Cats are evil because they steal souls and they are the familiars of Satanists.
	Now let me tell you, you never, you're still disrespecting me.
	You're not allowing me to make my points about media pornography.
	Well one of your points was evil cats.
	Cats, yes.
	Devil cats.
	Demons.
	They hide themselves in the appearance of what they look, they try to look like You know what, I think you're overly sensitive on this whole pornography issue now.
	they're evil, you look at their eyes and they look at you and they just want to devour you
	and they want to steal your soul.
	I've got one cat right now on my compound that I've been chasing for the better part
	of a year.
	You know what, I think you're overly sensitive on this whole pornography issue now.
	Maybe, maybe it would be true, JC, that you, in your idle time, look at what?
	In my idle time, I review all manner of- I knew it!
	I knew it!
	I knew it!
	You are trying to insinuate that I would enjoy Media pornography.
	If I have to review a Larry Flynn magazine, I do not enjoy it one bit.
	I have to know the enemy, and I'm going to tell you there's more to media pornography than dirty pictures of naked people.
	I'm going to make a point here right now because you need to hear this.
	And every moment that you see it wounds your soul, JC, right?
	It can't harm me because I'm praying against it.
	God has charged me with this work.
	God has charged and given me the energy, the power, the power of God.
	So it's like you're praying against it, but you're looking at it going, oh yeah.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	Your program, your ideas in your program makes me sick to insinuate that I would sit there and enjoy it.
	Makes me sick.
	...draws millions of men out of church, and that's football, and I'm going to tell you exactly how evil football is.
	What is wrong with football?
	Football is a homosexual ritual!
	Oh, for God's sake.
	Let me tell you why.
	Because anytime you've got a man who's putting his hands on the backside of another man like that, and what that is, is a simulation of the homosexual consummation, and ta-da!
	Please!
	football represents the birth, it's a mockery of birth, it represents the homosexual self,
	which is then given to the quarterback, who is usually the best looking one on the team,
	and he takes that, he takes that homosexual self and he looks out among the field of other
	men who will receive and take his homosexuality and he sends it to him, and with the intention
	of taking it into sacred ground, the sacred space of America and the family and values.
	Now, America has taken a more tolerant attitude toward homosexuality, certainly in the last few decades.
	Unfortunately!
	We have queer guys trying to turn straight guys queer.
	And you don't join in on that, I take it?
	I. HATE.
	HOMOSEXUALS!
	IS THAT CLEAR?
	Alright, yeah, that's clear.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with JC.
	Hello, is this me?
	Yeah, only you know that for sure, but it really sounds like you, yes.
	Good deal.
	I appreciate you taking my call, Art.
	Yeah, where are you?
	Uh, this is Adam from Decatur, Illinois.
	And why in God's name are you calling, JC?
	Uh, well, I wanted to tell him I really appreciate him coming on the air, and I enjoy a good laugh every once in a while, and I was wanting to ask him... A good laugh?
	What are you... Are you laughing at the new revelation?
	You laugh at God?
	Listen to me, you degenerate!
	You have no right to laugh at God!
	I was laughing at the whole thing, and I wanted to know if you came on the air for an interview or a comedy.
	Yeah, has it occurred to you, JC, that some people just think this is funny?
	They think you're a total put-on.
	Maybe you are.
	No.
	No!
	Because they don't want to believe in the truth and the light and the love of the Lord.
	I'm bringing love.
	I'm bringing salvation.
	Then why do you scream?
	Then why scream?
	Why scream?
	Because you have to scream in order to get people to listen.
	Sometimes you got to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
	And that's another thing I want to talk about is the food porn.
	Food porn?
	Yes, exactly.
	I've touched on that before.
	Food porn?
	Yes.
	What's food porn?
	Food porn!
	The cooking shows!
	Where they make food look so delicious and make you want to eat!
	Let me!
	Isn't this a basic human need?
	People need to eat, but they don't need to be fatsos.
	Am I still on the air?
	Yeah, you're on the air.
	Well, why don't you get him off the air?
	Well, I'm going to get off the air and I appreciate it.
	Alright, have a good morning caller.
	Thank you.
	Make a point.
	Any point.
	The satanic Soviet Empire has this elaborate plan, and what they are trying to do is pornography and indulgence.
	It's more than just dirty, naked pictures of people doing dirty, naked things.
	It is.
	It is?
	It is also food, because listen, people like they say, I was born gay, that's what they say.
	I'm gay, I'm born gay, and that's the way I am, so I have to be that way.
	You don't believe that?
	No, I don't.
	I'll tell you, the only person that was born gay was me.
	I guess this means you're not in favor of gay marriage.
	Absolutely not in favor of gay marriage.
	That is why Canada has declared war on the United States with the recently, they're allowing gays to get married in Canada, and that's the subversive, that's the evil subversiveness of the Canadians, which is because they can look like you and me.
	And that constitutes war?
	A declaration of war on America and America's family values because they know that the majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, they do not support homosexuality, they don't want them in their communities, they don't want them in their churches, they don't want them in their schools, They don't want them in the nation!
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with J.C.
	Hey J.C., I'm sorry, I'm from L.A.
	Address me as J.C.
	Webster III, God's General.
	Hey J.C., I know you're for book burning, but does this include burning the Bible?
	No!
	You can't spell global warming.
	Why would I burn the Bible?
	You're doing a very good job.
	You're an idiot!
	Shut up!
	Oh, you shut up, you idiot!
	Just shut your mouth!
	You're saying I would burn the Bible!
	You're right, he couldn't spell global warming.
	Less book burning, more book burning!
	I burn books my life!
	I know where J.C.
	Caldwell is.
	Hold on, J.C., you know where J.C.' 's what?
	I know where his hometown is.
	His what?
	Well, then you just come on, buddy!
	Come on down to the compound!
	Come on down!
	Go on down and see J.C.
	Come on down!
	You see how J.C.
	would like, how people would like to meet you, J.C.?
	Come on down!
	They want to be in your presence.
	You come on down to the compound!
	If God reveals the location to you, you bring it!
	Okay, here's to the Rockies!
	You're on the air with J.C.
	Yeah, that would be me!
	That's you!
	Okay!
	I hope this is a joke, because I'll tell you, if this guy's on the level, he's scary, okay?
	You scare more people than Ed Dames.
	Hold on, Jaycee, Jaycee, let her speak.
	James.
	Instead of burning them, you know, he needs to learn vocabulary.
	Hold on, JC, JC, let her speak.
	The guy is just outrageously nuts, and in a world where we have all kinds of stuff that
	All that energy being stupid?
	Come on!
	Don't you call me stupid, woman!
	I'll tell you what stupid is you!
	I'm speaking to you, trying to have the right to speak to me!
	Hold it!
	Let J.C.
	respond!
	Okay.
	No hussy!
	Now, don't call names!
	I call them as I see them.
	You call them as you see them.
	Well, is that it?
	Is that as good as it's going to get?
	I know you have certain feelings about where women ought to be.
	Okay.
	Let her speak.
	Go right ahead, young lady.
	You need to get back in your time machine.
	Go back to the dark ages where you belong, sir.
	No, we need to bring America back.
	You are.
	We need to bring America back.
	You know what?
	Unfortunately, there are some people out here that are going to take you seriously.
	We need to bring America back.
	Good!
	Because we need to bring America back.
	America was stolen from the Indians to begin with, sir.
	Who are slaughtering hostages to steal this country?
	Alright, let him respond.
	America was originally stolen from the Indians, is what she said.
	Well, that's a bold-faced lie, because it was stolen from God by the devil's people.
	The red man.
	Who's red?
	The devil.
	I've had enough.
	Okay, all right.
	Thank you very much.
	Have a good morning.
	Goodbye.
	West of the Rockies, your turn with JC.
	JC.
	JC.
	Hello.
	Yes, I'm here.
	Yes, Art.
	This is Jason calling from Canada.
	Yes, Jason.
	I would really like to know what JC's problem is with Art.
	Well, he's had a problem with me for years and years.
	He's the devil's mouthpiece.
	I don't think he is.
	That's what he calls me.
	He is the devil's mouthpiece.
	I don't think so.
	JC, I think you need to get your head checked out.
	Mr. Art Bell is a very wonderful man.
	I love cats.
	Yeah, I bet you do.
	Pardon me?
	I bet you do.
	I do.
	They're wonderful, wonderful creatures.
	You degenerate Canadian.
	I don't like degenerate Canadians.
	Anyway, I just wanted to call in and say that JC there, you know God doesn't come to those who are uninvited.
	If you seek him, he will come to you.
	You hear that, JC?
	I don't need a degenerate, filthy, European, decadent Canadian to tell me how God's gonna sing people out!
	Alright, well you're not going anywhere further with that caller, thank you very much.
	Why would you call me?
	Why, Jay-Z, would you call me the devil's mouthpiece?
	You are the devil's mouthpiece, big fella!
	No.
	Listen to him, he's revealing his true voice.
	You've heard this sound many times, haven't you?
	Late at night, in your bed, Jay-Z, you've heard this sound.
	You've heard this sound before, J.C., in your bed late at night.
	No, when you're in my bushes.
	That's why you need more time off, so you can spend more Sundays out in the bushes.
	I don't have time to spend every other Sunday chasing you around.
	Yeah.
	International Line, you're on the air with J.C.
	Good evening, Art.
	Good evening.
	Long-time listener, and boy, I hate to admit it, but even with J.C.
	here, I'm glad I called.
	Okay, J.C., I got a question for you here.
	You ready?
	I was born ready.
	Okay.
	So you think cats are demonic?
	I know they're demonic, don't tell me that.
	Okay, and I respect your judgment, and I'd like to know, I've got a little poodle.
	An apricot poodle.
	And, you know, I've seen her doing things that are a little off-kilter, and I'm wondering if you know about poodles.
	Let me ask you about your poodle, because you sound a little funny.
	Are you going to marry your poodle, since homosexuals can marry each other?
	Would you be interested in marrying your poodle?
	Because you sound like that kind of guy.
	I'm... A degenerate!
	A degenerate?
	I know, I want to know.
	Do you feel our poodles demonic?
	Yeah, he just simply wants to know if poodles are demonic like cats, Daisy.
	Poodles?
	Yes, they are, because they're French.
	Okay.
	Thanks, JC.
	You have a good night.
	Another thing, Mr. Bell, about Norrie.
	You haven't let me breach the topic of Norrie.
	Oh, that's right.
	You were going to say something about George Norrie.
	I was going to give you the truth.
	I told you just a couple years ago how he was stealing money from you.
	How he, how he what?
	He stole money from you!
	Jay, George Norie did?
	He stole money, $20 from your wallet.
	You wonder what happened to it.
	I revealed it.
	God's revelation to me, and I'll tell you what, you don't tell them about George Norris' criminal past in the underworld.
	Yeah, well that's pretty good, because George Norris has never been anywhere near my wallet.
	He's never actually been in this state.
	I know you're all at the compound there together.
	Really?
	All at the compound together?
	Yes, don't cry.
	You really do have a twisted little mind, you know, and I think it comes from looking at too much of that which you decry.
	I will not even let you insultate me that way.
	Insultate me?
	Where do you get these words?
	You wrote this, not Edna.
	East of the Rockies, you're on there with JC.
	Good evening, gentlemen.
	Good evening.
	Uh, J.C., you're doing God's own work!
	She has got demonic laughter.
	Yeah, and that laughter is not laughing with you, J.C.
	She's laughing at you.
	It's the laughter of Satan.
	There's a big difference.
	Well, you know what?
	Thank you so much because you know what you're doing.
	I'm going to be so glad because I'm going to tell you I told you so.
	I'm waiting for Judgement Day so I can tell you I told you so.
	Did you hear that?
	See, you didn't even hear that, JC.
	Quit talking and listen every now and then.
	She said, it's not the devil that's the problem or God, it's you, JC.
	You are such a little man.
	Grow up.
	You know what?
	Grow up.
	Get back in your kitchen and get off the phone.
	Get off my back, little man.
	Little man?
	Who are you calling a little man?
	You!
	You're lucky I'm even calling you a little man.
	Hello, JC.
	How are you?
	You're honored, I know.
	It's an honor for you.
	Hello, well, you know what?
	Do you believe in Jesus?
	That is the stupidest question I have ever, ever heard.
	Why is that?
	Of course I believe in Jesus!
	Well, why are you... He wouldn't yell like you, though, see?
	Well, that was Jesus.
	He was the new revelation, and I'm doing work because you are the new Jesus.
	Hold on, Caller.
	He makes a good point.
	Jesus would be gentle and soft-spoken.
	Not when he comes back!
	Not when he comes back, he's going to be riding with the point of the sword of Jesus for the justice of Jesus.
	You know what?
	I think that, you know, in the revelation it talks about that in the last day there'll be doctrines of devils, and you're one of them, and you know what?
	You're so full of crap, and you should not be yelling about... You have a foul mouth!
	Oh, you know what?
	Foul mouth, flea-bitten mongrel, to tell me that!
	How dare you!
	When you go to hell, when you go to hell, Satan's gonna pull your tongue out, over and over and over and over and over again with a hammer!
	You really think he'll treat people that way?
	Satan?
	Yeah.
	I mean, this eating of them and then beating of them and eating of them.
	That's just the beginning of hell, Mr. Bell.
	He's gonna poke him with his pitchfork over and over again.
	Doesn't it bother you, J.C., that I bring on the average person here, and you're getting the same thing again and again?
	I mean, there is this thing... Because you won't open the I Agree With J.C.
	line, and you're keeping the people who agree with me off the air.
	Well, okay, let's open the I Agree With J.C.
	line at 775-727-1222.
	Now, I bet it doesn't even ring.
	I bet it rings off the hook, Mr. Bell.
	You may even have a thousand listeners.
	First-time caller line, you're on with J.C., hello.
	Hi, this is Nate from Massachusetts.
	Yes, Nate.
	Hi, I was wondering, I had a question for J.C.
	I know he's a ten-star general.
	Correct.
	That's correct.
	And what does it take to join the Army, was my question.
	To join God's Army?
	You mean J.C.' 's Army?
	J.C.' 's Army.
	Here's somebody asking about joining with you.
	Joining with me?
	Yes.
	Open your heart and pray to God, and if you're worthy, if you're sincere, God will reveal it to you on how to become a part of God's army.
	There you have it, Colin.
	Fight against the media pornographers and the satanic Soviet Union, which it still exists!
	Don't let them tell you otherwise!
	Who's the Antichrist?
	I have not come to the point where I'm going to reveal that yet, because I have not been allowed to make my point!
	Yes, you've made your point repeatedly about internet porn and boiling pits of sewage and all the rest of the usual stuff you say.
	Now listen, Mr. Bell, I have not been allowed to make my point.
	Make your damn point!
	My point is that we need to save this nation from degenerates!
	You like the people that have been calling you?
	Your listeners!
	My listeners.
	So they're all degenerates?
	They're all degenerates.
	Every single one of them.
	Dopers.
	And I was very proud of Mr. Punnett last night telling the alcoholics not to call your show anymore because most of your listeners are drunkards.
	Did he really say that?
	Yes, he did, and I'm proud of him.
	He might have hope yet, but you're brainwashing him.
	You know, it sounds like you might be under the influence of something yourself, JC.
	You dare accuse me of being under substances?
	I don't have to take this kind of abuse!
	Well, that was JC hanging up.
	What a coward.
	What a total coward.
	That's all I can say.
	Well, there was JC.
	Actually, you know what?
	That's no way for him to end a conversation.
	And to end this hour.
	I've got his number.
	Now let's call him back.
	Let's see...
	Bye.
	I think this is right.
	Yeah, this is right.
	Here we go.
	He can't hang up on me like that.
	Ah, see, now he left it off the hook.
	All right, well, there you have it.
	That's as much as he was willing to take.
	And who among you listening out there right now cannot imagine that JC was indeed under the influence of something or another?
	He sounded rather hyper to me.
	How about you?
	He's always sounded hyper to me, and I think that probably he had at least, I don't know, ten cups of coffee.
	Wouldn't you say?
	Something like that?
	who worked at Martin Marietta Aerospace Division for about 10 years on weapons systems and computer-based automated test equipment.
	He wrote, get this, he wrote the nuclear EMP test software for the Pershing 2 missile system, worked on the Patriot, the Copperhead tank killer, and advanced attack helicopter systems.
	Charles 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.
	He has written many technical publications and magazine articles on space, astronomy, the atmosphere, and space resource development.
	In addition, Charles has also appeared on several television and radio programs over the years.
	He's a very, very bright guy and he's made some discoveries about Mars.
	In a moment, Sir Charles.
	Sir Charles, welcome back to the program.
	Well, thank you.
	A pleasure and a privilege as usual, Art.
	Great to have you back on.
	You're an intelligent guy, and before we dive into the material on Mars, I want to ask a couple of questions about fields you've worked in.
	America's starving for energy.
	The pump prices are now, you know, like the top news story everywhere.
	It's a big deal.
	You worked on nuclear fusion.
	Nuclear fusion is one possible answer to some of our problems.
	So how far have we come with nuclear fusion, and is it in fact a possible answer to our looming crisis?
	It is a possible answer, and there are a number of ways it's going right now.
	The research in high-temperature fusion, which is almost always done with magnetic fields to hold the plasma in place, has made some advances.
	Russia appears to be pursuing something called Helium-3 fusion, which has the advantage of being very clean.
	It doesn't emit a lot of neutron radiation, as opposed to typical hydrogen fusion.
	Are they able to contain it?
	Well, from what I understand, they're making some advances, but I think that's not quite as important as what it implies.
	You see, the biggest supply of helium-3 is on the moon.
	That would mean that they would have to go to the moon to get their fuel.
	Does anybody have any idea why there is so much Helium-3 on the Moon as opposed to Earth?
	I mean, supposedly, the Moon was once part of Earth, many people contend, so why would it have a large amount of Helium-3?
	It's because cosmic radiation and particles from the Sun and other stars land on the lunar surface and stick to the rocks and soil there.
	So its origin is not with the Moon, but what the Moon has collected?
	That's correct.
	Okay, learn something every day.
	Why is helium-3 that much better?
	Because when you fuse hydrogen, whatever form of hydrogen you have, typically there's a lot of energy, but also neutron radiation released.
	Helium-3 fuses cleanly.
	It doesn't give off a great deal of neutron radiation.
	In fact, it's referred to as aneutronic because it has such a low radiation level.
	So it wouldn't make the reactor containment vessels become radioactive over time.
	As typical hydrogen fusion vessels would.
	So it has a number of advantages.
	Do we have deposits of Helium-3 on Earth, or are they just very rare, or what?
	Well, it's extremely rare on Earth, because our only source of Helium on Earth tends to be from gas mines.
	We get it from underground.
	Right.
	And so that Helium has to be sorted out by its isotopes.
	Certain Helium has more or less neutrons on average, and the Helium that we normally deal with It has an atomic mass of four.
	It has two neutrons and two protons in it.
	So helium-3 is a little odd because it's missing a neutron.
	And we have to literally sort out the individual atoms of helium-3 from the bulk of helium-4 that we collect from mines underground.
	I remember a lot of stories indicating that fusion had only been achieved for a very tiny instant.
	Is that still the case?
	Actually, you know, the instance in which they have the fusion occurring are still pretty brief, but what they're doing to overcome that is they're going to be firing it very rapidly.
	So you will have it being done repetitively, and overall you'll get a large amount of energy on average.
	Alright, well one big problem, of course, with nuclear reactors now is that it ends up with the kind of stuff that's about to be stored in my backyard.
	Right.
	Yes, that would be a problem.
	If you're using reactors that are fueled with deuterium or tritium or normal hydrogen, then that would be a problem.
	Over time, the reactor vessels do become radioactive and they would have to be decommissioned and stored as waste.
	Well, you actually had, I guess, money, a grant, given to you to work on nuclear fusion.
	At the point that you finished your work, what had you concluded about its viability?
	We discovered that there was a definite effect, and that fusion did appear to be occurring in the cells.
	We were getting a lot more energy out than we were putting in.
	However, that has now changed gears, and you know, we talked momentarily about solar luminescence, where they use ultrasound to create fusion through cavitation.
	That was studied, but it didn't really seem to go very far.
	Recently, a new advance in cold fusion is, they're using something called a crystal, a thermoelectric crystal, And it creates extremely intense voltage fields that can confine the protons and make them fuse.
	Really?
	So that looks like it's going to be a very viable method of doing it, and so far, the signature that they were looking for, the production of neutron radiation, is present, which proves the process isn't working.
	Well, Sir Charles, we're approaching, I think, an absolute economic meltdown or some sort of crisis as a result of energy.
	I mean, everybody can see it around them now.
	It's no longer any sort of secret.
	So something like this, or something else, is going to have to come along to save our butts.
	I mean, it really is.
	Or we're just in big trouble.
	Well, yes.
	You know, it's interesting because one of the things we've often discussed is orbital solar power.
	And it turns out that Mitsubishi Corporation is promoting a scheme to place a microwave satellite in orbit, powered by sunlight, to beam the microwaves down into city areas and to use the beam to power cell phones and laptops and PDAs.
	Really?
	Oh, really?
	What an intriguing idea!
	So, in other words, the energy could be spread out on Earth instead of tightly beamed to power devices, handheld devices, that sort of thing?
	That's right.
	What about the environmental impact of doing such a thing?
	Well, of course, they've looked at the same problems that we've investigated, such as how it will interact with the atmosphere and other things on the ground, and they've concluded that they can easily get it to pass through the atmosphere and have almost no effect on the environment, and that only a tuned receiver will pick up any significant amount of the power.
	And effects on the biological organisms walking around us?
	Well, you know, the energy levels are so minute, it appears it's not going to have any effect.
	And you know, that brings up another point.
	I remember that just after the last show I did, you had a call from the author of Sunstroke, David Kagan.
	That's right.
	Yes, and he said that he was elated that somebody was actually pursuing the idea.
	Absolutely correct, yes.
	David Kagan, he's kind of a friend of mine, and he wrote Sunstroke, and you know the premise of that book, right?
	That a satellite is put up to beam down energy, and that, of course, obviously, science fiction, something goes wrong, the satellite begins to wander in orbit and turn people into french fries as it goes.
	Yes, well, what I wanted to point out And I think he wasn't truly aware of the amount of energy involved.
	If you have a piece of, let's say, a steak in the microwave, or a piece of meat in the microwave, it would be barbaric to do a steak, but let's say some piece of meat, you generally get an energy level of about 5 watts per square centimeter cooking the meat.
	There is a thin piece of perforated metal stuck in the glass window of your microwave.
	And that little piece of perforated metal blocks the signal, and you don't get cooked.
	Right.
	It takes very little to block that signal.
	Of course, you always see the signs that say, you know, users of pacemakers stay away from the microwave.
	But personally, I've never seen anybody have any difficulty.
	I've never certainly seen anybody drop dead from having a pacemaker around the microwave.
	I stand in front of it all the time, waiting for my coffee.
	So... Well, there you go.
	And so, that bit of metal is enough to shield you from any effects, and that's a very energetic beam.
	By comparison, Sunlight would be about 96 milliwatts, or thousandths of a watt per square centimeter.
	Far less dense, about 50 times less dense than what you're getting from microwaving a piece of meat in the microwave oven.
	And the microwave power beam from the power satellite would be about 23 milliwatts, one-fourth of that level.
	So they're seriously considering launching such a satellite.
	That would mean, folks, that your cell phones, your PDAs, and other small devices would be powered from space.
	In other words, no more batteries, no more batteries going dead on you in the middle of a phone call, that kind of thing, because you have no battery.
	That's correct.
	That's exactly right.
	That's incredible.
	That's just the tip of the iceberg, you know?
	Well, yes, and of course the next question is about a Kagan kind of scenario.
	Is it reasonable, is it economically feasible to put a spacecraft in orbit to collect sunlight and then microwave it back to Earth?
	The safety part of it we'll put off for a moment.
	Is it technically and economically feasible?
	Absolutely, yes it is.
	In fact, I had talked to you about Gene Myers and his efforts to put a system up, his launch system, and how we were cooperating about orbital power stations.
	Yes.
	And he was speaking in terms of $10 billion for the project over seven years, but that includes the development of the entire launch system.
	If you were simply putting up a demonstrator power satellite, you could probably do it for as low as $3 billion if you weren't using reusable hardware.
	So we're talking about something that's actually quite Quite doable.
	When you consider what it costs to build power plants or gasoline cat-cracking plants to produce fuel, then you're not far off.
	In fact, I live in Orlando and Universal is down here, the theme park, and they spent over $3 billion on their expansion just a few years ago.
	That's a theme park.
	Right.
	So, if you're looking at $3 billion and you look at a theme park or an orbital power system, You know, the choice is clear if you're trying to make money on energy.
	Give me a few figures.
	I would be very interested to know, for example, how much power an orbital station could collect, and then I'd be also very interested in how much it could actually deliver.
	In other words, the efficiency of the transfer.
	Okay.
	If you had a station, and typically they quote one the size of Manhattan Island, It would collect roughly enough to be equivalent to about 120 large power plants.
	And by the time you converted it to electrical power and beamed it to the ground full of microwaves, you could collect between 30 and 60 billion watts, depending on your efficiency.
	So you could replace between 30 and 60 power plants at the bottom line.
	My God.
	And you think this could be done for how much money?
	I believe the first setup could be done in orbit and flying for roughly $3 billion.
	$3 billion?
	That would be a demonstrator craft.
	That's correct, but understand that once it's up there, it provides the economic impetus to complete the system, to build more of them.
	And once you've got money coming in, people are going to sign on.
	Anybody who sees an opportunity like this will invest in it.
	Oh, well, perhaps.
	We could replace 85% of our fuel consumption If we went to orbital solar power.
	Do we have collectors that are efficient enough now and would withstand the environment of space for a long period of time?
	Well, it depends on the design.
	There are two competing designs right now.
	Solar cells, or photovoltaics, that convert sunlight directly into electricity, actually are a little delicate and a little expensive to make, and they have a limited lifespan.
	They have about a 20% conversion efficiency.
	So, in my mind, solar cells really wouldn't be your best bet.
	If you went to a mechanical system where you actually had steam boilers, collected the sunlight with reflectors and lenses.
	And actually made steam in space, in boilers.
	And run it through a turbine, that's correct.
	And you can get about 89% conversion efficiency there.
	So wait a minute, you're saying the turbine would be in space?
	That's correct.
	That's a lot of weight, buddy.
	Well, actually, no.
	There are a number of compact turbines in development right now, and you'd be amazed at some of the efficiencies you can get out of them.
	And they can be made out of very lightweight materials.
	Really?
	Not only that.
	Really?
	Not only that, your generators can use some of the new generations of super magnets, which are extremely lightweight, and get very good efficiencies out of them.
	So a lot of your mass of copper and iron can be removed by using very intense magnetic fields generated by the new rare earth magnets.
	And if you wanted to, you could even go to superconductors, which could outperform them even further.
	So when you come down to it, I did a mass calculation, and typically for the mass of material that you'd have to orbit for solar cells, you could get about four times the power for the equivalent mass in generators and turbines.
	You mentioned superconductivity.
	That would perhaps seem practical in the temperatures in space.
	Yes, and that's an absolutely perfect point.
	You don't have to cool superconductors once they're down to their operating temperatures if you keep them in the shade.
	It would take little or no refrigeration for the superconductors to run as long as you didn't hit them with direct sunlight and warm them up.
	Okay, so that would mean some sort of shield, even there, I guess, huh?
	That's correct.
	Well, basically what you would do is you'd put, like, the same sort of cryogenic insulation you use on Earth.
	You'd have a silver reflector on the front that was opaque to the sunlight, and you'd have a reflector on the back that would keep any Earth shine from hitting the thing as well.
	And once the things had been chilled down, by letting them be exposed to blackness of space, which is basically about three degrees Kelvin, extremely cold, then they would reach their operating point and remain there.
	Boy, that's fascinating.
	And where do you think such a beam would come back to Earth if you were in charge of such a project and you had to designate a place where you'd bring it back?
	Now, remember, you've got to keep it fairly near an entrance point for the grid, right?
	That's true.
	You know, I would actually recommend that it be done in some of the outlying areas around cities where people place things such as landfills.
	Think about your landfill.
	Having the receiving antenna spread out for square miles around, and nobody wants to live near the landfill anyway.
	What an ideal environment.
	I suppose.
	And other possibilities would be... Wouldn't it turn the landfill into J.C.' 's steaming pit of sewage?
	Actually heating it up or something?
	That's a funny thought, but actually it wouldn't.
	Remember, the receiving antenna for this thing would operate in the same way that the shield in the door of your microwave oven does.
	The signal can't get through it.
	It's absorbed.
	So, it would not affect... That's correct.
	It wouldn't affect the ground or anything under it.
	You're really sure of that?
	Absolutely.
	I mean, that is the big worry, of course, that... That's true.
	See, you've got two things working on your side.
	The power density is only a quarter of sunlight, And remember, for the microwave oven, you've got about 5 watts per square centimeter.
	For this beam, you've got about .023.
	Boy, that's low.
	Per square centimeter.
	Yeah.
	And that same sort of metal shield in the door of your microwave blocks out that 5 watt per square centimeter density.
	Right.
	And it's perfectly effective.
	All right.
	How big a field of antennas, I'm sorry to be jumping ahead like this, but how big a field of antennas to receive the energy?
	Typically about a square mile at maximum.
	That's not so bad.
	That's really not so bad.
	And keep in mind that you can have numerous receivers fed from the same power station because you can send multiple beams all over the place.
	This would all be doable in what span of time, Sir Charles?
	Seven years or less.
	As soon as you get somebody to support you economically in a project like this, you're off and running.
	If it is, as you say, economically and technically feasible, the obvious question is, then why isn't somebody doing it now?
	Well, you know, we talked about the fact that launch costs are very expensive.
	Yes.
	yes the wires group is working on cutting that way down and he has been
	working very closely with a number of investors groups from insurance
	companies and states as well by the way uh... bob uh... has put a picture of me
	You'll notice I've chosen to put my furry little friends up on my web slot, but Bob at smeter.net has put a picture of me up there, front page, taken yesterday.
	Another reason to go to www.smeter.net.
	S-M-E-T-E-R dot net.
	And a picture of me taken yesterday by Ramona.
	So, now once again, here is Sir Charles, and again I don't mean to co-opt this interview into energy, but I'm telling you, my friends and I on Shortwave and people everywhere are talking about the price of gasoline.
	It's leading a lot of the news stories.
	The barrel of oil keeps going up every day.
	It's getting a little frightening.
	And you're saying that economically?
	Technically, this idea of putting a power collector in space is viable.
	Now, we all know the launch costs are high, and I want to ask you about something that, well, when I heard about it, I laughed, and a lot of people did, this space elevator thing.
	The idea of creating an elevator into space, into a geosynchronous point, which is, what, 22,300 miles up.
	22,300 miles up. It seems laughable, but I guess it's not.
	Bye.
	Well, actually, the materials are now being made and experimented with that will make it all possible.
	Basically, it's a new type of carbon called nanofibers, or nanotubes, and this material is so strong that a length of it that was not tapered, just like a standard rope, a length of it 3,400 kilometers long, could support its own weight.
	To give you a comparison, if you had a sisal fiber rope, which is standard rope, It could support a length of itself about 6 kilometers long, and polyethylene rope, the plastic, could support about 18 kilometers of itself.
	This stuff can support 3,400 kilometers.
	My God.
	It's stronger than diamond.
	Stronger than diamond?
	The fibers, yes, the fibers have been successfully manufactured, and it looks like they have a process for making them in bulk.
	And that would be fantastic, and this means that we can build a cable strong enough to support its own weight all the way from orbital space down to the ground.
	Okay, this sounds like Jack in the Beanstalk.
	How would you begin building this monstrosity?
	Would you start from the ground going up?
	Actually, you'd start from orbit, because you'd put a factory or a manufacturing facility and an assembly plant up in orbit, and then you would start building the cable and extending it toward the ground.
	And if you just manufactured four or five kilometers a day, Well, in no time at all, the thing would be scraping on the ground, and then you'd anchor it down, and you'd send up your first cable car.
	It seems... What would hold it?
	Just the string?
	Yeah, what would hold it up?
	Okay, actually, it's much simpler than people might imagine.
	It's actually in orbit.
	So, the hub of this whole assembly is in orbit, just as any satellite would be.
	And if we place it in orbit above the equator, at the geostationary point, And that is, as you said, 22,300 miles up, then it would not move with relation to the ground.
	Right.
	And so as you start extending the cable, one length of cable would go downward toward the Earth, another length would go outward, holding a counterweight.
	So, between the two, the tensions would remain equal, and it would not move.
	Okay, a counterweight in space.
	But in space, Things don't have weight as we understand it, so you're just talking mass?
	That's correct, just the mass.
	And as the system is designed now, they might not even need that because there will be enough mass in the taper of the cable.
	You see, the cable, if it were uniform in strength and uniform in size, would reach a point where you couldn't have any more length or it would snap.
	So in order to fix that, at the top you make it broader so that it has the ability to support more of itself.
	So one day we would just look up and we'd see this little dark strand of something headed toward Earth.
	Well, I suppose we wouldn't because it would have to be at the equator, right?
	Well, you'd be able to see it from a long way off.
	I bet you would.
	But you probably would see it as being a light color unless something was changed in the technology.
	They plan on coating it with a thin layer of metal so that oxygen erosion will not eat the cable.
	They're talking about the ability to lift 20 tons at a time.
	And atmospheric troubles like hurricanes and things like that would... I mean... I'm trying to think this through, where there might be a hole in this idea.
	Well, consider that this cable, like a guitar string, would have a resonant frequency.
	But it's resonant frequency would be about 7.2 hours.
	So... I'm sorry, say it again.
	7.2 what?
	Hours.
	Hours?
	Yes, if you plucked it like a string, the vibrations would take over seven hours to work it back and forth once.
	Oh, I see.
	Wow.
	Because of its resonant frequency, we shouldn't have any problem with hurricanes or storms.
	They would just whiz by it and it simply wouldn't be affected.
	That's correct.
	Can you give me an idea of how, actually, for example, by the time it got to Earth, how big would this cable, as you call it, be?
	It would be about a meter wide and flat.
	Flat like a sheet of paper.
	Really?
	That's correct.
	And that way you can grab it with a pair of rollers and run up and down it, and you have a lot more surface tension, or surface area to contact it, so you can't slip.
	Incredible.
	So, you'd be able to virtually ride this thing right up out of the Earth's atmosphere, slowly, with no friction, not having to achieve... Well, wouldn't there be... I'm a dummy in this area, and I know that rockets have to, you know, get tremendous power and tremendous speed to get away from Earth.
	Okay, I see where you're going with that.
	If you're not orbiting the Earth in a rocket, if you were to stand stationary over the Earth, you'd find that you'd still fall toward the ground, but the force of gravity gets weaker as you leave the surface.
	Right.
	So, as you go up the cable, you don't have to worry about orbital motion because you're suspended on a solid object.
	I've got that, but something still has to power this thing, right?
	That's correct.
	You'd beam power up to it either through microwaves or laser beams.
	And I wonder what kind of journey we're talking about here.
	If you were to get into an elevator attached to this thing at the bottom and start up, how long would it take you to get there?
	Well, if you went to the geostationary point where the main station would be, it would take about eight hours.
	Eight hours?
	That's no more unreal than an airline flight, you know?
	Well, unreal in a lot of ways.
	So, if something like that existed, I suppose then that the solar station you talk about, and resupply and all the rest of it, working on it, would all be a piece of cake.
	That's right, because once you have the first skyhook or space elevator in place, you'd use it as the facility to build two or three more, and then you'd have Some that ride up with cargo, and some that come down with cargo, and you have a continuous flow of passengers and hardware.
	And this would cut your launch costs from, let's see, the recent estimate was $20,000 per kilogram, down to eventually about $10 per kilogram.
	Is all of this, is this idea, for example, reasonable?
	Are they actually approaching the viability of these materials in that kind of mass?
	Well, it looks like they are.
	They have discovered a manner of getting the nanofibers to assemble themselves, and it turns out as simple as dragging a post-it note over the material as it was grown on a substrate, and the fibers self-assemble.
	Wow.
	But the other thing is, and this is a technological spinoff, the first batch of the material they produced appears to be transparent, and it looks like they may be able to turn it into a new type of display.
	There are talks about the same material being used To make flat televisions or displays that can be rolled up or folded.
	Really?
	Yes.
	So, we've really come a very long way in a very short time.
	I had no idea some of this could actually be just about viable.
	Alright, I thank you for all of that.
	I mean, these are questions I really wanted answered.
	Mars.
	Now, I know for some reason, with your background, you suddenly took a gigantic interest in Mars.
	Why?
	It's just been such an interesting place, and there were so many things I learned as a kid about the solar system that just kept me wanting to learn.
	And in technology, particularly in aerospace and in science, the more things you learn, the more tools you have in your arsenal to solve problems with.
	And it just sort of naturally was an outgrowth for me.
	Being in aerospace, everything you learn about space in general tends to have a relationship to what you're doing.
	So Mars has always been a fascinating place to me.
	Alright, um, skipping to the chase, you know, you have looked at Mars really hard.
	What would be the headline that you would write about what you found on Mars?
	That Mars is a fossil planet and life was common throughout both Mars and Earth at the same times.
	And not only that, but not only that, we now know where the water is.
	And that's the big thing right now.
	Why is there water at all on Mars?
	Because all the planets in our solar system were formed out of the same material and at the same time.
	And their chemistries were similar.
	And the gases known as ammonia and methane, and of course water vapor, were trapped inside the molten material that the planets were made of.
	So water is, in the mix underground, it's a product of ammonia and methane being broken down in molten rock.
	It gets cooked into water and petroleum, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.
	So, our oceans, our petroleum, and our atmospheres all come from that same source.
	Are we to imagine that at one time on Mars there were oceans, much as there are here on Earth now?
	Indeed.
	It looks as if the whole planet were covered by water at some point.
	The whole planet?
	It must have undergone ice ages as well as our world.
	And so, at this point, the areas that the two rovers are looking at presently, Gusev Crater and Meridiani Planum, We're both estimated to be at least a meter deep in water.
	They're about the same elevation.
	And Mars doesn't have its continents moving around.
	There's no tectonic activity.
	So we know the altitudes of those areas must have remained constant for many millions of years.
	Possibly billions.
	So the sedimentary rocks, and they have admitted they're sedimentary rocks, were formed by water.
	So minerals were being eroded in the weather and deposited in this water.
	And now as you look at those areas, you see all of these huge polygons And all these spherules.
	The water was lost because of its weaker gravity and thin atmosphere, but there's still water underground.
	And there's still water... But wait a minute, if there was at once water on Mars, then something must have changed.
	You said it's gravity?
	It's atmosphere.
	At one time they were sufficient to hold the water, so what happened?
	Well, we both started out, Earth, Mars, and in fact Venus as well, started out with very thick atmospheres.
	Venus still has a great deal of it.
	Earth had an atmosphere about 250 times as dense as the atmosphere we have today.
	And its gravity wasn't sufficient to hold it, and it bled off, fortunately, over the many billions of years.
	Mars started with roughly the same amount of atmosphere by all accounts that we can tell from the chemistry and the materials it was from.
	But because its atmosphere was held by its gravity much less strongly, it was lost to space.
	And when the atmosphere goes, the water starts to go.
	So it slowly leaked out.
	That's right, it all leaked away because Mars only has about one-third of the gravity, 38% of the gravity the Earth has.
	By the way, skipping backward for one second, I've received, I don't know, a lot of emails from people, and first they've seemed laughable, Sir Charles, but they said, you know, every time we launch A spacecraft.
	We lose something.
	I mean, it's like, you know, bursting through a balloon or something temporarily, and we lose a little of our own atmosphere, or lose something or another.
	I get these emails.
	There is some truth to that, isn't there?
	Well, there's a little bit of material loss, but it is absolutely miniscule.
	There's material falling to Earth just as well.
	But, our atmosphere is being replenished, and this is a very interesting thing that you brought this up, and this is very interesting for people to know.
	Volcanoes replenish our atmosphere and our water.
	Did you know that the material that comes out of volcanoes is average about 70% water?
	No, I didn't know that.
	Yes, in fact, some volcanoes have as much as 97% water coming out of its exhaust.
	Momotombo has 97.1% as measured in 1994.
	Kilauea in Hawaii puts out about 37.1% water in its eruptions.
	has ninety seven point one percent is measured nineteen ninety four
	kill away on a widely put out about thirty seven point one percent water in
	its eruptions this is why while the often explodes
	it's loaded with water and this water splash to steam when the pressure is
	released from the lava it explodes
	And there's no volcanoes on Mars, right?
	Well, there are some volcanoes.
	They're very large volcanoes.
	In fact, the largest volcano known in the solar system, Olympus Mons, is on Mars.
	Unfortunately, it appears that there's very little or no volcanic activity on Mars at this time, because the planet lost a lot of its heat.
	The Earth has a very large core and a lot of material, and it stays hot because of radioactive meltdown.
	Mars' core is smaller, and therefore has less of this material in it to keep it hot, and it's apparently just about worn out.
	So is it fair to say Mars is a dead planet?
	Not entirely.
	You see, recently they discovered what appears to be a frozen sea on the equator of Mars, big glaciers of ice.
	And they say that it was formed roughly 5 million years ago, in what appears to have been a volcanic episode.
	Why should we be interested in Mars, Sir Charles?
	That is an excellent question.
	Let me tell you a story about an ice cap.
	For 40 years this northern ice cap has been melting.
	It's melting away and there's no question about it.
	Over 10,000 measurements have been made with CCD instruments like cameras.
	This ice cap is not melting because of SUVs, or exhaust, or oil companies, or industry.
	And the reason they know that is because it is Mars' north polar cap that is melting.
	So, somehow, both Earth and Mars appear to be undergoing a phase of global warming simultaneously.
	That's very interesting.
	I did see a story on global warming on Mars, and apparently it's moving at a faster rate than it is here on Earth.
	And that indicates that it has to have a common source most likely, and that would be the sun.
	That would indeed be the sun.
	As the report was made by the Astronomical League at the ALCON Expo 2005.
	They had a conference in Kansas City just last week.
	Okay. Maybe you'd like to come in closer.
	Clearly, I've felt for some time that our climate is in the midst of a very quick change by our standards.
	I mean, human beings, I think, are not supposed to see changes in the climate.
	They occur over millions of years, and yet a lot of people are beginning to notice a real change in climate.
	Do you believe there's justification in that?
	Well, yes.
	We haven't kept good records over the last 2,000 or 4,000 years.
	So it would be difficult for us to say with great precision just how much change there was, but think about the case of Greenland.
	Or Alaska.
	Well, yes.
	Greenland wasn't named Greenland just because somebody was thinking wishfully.
	It was actually green just a thousand years ago.
	Senator McCain just came back, I guess, from Alaska, and he virtually said the place is melting.
	And those Alaskans I've talked to verify that.
	The tundra is turning to mush.
	It doesn't surprise me.
	It looks like very much that these sorts of changes might be natural, and there's very little that we can do about it directly.
	You believe that?
	Okay.
	Our North Pole, our South Pole, when you see 10-year photographs of them, it's frightening.
	The North Pole is, you know, perhaps two-thirds or less of what it was 10 years ago, or 40 years ago.
	I don't know.
	It's fast.
	Well, that's true.
	We don't have anything to compare it to, typically, but yes, it appears to be happening in just a matter of decades.
	Our Navy... And it may be, you know, it may be in part what we're doing, but it appears that there's also a link to Mars itself.
	A link to Mars?
	And that link is what, the Sun?
	The Sun itself, yes.
	It drives all of our weather.
	In fact, it drives the weather throughout our solar system.
	Then, like gas prices, do you think it's just going to keep getting hotter and hotter and hotter?
	Well, no, I don't.
	And I think that what's going to happen is it's going to have to bottom out at some point and then reverse.
	The gas or the sun?
	The gas or the sun or both?
	Well, the sun, typically.
	Gas, we're going to have to do something about.
	We have to take some action on that.
	Once again, Sir Charles Schultz III with a small prediction.
	Sir Charles?
	Well, certainly.
	You know, I've been looking at the situation with petroleum and China and India, this whole energy picture.
	And it turns out that China and India, between them, have invested, or promised to invest over the next 30 years, a total of $150 billion in the development of new petroleum resources.
	And that's from drilling into the ground, processing, pumping, running to the sea, and shipping it home.
	Now, Half of the world's oil supply resides in Alberta, Canada, of all places, and it's in the form, unfortunately, of tar sands.
	1.3 trillion barrels there, so it's been uneconomical up to now to do anything with it.
	Is it now?
	Oh, now it is economical, and here's my prediction.
	I'm going to predict that China will attempt to buy into the Alberta tar sands.
	Oh, really?
	And you're saying now, at the price for a barrel of oil, it's now economical to convert this into petroleum?
	It certainly is.
	That's a small prediction, but I think it's going to have a big impact.
	Well, I knew as the price went up, all of a sudden, all sorts of things that were not particularly interesting, you know, a dollar or two ago for gas, now are.
	And will continue to be as it goes up.
	I don't know Where the break point is, but one of these wonderful things has got to come along before the American economy just, you know, grinds to a halt.
	Well, I think a lot of people don't realize that the price of gasoline or the price of oil affects everything in the economy because you have to pay for shipping to get things places and that takes diesel fuel.
	Yes.
	Energy to manufacture things.
	So the price to extract this and then turn it into something usable is now suddenly is worth doing.
	It's in reach now.
	It's in reach.
	And it will happen.
	You think the Canadians will go along with this?
	It's going to depend on where they feel morally they should accept the money from.
	If they just want the money then A business deal is a business deal.
	I've heard rumors, Sir Charles, that the environment in China right now, maybe you can confirm this, is much like it was during the 70's oil shortage in the U.S.
	and that was a pretty severe climate.
	Is it that bad in China now?
	From what I understand, yes it is, and there are desperate needs of sources of energy because they are a huge economic growth point at this time in history.
	They're at their biggest burst of growth they've ever had.
	And also, look at this from another standpoint.
	It looks like the Chinese are going to have somebody on the moon in just a very few years.
	Perhaps this is the sort of thing we need to get our government to get moving on space travel.
	Why do you think the Chinese want to get to the moon?
	Well, I think they understand the value of space in terms of energy and resources.
	And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, they're going to want to develop it.
	Well, helium-3, or why else go to the moon?
	Possibly helium-3, but think about all the minerals that nobody claims.
	They're right on the surface, for anyone who wishes to mine them.
	But it also could be a national prestige issue as well.
	If you develop the technology to get a spaceship to the moon with people in it safely and return them to Earth, you also have developed a lot of other technologies that other countries will not sell you.
	I guess it is not proven to the American people, nor the lawmakers that allocate the money for this sort of thing, because we don't seem inclined to go back to the moon, do we?
	At this point, there's only been talk about it.
	I haven't seen any really decent commitment to it.
	We seem to do a lot of planning and generate tons of paper, but get very little done sometimes.
	Well, if there was really a good reason other than to beat the other guy, To get to the moon, it seems to me, we'd be going.
	Well, you know, it all is going to depend on, if we start building power stations, the moon would be the best place for the materials, because it would be things we wouldn't have to launch from Earth.
	It's economically feasible right now to make most of the power station in the form of mirrors, Well, let's talk about NASA a little bit, shall we?
	I'd be quite interested, I think, in your perspective now on NASA.
	I know that you began as something of an innocent with NASA, certainly with some of the discoveries that you've made on Mars, and I'm sure that you've had some discussions and interaction with NASA, and I wonder how you feel about NASA now as an agency.
	You know, that's a prickly question.
	Yes, yes, I ask those.
	Well, that's fine, you know.
	That's what I'm here for.
	And, you know, when I look at it, I realize that most of the people who work at NASA are just like anybody else.
	They're just in there doing their job to the best of their abilities.
	But clearly, whoever's in charge of the flow of information really doesn't want to share.
	They tend to be very tight-lipped about things, and it's things that you don't imagine would have any direct influence.
	I don't understand why anybody would be unhappy about revealing the fact that there are fossils on Mars.
	And I know you've seen them, and many other people have seen them, and I talk to people in NASA in the Jet Propulsion Lab quite often, and every one of them has given me at least some confirmation that my findings are correct.
	And some have said, yes, what you found is exactly right.
	Incidentally, I think that we have some examples of some of your recent finds on the website, don't we?
	That's correct.
	If you have a look at it, there's a little sea biscuit.
	It's similar to a sand dollar, but thicker.
	And it has a perfect little starfish pattern on the top of it.
	And that was found, by opportunity, on salt 507.
	And, you know, you came to mind when I spotted that one.
	And so I've named it because, as you know, if you discover a new species or organism, the discoverer has the right of naming it.
	And so I'm naming it Aria Fabrica Campana.
	And the reason for that is Fabrica Campana is as close as I get in Latin to Art Bell.
	Oh, God, really?
	So there's an organism being named after you.
	An organism.
	I'm honored.
	Is that me in the middle of that rock up there?
	It's got that little starfish pattern.
	I knew that you would recognize it right away, but I thought that that'd be something interesting.
	A little stick me.
	Okay.
	Well, all right.
	So you have concluded basically that there was, or is, but was, at least was, life on Mars.
	That's correct.
	And in discussing this with NASA, you feel something of a reluctance to publicly jump on board that ship.
	Is that correct?
	Well, that's correct.
	Not one placed official that could make any official statements for NASA has come forward and said, yes, there were fossils on Mars or there was life on Mars.
	So, you know, at this point we have just an overwhelming amount of data and it doesn't take a great deal of searching to find things like that organism I just mentioned that's got a five-pointed star on it.
	And as anyone who knows anything about minerals or crystals or erosion in biology, would tell you a five-pointed star that is regular like that doesn't form in nature unless it's formed by biological means.
	And why do you think NASA doesn't want this endorsed?
	I'm not certain if it really would be in keeping with what they want to do.
	Some people have expressed to me that if it was discovered that there was life on Mars, that they would lose funding for the presently planned exploratory mission.
	Why?
	Because then people would say, well, you know, you've answered that question.
	There's no reason to spend a half a billion on this satellite that you're going to send there because we know the answer now.
	But I don't really see it that way.
	You know, economics and politics make very strange decisions about what we should and shouldn't do.
	And I think this is right there.
	And the other one is the religious standpoint.
	Many people who are strongly religious have a problem with accepting life anywhere other than on Earth.
	Bingo.
	Now I think you've hit it.
	And that may very well be the case.
	So you think NASA, in deference to the world's religions, might not be wanting to confirm that there is life somewhere other than Earth, period?
	And that may very well be the case, yes.
	And to me that's the only thing that I can think of that even comes near a rational explanation.
	I was at I was asked if I was interested in attending a conference in October by the Logos Institute, and at that conference, it was going to be in Bellingham, Washington, they were going to discuss different viewpoints about life in the universe, and the religious take on it in particular.
	And so I was asked if I was interested in participating, and I said, yes, I'd love to, you know.
	And the fellow that I spoke with has actually been a guest on your show before.
	Dr. Michael Heiser.
	Oh yes.
	And so, you know, I accepted immediately and then later I found out just a couple of days back that the organizer, Rob Haskell, had not put me on the roster.
	He dropped me from the lineup.
	Oh?
	Well, you know, that's unusual because I would think that I would be uniquely suited I mean, you've produced actual, solid evidence that there certainly was life on Mars.
	Yes, I mean you've produced actual solid evidence that there certainly was life on Mars.
	I certainly see it that way.
	Now there are others with other theories.
	Richard C. Hoagland is one of them, and he thinks that there is some great darker matter to all of this, that NASA is well aware of not only life on Mars, but the fact that at one time there was intelligent life on Mars.
	Have you locked out that one, or do you wonder about it?
	I don't believe that intelligence arose on Mars, and this is a point that I try to make very clear.
	The life that existed on Mars seemed to be pretty primitive sea life, nothing truly advanced.
	If there was ever intelligent life on Mars, it would have had to have come from some other world, not from Mars itself.
	Well, that of course is also possible.
	And that's true, that's a very good possibility that now that we know there's life on Mars as well as on the Earth, or was at least, we're certain of that, It would tell you that there should be life throughout our universe, and there could be billions of worlds with life.
	And, you know, intelligence is another question.
	We don't know how common intelligence is.
	We've only got, you know, the examples of humanity on Earth and some other near-misses in the terms of other animals such as chimpanzees and dolphins.
	But intelligence on other planets is another question entirely.
	We don't see any signs of that yet.
	Well, we don't.
	I mean, we've got SETI, and some of the SETI officials will frankly tell you if in another, you know, at least 50 years, and I think it could be sooner than that, they don't find something, then, you know, there's a legitimate question there about whether there is something.
	Well, you know, that's another interesting point, too.
	Notice that as we have moved from analog to digital technology, what we transmit by radio has changed very dramatically.
	In many cases, if you pick up a radio signal, and it could be voice or data or anything, you can't decode it without a certain specific key or frame.
	That's right, yes.
	Now, it has been suggested that up to one quarter of the radio noise we receive from the sky could in fact be mixed digital signals from all over.
	And without the key, we'd be unable to decode it.
	And we just don't have the key yet.
	So we could be bathed in alien signals and not be aware of it because we don't have the key to decode it or the framing.
	Is that a current pursuit of SETI?
	I mean, that's such a fascinating concept that it really is all around us and we simply have not provided the encryption key yet to unlock it.
	That's such a fascinating idea.
	Well, actually it isn't a key.
	I mean, I'm sorry, it isn't a pursuit of SETI because they concentrate on a specific set of frequencies very near the water hole.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Their term for it.
	Yes.
	And so we don't broadcast on that frequency or that set of frequencies and to assume that
	other intelligences would, I mean, why do we make that assumption?
	They would be broadcasting all over the band just as we do.
	Spread spectrum.
	That's right.
	And spread spectrum, folks, means that a frequency is hopping around at what would seem like
	a random rate, making it totally impossible to track the signal and therefore extract
	any intelligence from it.
	And Sir Charles is talking about the fact that actually the signal could be, and it could be, all around us right now, and we simply don't have the key.
	Wouldn't that be a reasonable pursuit for some of the computers at SETI?
	Well, it could.
	And Fourier analysis, which is a special type of mathematical analysis dealing with frequencies and time and energy, might be able to tell us whether or not this is the case.
	But understand that they're only looking at a very narrow band of frequencies and not at these other signals.
	But we've got a disadvantage as well.
	Our environment around us is very, very noisy.
	So it would be next to impossible to sort out what was being generated by our machinery and technology versus what was actually coming from space.
	Well, it would be nice to know somebody's going to go to work on that because it sounds so logical.
	I'm going to have to give that one some serious thought.
	Have you been contacted at all, Sir Charles, by anybody within the government?
	Forget NASA for a moment, but any other area of the government?
	Well, it's good you ask that.
	I have not been directly connected, but my website, as you know, most websites do record the types of visitors and how often.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And I get some regular visitors that would probably astound people to know about.
	Any given day, I get somewhere between 5 and 40 percent of government and military hits
	on my site.
	No kidding.
	Between 5 and 40 percent.
	Some of the regulars, and I wasn't going to name names, but I think I'm going to do that
	now.
	Some of the regulars who visit my site are Lockheed Martin Corporation, Boeing, Lear,
	Virgin, NASA, JPL, Orbital Sciences, Rocketdyne, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, for instance.
	My goodness!
	I get regular hits from the Department of Defense, and not just in this country, from Canada, the Department of National Defense, DND, and the Australian Department of Defense, the Department of Defense Information Systems Center, the National Security Agency, Foreign Technology Division, Army, Air Force, Navy, Defense Mapping Agencies, Naval Warfare Centers, Army Special Ops Commands.
	That's almost the whole group.
	I mean, you could go on and on, but that's all government.
	My gosh!
	Oh, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
	And why do you think they're there, Sir Charles?
	Well, I can see what pages they're looking at.
	And that's interesting, because they're downloading, in particular, the organisms.
	They're making copies of the organisms.
	The Centers for Disease Control, the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, and the National Institute of Health each spent roughly a week on my page looking at every single organism that I had posted on my site.
	But now, there's an interesting by-product of this.
	We had some hits from Berkeley, after which Dr. Seth Shostak, the Chief Administrator of CETI, Publish an article warning of the dangers of a Mars sample return.
	The Mars sample return mission has been pushed back to 2011.
	The obvious point being that organisms might still be there, and do we really wish to bring them back to planet Earth?
	And then there's also an interesting reverse of that, Sir Charles.
	I've heard that a number of the probes, the early probes that we sent to Mars, we didn't spend a great deal of contamination time, decontamination time on them, and in fact we might have contaminated Mars!
	And that's a very good possibility.
	It could have happened.
	How true is that, that the early spacecraft weren't all that spiffy in terms of having been boiled and whatever?
	Well, you know, whenever you try to sterilize an organism, you also subject the hardware to the same sort of conditions that can destroy electronics and sensors.
	And so they have to be very careful about how they go about the sterilization business.
	Early spacecraft typically weren't sterilized very well.
	And it wasn't just a budgetary matter, but it was also a rather, you know, Earth-centric belief that there really wasn't life anywhere, and there was no risk.
	So, we've got a lot of dirty hardware floating around out there.
	And, presumably then, organisms generated by technicians' hands and all the rest of it could now be racing around Mars.
	And that's a good possibility.
	If any of them find themselves at home in briny, wet soil, they would love it there.
	So if we bring back a sample from Mars, unless that gets scrubbed as perhaps a bad idea, we might find ourselves.
	And that's possible, but there would be an easy way to know if that were true.
	How so?
	Our genetic code is probably very different from a Martian genetic code or an alien genetic code.
	And so if we spot something that has a known sequence of genes, then we're going to know it was an earthly organism.
	It's like a fingerprint.
	I see.
	Would Mars support the spread of an organism that came from Earth?
	Well, it could.
	It really depends on the type of organism.
	they've discovered a number of soil bacteria that could probably thrive and
	we know that there are many bacteria called uh... extreme halo files
	i'm very i'm so curious Sir Charles, what do you think all these agencies really want?
	I mean, they're working, these agencies have, you know, the same NASA photographs available to them.
	Presumably they know all this stuff already.
	Why?
	I think that it's in the presentation of the data.
	You know, the fact is a lot of the stuff is very difficult for people to spot without looking through masses of data.
	And on my site, Well, we spent a great deal of time finding the most obvious fossils and presenting them and the information about them in a very concise manner.
	And you can find everything right there.
	If you go to the NASA site, all the information is there, but you can't find it.
	Think about an encyclopedia and the index required for it.
	It's the same way.
	Do you, of course there's probably no way for you to know the level of the people that are coming in, but of course we have a lot of government workers and a lot of them do work for different agencies.
	You don't have any way of knowing how high up the food chain it's been going, do you?
	No I don't, but we had a number of interesting hits just a couple of days ago from the Justice Department and they were looking at over a State Department as well.
	Really?
	Yes, and you know it's interesting because The State Department has been looking at whether technology transfer would be involved in, let's say, the orbital power concepts.
	And different parts of the government are probably looking at some of this information and some of the other things that I'm doing, and it's all public knowledge.
	And I don't know exactly what they're putting together, but obviously, everything they need, they can find right there.
	I mean, the fossils are there, the information on what I'm working on is there.
	And I hope they find everything they want, and I hope even more clearly, and I'm telling them, call me.
	I'll tell you anything you want to know.
	A little chuckle in your voice.
	Oh, and the water issue.
	I didn't want to sidestep that.
	I wanted to tell you just how important that is.
	You know, we've been told for years that Mars is dry, and on the links that I gave you for the site, There is a picture of a crater that they found on Mars, and it's about 70 degrees north latitude near the North Pole.
	Yes.
	And it has, apparently, two cubic miles of water ice inside it.
	That's a lot.
	That's just in one crater.
	That's enough to give every man, woman, and child on Earth over 300 gallons of water.
	Now, obviously, water is important for fuel.
	Water is important for sustenance.
	If we were to send people to Mars, the water would sustain them, correct?
	That's correct, yes.
	The water could then separate to hydrogen and make fuel.
	And oxygen to breathe.
	And oxygen to breathe, yes.
	And all of that could be done now.
	I mean, of course, we're not going to Mars.
	We're barely going back to the Moon.
	I'm not so sure about that.
	That's true, but I think what is most important is what it implies.
	You see, if there's water present in those quantities now, then obviously there should still be something alive.
	The planet was never dry.
	But the interesting thing is, there appears to be some form of precipitation now, and that's backed up by pictures of the rover's tracks.
	Precipitation?
	Yes, and it may be spray from a geyser, and it may be actual fog of water droplets.
	The rovers leave tracks, and we're told that the erosion on Mars is very slow.
	I think it was Dr. Stephen Squire, the principal investigator for the Mir Project, who said, we found some craters four to six inches in diameter, and they could be up to a hundred million years old.
	Well, these little potholes are on the side of sand dunes, and when you consider there are dust storms and sand storms and dust devils, it doesn't seem even possibly or remotely possible that a pothole four inches across could last a hundred million years.
	But now, we know that it's impossible.
	When the Rover Opportunity was stuck in that dune for a while, it left its tracks behind it, and then it backed out over the tracks later.
	Right.
	They turned the cameras and the microscopic imager on those tracks.
	Now, instead of being clean and sharp and pristine as they were, they were eroded.
	And they were eroded into the pattern identical to that that raindrops make in sand.
	And this happened over the space of one to two weeks, but more important, if you've ever seen rocks on a sand pile, when the rain falls, the rocks are left on pillars of sand.
	Right.
	They stand upright.
	I have the microscopic image that shows the spherules standing on the sand in the track that was absolutely flat and ridged by the rover's wheels.
	Are you trying to suggest it rains on Mars?
	I don't know if it was rain, but I do know that there are active geysers.
	It may well have been spray from a geyser.
	But whatever it is, there's water precipitating on the surface on a basis of a week or less.
	And that's proven by the age of the tracks, which is known.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Why should we be interested in Mars again?
	What possible reason could we have for going to Mars, expensive as it would be?
	What would we gain?
	Well, for one thing, there is a great deal of material available on Mars in the forms of metals and chemicals and minerals that we cannot easily get to in those quantities on the Earth.
	So, industrial development and living space would be very easy to manufacture on Mars using the available materials.
	Another is, it provides a whole biological laboratory for us to study the development of life.
	And this is a very important question.
	Where do we come from?
	Who are we?
	Where are we going?
	What is life in the universe like?
	And how common is it?
	We could discover a lot of that just from looking at Mars.
	And of course, the climate issue, as we discussed earlier, the global warming point.
	So there are many things we can learn from Mars.
	And anytime you have a place where people can go, if it's possible for them to live there, they'll make a frontier of it and they'll move there.
	This is to be expected.
	People will be going.
	And there's some support from the government, actually, in a small form.
	In a recent discussion between Mike Griffin, the new Chief Administrator of NASA, and Gene Myers, they spoke for a couple of hours on the phone.
	One of the things that Mike Griffin told him was that they really supported shuttle-derived launch vehicles, but he also admitted that he and the President were very keen on turning over the development of low-Earth orbit space to industry and commerce.
	Really?
	So apparently some wheels are getting moving and they see that because private individuals and small companies can indeed afford to make workable spacecraft, that maybe it's time to begin turning these things over to the small guy.
	Now there's one thing that will help us greatly in space development.
	Presently, anything that's launched has to have the approval of the government.
	If you live in this country, the government has to approve whatever you launch.
	Right.
	And that's because the government takes responsibility for anything you launch, if it were to hit somebody's city or home or something.
	But, what about airliners?
	We don't do that for airplanes.
	No.
	If we did, it would be impossible to have air travel.
	Clearly, if you want to have space become a commercial, and a viable commercial venture, You have to turn the responsibility for launched vehicles over to the individuals or companies doing the launching.
	Once you do that, the floodgates will open.
	If an airliner crashes on some friendly country's buildings and kills a bunch of people, you're saying our government takes responsibility for that?
	No, actually they do not.
	Private companies do.
	The difference is, if you had a rocket and the same thing happened, our government would hold itself responsible.
	Why?
	Well, I don't know why they do it, but it gives them a measure of control.
	Unless they actually approve it, you can't launch it.
	In what way is it different than an airliner?
	And that's my point exactly.
	It isn't different.
	It's only perceived to be different.
	For what purpose?
	In other words... Oh, that I couldn't say.
	Well... I'm being privy to what they're thinking.
	Well, there has to be a reason they don't want private individuals launching without their permission.
	Well, one thing to think about is this.
	You have the energy necessary to create a sizable spacecraft.
	All you have to do is aim it at the ground and it becomes a weapon.
	And so there's a bit of a paranoia attached to that sort of thinking.
	The same thing is true for an airliner, as we all know.
	Okay, Sir Charles.
	It's not just the Myers Group.
	There are others.
	I'm aware, personally, Sir Charles, of some projects underway right now to make cheap launch vehicles.
	Not just the Myers Group, although they're certainly at the top of the heap.
	Well, certainly Elon Musk, for one.
	Yes, and others.
	I just won't name them, but they exist, and they're pretty well underway.
	Do you see these private ventures succeeding, and soon, one of them?
	Actually, I do.
	Because it's just as inevitable as development in any field.
	Just as computers became extremely cheap and commonplace, you're going to see the barnstorming era of spaceflight begin, and we're going to see space transport on a scale we can't even imagine right now.
	Barnstorming.
	I like that.
	That's correct.
	And you really think it'll get to the point where they'll just be all kinds of launches by all kinds of groups?
	Well, of that much, you know, you can be certain.
	Because if it's possible to make it fly and make a dollar at it, somebody's going to do it.
	And you don't believe the government will put the clamps on this for some, as yet, unconfirmed reason?
	Well, if you think about it, Other countries are now going to be stepping to the fore in space travel, and they're not going to be doing it just for demonstration.
	They're after resources, money, and electrical power, and energy is the big thing right now.
	If, let's say, China were to, or India were to put up a power satellite, how quickly do you think it would polarize us to get something done?
	Very quickly.
	Yes.
	In that arena very quickly, I don't know if the Chinese go back to the moon, whether that will cause us to sort of enter another race or not.
	I have my doubts.
	Even if they were to go to Mars, but if they were to do as you just suggested, oh yes, I think we'd be embarrassed kind of the way when the Russians put up the first Sputnik and it beat its way around the world.
	Yes, indeed.
	So, are they working on it, Sir Charles?
	Well, I don't know if they're directly working on orbital power in China, but they do know the concept exists.
	It has been touted as a solution instead of using hydrocarbon fuels and coal.
	I know that Condoleezza Rice and her secretary have been to China, India, and Japan, and other nations, in an effort to try and sell them on other technologies besides the petroleum industry or the coal industry.
	And so far, there have been no takers.
	And you know, you've heard the huge amount of money that China and India are going to be investing in petroleum.
	You know, $150 billion is a lot of money.
	It is indeed.
	One other area.
	We're going to go to, you know, the phone lines here in the last hour, but I want to ask you about, you know, I've talked before about artificial intelligence and about robots and about robots even going to war, for example, in Iraq.
	Oh, yes.
	Where are we with all of that?
	Well, as you'll know, when we spoke last, this was in January, we talked about the fact that we're sending some robotic fighters to Iraq.
	And I mentioned unmanned autonomous vehicles, particularly aircraft.
	The cover story of the July Popular Science was exactly that.
	I know of at least six unmanned autonomous vehicles that are under development or actual testing that will be used very shortly in warfare.
	Uh, for instance, they have one called the DP-5X, and it's an 11-foot-long helicopter, and it is unmanned, and it has about a five-and-a-half hour endurance in flight.
	Does it carry wo- And it's in the back of a Humvee.
	And it carries weapons?
	It's mostly sensors and recon hardware right now, and it can also be used as a communications relay, uh, like a satellite.
	You hover it over a point, and you use it to relay your communications around.
	I don't see why it couldn't carry weapons.
	They have another one called Long Gun, it's about a 12-foot-long craft, And it's an automated missile.
	This one you'll like.
	It has about 30 hours of flight time.
	You send it out after targets, and it locates the targets using infrared and other parts of the spectrum, and it decides on whether it's a target it should hit.
	If it finds a target, it will hit it automatically.
	You're saying if it doesn't, it makes these decisions on targeting on its own.
	But here's the interesting part.
	If it doesn't find a target, it can be ordered to return to base.
	It can be refueled and flown again.
	My goodness.
	And that's just two of a number.
	Are we using these now?
	Some small of the vehicles, some of the smaller models are in test right now.
	As to whether they're in the field or not, I know that there are some autonomous vehicles in the field, but I don't know how effective they are at this point.
	But they even have one in development that'll fit in a backpack.
	And it's like a hover platform.
	So that the soldiers can carry it out Throw the thing out in the field and take off with a video camera or whatever.
	Are we headed toward a world where machines will do our warfare?
	We certainly are, yes.
	We're to the point now where we've got hardware and development that could very easily, if not automatically, perform warfare functions.
	We could simply operate a lot of it by remote control.
	So yes, we are headed for automated warfare.
	You know, there are... maybe there ought not be ethical questions about this, but there are ethical questions about it.
	Whether it's ethical to use just machines to kill your enemy, and I don't think I have any compunction about that.
	I mean, war is hell, and war is bad, and war is killing, and if you don't have to have your own people die while at the task, I can't find fault with it.
	Can you?
	I'd have to agree with you.
	If it means that we can save at least some lives, and it gives us an edge in combat, then I'd have to agree with it, yes.
	Do you understand the ethical objections some have?
	Well, actually I do.
	Some people feel that somehow it's worse being killed by a robot than a bomb.
	Yeah, or that it's some sort of cowardly warfare.
	I don't know.
	Well, yes.
	You know, I don't know if you have an objection to fighting, and you're forced to fight, And you do it because you must.
	Are you a coward if you try not to fight?
	If you try to cover yourself or defend yourself in a better manner?
	I don't know.
	We've come a long way from the days where the British stood in very nice, neat lines and marched toward the enemy.
	And they learned a lesson there.
	Very valuable.
	They did indeed.
	So, anyway, the world of robotics is beginning to come true, right?
	In fact it is, and we're going to see more and more of it around us every day.
	Battlefield is the first.
	Do you imagine that right now, Sir Charles, we have orbiting weapons?
	We've touched on this subject before.
	I can see a few systems that could be considered weapons.
	I cannot specifically say If we do have weapons in orbit, I know of some systems that could easily be considered weapons.
	Let's try another approach.
	Do you think that any country in the world has orbiting weapons?
	Well, I suspect that some do.
	And we have to face the inevitability of warfare in space.
	If we start space travel, and we start using weapons in space because of something, it doesn't matter what it is, we run some serious risks.
	And we know there's going to be fighting.
	It always happens.
	Wherever there's human beings, you'll have warfare.
	Sure.
	But if we use those weapons in space, we run into some real problems.
	For instance, debris.
	On the ground, when you explode a bomb or hit a target, the debris ends up on the ground or in the atmosphere.
	If you do that in space, the debris ends up in orbit.
	And the problem is, you can contaminate a pristine environment.
	So, a spacecraft or a satellite being hit by some of this debris can be destroyed.
	A paint flake moving at orbital velocities can carry the energy of a hand grenade.
	So, by exploding something or destroying something, we could be creating projectiles that would destroy our own spacecraft?
	That's correct.
	Do you remember the super gun that Saddam Hussein was working on years ago?
	I certainly do.
	Oh, yes.
	Well, one of the projections they made was that if he shot out of the gun a small rocket motor, it could carry a small payload into orbit.
	No kidding.
	If he were to put a sack of BBs in that payload and fire it in the opposite direction that satellites orbit, let's say the geosynchronous orbit?
	Right.
	That sack of BBs could spread out and destroy many of the satellites in that orbit and make it uninhabitable for satellites for thousands of years.
	My God.
	That was a serious concern.
	Despite some very dire predictions that were made, thank God the space shuttle returned to Earth safely
	recently, as you all recall.
	However, there was, while they were up there, much consternation about this damage or that damage, and frankly it seemed like they spent the better part of the mission worrying, justifiably so I guess, about the damage that might or might not have been done to the spacecraft.
	On launch and the safety of a return.
	They really did spend a hell of a lot of time on that.
	And I wanted you to comment, Charles.
	This space shuttle seems like it's nearing the end of its life.
	It really does.
	One way or the other.
	Grounded yet again, I guess.
	And, you know, old.
	We don't see a replacement for it in the wind.
	Well, you know, it should be retired.
	It's a 30-year-old system.
	Yes, but fine.
	But what about its replacement?
	Well, as you know, the Space Island Group has a design for a vehicle that would replace the shuttle easily, and most of the components We'll be directly from the shuttle manufacturing facilities with minor modifications.
	But you're suggesting, I'm sorry to interrupt, you're suggesting that it's not going to be the government that provides the replacement or NASA?
	Well, you know, if we're lucky it will be an outside group and not the government because typically when you get a situation where you have private industry in competition They'll make it a lot cheaper.
	I mean, imagine if your family car was made by the government instead of Ford Motor Company or Chevy or whoever.
	Is there time, Sir Charles?
	I mean, we've got the International Space Station under construction.
	We can't afford to just, you know, hand the shuttle a golden parachute and say goodbye.
	Well, there is time, because many systems have already been designed, and even NASA, on their own website, has a number of vehicles that are derivatives of the shuttle.
	And their new administrator, you know, Mike Griffin, states he's strongly in support of shuttle-derived vehicles.
	And the reason for that is those components are knowns.
	They're manufactured now, there are lines that can be turned on in an instant to start manufacturing them.
	And they've been tested, so we know that they're reliable.
	But we need to change The heat shielding, the foam on the tanks, a couple of issues can be resolved that will end any debate about the safety of the system.
	And if you're sending things up that never come back to Earth, you don't need to worry about the heat shielding on it.
	Are you not a fan of man in space?
	Are you more of a fan of machine in space?
	Oh no, I strongly support a manned space effort.
	But the thing about it is, when you send something as large as a shuttle up, You should be committed to keeping something that big in orbit.
	The expenditure of getting that much hardware up there is the largest cost of the mission.
	If you need to bring things back, it should be human beings in a return capsule or a glider and the results of their experiments.
	If you had an opportunity, other than for the thrill of it, would you feel safe flying in a shuttle?
	Five years ago, I would have said, where's my toothbrush?
	Today, I don't think I would do it.
	Really?
	So it is time then, in your opinion, to retire the shuttle, even if it means a delay in the space station?
	I don't think we're going to see a completion of the space station at this point.
	Really?
	Looking at the results of the research done on the station, I really don't see that we're getting our money's worth out of it.
	There are a lot of experiments you can't do on the space station.
	In fact, there are many experiments that cannot be done on a manned station at all, because human beings and the machines to keep them alive produce a lot of vibrations and it's a dirty environment.
	Alright, I want to take some calls and they certainly are here.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Sir Charles Schultz.
	Hi.
	Hi, this is Sharon in LA.
	Hello Sharon.
	Hi.
	Earlier you stated that it was a fallacy that microwave ovens can bring about negative biological effects and I have seen many studies, for example, showing that microwaves that happen to be leaking at eye level cause eye damage.
	And they had quite a lot of opportunity to study this in people who worked in fast food places and they could see where they were standing.
	And you also stated that the microwave technology that would be beaming down the equivalent of a quarter of what's produced in a microwave oven, excuse me, would not produce any negative biological effects.
	I would be interested in what references there are to support that statement.
	All right.
	Okay.
	Actually, what I stated was that I'd never seen anybody with a pacemaker die in exposure to a microwave oven.
	It's true that a leaky oven can have negative biological effects.
	We know that.
	It can harm you.
	But the figure you quoted, one quarter of the density of what's in a microwave oven, actually is incorrect.
	What I quoted was one quarter of the density of sunlight.
	And the microwave oven energy is about 50 times more intense.
	So what we would be dealing with in the power beam would be 1,200 or just half a percent of the power density of a microwave oven, not one-fourth.
	Alright, so her concerns about the effects of microwave on biology?
	Yes, there are effects.
	If you have, I mean obviously you can cook with microwaves, but once again it's a matter of power density.
	And if your microwave is leaking, There are some obvious signs.
	If you feel a slight warmth with your hand around the door, right away get yourself a sensor.
	They're real cheap at many electronics stores.
	That's very bad.
	You're cooking.
	That heat is cooking you.
	That's right.
	And we certainly would not want to beam that sort of power down to Earth, but the density would be great enough to be damaging.
	That's the whole point.
	Do we, Sir Charles, really know enough about the long-term effects of low dosages of microwave?
	Well, you know, the studies that have shown that microwaves in very low doses over a long period of time don't seem to have any effect, don't seem to be getting as much air time as the ones that claim gloom and doom.
	I mean, that's the same situation with people saying, oh, I live near a power wire.
	Yeah.
	I'm worried about my animals, you know.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
	Good morning.
	Yes, good morning, Art, and good morning, Sir Charles.
	Art, first, a pleasure.
	Thank you very much for taking my call.
	You're very welcome.
	And I'm very fascinated by the space-based microwave, because I'm kind of mindful of the pharmaceutical companies who want to hear about that, in that, well, people don't need drugs, so there's no impetus for them to proceed.
	And I'm wondering what kind of an impedance you're finding from industries such as oil, as far as developing not only just this, but Uh, you know, wind and solar and those kinds of things.
	And, uh, one other thing, Art, if you wouldn't mind repeating the website for the, uh, shortwave.
	I would certainly appreciate that.
	Okay.
	Uh, happy to do it.
	And remember, folks, there may or may not be something there when you go up.
	I mean, you're listening to shortwave.
	It's not a commercial broadcast.
	It's simply shortwave.
	But it's, uh, www.smeter.net.
	Yes, we don't seem to be having any impediments, because right now everybody is feeling the cost of generating power.
	in the short wave the good the bad the ugly all of it uh... so sir charles uh...
	the impedance yes we don't seem to be having any impediments because
	right now everybody is feeling the cost of generating power
	and people you know man of the street
	he's gonna be very concerned and and there are many people are very concerned
	about the cost of petroleum because of what it's doing at the gas pump for
	And what is it going to do to our power bills when the winter comes and we have to start heating?
	I don't see, and I certainly haven't seen, any problem with power companies.
	Big oil, as you know, depends on the ability to produce petroleum.
	When the costs get this high, it costs more than a barrel to produce four barrels of oil.
	then they realize they're not going to make as much profit because at some
	point people are just gonna stop paying for it they're gonna choke on it
	so it is in everybody's best interest including oil companies to begin to
	diversify the profits the oil companies are making right now are
	rather large i've heard at what point uh... do you think the american people will
	begin to i don't know get activist in some manner about uh... the
	price of the energy Thank you.
	Well, a lot of people are using public transportation because they just can't afford anything else, but public transportation itself can be problematic.
	Um, it would be better if we had more and better quality public transportation and probably less people would drive their vehicles around.
	That would be a big dent in the cost of gasoline right there.
	The less you buy, the less demand there is, the lower the price becomes.
	Typically.
	Not always, but typically.
	Would you like to make an educated guess as to the sort of the cracking point economically for us if it keeps going up?
	Do you predict it will, or do you believe it?
	I think it's going to continue to go up, and I'll tell you why.
	We haven't built another gasoline cracking plant since, I believe, around 1970 or 75.
	And, you know, that seems rather foolish.
	We need gasoline.
	Because of that, we don't have any assurances there will be a larger supply of gasoline, even if there's more oil available.
	If you can't make the gasoline, then it doesn't do you any good.
	Well, I'm just a talk show host, so I don't get it, but if there's all this demand for gasoline, then why not more cracking stations?
	I wish I knew.
	Could it be the oil companies know something we don't?
	Ever wonder about that?
	It's always possible.
	People always bring the specter of peak oil to mind whenever that question is asked.
	That's right.
	And perhaps they feel that they're not going to be able to make any more money because there won't be enough oil to support their needs.
	But that's not necessarily true.
	As I pointed out, half the oil reserves are right up in Alberta right now in the form of tar sands.
	And they're going to start processing it because it's now cheap enough to do.
	It's economically viable.
	But I think that people are really going to crack When it starts hitting four to five dollars a gallon.
	Yes.
	Yes, and I think the whole economy will crack sometime between four and five itself.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
	Hi.
	Hello Art, good morning to you and also your guest Sir Charles.
	Earlier in the evening you were discussing the microwave transmitting solar collector satellite.
	If I wasn't mistaken, Sir Charles had mentioned the Energy that would be transmitted was 23 milliwatts?
	That's correct, per square centimeter.
	Okay, I thought maybe just coincidental, but 23 milliwatts is also the optimum operating current for the nation's telecommunications network, the landline network.
	Were you aware of that?
	No, that's an interesting coincidence.
	Yeah, also we find that at that particular current, it's quite good for recharging Uh, a lot of common rechargeable type batteries and whatnot.
	Would that be what would go on with this system?
	It would actually, uh, recharge, uh, like gel packs and stuff like that on Earth?
	Well, that's a possibility.
	All you'd need to do is put some small sort of antenna that would act like a rectifying antenna or receiver, and then it could be used to charge batteries.
	Yes, that can be done.
	But the largest push is to actually get that electrical power into the grid.
	Sir Charles, out of curiosity, though it seemed like an interesting scheme you talked about, To supply, I don't know, cell phones and small devices, wouldn't it be equally possible and a big problem that this power would be pirated?
	Well, yes it would.
	But I don't think they're really so much worried about that.
	It's possible to use a signal that has a specific frequency that's tuned to a specific filter That would be a little difficult for somebody to duplicate, and that could reduce some of the piracy.
	But yes, somebody's going to figure out how to crack it, and somebody's going to be using it.
	Hopefully it'll be cheap enough.
	Nobody cares.
	That's a good point.
	Well, to the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
	Good morning.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Good morning.
	Well, I have a question about Microwaves also.
	Well, given the fact that there is a supposedly non-lethal weapon, which we are constantly testing, God knows why, using electromagnetic pulse radiation, I would like to ask both of you whether you know For sure, whether or not this is being used on any satellites.
	I know it's been referred to, but in sort of a vague way when I've heard about it.
	And I'm going to reveal my ignorance in how satellites work by asking whether satellites would always be sort of tuned or set and backed up or working in tandem so that if the The people who are, you know, testing this out on the populace, or using it to control the populace, or whatever they're doing, are shooting down a beam of this.
	Can they have a constant beam, or would it be that it would come around at certain times in a predictable pattern?
	Ah, I see.
	Well, actually, that sort of power would spread out On a small antenna, you need a large antenna such as you would have on a power satellite to make a beam that's going to be dense enough and stay together well enough to reach the ground at one piece.
	If you show it out of a satellite with a small antenna, the same thing's going to happen that happens with a flashlight.
	It'll spread out so much.
	That by the time it reaches the ground, it'll barely be detectable except as a little radio wave signal.
	Okay.
	The commercial satellites that are up there now for television and such have what are called spot beams.
	And they really are rather narrow beams that serve a broadcast to a very specific area.
	For example, Southeast Alaska or something about that size.
	Is that what you imagine they would do with power?
	Would they have power spot beams?
	Yes, they would.
	They put them in parallel.
	If you imagine that you have one flashlight and you shine it at a distant wall, it spreads out into a very large spot, no matter how you try to focus it, because of the nature of the light waves themselves.
	Right.
	And microwaves are the same way.
	They spread out just like light does.
	However, even though you can't focus a single one down to a spot, if you had many of them working in concert, shining on the same area, then the average power level would go up to a significant level.
	So, in this case, your beam doesn't seem to spread out.
	It is spreading out, but they're overlapped so that they reinforce each other.
	Okay.
	What specific effect would this energy have as it traversed the various layers of our atmosphere?
	Actually, we can pick frequencies that pass through the air with almost no effect.
	A very, very tiny amount of heating would occur on the order of about a hundredth of a degree centigrade.
	Wow.
	So, you're saying harmless.
	In other words, we do have some rather sensitive areas, right, of atmosphere that we're concerned about.
	That's true.
	The ozone layer, for example.
	In other words, as it came through these, it would have no measurable effect on them.
	That's correct.
	Well, now it's interesting, because somebody has even suggested that by using tuned microwaves or laser beams, We could use them to break down compounds that affect the ozone before they get to that layer.
	No kidding.
	So there actually could be some benefits to the proper frequencies and energy levels being shown through certain layers of the atmosphere.
	So, if we wanted to affect the atmosphere with a satellite, we could conceivably do that?
	Well, certainly we could.
	Oh.
	That's a horse of a different color, isn't it?
	Well, that's true.
	If you really wanted to change heating effects, yes, you could do it.
	You'd pick a frequency that the atmosphere would absorb, and then you'd cause local heating.
	And the interesting thing about that sort of plan is a lot of it would be absorbed by the atmosphere and not reach the ground.
	But it would affect the atmosphere.
	It would affect the atmosphere, yes.
	Conceivably what?
	Changing climates?
	Modifying?
	It could change the climate, yes.
	You could select areas and shoot them with specific frequencies and energies of microwave beams and you could affect the climate in areas, yes.
	Thank God our government would never consider such a thing, right?
	Oh, of course they would never consider such a thing.
	You know, we laugh, but there are projects underway, ionospheric heaters, you know, that sort of thing, that I'm sure you're well aware of.
	Are they bedabbling, Sir Charles, in areas they ought not?
	That's a pretty straight-on question.
	Well, that's an interesting question, too, whether they ought not.
	Man, that assumes a lot.
	You want to try things, if you can do so without harming things, to find out how everything works.
	I mean, we basically study things by picking them apart and poking them and seeing what's inside.
	When we do experiments in the atmosphere, you do have to be careful.
	It's just like the first atomic bomb.
	They didn't know it was going to ignite the atmosphere, you know.
	And they did it anyway, and it didn't.
	Sir Charles Schultz III is my guest and it certainly has been a fascinating conversation,
	one that will resume in a moment.
	Your show this morning really does have an extremely optimistic side to it.
	And I'm glad to be able to present that because, frankly, what's going on with oil right now in the world is scaring the hell out of me.
	And I know a lot of you out there as well.
	I mean, most people, you know, can clearly see where it's headed economically.
	With what's going on in the world, and I mean China's demand and all the rest of it, so we're either going to find more energy someplace, in a place perhaps like this, or we're in big trouble.
	Sir Charles, welcome back.
	Thank you.
	Do you have something, you know, I know you've got a website, so please promote that, and anything else you have, please promote away.
	Okay.
	Well, first off, the book is nearly finished.
	I now need to locate a publisher, and I'm working on that right away.
	Second, I wanted to give some thanks to Andy Doan, my new webmaster who redesigned my site, and I know everybody who sees it appreciates it.
	Xenotechresearch.com.
	X-E-N-O-T-E-C-H.
	Xenotechresearch.com.
	I'm sorry.
	X-E-N-O-T-E-R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H.
	Could have made it easier, you know.
	Yeah, I could have.
	So that's Xenotechresearch.com.
	Okay.
	And we have a link.
	We have a link, by the way, folks.
	Oh, very good.
	And I need to correct one thing.
	I said eight hours for the space elevator to reach the midpoint, the orbital point, geostationary.
	It would be eight days.
	I'm sorry about that.
	Eight days?
	Yes, eight days.
	Well.
	It only moves 190 kilometers per hour.
	That would require a little provisioning on the way, a couple Hershey bars or something.
	It'd be like a cruise.
	Alright, back to the phones.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles Schultz III.
	Thank you very much Art.
	Gary in Santa Maria, KSMA 1240.
	Hey Gary.
	Perfect person to ask this question.
	22nd setup, maybe 25th at the most.
	Bin Laden just got religious approval.
	Uh, from the, uh, from the clerics, uh, to set off a nuclear device.
	People wonder why it hasn't happened yet.
	He's a very religious man in that religion, and he wanted approval for the American Hiroshima.
	Paul Williams says that there's already 20 nuclear weapons planted here, whether or not you believe they're here with a border absolutely wide open.
	And with the recent attacks that they've just discovered in London, 40 million radical Muslims in the world ready to do a kamikaze.
	That's why we had such a hard time in World War II when a man is willing to give up his own life to kill you.
	It's very, very hard to stop.
	And our border is wide open.
	Why, under God's green earth, is this president committing this country to an american hiroshima whether it be nuclear biological
	or chemical the red carpet is rolled out any
	keep saying well we're taking the war to get more cake under god's green earth do you run strictly an offense with
	no defense in the red carpet rolled out to come say come take out america
	uh... well that's uh... heck of a question and i can tell you this if i
	were a politician and i could answer that question i wouldn't be a scientist
	uh...
	uh... i would say don't be so concerned about his permission to do this as as
	any story that would indicate that he actually has come into possession of a
	nuclear weapon Then I would be very concerned because there's always going to be somebody willing to extinguish their own life for the cause and set it off.
	No question about that.
	Creation is much easier than destruction.
	It's much harder than destruction.
	There may be one question you could attempt to answer for me.
	If there were nuclear weapons in place in the U.S., as some suggest, or there would be one en route to us, do we have sufficient detection equipment in place to know about that?
	There is pretty good detection equipment, and most of it ended up in strategic places where they expect things to come through.
	Nuclear weapons do have specific signatures.
	Lots of neutrons, for instance.
	Neutron detectors aren't really plentiful right now, but there is a big push to make many more of them.
	As for the detectors being in place, I would say at this point they probably have a lot more than I'm aware of, and they probably wouldn't say anything about it.
	Sometimes the stealth that you use in detecting these things is your strongest ally.
	Alright, International Line, you're on the air with Sir Charles, hi.
	When I push the button, hi there, you're on the air now.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, I hear you.
	Hello, gentlemen.
	I have two questions.
	One is in reference to the nanotube technology, and I'm calling from Hanalei in the Pacific.
	My name is Robin, and we have... I don't know where she went.
	Are you still there?
	Hello?
	Yes, hi.
	Okay, the nanotube question.
	In reference to the nanotube, All right.
	Both good questions.
	What is the difference between the two as far as the two technologies are concerned?
	Also, where is manufacturing the nanofibers and where are they doing it?
	Both good questions. The difference between nanotube technology and fiber optics.
	Fiber optics is basically a fiber made of either glass or plastic or other clear materials.
	It has two different types of material.
	An interior material and a cladding material.
	And each one has a different rate of allowing light to pass through it.
	The index of refraction is different.
	So what happens in fiber optics is the light is actually confined to a ...a pathway inside the fiber so that it emerges pretty much as it was when it entered the fiber.
	The nanotubes are entirely different materials.
	They're made of carbon atoms, and the carbon atoms are put together in a sort of a spiral that forms a tiny tube about one billionth of a meter across, one nanometer in size.
	But they can be very long, just as a hair is tiny in size, but very long.
	The nanofibers aren't actually related to fiber optics at all.
	There intended to be a very high-strength, high-tensile-strength material and could end up replacing a lot of things in, let's say, bulletproof vests as well as making space elevators.
	And her follow-up question was, Sir Charles, who is currently doing this manufacturing?
	I think there's a company called Microsystems and Applied Sciences also that is working on the nanotubes right now.
	I know that Applied Sciences is.
	And there are a number of small companies that are working on it that we don't really hear a lot because they're under the wire.
	But I think Applied Science is one of the largest manufacturers at this point.
	Okay, I've heard some pretty exciting stuff about paint you can put on your house for getting energy and that sort of thing.
	You've heard about that?
	Oh yes, because of the fact that these nanofibers act almost as antennas do For light waves, you know, antennas for radio waves can pick up the energy.
	Right.
	And these fibers can be tuned to light waves, and they could convert it, theoretically, into electrical current.
	So nanofiber coatings, paints, could become the next solar cell.
	All right, good enough.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
	Hi.
	Hi Arthur.
	Hi Sir Charles.
	I was curious about the so-called phenomenon of the Cambrian Explosion, how all the modern phyla of animals seem to appear all at once without Gradually evolving from a common ancestor, and I'm wondering if this Cambrian explosion might have occurred more slowly on Mars, and then, as the Martian climate became periodically a desert, and then wet again, and the deserts got longer and longer in duration and time, the cysts got better and better at handling harsh conditions, and then survived an asteroid splash, and they got planted here on Earth, and that's why there's a Cambrian explosion here, because the common ancestors occurred on Mars.
	If that's true, then maybe we could still find cysts that could hatch into trilobites on Mars, or places where they're still existing in little puddles, and we could get to see living trilobites.
	I'm wondering what you have to say about that.
	Well, understandably, a Cambrian explosion occurred, and this is a period early in Earth's history, about 500 million years ago, when all of a sudden life became very complex.
	There were huge changes in our atmosphere, lots of free oxygen, Uh, and small organisms showed up, began becoming all different sorts of life forms.
	Now, most of these don't show up in the fossil record because they're such delicate and small objects.
	However, enough has shown up to show us that suddenly there was a huge amount of diversity in life on Earth.
	Uh, similar processes appeared to have occurred on Mars, and whether they occurred more quickly or more slowly is hard to say, but the thought of an asteroid impact carrying all these organisms One planet to the other has some problems.
	Some bacteria could probably make it very easily, but larger organisms are much more fragile than bacteria, and they stand a far worse chance of surviving such a transfer.
	So if organisms were carried from one planet to the other by asteroid or meteor impacts, it probably would be nothing much larger than spores or bacteria.
	Why should we be any more concerned about NASA returning a sample from Mars than we are about a Mars rock re-entering our atmosphere, or, no, I'm sorry, entering our atmosphere, and then coming down and cracking open on the ground and spreading something?
	Well, actually, that's an easy one to answer.
	When a Mars rock is removed from the planet, it's typically blasted off the planet by an impact, such as an asteroid or a meteor.
	When this happens, The rock is subjected to a great deal of stress and heat.
	It has to rip through the atmosphere very rapidly in order to escape from the planet, and it may be incandescent when that happens.
	When it travels through space, it typically takes many millions to tens of millions of years to reach the Earth, and organisms don't tend to survive for tens of millions of years.
	As it is right now, it takes special conditions, such as being frozen Or stuck in a salt crystal for an organism to last from thousands to millions of years.
	So by the time it reaches the Earth, now it's gone through our atmosphere as well.
	And it's been pretty thoroughly sterilized and quarantined.
	So we don't really have many things to worry about.
	You would certainly be uniquely qualified to answer this, Sir Charles.
	If a Martian sample came back, After all you've seen and demonstrated on your website about Mars and we had a Martian sample sitting in front of us, would you be in the same room when they opened it?
	I certainly would not.
	I am extremely concerned about the possibility of organisms still extant or still living on the Martian surface because it is proven to be wet and in fact you can see proof that it's wet and it's been right under their noses all along.
	When you look at Meridiani The surface of the plain is covered with trillions of identical little fossil spherules and rocks as well.
	So the question is, why are all the rocks and spherules on the surface?
	Any farmer knows the answer.
	If you plow a field, and you remove the rocks preparatory to planting, and there's a freeze, the next day you come out and there's rocks in the field again.
	And this happens because of a process called frost heave.
	When there's moisture in the soil and it freezes, ice pillars form and thrust all the rocks to the surface.
	Now, if this is true, we should see evidence of that on Mars, and we do.
	Where the heat shield crashed, the soil underneath it that it dug the trench in shows no rocks or spherules underneath it.
	So...
	If all the spherules and rocks are on the surface, some process put them there, and it is my theory that frost heave did it, and it's another confirmation that there's moisture in the soil.
	So if you were on a board making a decision about bringing a sample back from Mars, you would urge caution, or you would want the project scrapped altogether, or what?
	I wouldn't let it come any closer than the Moon.
	I would not want it on the Earth.
	I certainly wouldn't want it in an orbital station, because orbital stations can re-enter, and not everything burns up.
	If we had it on the Moon, then I wouldn't feel so bad about it.
	If it was quarantined there in the proper biological facilities, that would be fine.
	All right.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Eric.
	How are you doing today?
	Just great.
	I'm calling from the northbound capital of the world, up here in Fort McMurray, Alberta.
	Yes, sir.
	And just to let you know, Sir Charles, China has already bought into the oil sands up here now.
	They bought into one of the future mines, north of the existing mines.
	So they're already investing their money.
	Were you aware of that, Sir Charles?
	No, I wasn't.
	Your prediction already is apparently coming true.
	They're sinking money in the oil.
	I've got to get out more.
	Thank you.
	So just letting you know, Sir Charles, they're already up here.
	Okay, we appreciate the information.
	That's amazing.
	So it's already occurring.
	Wes for the Rockies, you're on the air with Sir Charles.
	Good morning.
	Edna, if you're still listening, JC's a madman.
	Make a run for it while you can!
	Alright, thank you.
	Yes, we're well aware of that.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Sir Charles Lowe.
	Hello.
	I'd like to start this brief conversation here by saying everyone across the planet has heard the common saying of think globally, act locally.
	Well, I just wanted to say that I believe it's time I also have a question, but I believe it's time for us to start saying, think universally, act globally.
	And it's time for us to step up.
	And one thing that has been the common thread in all the things that Sir Charles talks about is decentralization of everything that has to do with energy.
	So we're not able to provide for our city.
	And my question for you, Sir Charles, is I believe decentralization Would help people to be able to contribute and act globally or locally, however you want to say it.
	But a question is, there's devices... I'd just like to hear your comment and tell me that this is not possible.
	If you take a regenerative solid oxide fuel cell that's taken hydrogen in and is also regenerating some of that hydrogen back out as fuel, And then it's outputting its heat, which is significant, to a Stirling engine device, which is a heat engine, which is capable of working on a free piston type system, and turning the heat into energy, taking the energy from the solid oxide fuel cell, as well as taking the hydrogen that comes back out from the regenerative fuel cell.
	Is it not possible that we have the technology right now, right here on Earth, to deploy to people, just to make it commercially viable and available through just common plastics?
	And I'd also like to say... Okay, hold on, sir.
	That's a lot to comment on, so hold right there, please.
	In other words, does this kind of system exist now?
	Could it be deployed?
	Could it be done?
	Are we just ignoring it?
	Are the oil companies burying it?
	What's the deal?
	Okay, any system that consumes fuel has a loss.
	And if it's generating fuel, when it's consuming fuel, there's going to be a loss on the way.
	So it's going to make less than you want.
	It's kind of like putting a windmill on the hood of your car and hoping it'll charge the battery up without using the energy from your fuel.
	You're getting that same energy out of the fuel back into the system less efficiently than you would with a regular generator.
	So, a system that made its own fuel that way is going to lose.
	It's a losing proposition because it's a perpetual motion machine.
	And thermodynamics just doesn't permit that to happen.
	On the other hand, he had a good point.
	We need to start acting Individually, as well, so that we have a global effect.
	I did a calculation that showed that over 12.6 trillion watts of sunlight heating occurs on just the rooftops of our homes in this country.
	That's amazing.
	If we were simply to make the roofs reflective or silver, we'd eliminate an immense load on our air conditioning.
	And if we actually use it to generate power, you could have your air conditioning essentially for free.
	Depends on how much it costs to set up, however.
	Well, I think the kind of world that you describe cannot be far off, or put another way, had better not be very far off, looking at current conditions.
	Sir Charles, it has been a pleasure having you here tonight.
	Our time has evaporated, much like the water on Mars.

▲