Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 12, 2006 - Art Bell

02:41:03

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Neal Adams - The Growing Earth

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the Southeast Asian capital city of the Philippines, Manila, I greet you and welcome to yet another weekend across all these time zones in the world.
	What is it?
	23, 24, 24 and a half, something like that.
	I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	Well, what a week it's been.
	It's been an amazing week.
	The news, of course, has shifted back from what happened in the air to the war between Israel and Hezbollah.
	And the news there is not good.
	More Israeli troops surged into southern Lebanon on Saturday, reaching the Latani River and engaging in some of the heaviest combat of the Month-long war now, just hours after the UN Security Council adopted that ceasefire plan everybody knew was coming.
	Israel lost 19 soldiers, its highest one-day death toll.
	The leader of the Islamic militant group Hezbollah grudgingly joined Lebanon's government in accepting The U.N.
	resolution, but they vowed to keep fighting until Israeli troops leave and hand over territory to a muscular U.N.
	peacekeeping force intended to separate the two.
	Now, it seems to me that Hezbollah, if they have grudgingly or otherwise accepted this, means that Israel, to me it means, that Israel is probably having some measure of success in attaining its goals of pushing them back.
	The investigation into a plot to blow up jetliners kept me busy for a lot of the latter part of the week.
	I'm sure many of you awoke as we did on the morning of 9-11, saw the continuous 24-hour coverage on all the news networks of what was going on and went, oh my God, not again.
	They were going to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic.
	They zeroed in Saturday on some brothers arrested in Pakistan and in Britain.
	One named as a key Al-Qaeda suspect who left the family's home in England years ago, and the other described as, get this, a gentle and polite person.
	A gentle and polite person.
	British authorities, meanwhile, warned against complacency, said the detention of several dozen suspects had not eliminated the danger.
	The terror threat in Britain remained critical.
	Its highest designation and delays, flight cancellations and intense security continued to greet travellers at London airports.
	It kept me awake and in front of the screen for a couple of days, not knowing, of course, what was going to come next, as I'm sure many of you did not.
	I think it's worthy here to stop for a moment and give some credit to our intelligence agencies, don't you?
	I mean, we don't hear, for the most part, about intelligence successes.
	Well, here you've heard about one, finally.
	Most of them are kept quiet.
	You know, they succeed in preventing some awful thing like 9-11 from happening, and of course it's kept quiet.
	Generally, all you hear about are the failures of Intel, and so the general opinion of intelligence around the world is rather low among the general public, but I would like to credit the intelligence agencies in Great Britain and of course here in the U.S.
	as well for stopping this before it actually happened.
	I got an interesting little fast blast from Cecilia in South Carolina, and as you know, all liquids are banned from aircraft.
	Cecilia.
	She has a question.
	It says, Lord, I have a question that I just have not heard an answer to.
	It's awfully personal, but I do need an answer.
	I'm flying soon, and I really do not want to be arrested.
	I, you see, use jelly implants inside my bra.
	Can I still use them?
	I am truly serious.
	Can't be the only one.
	I'm sure you're not, Cecilia.
	I have no idea.
	No idea, Cecilia.
	I guess... I have no idea how to answer that question.
	None at all.
	In Baghdad, not a good day.
	50 dead in Iraq.
	50 police found.
	A dozen bodies trapped in a grate in the Tigris River.
	And a roadside bomb killed two soldiers on foot patrol south of Baghdad Saturday as nearly 50 violent deaths were reported across Iraq.
	So, not going well there.
	The customs area at a Detroit airport was briefly shut down Saturday, get this, after a passenger claimed that he had contaminated everybody on the flight with a biological agent.
	Meanwhile in Dallas, officials evacuated part of a terminal airport because a suitcase was smoking and leaking some unknown kind of liquid.
	Has the world lost its mind?
	That would be my question.
	Has the world lost its mind?
	It certainly seems so.
	Here in the Philippines, I know the news has been breaking in the U.S.
	about our volcano.
	I told you about that a few weeks ago.
	Six explosions occurred at the Mayan volcano for the past 24-hour observation period, to keep you up to date here.
	The seismic network reported these mild outbursts at 5.14 a.m., 5.18 a.m., 11.12 p.m., 2.55 p.m., and 3.50 p.m.
	518 a.m. 11 12 p.m. to 55 p.m. and 350 p.m. yesterday and and three 15.
	today.
	A big grayish cloud was briefly seen after the last ash explosion, which quickly dissipated and drifted off to the east-southeast of the volcano.
	Now we are currently here in the Philippines at alert level four for this volcano.
	It's a big one and it could really blow and frankly they expect it to blow.
	This is, as a matter of fact, I got a warden message from the U.S.
	Embassy here in the Philippines suggesting that indeed it was a very dangerous time and that volcano may blow.
	Now to put your mind at rest, we're about 225 miles or so From the volcano.
	The real danger zone is only about seven kilometers at the most away from the volcano.
	So it's not going to affect us, at least I don't think it will, here in Manila.
	It is nevertheless a very interesting volcano and...
	I have been noting that there is an airport.
	It would take several hours to drive there.
	I really would like to see it.
	I really would like to go take photographs of it, actually.
	And I've been talking to Erin about going down there to do that.
	She's not real on fire about the idea to do it.
	But she would be willing, so there is the possibility that I could hop on an aircraft and go down and see this volcano and take some photographs for you.
	It certainly would be interesting.
	At any rate, in a moment, we'll look at the rest of the news.
	The SETI at Home project is facing shutdown.
	How's that for a headline?
	The SETI at Home Project has seen now over 5 million computer users donate run time to the search for extraterrestrial life, but it's about to close if it doesn't get some cash.
	The project needs to raise about 750,000 pounds, English pounds, by the end of the year.
	And writer and futurist Sir Arthur C. Clarke has sent out a letter urging computer users to please send in donations.
	The project is updating its hardware and software and is running dangerously low on funds.
	Following the dot-com bust, the commercial support that kept SETI at home running has largely dried up, he writes.
	Because of this loss of support, we can no longer count on any matching funds from the University of California.
	We're rapidly approaching the end of what funds we do have.
	The team has set up a special site where donors can contribute to the project.
	The SETI at Home project was launched back in 1999.
	The first large-scale software that used the spare capacity of ordinary PCs, of all you out there, to process data that would usually be done by supercomputers.
	The data comes from the Arecibo Observatory and thus for 2.4 million years, That's 2.4 million years of processing time has been used to search for extraterrestrials.
	None found yet, they say.
	The world's second largest ice cap might be melting three times faster than indicated by all previous measurements.
	According to the newly released gravity data collected by satellites, the Greenland ice sheet shrank at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometers per year from April of 2002 to November of 2005, according to a team from the University of Texas at Austin.
	The last 18 months of the measurements, ice melting has appeared to accelerate particularly in southeastern Greenland now.
	This is particularly worrisome because there is a theory that the faster it melts, the faster it melts.
	Now, I don't know that this story on its own would validate that theory, but if it is a self-perpetuating process that sort of gathers weight as a snowball would as it rolls down a mountain, then we indeed have something serious to worry about.
	More than 60% of the U.S.
	now has either abnormally dry or even drought conditions stretching from Georgia to Arizona, across the North, through the Dakotas, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin.
	According to climatologists for the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, an area stretching from South Central North Dakota all the way to South Dakota is the most drought stricken region in the nation.
	It is the epicenter.
	It's just like a wasteland in north-central South Dakota.
	Conditions are not much better farther south.
	Paul Smokoff and his wife Betty raise several hundred cattle on their 1,750-acre ranch north of Steele, a town of about 760.
	Fields of wheat, durum, barley in the Dakotas this dry summer will never end up as pasta, bread or beer.
	What's left of the very stilted crops has been salvaged to feed livestock struggling on pastures where hot winds blow clouds of dirt or dried out ponds.
	My God, that sounds bad.
	Or what about this?
	In the Gulf of Mexico, several miles off the Louisiana coast, lies one of the world's largest dead zones.
	That would be oxygen deprived areas devoid of all marine life.
	In other words, nothing lives there.
	Searchers predict that this summer, the Dead Zone is going to grow to cover nearly 6,700 square miles, or an area roughly half the size of Maryland, and a whole lot bigger than its size in recent years of 4,800 square miles.
	Worst of all, the dead zone is from us.
	It's human-made.
	Runoff from farms in the Midwest adds as much as 7.8 million pounds of nitrate fertilizer to the Mississippi River and, of course, its tributaries each day during peak loading periods, which then, of course, runs downriver and empties right into the Gulf.
	As it does with plants grown on land, the nitrogen causes algae and plankton, plankton is very important to life, in the area to flourish using all available oxygen in the water.
	The result, hypoxia, an oxygen depleted dead zone in which fish and all other marine life for that matter simply cannot survive.
	Now, we're going to go to open lines shortly, so if you have something you want to get on the air now would be a good time, but I want to get this story in.
	It's just, it's incredible.
	Brandi Koch of Clearwater, Florida says she feels like she's living in a horror movie.
	She claims she has colored fibers coming out of her skin.
	Brandy, it seems, is married to Billy Koch, a former Major League Baseball player who's only one of a handful of pitchers who could throw the ball at more than 100 miles an hour.
	That's fast.
	Koch says her life was good till one day in the shower she noticed something strange.
	Tiny little fibers running through her skin.
	The fibers look like hair, but they're different, says Koch.
	Koch says she knows what she's experiencing sounds crazy, but it's true.
	If I had a family member call me up and say, I have this stuff, I'd say, I'm sending a straightjacket over.
	You need some help.
	Ann Dill describes a similar condition.
	Looking at Dill's life, it appears as if she's living an idyllic existence in a home on Florida's Lake Mary.
	Her three daughters excel in sports and are straight-A students, but life in the Dill household is far from idyllic.
	Ann's 40-year-old husband, Tom, died in January, and she believes his death was due to a contagious illness, that's contagious, folks, that has infected her entire family.
	Dill describes her family's skin.
	There's a fibrous material.
	It's in layers, she says.
	Dill says the skin on their hands is particularly bad, swollen, itchy.
	She says it feels as if bugs are crawling underneath the skin.
	Dr. Greg Smith of Gainesville, Georgia has been a pediatrician for the past 28 years.
	He claims a fiber is coming out of his big toe and he has video footage to prove it.
	He says, quote, it felt like somebody stuck a pin in my toe and wiggled it and it just continued to hurt.
	Smith says he never thought that he had bugs.
	I've certainly had those crawling sensations and the fibers which come out of the skin are really bizarre and really odd.
	When Koch, Dill, and Smith consulted doctors, they received diagnoses that they call either wrong or dismissive.
	Dill's doctor told her to stop scratching, and even though many of her sores were in places she couldn't even reach, Koch went on to the Mayo Clinic where doctors didn't believe that fiber she'd brought them had grown from her body.
	Quote, I saw the infectious disease, doctor.
	I showed him some samples that I had, and he snickered.
	I can't go through another doctor blowing me off or looking at me like I'm crazy.
	I know I'm not, Sid Koch.
	Smith, a doctor of course himself, was handed over to a hospital psychiatrist when he went to the patient, when he went to the emergency room rather, claiming a fiber in his eye.
	He admits that he too would be somewhat skeptical if a patient were to come to him with the same story.
	I'd wonder if they'd taken their medicine that day.
	It made no sense at all.
	It's totally bizarre.
	It's something that just, well, telling the story is so outlandish on the face of it that no one would believe it.
	At any rate, apparently all of this is true.
	It's called Morgellons Disease and about 45 people are estimated to have it.
	I would like to know more about it.
	It's the first I've ever heard of it.
	It seems like I've heard the name before, Morgellons Disease, but fibers growing out of your skin?
	Fibers that they test and they cannot confirm that indeed they come from a biological organism.
	In fact, they have absolutely no idea what they are.
	I guess you all know that on Mount Graham in Arizona, the Catholic Church, actually the Vatican, has a big telescope.
	Mile after slow winding mile, a line of vans steadily advanced up the side of the rugged mountain.
	The Bumpy Rudimentary Road Dead ended at a closed gate.
	A priest jumped out of the lead vehicle, unlocked it, and waved the caravan through.
	There, more than 10,000 feet above the Arizona desert, appeared the unlikely sight, a very unlikely sight, one of the most advanced telescopes on Earth.
	A piece of equipment contained a mirror, So fragile that some had joked it would require divine intervention to haul the mirror to the very peak of Mount Graham without ever damaging.
	But they did, of course.
	Even more unlikely was the small plaque indicating the telescope's primary owner, the Vatican, an institution known for its focus on ancient religion, not cutting-edge science.
	And it goes on to describe this telescope, it's certainly one of the best in the world, but the big question I have always had, I've known about this for a very long time, I'm sure many of you have, is what is the Vatican looking for?
	What do you suppose it is that the Vatican expects to see?
	I guess that'd be the right way to put it, right?
	What do they expect to see?
	A pair of strange new worlds that blur the boundaries between planets and stars have been now discovered beyond our solar system.
	A few dozen such objects have been identified in recent years, but this is the first set of twins.
	That's in quotes.
	Dubbed plasmos, they circle each other rather than orbiting a star.
	Their existence challenges current theories about the formation of planets and stars.
	It is a truly remarkable pair of twins, said one astronomer, each having only about 1% the mass of our Sun.
	Its mere existence is quite a surprise and its origin is a bit of a mystery.
	A double planet, if you really want to call them planets at all.
	Somebody sent this to me and I thought it was a riot.
	It's called Rules for Pets.
	It is designed to be posted very low on the refrigerator door, nose height for example.
	It would simply read, Dear Dogs and Cats.
	The dishes with the paw prints are yours and contain your food.
	The other dishes are mine and contain my food.
	Please note, placing a paw print in the middle of my plate does not make the food nor stake a claim for it being yours and your dish, nor do I find that aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.
	The stairway was not designed by NASCAR and is not a racetrack.
	Beating me to the bottom is not the object.
	Tipping me doesn't help because I fall faster than you can run.
	I cannot buy anything bigger than a king-sized bed.
	I'm very sorry about this.
	I do not think I will continue sleeping on the couch to ensure your comfort.
	Dogs and cats can actually curl up in a ball when they sleep.
	It is not necessary to sleep perpendicular to each other, stretched out to the fullest extent possible.
	I also know that sticking tails straight out and having tongues hanging out the other end to maximize space is nothing but sarcasm.
	For the last time, there is not a secret exit from the bathroom.
	If I, by some miracle, beat you there and managed to get the door shut, it is not necessary to claw, whine, meow, try to turn the knob, or get your paw under the edge and try to pull the door open.
	I must exit through the same door I entered.
	Also, I've been using the bathroom for years.
	Canine or feline attendance?
	is not mandatory.
	The proper order is kiss me and then go smell the other dog or cat's butt.
	I cannot stress this enough.
	To pacify you, my dear pets, I have posted the following message on our front door.
	And following the break I will Relate that message to you.
	And I will also go to open line.
	So any of you who have anything you want to say that is unusual, strange, informative, or even mildly entertaining, now would be the time to pick up the phone and let's have at it.
	From Manila in the Philippines, I'm Art Bell.
	With a big volcano rumbling, actually getting ready to blow up to the south of me.
	Howdy all!
	Let me finish up.
	Having said all that to the pets, there is now, to pacify them, the following posted on the front door of this person to all non-pet owners who visit and like to complain about our pets.
	One.
	They live here.
	You don't.
	2.
	If you don't want their hair on your clothes, stay off the furniture.
	That's why they call it fur-niture.
	3.
	I like my pets a lot better than I like most people.
	4.
	To you, it's an animal.
	To me, he, she is an adopted son and or daughter who is short, hairy, walks on all fours, and doesn't speak clearly.
	Remember, dogs and cats are better than kids because they 1.
	Eat less.
	2.
	Don't ask for money all the time.
	3.
	Are easier to train.
	4.
	Usually come when called.
	5.
	Never drive your car.
	6.
	Don't hang out with drug-using friends.
	7.
	Don't smoke or drink.
	8.
	Don't worry about having to buy the latest fashions.
	9.
	Don't wear your clothes.
	10.
	Don't need a gazillion dollars for college.
	11.
	And if they get pregnant, you can sell their children.
	Alright, open lines, promised open lines, it shall be.
	On the wildcard line, you have achieved the heir.
	Hello there.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Uh, do you believe in, have you ever heard of the Freemasons?
	I've heard of them, yes, yes.
	I, maybe there's a treasure, I believe there is.
	What's a treasure?
	Yeah.
	And the Freemasons are keeping the secret, keeping the treasure.
	Yeah.
	I see.
	Actually, for years, sir, people have accused me of being a 33, 33rd degree Mason, and I got so sick of it, that and the fact that they would accuse me of being a CIA member, that I finally stopped denying it.
	It was easier to say, well, yeah, you know, sure.
	I am.
	If you want to believe that, go ahead and believe it.
	It actually works better than a denial.
	So there's a little secret for some of you budding talk show hosts out there.
	Don't deny these things.
	Of course, the result of that has been there are any number of websites across the internet that have big Masonic symbols and my name in the center and all sorts of weird symbols and the rest of it.
	But that's all right.
	I don't mind.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Art.
	I hope you don't mind a few questions about the Philippines.
	No, ask away.
	Okay, good.
	Number one, is it Friday there or is it Saturday?
	Actually, it's Sunday.
	Oh, it's Sunday?
	Yeah, it's Sunday at about, oh I don't know, 2.40 or so in the afternoon.
	Oh, I guess I should say good afternoon then.
	Well, you may if you wish.
	Anything else?
	Yeah, did you have to convert to Catholicism to marry your wife?
	No.
	No, and I have not yet converted to Catholicism.
	I'm really considering it very heavily.
	I went to my first Catholic Mass several weeks ago, and there's every possibility that I may convert.
	Because I heard you talking about the family life over there.
	Do you plan on propagating?
	Uh, no, but I don't plan on not propagating either, if you follow me.
	Yeah, yeah, I do.
	So, you know, what'll be will be.
	Did you meet your wife on the internet?
	Um, I did not.
	I met my wife through a very good friend of mine, an amateur radio operator, in Arkansas, who knew that my wife had passed away, and was dating a gal over here, and Erin was her sister.
	Oh, I see.
	That's nice.
	Well, I know I was just wondering, does it make you feel strange walking down the street
	because you're the only Caucasoid?
	No, it does not.
	It might interest some of you to know, just adding a couple of factoids here, that Americans are by far not the biggest group of retirees here in the Philippines.
	And I'm going to get this wrong, but I'm close to being right.
	The largest group here, I believe, is Japanese retirees, people retiring in the Philippines, followed by I think the Chinese and the Koreans, and so Americans are somewhere down the list, fourth or fifth or something like that.
	No, I spent, as many of you know, I spent ten years in the Orient, ten years on the island of Okinawa, which has a very similar climate to the Philippines.
	It's hot, it's humid, and it's tropical.
	There's simply no two ways around it.
	It's definitely tropical.
	No, I don't feel at all odd to answer your question.
	It is a lovely, lovely land and the people are really first class.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Howdy, Art.
	This is Colleen from Colorado.
	Hi, Colleen.
	Hi.
	I had a question.
	Before you moved, I always envisioned you out there in your studio surrounded by the darkness and, you know, it lent sort of a spooky air to things.
	I'm still surrounded by the darkness.
	What I do, Colleen, is, first of all, the first thing I installed when I got here were mini blinds, followed by some very dark curtains.
	So I've got both of those closed, and the atmosphere in here is every bit as dark and foreboding as it might be in the middle of the night in the desert.
	Okay, that's how you maintain your ambiance.
	That's how I do it.
	Okay, thanks.
	You're very welcome.
	That was an easy one, yes.
	I find it important to still have that, as she put it, ambiance around me as I do the program.
	I'm not sure why, but that's the very first thing I did.
	We ordered many blinds for the entire condo, then put in some very dark... You know what?
	I took a photograph.
	Actually, I had Aaron take a photograph of me sitting in my work position here just prior to the beginning of the program.
	I had forgotten to do that, so I did that.
	And I will rush in during the top of this next hour, process the photograph, if I'm able to that quickly, and send it up to the net so you can actually see where I am.
	You can see at least a portion of the small room from which I broadcast.
	On the first time caller line, you are on the air.
	Hello, this is Ryan from Dayton.
	From where?
	Dayton, Ohio.
	Dayton, Ohio.
	Okay, buddy.
	Welcome.
	Well, I got a story of we counted a bunch of times, but never for so many people.
	But as I said, I live in Dayton by the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
	And I had gathered with some friends of mine on 9-11.
	I don't remember the exact time of the afternoon.
	It was early afternoon.
	And we heard a loud explosion.
	Uh, they took the entire house and we were watching all the news reports about 9 11.
	And, you know, we, we immediately freaked out and ran outside and there's everybody else in the neighborhood.
	And I've never heard anything about this since.
	Uh, everybody's staring out in the sky, kind of wondering what was that?
	And we saw a large, kind of like a contrail, but just aiming straight down, um, kind of east of us.
	And we heard it again.
	We felt this large explosion again.
	And we run inside and start checking news reports, and there was reports of a plane down, there was reports just of there's been an explosion.
	Alright, I take it you're referring to the plane that went down in Pennsylvania?
	No, no, this was, I live in Dayton, Ohio.
	I understand.
	And the news reports covered different Stories of how this happened and eventually they converged on the same story several hours later and said, well, there was a fire at the VA hospital and those booms that everybody heard were sonic booms.
	And I've, I've been to air shows and seen the sonic boom, you know, right over your head.
	And nobody that I know in any military or any background, uh, thought that this was a sonic boom.
	And we heard two of them saw a large smoke trail and it was just the, the media reports were vastly different than that.
	Alright, so in what way was this related to 9-11, or was there no relationship at all?
	It was just on that day.
	Oh, it was just on that day.
	It was 9-11, 2001.
	It was THE day.
	Okay, well, interesting, but I guess not related in some way.
	There may be others who experience that or know of what you speak, but it sounds like there's no relationship.
	Waking up the other day and hearing about the horrid mess going on in Britain, the attempt to take down planes on their way to America, reminded me, in the urgency of its coverage, The way it was covered, it reminded me of 9-11, and I was hoping and praying that we were not in the middle of what would have been a 9-11, and certainly had this been carried out, it would have been as bad or worse in terms of loss of life than 9-11 was.
	So, I must admit, it shook me up pretty well.
	Wildcard Line, you are on the air.
	Good morning.
	Art Bell?
	That would be me.
	Hi, Art.
	I've been listening to you for a really, really long time.
	and I'm a huge fan of yours. I used to be a Streamlink member and I just I'm very saddened that
	you're not up five days a week. Well I'm just happy to be here on the weekends. That's quite
	sufficient for me. Right. Well I've got a problem and I'm going to be very frank with you and I want
	you to you know try and see if you can help me. Okay. Okay.
	I'm having a little problem with separating what a person believes from what a person does
	as art.
	An example this past week was Mel Gibson, but also I'm having kind of an issue with things that George Norris says and a statement he made last weekend when they were discussing the situation with privacy concerns on the Internet.
	And I'm trying to decide, when you're listening to somebody who's an artist, because you're an artist, Because what do I consider an art?
	Okay, well, thank you.
	But, you know, when someone makes statements and, you know, they held certain statements and certain value systems and certain ways of thinking that are kind of an opposite or really contrasting with your own.
	And this comes down to the problems that are happening in America between the left and the right political spectrum, too.
	But just in general, how do you or can you just Compartmentalize that, and just say, look, I really appreciate this book, or this movie, or the radio show, or whatever, and say, look, I'll continue to take advantage of what this person produces, even though what they believe is offensive to my value system.
	Well, first of all, are you sure that you're hearing what this person really believes?
	Particularly, for example, when you're talking about talk show hosts, whether it's myself or George or anybody else, this is a program that specializes in airing the views of people that are very non-standard, to put it lightly.
	Just because something is said, and it appears that a talk show host agrees with what's being said, does not mean that that really represents their line of thought or their value system or anything else.
	Really?
	So it's just for entertainment's sake?
	Like when somebody says this is what I believe in?
	No, no, no.
	Listen, I wouldn't go that far.
	Not everything is for entertainment's sake, and there's a lot of very important information that crosses these airwaves, but don't believe everything you hear, here or anywhere else.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you so much, Art.
	It's been really an honor and a pleasure to speak with you.
	I've been wanting to speak with you for years.
	Take care, my friend.
	And that goes for the rest of you, too.
	Be very cautious about what you believe, and there are many things that you will hear on this program that probably are utter garbage.
	And there are other nuggets and things you will hear on this program that turn out to be insightful, predictive, and far ahead of the rest of the media.
	So it is up to you.
	I've always said this.
	To separate the two, and to make up your mind, which is which.
	On the international line, you are on the air.
	Greetings.
	Good morning, Mr. Bell.
	Good morning.
	This is Dan Wilcott, or Dan, sorry, from Greenfield Park, Quebec, Canada.
	Yes, sir.
	We go back a way, you might remember me as saying, I'm such a polite Canadian, we even apologize to furniture when we bump into it.
	You know, I do recall that.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	And I've just been passing, that was an amazing statement you just made to that previous caller about the content of your program.
	I've never heard such honesty.
	But the reason I'm phoning tonight is my wife and I were watching CNN one night, not quite a year ago, and we heard a story about a woman who had been arrested at the Swiss border.
	And she had been arrested.
	I don't know if that was the cause, but when she was arrested, she had a large amount of money on her in a suitcase.
	The further details was she was the wife of a high-ranking Pentagon or Defense Department official.
	And what really stood out about the story was she had been, her name was on one of the passenger manifests of one of the planes that went down On 9-11.
	And when we heard that, I said to my wife, boy, this is really gonna hit the fan, you know?
	And it's one of those stories.
	Yeah, but names can be similar.
	I mean, can you truly know that it was, in fact, the same person?
	Well, I didn't recognize the name, but they described her as the wife of a... I mean, they gave the name, but then they said the actual way that her husband's position at the Pentagon.
	You know, like, I mean, I don't think it was Mrs. Rumsfeld or something, but they did know her and they said her husband, the husband of defense department, blah, blah, blah, or whatever, you know?
	I'm familiar with that.
	I said, well this is really gonna hit the fan or something, but so many of these stories,
	you hear them once and you think, oh wow, there's gonna be something, and then...
	And then they disappear.
	I'm familiar with that.
	I don't, I of course have no way of answering this specific question, but there are indeed
	a lot of stories like that.
	And you go, what?
	You know, it's the kind of story where you go, what?
	you And then you intently listen during the next hour's newscast and the successive days and you don't hear another word about it.
	So there are those kinds of stories.
	However, I think that if anybody purported to be dead On one of the planes that was used during 9-11 actually showed up somewhere.
	There would be a hornet's nest and stories that would follow that just would not quit.
	Because as you know, there are thousands of people searching for information that they believe will prove 9-11 was an inside job.
	I am not one of those people.
	I do not believe that.
	I think it is exactly what it was.
	And I think that what almost happened, what could have happened this last week was exactly the same thing.
	It was not any sort of inside job.
	We have a pretty good lead on what kind of group it was already.
	It wasn't any sort of inside job.
	It's somebody who hates us.
	There are people out there who hate us and they want us dead.
	Make no mistake about that.
	A lot of people out there simply want us dead.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	It is truly an honor.
	This is TJ from Detroit.
	Hey there.
	When I was doing security, I actually came across the car that appeared to be a rental.
	On the back of the car, there were three boxes.
	Each box had flammable on it, and there was a large cooler that was taped shut.
	In the backseat, I did find a duffel bag that contained a hazmat suit, and that was right before the Super Bowl.
	I called 9-1-1 and for some reason the 9-1-1 operator refused to send a police car to check it out.
	Oh no, see, that's pretty weird already.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	The next morning the card disappeared just as mysteriously.
	Anyway, back up, back up.
	I mean, you found hazardous material.
	You found a hazmat suit.
	You called 9-1-1 and they refused.
	Why?
	Because, she said, She said, how do you know what's in the boxes or in the cooler?
	I said, I don't know what's in it, but something's going on and I think someone should check it out.
	She refused.
	Very difficult to believe.
	I guess, you know, I mean you're telling me it happened, but in this day and age, everybody knows what's happened.
	You know, if I were a 9-1-1 operator, and frankly I used to be one, and I got a call like that, I can assure you there would have been a lot on the way, buddy.
	Yeah, you know what, actually it was a couple weeks before the Super Bowl and I did turn it over to Homeland Security.
	And, uh, I actually drove to the, uh, to the precinct, uh, and actually got, uh, one of the, uh, one of the detectives to actually drive over the vehicle, because they agreed that something was going on.
	And?
	Um, the police got there, they said, yeah, you know, you're right, something is fishy about it, but, um, we have, you know, you know, we can't, you know, find anything on the plate.
	And I said, well, of course, because it's a rented car.
	So they just left it as it was.
	Nothing happened.
	Boy, that's, uh, that's pretty weird stuff, buddy.
	Yep.
	Okay, well take care.
	I'm glad that apparently we seem to be doing better and again the fact that they actually got onto this plot and got everything stopped before it became a 9-11 or worse, I think is to the credit Of British and American intelligence agencies and I really would like to give credit where credit is due because they just don't get enough of it.
	I think they stop a lot of things like this before they ever get off the ground.
	So ladies and gentlemen, thank you intel agencies from the Philippines, specifically Manila.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You are indeed.
	Good morning, everybody.
	If you want to check my webcam, that's artswebcam on the coastcoastam.com website, I did exactly as I promised I would do, and I rushed in during the break and processed this photograph that Aaron took of me.
	And that'll give you some small idea.
	It's only one little corner of the room.
	I'm going to give you an idea of where it is that I'm doing the show.
	And you can see I've got a light on.
	If you look in the upper left-hand corner, you'll see it actually requires... I've got it so dark in here that it does require a light.
	So, with reference to the caller who asked about the ambiance, there you have it.
	Coming up in a moment, Neil Adams.
	This is going to be...
	It's going to be an interesting interview.
	Neil Adams is a towering figure in the world of comic book creation and art.
	He's had two legendary runs on the characters of Batman, X-Men, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, and Dead Man.
	He has always been and has repeatedly been forced to be a spokesman on the subject of creator's rights and was influential in convincing comic book publishers to return artwork to the artists who created it.
	Adams, through the intervening years, became one of the most talked about creator, writer, artist, publisher types and innovators in the medium and in the field of computer animation, industrial, toy and amusement park design.
	Along with being an amateur scientist.
	His theory on a new model of the universe is the subject of a forthcoming graphic novel and a two-hour video and is, quite frankly, the only thing he really wants to talk about nowadays.
	So I guess he doesn't talk about comics.
	What he does believe is that our Earth is getting bigger.
	Actually getting bigger.
	And as a result, of course, if you believe that gravity is a Uh, one of the byproducts of mass.
	Then, uh, we're also getting more gravity.
	in a moment, Neil Adams.
	Well, all right.
	Neil Adams, welcome to Coast to Coast AM.
	Or I guess I ought to say, welcome back to Coast to Coast AM.
	I understand you were on with George Norrie.
	Yes, in fact, I was.
	How are you, Art?
	I'm just fine, Neil.
	It's great to have you on the program.
	Terrific to be here.
	When my producer sent me the information, the early information on you, Neil, it, you know, it ballyhooed you as having to do with Batman and X-Men and Green Lantern and so forth.
	And I wrote back to my producer and I said, now what does that have to do with the nature of the universe or anything we talk about on Coast to Coast AM?
	Absolutely nothing.
	So, apparently, that is the answer.
	Absolutely nothing.
	However, the only thing you want to talk about, it says here, is, in fact, this theory you have about our Earth.
	How come?
	I mean, how do you make the switch from comic books and comics to science?
	Well, I don't know.
	How does Leonardo da Vinci study science and also be an artist?
	Many, many people who are in the art field are interested in science and other fields.
	Otherwise, an active brain falls asleep.
	So you sort of have to give us the excuse card that we are interested in everything.
	In order to be a really good artist, you really have to know an awful lot.
	My personal interest in science started at a very young age.
	I used to read science books the way other people read comic books.
	I used to read about experiments, and then I'd get to the last page, you know, the experiment, and I'd put my hand over it and try to figure out exactly what would happen, and then I'd turn the page, and I'd say, ah, it exploded!
	There you go.
	So I've always been interested in science, and I use science in an awful lot of things I do.
	You know, some of the work that I do is design work.
	I work on amusement parks and stuff like that, and I have to know about ratios of force and all this other stuff.
	So I actually use science in my practical, everyday, day-to-day work.
	Are you, for example, I've seen a number of documentaries on amusement parks and, you know, the design of roller coasters and that sort of thing, and there is a very great deal of science involved in that, right?
	And there's, you know, in the amusement parks we use gravity.
	Every roller coaster that's ever made is really essentially a gravity ride.
	You take people up to a very high place and you drop them.
	Only when you drop them, you drop them in a spiral or a spin or an up and down.
	And when they get to the bottom, of course, you use a certain amount of mechanics, but essentially it's called a gravity ride.
	So there's one use of science.
	It's a drop.
	I wouldn't necessarily call it a belief.
	I mean, nor am I the first one to do this.
	You have come to a belief with respect to the dinosaurs now.
	Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it a belief.
	I mean, I'm not nor am I the first one to do this.
	A guy named Samuel Warren Carey in the 60s made it very, very clear.
	He's a geologist from Australia.
	That it was his view when, you know, when about 40 years ago, the scientific community
	came to the conclusion that all the continents were all on one island on one side of the
	earth and that island broke apart in the Atlantic and spread apart and became the continents
	that we know now.
	That is essentially scientific dogma.
	Actually, there's good reason to believe that.
	If you look at them and you push them together in your mind, they do in fact fit.
	In fact they do.
	And you know what I did about 40 years ago?
	I pushed them together on the other side and they fit together on the other side too.
	And so did Samuel Warren Carey, a geologist from Australia.
	He pushed them together on the other side and they fit.
	And he said, you know what?
	That crust that we call the upper tectonic plate of all those continents is between 1 and 5 billion years old.
	Underneath the ocean, that plate that makes the lower ocean, that deep ocean plate, is only at the most 200 million years old.
	The continents are between 1 and 5 billion years old, and that ocean plate is only, at the most, 200 million years old.
	In some places, that coast, that undersea, was made yesterday.
	So that implies what to you?
	That it's something big?
	Well, it implies it's new, for one thing.
	It implies that it's made, and it implies that it's been made over the last 200 million years.
	And in fact, scientists will tell you that.
	That ocean bottom, that deep ocean bottom, is made, ongoing, from rifts in the ocean that go down all the oceans around the Earth and spread them apart.
	Now, if you were to view this as a sensible, logical person, and somebody said to you, well, what happened is these rifts down the middle of the ocean spread the ocean apart, pushed the continents away from one another, and they have ended up where they are now, you would say, logically, well, You mean if I push them all back together again, that's where they were 200 million years ago?
	Unfortunately, science doesn't do that.
	They push them back together only in the Atlantic, and they seem to fit together.
	So they say, well, it was one big giant island, and then the rest of the Earth, three quarters of the Earth, was water, four miles deep.
	That make sense to you?
	Doesn't make sense to me.
	Didn't make sense to Samuel Warren Carey.
	And he said so.
	And he got shot down.
	He got shot down rather badly.
	And still he defended that position.
	And there are people in the world who defend it now.
	And the reason they do, well the reason that Sam Warren Carey got shot down is that Samuel Warren Carey was a geologist.
	He wasn't a physicist or a cosmologist or a paleontologist.
	And he got shot down because he could explain it totally logically from the point of view of geology.
	And he had no allies.
	So back then, 40 years ago, as a science buff, I thought, well gee, Samuel Warren Carey is right.
	All of geology has to be wrong because I can put it together in the Pacific.
	It doesn't make sense that they're right.
	I know that dinosaurs were four to five times larger than our largest mammal today.
	That means the gravity had to be much less than, and everything that you look at in all
	the other sciences seems to fit Samuel Warren Carey's view and not geology's view.
	Slow up for a second.
	Dinosaurs were much larger than we believe they were?
	No, they're exactly as large as we believe they are.
	You're suggesting then that their extinction was due to a change in gravity?
	No.
	No.
	You go along with the traditional explanation of kabang?
	Oh, no.
	No, no.
	I think that's probably wrong.
	I go along with a much More realistic, excuse me, and logical way of explaining it, and I'll be glad to explain it for you if you don't mind listening.
	One of the things you might want to do is you might suggest to the listeners that I'm going to tell them some stuff that may seem a little bit crazy as we talk.
	They might want to write these things down because they can look them up and see whether or not I'm blowing out my nose or really talking facts.
	I can assure you many will be scratching away.
	There are lots of reasons why dinosaurs became extinct.
	If you start with the idea that the Earth grew, okay, then what that means is that everything on Earth changed over the years since the ages of dinosaurs.
	A quick little list, for example.
	Mountains grew between those days and now.
	The Rocky Mountains are only 40 million years old.
	The Himalayas are young mountains.
	The Andes are young mountains.
	We didn't have, we had some mountains, really mountain-ing, We really didn't have mountains in those days.
	We rarely had rivers.
	Why didn't we have rivers?
	Well, we didn't have rivers because we really didn't have, first of all, ice ages during the ages of dinosaurs.
	And we also, in the early ages of dinosaurs, we didn't even have seasons.
	Most of the Earth was subtropical or tropical.
	Most of the Earth.
	Dinosaurs, that we think of as being kind of like reptiles, which of course they're not, dinosaurs live from Alaska to Antarctica.
	There are scientists right now digging up bones in Antarctica.
	You know, that place that's covered with ice.
	That's right.
	It once was a land, and remember that land was bigger than North America, well bigger than at least the United States, but quite large, about the size of North America, was subtropical.
	In fact, they found the bones of a duck-billed platypus in Antarctica.
	Right.
	See?
	It was a very different world.
	Not only was it a very different world, we say that all the land was connected in one giant island on one side of the Earth.
	Which makes no sense to me, but that's what they say.
	Now I've done maps that show that you can animate all those continents down to a smaller Earth.
	If you do, then you explain the fact that dinosaurs were four to five times the size of our normal animals today.
	So you have Now you have dinosaurs living on a planet that is smaller, that is about the same temperature all the way through, and the dinosaurs are
	Let me jump in and ask a question.
	According to your theory, what would the percentage of gravity have been then as compared to right now?
	Well, it's sort of a mathematical thing.
	Since the deep oceans were, you'd have to remove them, just like you'd have to remove the Atlantic according to common theory.
	Then the Earth would have to be about one quarter of the size it is today, about 250 million years ago.
	About a quarter of the size today?
	And would it be a quarter of the gravity as well?
	Yes, it would be a quarter of the gravity.
	So the mass, then you firmly believe that gravity is certainly a function of mass?
	The problem is that this theory goes everywhere.
	If I were to explain every aspect of the theory, I'd be talking all night.
	Yes and no.
	If we accept that mass and gravity are associated, yes indeed, they are.
	I don't believe that gravity is a separate form of energy from electromagnetic energy.
	It's just a little too complicated to get too deeply into that.
	No, but is it fair to say it's a function of mass?
	Yes, I think it's fair to say that.
	Okay, so that long ago, you think the Earth was one quarter of the size it is now, the gravity involved was about one quarter of what it is now, and therefore dinosaurs, being that big, were able to walk, perhaps even jump around, whatever it is dinosaurs did, in that low gravity.
	Well, for example, you have a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
	There is a debate on this Discovery Channel between two very prominent geologists and paleontologists, actually paleontologists.
	Who talk about a Tyrannosaurus rex and they say, well, since a Tyrannosaurus rex was the size of or larger than an elephant, one of them says it was a scavenger because it couldn't go faster than 10 miles an hour.
	The other scientist, very profound scientist, says, no, that's not true.
	It was a predator.
	It chased down and it killed its prey.
	The other scientist says it couldn't chase down and kill its prey because if it took a right turn at going 50 miles an hour, its head would snap off.
	Well, you know, you know, that's true.
	Head would be about the weight of a motorcycle.
	And bone really can't carry that kind of weight and let it snap around because bone is... Those calculations are based on gravity as we understand it today, right?
	Exactly.
	So this debate that happens on television that you're watching can easily be settled by assuming a gravity that's one quarter of what it is today.
	That dinosaur, that Tyrannosaurus Rex, Would be the equivalent of a lion or a tiger in today's gravity, and it would work perfectly.
	It doesn't work perfectly, and so you have scientists debating and arguing constantly over the size and the immobility of dinosaurs.
	Well, anybody who studies the Tyrannosaurus rex knows it's built for speed.
	I mean, it's an incredibly fast, potentially fast animal because, and of course I study anatomy.
	I study a lot of things.
	I study every possible science, but one of the things I do know a lot about is anatomy.
	I know where muscles attach, and I know how they attach, and how they work.
	And I can tell you, from an artist's point of view, and somebody who's also studied sciences, that that baby was built for speed.
	He lowers his head, he straightens his tail, and those big back legs run like an engine, and he can stop on a dime and turn around.
	And unfortunately, if gravity was the way that people say it is today, well, you know, his head would snap off and he'd die.
	It just doesn't work together.
	In fact, the superiority of the dinosaur in his day was so great that its superiority as a creature is what killed it off.
	Explain that one.
	Its superiority is what killed it off.
	That's right.
	One of the things you could ask is, what's the difference between a reptile and a dinosaur?
	Because they seem pretty much the same, and of course they have the same kind of teeth, and they look the same.
	In fact, if you go to the Museum of Natural History, there's two cases in which there's a dinosaur that is in one case, and a reptile in another case.
	They look exactly the same, except for one thing.
	And that one thing is the difference between the two animals.
	And that is, Absolutely.
	and you'll kind of go through the library of your mind and you'll see this.
	Reptiles have what they call out-facing legs, you know, like alligators and crocodiles.
	Absolutely.
	You know, they stick out and then they go to the ground.
	Not exactly going to carry them a great distance, although it will give them some bursts of speed.
	A dinosaur evolved from reptiles, and the thing that is such a great change from reptiles,
	and that we're skipping over the inner ear changes and all the other changes that scientists will tell you about
	little things.
	The major difference between a reptile and a dinosaur is that a dinosaur has down facing and long legs.
	Right.
	They go straight down to the ground, and the dinosaur is able to move the way mammals move today, with down-facing legs.
	So it doesn't have to swing its body sinuously from side to side.
	It goes straight ahead.
	That's true also of the two-legged dinosaurs.
	They run on two legs, they go straight ahead, and their legs go straight down to the ground.
	Their legs, if you look at them too, what's amazing about them is they're very long compared to most animals.
	They're very long, especially small mammals.
	Their legs are very long and they can travel great distances.
	And again, all of this pointing toward less gravity.
	In other words, for this to be true, for this to be workable, you're suggesting there had to be a lot less gravity.
	There had to be a lot less gravity, but there are also other elements when it comes to the extinction of dinosaurs that has to do with a growing Earth.
	Less gravity is one thing, but having an Earth that's different than it is today is very, very important.
	For example, on this Earth, we have what we call seasons.
	The northern part of the world gets very cold, while the southern part of the world gets very warm.
	In the ages of dinosaurs, it wasn't quite like that.
	Well, you have to ask the question, how is that possible?
	If it was the same size Earth, you'd pretty much have the same season.
	But no.
	There was a difference.
	There was a major, major difference.
	And that major difference made that dinosaurs roamed the whole earth, whereas reptiles just stayed around the equator.
	In fact, reptiles still stay around the equator.
	You get your alligators and your crocodiles and the large lizards essentially live around the equator.
	Dinosaurs were able to move north and south on the earth, all the way up to Alaska, all the way down to Antarctica and further.
	They dominated the earth.
	They were the creatures that conquered the earth.
	But they conquered an Earth that had a temperature that was pretty even.
	And because of this, they took on certain characteristics that made them far superior to any animals on Earth.
	For example, they didn't have hair.
	Because they didn't need it.
	So, because of the relatively constant, decent temperature, right?
	Exactly.
	Hold tight, we're here at the bottom of the hour.
	Neil Adams is my guest, and he is suggesting to us that the Earth at one time was one quarter the size that it is right now, along with one quarter the gravity, and I think he's giving us a pretty good explanation about how the dinosaurs were able to survive in that Kind of environment and makes a pretty strong argument They could not have survived in today's environment with today's gravity and of course today's weather patterns as well We'll explore all of this Lots of time.
	Thank God for long-form talk radio.
	I'm Art Bell with Neil Adams.
	We'll be right back It is from Manila, the Philippines.
	Good day, everybody.
	Neil Adams is my guest.
	He's got a very, very interesting theory.
	Wasn't there, were there some old stories in the Bible, old stories elsewhere, about giants that once roamed the earth?
	I'm not sure if that's biblical or if I've heard it elsewhere, but I do recall stories of Uh, bipeds, giants that once roamed the Earth.
	Now, I wonder if those giants, I wonder if there's something to it all, and I wonder if those giants perhaps roamed the Earth because, as with the dinosaurs, at some point there was considerably less gravity.
	We'll be right back.
	Once again, Neil Adams.
	Welcome back, Neil.
	Hi, Art.
	Neil, I was sort of just ruminating a little bit prior to the break here about, I don't know if it was the Bible or whether these are simply old stories that have been passed on, but didn't somebody tell stories of giants?
	No, the stories do exist in the Bible, the second subject that I'm very interested in, but if you think that the earth grew, for example, Six to twelve inches a year in diameter, that's a pretty slow growth.
	We're talking about hundreds of millions of years, so I don't think that gravity would cause that.
	We do have giants, I think, in wrestling and other areas.
	And in movies.
	The NFL as well, yes.
	They do show up.
	But anyway, let me just finish my list for you so that we can get some idea of the world in which the dinosaurs lived and why they were so powerful and big.
	Sure.
	One of the things about dinosaurs is that it shows the confidence and how much they essentially owned the world in that they laid their eggs on the ground.
	And of course, they had eggs.
	If you compare that to mammals, for example, mammals carry their eggs inside their bodies.
	And of course, They give birth to live young, so if you were going to compare dinosaurs and mammals, you'd say, well, the mammals are far superior to the dinosaurs.
	They put their eggs in danger every time they lay them.
	They lay them on the ground.
	Birds lay them in the trees, lay them on mountains, but they would never lay them on the ground because they would fall prey to anything.
	It shows how powerful a hold the dinosaurs had on the Earth.
	They also And this is opinion.
	I've told you everything I've told you so far is fact.
	This is opinion.
	I believe that they migrated hemispherically.
	That is, they migrated from the northern part of the continent to the southern part of the continent.
	Now, you could say, well, you can't do that because you have oceans in between, but during the ages of dinosaurs, remember, there were no oceans in between.
	And even if you go to what is called the Pangaea Theory, where they say that everything was one big giant island, If you have one big giant island that covers only one quarter of the Earth, migrating from the northern part of that island to the southern part of that island would not be a strange thing.
	What would inspire such a theory?
	We have what we call birds, and birds are what's left of the dinosaurs.
	So I've been told, yes.
	I lost a big bet about that, by the way.
	I said, ah, baloney, this was years ago.
	In fact, birds are what's left of the dinosaurs.
	Exactly.
	And they do a strange thing.
	Something that, if you were to view it objectively, you would say, my goodness, that's strange.
	Why don't birds just fly to Florida for the winter?
	They don't.
	They fly to Africa or to South America, and then they fly back across the equator They fly hemispherically.
	Why?
	It doesn't make sense.
	They could just fly close to the equator.
	The reason they do it is that dinosaurs, for hundreds of millions of years, migrated hemispherically.
	When it became winter in the north, they would simply go to the southern part of the hemisphere.
	When it became summer, they went to the northern part of the hemisphere.
	Why did they do that?
	Or how did they do that?
	Well, you know, it goes right back to the front part of our conversation.
	They have long, down-facing legs.
	They could do it.
	How did they get those long, down-facing legs?
	In other words, the difference between reptiles and dinosaurs is that reptiles really just hang around around the equator.
	Dinosaurs have these long, down-facing legs and can go anywhere they want.
	How did they get to Alaska and Australia and Antarctica?
	Long, down-facing lakes.
	They simply migrated during the summer and the winter.
	When you see even television shows about dinosaurs, you see dinosaur trackways, you see these trudges that dinosaurs seem to go on seasonally.
	There's a reason for that.
	They didn't just go to Florida.
	They went to the other hemisphere.
	Why is it logical that they did?
	Well, you know, If you have all better plants, and they're all new, and they're all going to feed you, that's where you're going to go.
	That's the logic of it.
	If dinosaurs migrated hemispherically, then the concept is that dinosaurs ranged far and wide over this smaller planet, if the planet grew.
	So you have a very strong difference between the way you think about a dinosaur and the way it actually was.
	When this first occurred to me as a realistic thing, I sought out any evidence that would indicate this or would deny it.
	I know some paleontologists who actually dig up bones in Antarctica.
	Some of the bones that they dig up in Antarctica, in fact most of them, seem to be from dinosaurs that they normally dig up bones from in North America.
	Well, no, all of that's true.
	I mean, I've read the science behind it, so I know you're right about that, but if the Earth was at one time a quarter in size, what it is right now, there ought to be some good, solid science to tell us that, shouldn't there?
	Well, there is.
	I mean, right now we're talking about dinosaurs that are four times the size of an elephant.
	An elephant can only walk.
	An elephant, for example, is structured in such a way That he can't turn his head from side to side without turning his upper body from side to side.
	Why?
	Because his head would snap off or his neck would break.
	You can't be that size.
	Now, if you study all of science, you learn certain things.
	And I study engineering and lots of other things.
	For example, you can't build a building over ten stories tall with stone and wood.
	It'll collapse.
	You need iron and steel.
	In fact, that's how we got tall buildings.
	We got iron and steel.
	It's something that is much more dense than stone and wood.
	Bones, the bones of dinosaurs that are five times the size of our animals today, are equally as dense and no more than the bones of animals today.
	Well that's a scientific proof.
	Is somebody going to look at that as being definitive?
	Probably not, because what happens is people in one science rarely study the facts in another science.
	So a geologist isn't necessarily going to go to paleontology and medicine to get facts to bring back as their evidence, or even go to physics.
	As a matter of fact, actually, not only do they not study other sciences, they actively do not study other sciences, because frequently it causes some sort of problem with their own theory.
	Let's go one step further.
	They don't even speak the same language.
	You notice that the language I'm speaking to you is regular English?
	I could have fallen for the trap, as I was studying for this, of learning all the really complicated words, and the Latin, and the six-syllable words, and the complicated... I don't do that.
	For example, when I talk about risks in the ocean, I call them pull-aparts.
	I call them pull-aparts because people understand that.
	It's a clear thing.
	Somebody in physics would understand that, and somebody in geology would understand that.
	What happens between the sciences is they speak a different language.
	You can see it.
	If you ever hear them talking, hear a geologist talk to a physicist, what happens is you can see the eyes go dead.
	And this guy over here, because two sentences in, he doesn't understand half the words.
	Even though he's a brilliant scientist, he doesn't get it.
	And so they don't really communicate.
	And what I discovered 40 years ago was if I'm going to figure out what this is all about and how this works, I'm going to have to study everything.
	Now, again, amusement park design and all the rest of it, you understand things about force and torque and things like that.
	If you have a dinosaur that's four times the size of, say, an elephant, It can't operate in this gravity for exactly the reasons that we just spoke about.
	The forces are too great.
	It can't deal.
	And somebody in geology and somebody in physics isn't necessarily going to go and say, well, that's proof in engineering, practical engineering.
	But that's what I've done.
	So I studied it from every possible point of view, how things work.
	Here you have, think of this as a history.
	You have a smaller planet.
	You have no deep oceans at all.
	They've all closed up.
	In other words, you've gone backward in time and all the oceans close up just the way they say they opened up.
	What you have is you have shallow seas on the land that are maybe as much as a half mile deep, in some cases even a little bit more, but essentially the middle of North America is covered with water.
	The Rocky Mountains don't exist.
	The middle of Europe is covered with water and Asia, and so you have shallow seas on the land.
	But you have the availability for dinosaurs to go wherever they want as they evolve from reptiles into dinosaurs.
	What is the choice that they're going to make on a smaller planet when the seasons begin to change?
	As they begin to change, As you move out from reptiles, you're going to have a reason for reptiles to become dinosaurs.
	They're going to sense the change, and they're going to be perhaps, in the beginning, the weaker of the reptiles.
	So they're going to be more easily chased away.
	So they're going to go a little bit north, away from the equator, where the bigger reptiles, I mean they had crocodilians back in those days that were 26 feet long, drag you under the water and kill you.
	So you have these smaller reptiles that are moving to the north, And easily, they can go to the south.
	Of course, they don't want to go across no man's land where the crocodilians are, so they kind of circle around.
	They go to the south when the weather changes.
	As time goes by, and their legs get bigger, and they become bigger, and they become more powerful, they can easily make these treks from the north to the south, and they can go as far as they want.
	And the reptiles just stay in the middle.
	They, that were, in a sense, the masters of the earth for about 60 million years, have to turn over the crown to the new dinosaurs, who can
	migrate hemispherically, go from the north to the south. And we find their bones in the north
	and the south. We do. That's right.
	And they're the same dinosaurs. Now, if that is the case, then they are the most powerful
	creatures on earth. They have no fur because they don't need it, because they can migrate
	hemispherically. They lay their eggs on the ground seasonally, where they're comfortable
	and the eggs are warm. They have have no reason to be like those little mammals in the north and the little marsupials in the south and some mammals as well.
	They have no reason to grow fur, to dig holes in the ground, to hibernate, or to do any of those things that the mammals do.
	They have no reason because they own the whole earth.
	And they will own the whole earth unless something happens to change the earth.
	For example, if the earth were to grow, and continue to grow and the land masses were to break apart and grow mountains their migratory paths will be cut off
	Alright, I can buy that theory, Neil, but there are indications, I believe, that the dinosaurs became extinct very quickly, and the process you're talking about would be a very, very slow process, right?
	Well, I would have to give you a number of names that you can call and check to discover that.
	Rather than give you a name, there's a fellow in a museum in Alberta who investigates dinosaur pathways.
	And some of these pathways are like 10 miles long.
	And what he discovered was that 90 million years ago, on a given pathway, there were something in the order of 26 or 27 different kinds of dinosaurs.
	When he gets to the area of that similar pathway 70 million years ago, That those dinosaurs dwindle down to about 12 different types of dinosaurs.
	When he gets closer to 60 million years ago, it dwindles down to four different types of dinosaurs.
	So although we may perceive that the dinosaurs died off quickly, and in fact, it may have happened a culminating event or several culminating events may have happened.
	The dinosaurs were, in fact, dwindling away.
	Why?
	Well, they were dwindling away because fewer and fewer dinosaurs could make that trek north and south.
	In fact, one of the things that happens is that you get a big break between the north and south relative to the Gulf of Mexico and going into the Mediterranean and Australia breaking off.
	But you still have the northern continents together, North America and Eurasia together.
	So what you do have is you have dinosaurs that manage to evolve thicker skin, hide their eggs better, and actually survive into this time.
	But what you also have is an evolving mammal population and marsupial population.
	Mammal population in the north, Marsupial population in the south.
	Something that people don't necessarily think about.
	You know, the marsupials were in the south.
	The mammals were in the north.
	And the northern break up actually made the mammals have a better edge on evolution.
	So, now you have these eggs on the ground.
	For a time when dinosaur populations were powerful and fantastic and covered the earth.
	To a time where the dwindling population of Dinosaurs got down to fewer and fewer kinds and types and dinosaurs.
	Suddenly you have the evolution out of those days of the mammals who are, you know, funny thing about those darn mammals, they're egg eaters.
	In fact, so are you and I. Yes.
	And those dinosaurs laid their eggs on the ground.
	Superior as they were to every other creature on earth in population, laying your eggs on the ground is what you call stupid.
	Well, with our presence, egg eaters that we are, yes, I understand that.
	So what you have is, you have dinosaurs that can go across the continental divides by flying, and who lay their eggs in hidden places.
	They will survive.
	Reptiles will survive.
	It's one thing to say, oh, well dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor, but you know reptiles weren't wiped out by a meteor.
	In fact, reptiles survived not quite unscathed, but essentially unscathed.
	So there had to be something about dinosaurs that was affected by some outside force that their advantages suddenly turned to disadvantages.
	And I don't mean suddenly, evolutionary-wise.
	One year you could take this pathway, and two years from then you couldn't quite take that pathway.
	You had to change your pathway, and your population dwindled.
	Alright, but that does not equal the growth of the Earth in the way that you're talking about.
	In other words, it was some other factor, something else that happened.
	Well, everything, what it is, is a culmination of aspects.
	In other words, as the continents broke up, the pathways disappeared.
	As the continents broke up, the mountains began to grow.
	Remember what happens with mountains if you don't have any fur.
	Right.
	You go up a mountain, you get high on a mountain, you get cold, and you die.
	Right.
	The other thing is, if you're trapped in the place that you live, okay, let's say it's either the north or the south, you have a disadvantage if you have long legs.
	For example, if you go out into a field and you see cows, you'll notice that cows will fall asleep at night, especially as the weather gets bad, standing up.
	Why?
	Because they have this little tiny tail, And the head has these thick neck muscles and the head can droop, but it won't fall down.
	And it spreads its legs.
	A dinosaur has a very long tail and a very long neck, generally, and a head at the end of it.
	If it gets cold, okay, and has to go to sleep, it will lie on the ground.
	And if the ground is cold, it will die.
	It can't survive.
	The advantage of the, all the advantages of the dinosaurs through their history, started to disappear.
	All the advantages to the mammals, through history, became advanced.
	And as one became advanced, the others disappeared.
	And at a culminating point, where mammals began to be aggressive and eat the eggs of the dinosaurs, and the dinosaurs couldn't migrate, stop migrating, their populations dwindled rapidly, and the loss of their eggs, because of the new mammals that became aggressive, stopped their continued population of the earth, whereas the birds continued on, and the reptiles, of all things, continued on just as well.
	Neil, what do you believe separated the landmasses?
	Well, what separated the landmasses is the growth of the earth.
	That goes back to the theory.
	In other words, when you think of this idea of the earth growing, it's so simple to say, well, okay, so the earth grew.
	But the idea of the Earth growing is so significant to everything that we know in science that there's no way to make it a less thing.
	When I began this process, I thought, well, you know, I think this guy Kerry is right.
	I think that the Earth grew, so all I have to do is find a mechanism to show that the Earth grew.
	I thought, well, that's all.
	No.
	It affects everything.
	If the Earth grows, you cannot stop there and say the Earth grows.
	You have to say, well then, all planets grow.
	You have to say all moons grow, because planets can't just grow and not moons.
	You have to say all suns grow.
	You have to say all solar systems grow.
	You have to say all galaxies grow.
	And in the end you have to say the universe grows.
	And then suddenly you're up against the Big Bang Theory.
	And now, you've not only denied Pangaea, you've denied the Big Bang Theory.
	All right, Neil, we're at a break point, so hold tight.
	So the Earth grew.
	When we get back from the break, you know, all of this does sound really quite reasonable to me, but if the Earth is growing, if in fact all planets and suns and the universe itself is growing, Then we should be able to measure that.
	I mean, we have satellites that are circling our globe now doing very careful geologic measurements, all kinds of measurements.
	I think we know right down to the very inch, don't we?
	So we should be able to detect that growth.
	For all I know, perhaps we have.
	That is a question I'll have for Neil when we get back.
	This is Coast to Coast AM from Manila in the Philippines.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Neil Adams, and what he believes is kind of like a new religion that might bring you to your knees, if you believe it.
	I've got a couple of pretty relevant questions coming up in a moment.
	Listen, if you want to email me, I love getting stories from you that are particularly interesting.
	I use them on the program, so by all means, email them to me, the weird, the strange, the unusual, the fascinating.
	I love it.
	You can reach me, Artbell at AOL.com, that's A-R-T-B-E-L-L at AOL.com, or Artbell at Mindspring.com, that's probably the main one, Artbell at Mindspring.com.
	Tomorrow night, Sir Charles Schultz will be the main guest, but in the first hour, Robert Bigelow, the man who recently had a successful space launch that ultimately is going to lead to a hotel in space.
	He rarely does interviews, but he'll be here for us tomorrow evening in the first hour.
	That's Robert Bigelow.
	In a moment, we'll get back to Neil Adams and a big question about the Earth growing.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Just about everything Neil Adams has had to say so far actually
	does make sense to me.
	However, if the Earth, the planets, the Sun, the Universe is in fact all growing, then here's the one part I can't grasp, Neil.
	We've got satellites circling the Earth doing extremely precise measurements.
	If in fact we were growing by the year four or five inches or whatever, how would we not know it?
	Wouldn't you think that I would ask that question?
	I can't tell you what the answer is.
	I've done a tremendous amount of investigating.
	In fact, I have a geologist working on the problem right now that I'm paying out of my income to find out, first of all, if, in fact, there are measurements that give us these things, which you would think.
	You'd go, oh, sure, of course.
	We can do anything.
	But unfortunately, it doesn't seem that crystal clear.
	You know, we think the technology can do anything, and it doesn't necessarily do it.
	For example, we have stations around the Earth that measure from one point to the other exactly the distance between those points.
	Unfortunately, those stations are not set up in a straight line around the Earth.
	They're set up in kind of a zigzag.
	And certain areas will actually get smaller, and certain areas will get larger.
	And you can't Line them up in one straight line around the Earth and get a final total that says, well, it's 6 inches bigger or 6 inches smaller, whatever.
	Well, yeah, but I'm talking about satellites now.
	And I agree with you.
	Then we have satellites.
	Who should measure these things?
	But you know, you can measure the top of a mountain wave or a rock that sits on top of something and get a measurement that's off.
	You also have the weight of the Earth.
	They're supposedly measuring the weight of the Earth, and they should be able to tell from that.
	There's three different methods of doing this.
	I haven't found a clear method that tells me exactly what it is.
	Now, Samuel Warren Carey, who is a scientist, and remember, I'm not a scientist.
	It's not like somebody's going to open their books to me immediately any day and say, sure, Mr. Adams, Mr. Comic Book Cartoonist, I'm going to show you everything that we have here.
	I have asked.
	Samuel Warren Carey did, and when he investigated, he found a discrepancy in that there was a growth of about 6 1⁄2 to 8 inches per year.
	Now, this is a book that's, I don't know, about 25 years old, and it was just at the beginning of this process.
	Now I'm paying somebody to do this same process.
	What seems to be the case is not the case.
	For example, I ran into one story with one group that essentially said that They ran into a discrepancy, and they adjusted for the discrepancy.
	I kind of go, what?
	You adjusted?
	Well, you know, satellites are relatively new, Neil.
	They're relatively new, so they might do something like that.
	I could buy that.
	And I can understand that.
	Theoretically.
	If you find something wrong, theoretically, you know, you're going to adjust it.
	You're not going to do it.
	Theoretically, though.
	You have no plan.
	It's just, you know, we're going to adjust it.
	We're going to adjust it.
	Okay, Neil, hold on a second.
	What do you believe is the engine, the cause, the physics behind the growth that you're talking about?
	Oh my goodness, such a long discussion.
	Okay.
	There's a guy named Carl David Anderson, the youngest man to win a Nobel Prize.
	In 1932, Carl David Anderson was investigating cosmic rays.
	Now, of course, we're searching for something that, and of course this is how I started and it took me a while to get to this, we're searching for something that creates matter.
	Because that's essentially all we're talking about here.
	Something, some way, matter is created.
	I assumed nobody had such a thing.
	It's ridiculous.
	Carl David Anderson, 1932, he makes this vacuum, right?
	And he's investigating cosmic rays.
	And he makes this thing in his laboratory and he adds instruments to it and it kind of looks like a pig at the end of it.
	And so he calls it a pig.
	And inside he's got this vacuum, he pumps all the air out, and he lets in certain noble gases.
	Now, his theory is that what'll happen is cosmic rays coming from out of the sky will penetrate this thing and activate the gases and make little trails.
	Sure enough, it happens.
	When you were in third or fourth grade, you actually saw a little film on this.
	You just forget it.
	These little trails get made in there.
	So he's investigating cosmic rays, which are really just energy, pieces of energy coming from space.
	Not rays, you know, it's like Flash Gordon.
	So, suddenly he sees something seems to impact something, and something appears out of nothing.
	A thing that he later calls a positron.
	It appears out of nothing.
	When I say out of nothing, You can say, well, the energy that came down transformed it into blood.
	From our point of view, a piece of matter was created.
	Now, the positron is... Boy, I hate to go into the physics, because it's going to turn people right off, and I'm really sorry about this.
	Well, I'm sorry for the question, but when you talk about Earth and, in fact, the whole universe growing, you've got to back it up with something.
	Exactly.
	So, a positron is created out of nothing.
	It seems like something impacted something and a positron was created.
	A positron is the opposite of an electron.
	There's this really important scientist named Dirac, who predicted when they were discovering electrons, protons, and neutrons, the things that make up atoms, he predicted sensibly that if you have an electron, which is a particle that's the smallest particle, seemed to be the smallest particle at the time, and it's negative in energy, Then there will be a positive form of that particle somewhere.
	Has to exist.
	Right.
	That's very logical in my mind.
	And what happened was that Carl David Anderson found it in this experiment.
	Suddenly a positron is created.
	A positron is the opposite of an electron and it's the same size or weight and it has the same charge but opposite of an electron.
	Perfect twin, opposite twin of an electron.
	Now, unfortunately, this positron has a very bad habit.
	It seeks out, within a nanosecond, an electron and, quote, annihilates it.
	Bang!
	Not so good.
	So, matter is created, and in the very next instant, another piece of matter and it is destroyed.
	Kind of messes up science, you know?
	So, science viewed this positron objectively, in their scientific way.
	And said, what that must be is antimatter.
	It destroys matter.
	So now we had something for science fiction writers to write about for a hundred years.
	Antimatter.
	Right.
	Okay?
	We use antimatter in various things.
	You can go to a hospital and you can have positron tomography, or a PET scan, and they use, they create and destroy little parts of your body and they are able to scan your body with it.
	So it's used fairly commonly.
	What happened was that about five or six years later, other scientists investigating the same phenomenon discovered something incredible.
	That at the same instant that a positron is created, an electron is created.
	Wow!
	An electron is, you know, one-third of, you know, what we call matter.
	An electron is created spontaneously out of nothing or out of this impact of something coming down, smacking something, turns out to be a photon, but And creates two pieces of matter, a positron and an electron.
	Now that's, to me, a big thing.
	So really, the process you're talking about here, Neil, is continuous creation.
	Not only continuous creation, it happens everywhere.
	Two feet in front of you, right now, it's happening.
	Right, right.
	Two feet off to the left, it's happening.
	In the next room, it's happening.
	It's happening all the time.
	Now, just as a person who is reading about this, Initially, I go, wait a second, doesn't that mean that whatever it is that it's making this stuff out of must be kind of everywhere?
	For, in other words, for something to exist that's invisible, we can't identify, but something hits it and it breaks into these two pieces of matter, it has to be everywhere.
	It has to fill the universe.
	In other words, you have to ask the question, I have to ask the question, maybe not you, but I have to ask it.
	Is the universe filled with an ocean of this pre-matter stuff, and energy just kind of smacks it and turns it into positrons and electrons all the time?
	I'm actually willing to buy that.
	It is kind of a continuous creation theory, and it does sort of make sense.
	I wonder, how does the Big Bang theory fit in or not fit in?
	I would assume not.
	Into this theory as nonsense.
	Nonsense.
	I mean, I don't like to say what people say and theorize about is nonsense, but I can't think of a thing to label it other than nonsense.
	If everything we know starts really small and grows, what you started really small and you, a seed or a crystal, for example, starts with a seed crystal, doesn't actually grow, but essentially adds material from some source.
	An elephant, a tree, you, me, it's reasonable to say that the universe did the same thing.
	I don't know why it wouldn't be reasonable, especially if there is some kind of a seed that creates it.
	So you're faced with this question, and there's lots of questions, believe me, this is a very long conversation, and I apologize for trying to jump over things very quickly, but if you believe that all the matter in the universe Always existed, always will exist, same amount, no less, no more, that's one way to think, and that's thought.
	That's the steady state theory, right?
	Now, if you think, on the other hand, that the universe was devoid of matter, and that through some process a piece of matter was created, say, out of pre-matter, or this stuff that Carl David Anderson didn't describe, but essentially made these two pieces, If you think that a piece of matter was made, and another piece, and another piece, and another piece, until we have the universe that we have today, who turned off the off switch?
	Alright, look, those who embrace the concept, and it's many, of the Big Bang, I think it's reasonable to say that, but to be perfectly honest, we're in an area that I don't know.
	It probably could be any number of things.
	that you can still detect the echoes of the big explosion.
	I suppose that you would say that that is not in fact what's being detected, but the
	process of continuous creation is in fact what they're monitoring.
	Is that fair?
	I think it's reasonable to say that, but to be perfectly honest, we're in an area that
	I don't know.
	It probably could be any number of things.
	It could be a result of supernovas.
	It could be a result of any number of things.
	It could be a result of pressure on our universe.
	I suppose it could be anything.
	To me, that's a very difficult kind of science.
	To have some concept and then to assign some very odd kind of thing that's way off on the side to that concept and say that justifies it.
	I try not to do that.
	What I try to do is I try to go to very real things.
	Carl David Anderson saw matter being created, and then later, some other guys saw matter being created.
	Now, they say that this positron annihilated an electron.
	Now, in modern science, as we've come forward in science, we've discovered that not necessarily, that's not exactly what happens.
	What happens is the positron heads for the electron.
	And it slows down just as it approaches the electron, and then for a very brief instant, it starts to orbit it.
	In other words, they start to orbit each other, they throw off a bit of gamma radiation off in opposite directions, and then they both disappear.
	Now, at the moment that they're circling each other, they call it positronium.
	It's a new thing.
	What that says to me is that there was no annihilation at all.
	It was science jumping the gun.
	They're saying, well, it annihilated.
	It made it disappear.
	Excuse me.
	There's a difference between making it disappear and annihilating it because, as I understand it, it had been disappeared before it was created.
	In other words, It was there, but we didn't know it was there.
	It got popped into existence, and then you say it was annihilated, and now you discover maybe it wasn't.
	Maybe it just disappeared again.
	So if the universe is filled... Look, the fish doesn't know it's in the water.
	We identify atoms by the electromagnetic field of an atom.
	For example, an atom is like a fly.
	surrounded by a baseball stadium of electromagnetic field.
	The fly is the matter.
	The electromagnetic stadium is the field, and we identify matter from that field.
	So when you put your hand down on the desk, you don't really put your hand, you don't really touch the
	desk.
	The electromagnetic fields of the atoms in your hand kind of impact with the electromagnetic fields of the atoms
	of the desk, and you feel the desk.
	Yeah.
	Messages are sent back and forth.
	No atoms are touching.
	No matter is touching.
	Everything is field around these little tiny things.
	If that's the case, and we have a universe that has, let's say, pre-particles, and these
	pre-particles have electromagnetic fields that are in-facing, okay, that let's say the
	positive particle is in the center and the negative particle is on the outside kind of
	going around it, and the field just flows in and out between the inner part and the
	outer part, it has no regular electromagnetic field that we can identify.
	Now if we pop that center out, let's say, and it kind of flips inside out, then what
	happens to that field is that field becomes the kind of field we recognize, the field
	that flows between negative and positive particle.
	Sort of like, to take an example, a cotton pod.
	You look at a cotton pod, right, and it's this closed little kind of seed, and then one day it just pops open, and this cotton, you know, kind of spills out and flows out, like an electromagnetic field.
	Best analogy I can think of.
	So you have this pod, which is prime matter, you pop the center out, And it billows out and creates this electromagnetic field, and suddenly we, as humans with human instruments, can identify that as matter, a positron, an electron.
	If that's the case, the universe is filled with this stuff, more than exists in matter, it's just everywhere.
	And what happens, according to Carl David Anderson's experiment, and I haven't seen anything else where matter is created, According to that experiment, matter is created out of pre-matter.
	And if you can take... You've got to kind of visualize this with me.
	I know I'm taking you down a rocky path.
	If you can visualize that positron going through a process that turns it into a proton, then once it meets that electron again, it will become a hydrogen atom.
	Do you think this pre-matter that you're talking about, Neil, is in fact what theoretical physicists are calling dark matter?
	I don't know.
	I mean, one of the things that I say an awful lot is, I don't know.
	It sounds awfully guilty.
	No, no, no, that's quite right, because we don't know.
	The truth is, we don't know.
	But as you talk about it, you know, dark matter kept popping into my mind.
	This pre-matter.
	And believe me, I've had this theory for a while.
	When dark matter showed up, I was like, I'm sitting in my chair, and I popped up out of my chair, and I said, how much?
	It's like 90% of the universe?
	Isn't that pre-matter or prime matter?
	And then, of course, I settled down.
	I said, I don't know.
	But it sure seems like it.
	It sure seems like it.
	Now, I don't want to say that it is, because that's presumptuous on my part, and it's going far beyond.
	I really like to stick to the facts.
	You know, like Jack Webb.
	I'm not really, you know, I don't want to speculate outside of the things that are very clear and very solid.
	You know the things that I'm saying to you.
	I'm not, you can look everything up.
	You know, you can look up Carl David Anderson, his experiments, positron, electrons.
	If that's the case, That's the only thing that naturally creates matter.
	I mean, sometimes in labs, you know, people can assemble particles and they can call them things and they give them labels, but those are the only two pieces of matter that are actually spontaneously created by nature and simply observed by us.
	Now, if I can take those two pieces of matter and I can build a universe, in other words, I can build all the other particles, and one could say to me, well, you can't do that.
	And I say, you know what?
	I think I can.
	I don't think it's that hard.
	Take this for example.
	A proton, okay, which is the big particle that's on the inside of the nucleus.
	A proton is 1,840 or 38 times the size of an electron.
	So, you know, people say a proton and an electron are matching particles.
	You kind of go, well, how does it match if it's 1,838 times the size of an electron?
	It's not really a matching particle, is it?
	Hold on a second, we're at the bottom of the hour.
	I asked the question that launched him into something that's going to cause some eyes to glaze over out there.
	However, somewhere in between a steady state theory, that is to say that everything that's out there has always been there, And the Big Bang Theory.
	I do feel that continuous creation is a distinct possibility that matter is being created in the way that Neil suggests.
	It's all very fascinating.
	I'm Art Bell from Manila in the Philippines.
	We will be right back.
	It is.
	How are you all doing?
	Rainfalls here in Manila, in the Philippines.
	My guest is Neil Adams and it seems to me that somewhere behind the theory of the steady state universe, that is to say that everything's always been here and always will be here, and the Big Bang theory that's just something smaller than a quark became suddenly everything that now is.
	Somewhere neatly in the middle of that does fall continuous creation.
	The problem that I have with it is that so far we can't prove it.
	There's no way to really prove it, but it seems to me if everything's getting bigger, the earth, the moon, the planets, the sun, the universe itself, if everything is getting larger there ought to be some way to prove it.
	I'm just stuck on that.
	We'll be back in a moment.
	Again the process of continuous creation seems entirely reasonable to me, but as I think
	about it a little bit, if that is in fact what happened to the dinosaurs, that the earth
	ultimately became larger, gravity became greater, and the dinosaurs simply could no longer exist,
	and we assume that process is ongoing.
	And, uh, the Earth is continuing to get larger, slowly, albeit, but larger, and gravity is becoming greater.
	It's actually accelerating.
	It seems to me, it seems to me, well, alright, let's say accelerating.
	And it seems to me, Neil, uh, that that pretends something rather ominous for human beings.
	In other words, eventually we're going to be nothing more than slugs sort of, uh, wiggling along, uh, a very high gravity Earth.
	That reminds me of an Archie Comics joke.
	Archie and Moose are walking along the street and Moose has got a very sad look on his face and Archie says, Moose, why are you so unhappy?
	And Moose says, because Miss Grundy said that the Earth will end in like one million years.
	And Archie says, no, Moose, she said one billion years.
	And Moose looks at him and smiles and says, oh, that's better then.
	It's, you know, everything changes.
	Everything evolves.
	I'm not in charge of that process.
	I don't think that we have to worry too much about the Earth because, yeah, we're growing, but we're growing at something like between 6 and 12 inches a year in circumference.
	Pretty much for a very, very long time.
	We're not going to have to worry about it.
	Phil in Crossville, Tennessee sent me an email.
	It says, please ask Neil, where in the world did all the water come from to fill the oceans as the Earth expanded?
	Excellent answer.
	Question.
	Excellent answer.
	Question.
	Okay.
	If you assume that Matter gets created, and I'm assuming that matter gets created at the core of the Earth, and that it's not liquid iron, but in fact an empty space, because anything that grows would actually create an empty space.
	Matter is created, and it starts with hydrogen, and then it goes to helium, and then it, just like in our regular solar system, turns into the higher elements.
	Then all those elements get attached to the inside of the Earth in crystal form, because All materials and silicates and metals are essentially crystal in nature, and when they cool, they attach in crystal form, except for the gases.
	The gases will naturally rise up through the earth and come out the surface of the earth.
	Rifts.
	Remember, the rifts around the Earth under the oceans, which we don't see, are about 80,000 miles of rifts.
	And stuff is coming up from them all the time.
	What's coming up from them?
	Hydrogen, oxygen, all the gases, sodium, chlorine, all these other things, CO2.
	So what happens is that you have a smaller Earth, a given amount of gravity, which will hold on to a certain amount of hydrogen.
	So as this stuff comes up from the Earth, Some of the hydrogen blows off into space, some of it combines with oxygen and becomes water, and the water falls to the Earth in rain, just like now, except less of it.
	And as the Earth grows, the amount of other materials grow, as well as the amount of water.
	In other words, the Earth doesn't just create, you know, FRED, it creates the whole population of FREDs, different kinds of FREDs, including oxygen and hydrogen.
	So, it's an ongoing process That you can actually find on Mars and on the Moon, gases blow off of Mars and blow off of the Moon all the time.
	So, essentially, when we talk about the Earth, we talk about 200 million years ago, 300 million years ago, we had shallow seas on the land that were created from the growth of the Earth, creating gases, and then they fall to the Earth as water.
	Simple process.
	And as the Earth grows, we get more Earth, we get more water.
	Essentially, it just grows.
	It's sort of like you and me.
	Sort of like, you know, a tree.
	Okay, that's an excellent answer.
	Mark in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania says, If the Earth and the Moon are getting bigger due to gravity, wouldn't the Moon be getting closer to the Earth versus further away?
	No.
	Well, yes, but it would.
	I mean, if we're getting bigger and the Moon is getting bigger, then the measurements, which are quite precise, between the Moon and Earth would detect that change, wouldn't they?
	Yes.
	And what's happening is that the Moon is actually receding away from the Earth.
	Now, you can explain that a couple of ways.
	One of the ways that you would logically explain it is that the weight of the Moon becomes greater, therefore, if it's traveling at the same speed, then its centrifugal force becomes greater, so it moves away from the Earth.
	And if the gravity of the Earth grows at the same time, its strength pulls the Moon, and so there's a balance between the two, except in general, you have one other process.
	Now, this theory that I'm talking about, And I must tell you, there's a cartoon that appeared in my head while we were talking.
	And the cartoon is a whole bunch of regular folks listening to the radio and being interested in the dinosaurs and a bunch of physicists kind of nodding off somewhere.
	And then as we got into particle physics, everybody else started to nod off and the physicists leaped up and started smashing their radio and saying, what the hell is this guy talking about?
	Probably, yes.
	Anyway, if If what I say is true, okay, and if essentially everything is made out of electrons and positrons, and I'm not going to get into that, believe me, thank you, the only force in the universe is the force between the electron and the positron, which is electromagnetic force.
	If that is the case, then there are electromagnetic lines around electromagnetic objects, like the Earth, like the Sun.
	You'll notice, and you probably have heard of Bode's Law, That all the planets that move away from the sun seem to be riding on lines that I would call electromagnetic lines.
	You know those lines in school that you saw around a magnet when you tapped a piece of paper and little iron filings went on those lines?
	Sure.
	Those same lines are around the Sun.
	Why?
	Because the Sun is this solar system's biggest electromagnet.
	Now, you then would have to say, well, if it's its biggest electromagnet, does it have electromagnetic lines?
	The answer would have to be yes.
	If the planets have cores of iron, wouldn't those cores of iron be attracted to those electromagnetic lines?
	Assuming that if you equal out centrifugal force and the mass, Then they would be attracted to those lines.
	Well, mathematically, there is a progression of the distances that go out from the Sun, and you can write down that mathematical formula.
	Why are they sitting in those mathematical gradations outward from the Sun?
	Because they're sitting on the electromagnetic lines from the Sun.
	Got it.
	So, if you combine electromagnetism with gravity, and the physicists have just leapt up again and are smashing their radios, This idiot!
	If you combine those two, and I think that I can, then all you're saying is that there are two particles in the universe and there's one force.
	And it's electromagnetic in nature.
	So then you have the Earth, and then you have what you call the Van Allen Belts.
	Gee, the Van Allen Belts, aren't they on electromagnetic lines around the Earth?
	Why, yes they are!
	Aren't there electromagnetic lines around the Earth that protect the Earth from particles that come in from the Sun?
	Which are basically ions and electrons.
	Ah, we're getting into this particle physics stuff.
	There's another electromagnetic line that the Moon rides on.
	So if the Earth grows and the Moon grows, the electromagnetic line of the Earth, that particular line will move outward and the Moon will stay on it.
	That's another, but that's theoretical, point that I'm making.
	You can go with the Moon is growing, centrifugal force will carry it out further, and that would be the best explanation I can give within regular science.
	And so we don't notice.
	Neil, how about this one?
	If you've listened carefully to Richard Hoagland, not that I've listened for some time, we didn't get to complete a show recently, but he does have a theory.
	That the planets are generating, in essence, their own... the energy source within the various planets comes from within the various planets, as opposed to all the energy coming from the Sun.
	Not all that far away from... Oh yes.
	From your theory.
	Sure.
	In a sense, right?
	So, what about... That would be true.
	If a planet is spinning, it creates electromagnetic fields in itself, and it will create energy inside the Earth.
	Essentially, what you're saying is that Meteorites are assembled from stuff that comes from the sun.
	Remember there's, and when I say this again, some people are going to have to look it up, 100 to 600 million tons of stuff comes from the sun per second.
	Okay, we'll say on average 400 million tons of electrons and ions, which are what make up atoms, which is matter.
	It comes from the Sun.
	You can write that down.
	400 million tons per second.
	You multiply that back by 4.5 billion years.
	That's a number with a lot of zeros at the end of it.
	You betcha.
	So if the Sun is firing that stuff out, where is it?
	It's in our meteorites.
	It's in our moons.
	It's in our Earth.
	It's firing out.
	It's collecting in meteorites.
	A process is set up, an electromagnetic process, where Clumps of products stay on the outside of a meteorite, but atoms of elements will go in between the cracks of the lattices of the silicates that make up a meteorite and go to the center and push outward like a geode.
	I don't know if you know what a geode is.
	I do.
	That's crystals and you cut it in half and they seem to be growing outward.
	A meteorite is like a geode, okay, and it grows outward.
	So it's growing outward, being fed by the sun.
	At a certain point, it gets to a certain size, and if it gets on an electromagnetic line, let's say around the planet or a planet around the sun, it sets up a spin, starts to spin.
	You notice meteorites generally don't spin, but moons and planets generally spin.
	If they spin, and you have in the center an empty space with plasma or gas or hydrogen, That stuff creates a field.
	That field generates energy.
	That energy splits prime matter particles, and those prime matter particles attach to the inside of the globe, the ball, and it grows.
	So at a certain point, the feeding from the sun feeds certain things, and it continues to feed them, but then they start growing by themselves.
	It's sort of like, I hate to put it this way, like children.
	You know, they start to grow themselves.
	When you were in school, they taught you this theory.
	It's a theory that's 150 years old.
	There were about five guys who coalesced this theory, and what they said was that all this stuff collected in this one area of space, and along comes gravity.
	And kind of grabs this stuff and spins it around and turns it into your solar system.
	You get the sun, you get the planets, you get the moons.
	That's fine for children 150 years ago.
	Not for today.
	That doesn't make sense.
	If our universe is 13 billion years old, 13 to 15 billion years old, there has to be, and our solar system started 4.5 billion years or 5 billion years ago, it was a very primitive universe at that time.
	So, it can't have been that there were big chunks of stuff floating around waiting for gravity to come along.
	It had to be much more primitive than that.
	And by the way, science just recently, Neil, decided that it was 15 billion years as opposed to 13 billion years.
	Next year it's going to be 60 billion years.
	Here's another question for you.
	With this continuous creation process, obviously our climate is changing.
	Now, we argue about man's hand and we argue about natural cycles.
	Would the process of continuous creation account for the changes that we're beginning to notice accelerating, Neil, in our climate?
	Art, you're talking to me like I'm an expert.
	I really don't know.
	From what I've been able to see, we're messing up our climate pretty good.
	And if we would start using hydrogen to fuel our cars, and fuel our factories, and fuel our planes, fewer people would die, and more people would live, and half the cancers would go away, and we can solve the problems of the Earth and not mess up our environment.
	We don't seem to be willing to do that, so maybe some bad stuff is going to have to happen to us.
	And I don't know that it's all that reversible.
	I really don't know.
	I've put everything that I know and understand into those couple of sentences there.
	Beyond that, it's all a mystery to me.
	I really only like to talk about stuff that I know.
	If you and I are sitting over a cup of coffee, I'll whine about the air and all the rest of it.
	But honestly, I don't know.
	I really don't know.
	I hope that it's not as bad as some folks say.
	Because if it is, we're in trouble.
	Well, it would appear to be so.
	I was just wondering if this process of continuous creation, with there consistently being more matter created, and we're getting bigger, would have an effect on our climate.
	It seems as though it would.
	Well, there's a lot of things that go into that, but it is, once again, a slow process, and we are very short-lived creatures on this mud bowl we call Earth.
	We didn't have ice ages during the ages of the dinosaurs, ever.
	We had ice ages since the dinosaurs.
	We didn't have, essentially, we didn't have winter.
	There are things that people don't talk about.
	In other words, if I were standing in front of people and I were to talk about the history of the Earth, I'd be emphasizing things that are incredible and amazing, whereas scientists kind of gloss over it as if it were nothing.
	You know, the Rocky Mountains started about 40 million years ago.
	Excuse me!
	40 million years ago?
	That's after the dinosaurs died!
	There were no Rocky Mountains?
	That's incredible, isn't it?
	Where's that scientist that gets on television and says, do you believe it?
	There were no Rocky Mountains!
	That's incredible!
	I don't understand that.
	I think that there are things in science that should be emphasized and should be talked about like regular things.
	Let me give you an example.
	Scientists have had a problem with this Pangea Theory.
	Pangea Theory was one thing, and it's pretty crazy, and I don't understand it.
	It doesn't make any sense to me, but there you go.
	They then said that this one big giant island didn't break in the Atlantic first.
	What it did was, it broke in half.
	Now, try to imagine an apple, right?
	And you draw a circle on an apple that covers about one quarter of the apple.
	And what you do is you take a paring knife and you cut around the rest of the apple and take three quarters of the peel off.
	The first thing that's going to occur to you is, what happened to that?
	Because it's like four miles deep from the continent to the bottom of the ocean.
	So you kind of go, what happened to that?
	Didn't it all start kind of smooth?
	But you peel it off, you know, and you look at it, and now you've got an apple, and on one side it's got this big red area that's, you know, the skin there, and the rest of it's gone.
	OK?
	Now what science says, or geology says, is you've got to make this irregular cut across the middle, because you have to explain how Antarctica got there.
	And you have to explain why North America and Eurasia seem to kind of fit together around Greenland.
	So what you do is you take the top piece and you push it up to the top, to the North Pole, Then you take the bottom piece and you push it down to the South Pole, and in between you have this blank space that's about 2,000 miles wide.
	And then scientists said, well, that's the Tethys Sea.
	See, there was this big, giant sea in between the northern continents and the southern continents.
	That's what they say happened.
	And then what happened is that top island and the bottom island broke up, and they kind of drifted around the Earth.
	kind of drifted laterally around the earth and then they started to come together and they're
	going to crash in the future. They're going to crash together. That's what scientists are saying.
	Well, if you look at a map and you look at Central America and you look at the Mediterranean, you're
	going to say when you look at it, it kind of looks like they're pulling apart. It kind of looks like
	It does look that way, yes.
	It really does look that way.
	You know what I say?
	It should be able to be measured, Neil.
	We should have some way of measuring this.
	Well, you know what?
	It's not.
	And there's no evidence of a Tethys Sea.
	But you know what?
	For Antarctica to be there, there has to be one.
	But it's not there.
	There is no, quote, subduction zone where the Tethys Sea is coming together.
	Doesn't exist.
	It's a lie.
	I don't like to be that definite about things, but that one, I can tell you, that's a lie.
	But here's an interesting example of this.
	There's a dinosaur called the Pterocarosaurus.
	Pterocarosaurus used to be found in France.
	What's interesting about the Pterocarosaurus is that it only lived between 88 million years ago and 93 million years ago.
	88, 93.
	About 5 million years.
	Didn't exist before then, didn't exist after then, according to the fossil record.
	That time, that particular time, happened right about the time that the Tethys Sea was 2,000 miles wide.
	According to geology.
	All right, Neil, listen, we're at the top of the hour.
	When we come back, what we're going to do is expose you to the audience.
	I'm sure they've got a million questions.
	Your theory, I think, is every bit as good as steady state or the Big Bang.
	It really holds, if you'll excuse the expression, as much water as I think about it.
	We'll see what the audience thinks about it.
	Coming back, Neil Adams and his theory of continuous creation.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Good day, everybody.
	My guest is Neil Adams.
	And thinking very hard about it, a lot of people believe in the Steady State Theory, which means basically that everything is as it always has been.
	Nothing has really changed.
	Others, of course, believe in the Big Bang Theory.
	That everything came from one single little tiny thing smaller than a quark and became everything that now is.
	Fitting neatly into the middle of that is continuous creation.
	So, I think that Neil is very well, perhaps, on to something that does make some sense to me.
	The proof of it, of course, is something else again.
	But then again, they've never really proven the Steady State Theory, nor the Big Bang Theory.
	Conclusively, have they?
	So, why not continuous creation?
	In a moment, your questions for Neil Adams.
	I'm Mark Bell.
	Well it seems to me, Neil, the critical part of all this, of course, is in trying to prove it.
	And you said you were funding from your own pocket an attempt to do exactly that.
	How are you trying to prove it?
	Well, I'm trying to prove it by having the various methodologies, the three methodologies calculated for a ten-year period to see exactly if there is a growth and what that growth is.
	And it's turned out to be a very difficult process.
	I've had a fellow working on it for four months now, and he's gotten the information, and we're trying to put the information together, but it's very, very difficult, and the information is contradictory.
	Let me give you an example, if I may.
	In 1992, it was announced by one of these organizations that the equator of the earth
	had been was growing and had been growing for several years, getting larger for several years,
	like four or five years, something like that.
	Of course, that's where the technology improved.
	Anyway, so they said the equator was growing progressively.
	It didn't go back.
	And they said, theoretically, they felt that it was getting smaller several years before that.
	And then about two months after they came out with that report, or maybe a little bit less, they said, there was a report from the same folks, and they said, you know, this idea of growth, I mean, if you can explain it by assuming that if pressure is put on the top of the earth and on the bottom of the earth, you know, it expands from at the center.
	And they put it out as like an explanation to which I would say, excuse me?
	You put pressure on the top and the bottom of the earth and it expands out in the middle and you're presenting this as your explanation that for several years you've noted that the earth seems to be growing at the equator.
	Whose hands pushed that?
	I mean, I don't understand that.
	I don't understand the contradictory information that comes from the world of science in explanations
	that are supposed to convince regular folks that they're being sensible about it.
	It doesn't make sense to me.
	So I'm trying to put the whole thing together and have it make some kind of sense and trying
	to do it as with my maps and my globes in a precise mathematical way.
	Just not easy.
	And by the way, for those who'd like to see some of these, you've got them on the website and I think we've got a link up, right?
	Yeah, you certainly do.
	So you should all go take a look.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Neil Adams.
	Hello.
	Hello, this is Charles from Harrisburg.
	Hi Charles, how are you?
	You're coming from the evolution perspective?
	Evolution?
	Yeah, I mean it ties in with geology and that fictitious table that was basically thought up out of thin air back in the 1700s, right?
	What was?
	This, you know, the geological table, you know, where the rock sediments say, you know, this is from 200 million years ago, you know?
	I think that probably there was a segment of society that represents the science of the Earth that, in fact, feels that way, sure.
	Not necessarily do they necessarily agree with everybody, nor does everybody agree with them.
	Yeah, when the other side, I mean, the other side doesn't get heard, not nearly enough analysts agree.
	Well, I don't think you're on the other end of my website, because I get emails all the time from folks who think that the Earth is a lot younger than that.
	And I answer them as politely as I can, and I don't necessarily either agree or disagree with them.
	I think that it's important for it to be heard, and in fact it is heard, as I understand it, on shows like this.
	Well, as a matter of fact, continuous creation is consistent with evolution.
	There's no problem there.
	As I truly believe, and I mean, I've been taught evolution all my life, and I was never taught the other aspect of creation until just recently.
	From his man, Dr. Kent Norvand, and he basically shows conclusive proof that debunks evolution and how evolution has basically been a tool for so many years of Satan.
	Of Satan?
	Yeah, it's led so many Christians away from the faith, from the Bible, you know?
	I honestly can't imagine how that would happen, but if somebody says it's true and they believe it, I think that they have a right to say it, and in fact they should say it to anybody and everybody who's willing to listen.
	It's hard for me to believe that faith would be dependent on how old the earth is.
	I find that hard to believe.
	Well, indeed, for some fundamentalists it certainly is, Neil.
	Sure, I understand.
	No question about that.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Neil Adams and Art Bell.
	Yes, well, I'll say good afternoon to you, Arden.
	This is my first time actually calling to you.
	So, you know, you're very loved, even when I disagree with you.
	But in terms of the previous caller, the National Geographic, what I want to say is that I think this is a very intriguing and fascinating program.
	Well, I forget your name again.
	Neil.
	Neil.
	I wish you a lot of luck.
	I hope that you're working on a book.
	I think Bucky Fuller, in his work, he made us understand, you know, he considered himself a comprehensivist, and there's so many things that aren't discovered in science because of the specialization which you talked at the Beginning and they're always changing their theories.
	I, in the most recent National Geographic, there's an article where, um, you know, Leakey, they had, uh, when Leakey was in, um, uh, where was he in Africa?
	Yeah, the Rift Valley.
	That was the Homo sapiens that they had said was 130, um, A thousand years old turned out to be almost 200,000 years old.
	So, you know, you're doing great work, but I have a brief three-part question.
	First of all, I want you to tell us about how you, you know, particularly with your background, how you got involved in this, the genesis of this, and you know, a thumbnail sketch of the story that got you going in this direction.
	I also want to know, I recently picked up my very bad copy of World in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky, and of course we know Ages in Chaos, etc.
	So I want to know, and I'll listen over the air because I can hear much better, but I want to know where and what you think of his work and where his work factors in.
	In addition to people like Michael Cremo and his forbidden archaeology, David Hatcher Childress, And I'll continue to listen.
	I'm enjoying the show.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	All right.
	The genesis of all this.
	The genesis of all this is, first of all, of course, my interest in science.
	Second of all, this guy named Samuel Warren Carey, who died two years ago and who was an honored geologist.
	Even though his theory was not accepted, he still was a very powerful and honored geologist.
	I didn't know when I first heard about this that it was quote Samuel Warren Carey.
	All I knew was that this guy had come up with this theory and I had listened to the theory and it made so much more sense than the common theory that I was stunned that no one was listening to it.
	I would try to imagine myself being Chinese and being told that the Pacific was This giant ocean and somehow the Atlantic was together and these Americans and European arrogant fools assumed that this is where the Earth spread from and not from the Pacific Ocean.
	And I thought about it and I thought, my goodness, this is very one-sided science.
	Why doesn't somebody step up and really try to prove the physics?
	So I thought, well, I can't actually think of anybody who would do it.
	In all honesty, who would do this?
	And I thought, well, somebody who loves science, somebody who has some time, somebody who doesn't have tenure at a college, somebody who can't easily be attacked, somebody who's really not afraid of expressing opinions that might be different from other people, because in my field, I've been pretty much of a revolutionary, and I've learned not to be afraid.
	And somebody who can stay the course and somebody who can shut up until he figures it out.
	So I shut up for 30 years.
	Worlds in collision.
	I didn't read those things.
	I didn't read Velikovsky.
	I've heard about it.
	I didn't read the rest of this stuff because I didn't feel that my being tainted by all these things would have been a fair thing to do and to have them lead me by the nose.
	Why didn't I just go out and investigate it myself and find out from science Exactly what's going on.
	And all the stuff that I talk about is in all the books.
	There's nothing strange about what I'm saying.
	You can look it all up.
	It's all there.
	And basically what I did was I just made a very large picture puzzle and I started putting the pieces together.
	It's sort of like when I put the Earth together.
	I put all the continents together and they fit.
	Well, you know what?
	The chances are of all those pieces fitting together, there is no chance.
	If common theory is correct.
	It's impossible.
	It can't be that I can push them together on a smaller planet and they fit exactly.
	That's not possible.
	And what about all this forbidden archaeology?
	These things that are found that don't fit in with traditional scientific views of how it all happened.
	They're sort of put up on the shelf and just forgotten.
	I guess a lot of it would fit in, perhaps, with what you believe.
	In all of this, and there are people who are investigating this, but very often these things don't get a lot of attention.
	The bones and the dinosaurs that are being dug up in Antarctica are incredibly important.
	Remember I was talking about the pterocarosaurus, if I may jump back for just a second.
	There was, and I said that they were found in France and they only existed for a certain period of time.
	Well, they found a pterocarosaurus thigh bone in Africa, in the middle of Africa.
	Well, if there was 2,000 miles of ocean between the two, the top and bottom, how could a pterocarosaurus that only existed in a 5 million year range possibly be in Africa and in France?
	Unless, I don't know, the pterocarosaurus took a day trip to Africa or, you know, flew a plane or I don't know how it could have happened.
	And then they discussed it on the Discovery Channel and some young scientist who seemed to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Well, you know, they have things called vegetable mats, you know, where vegetable mats break away from a land mass and they travel across the ocean, you know, and they get to this island and animals are transmitted that way, and I thought,
	He's saying this in the face of the fact that a pterocarosaurus is the size of a tyrannosaurus rex, that somehow a tyrannosaurus rex stepped on a vegetable mat in France and traveled to Africa.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	First off, caller line, you're on the air with Neil Adams and Art Belheim.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Yeah.
	How are you?
	This is Jim.
	I'm calling from Hawaii.
	How are you, Jim?
	Good.
	I mean, Neil, your concept of that when you talk in simple terms, I mean, that makes a lot of sense to me, because from my experience, I've found that the basic truths are very simple.
	Of course.
	And that's like Einstein's E equals MC squared.
	That's a simple truth, okay?
	It's not easy to understand, but the formula is quite straightforward.
	And that's what you're saying.
	You're saying that the energy is being created to matter, and the gamma rays are being switched to hydrogen in the center of the Earth.
	Well, not exactly that, but you're getting there.
	And I want to get into the particle physics of it, because people just fall asleep.
	But basically, you're postulating an energy conversion to matter.
	Right.
	Well, I'm postulating that there is a prime matter in the universe, and that's converted into matter.
	And we don't know exactly what it is, but it seems to be electromagnetic in nature, because what we do is we add energy from a photon to it, and then it becomes matter.
	Okay.
	But now, do you see any correlation, or any that would relate to This Black Gold Overload book where they talk about oils being continually created.
	If you've got hydrogen at the center of the Earth running loose, you can combine that with carbon, which has got to be there, and you're making hydrocarbons.
	Now, if you're making hydrocarbons in the center of the Earth, then that would cause the Earth to swell.
	And then you would also... You know, you don't have to go very far to convince me on this one.
	It would also account for the people who believe that oil, the process of creation of oil, is a continuous process.
	Yes, of course.
	I think that I would, in all honesty, what I do generally is I give things percentages.
	I would have to give that theory at least a 50% chance of being true.
	And that, to me, is a very big deal.
	And I think that it ought to be investigated from that point of view.
	I think right before we switch to hydrogen energy, we ought to come to a conclusion and then stop digging oil up out of the ground.
	Well, even if it's true, that doesn't mean that it's being created at a rate that will sustain us in any way, no matter how you want to talk about it.
	Well, I'll tell you, Art, the truth is that I've sort of watched this whole thing from a long time ago.
	And I've listened to people predict when we're going to run out of oil.
	And the amount of oil that we've pulled out of the ground from the 1920s has increased and increased and increased and increased.
	And there seems no end to it now.
	And there may be an end to it, but I haven't seen it.
	And every prediction that I've ever heard has turned out to be not only untrue, but a joke.
	It seems like no matter where we go, we can find oil.
	And the more we learn about geology, the likelihood is the more oil we'll find.
	I don't think the problem is finding oil and whether we're going to run out of oil.
	I think the problem is oil is a bad thing to burn.
	It hurts the atmosphere.
	And if you actually combine hydrogen and oxygen and you use that to create electrical energy, then the byproduct of that is H2O.
	And you can drink that.
	Greg in San Jose, California asks, if matter were being continually created, as your guest is speculating, then the ratio of hydrogen to other elements in the universe would be different than it is.
	No, it would remain exactly the same.
	Why would it change?
	If everything is being created in the same amounts, in the same general amounts, everything would remain the same in the same proportions.
	We do have to remember that an early universe would have created hydrogen before it created anything else, because after all, hydrogen has no neutrons.
	So you're going to create an awful lot of hydrogen before you create suns in order to create neutrons in order to create helium.
	So 90% of the universe is, in fact, hydrogen.
	Now, in suns, the sun's converted into helium.
	In my opinion, basically, the way you convert it into helium is you basically squish a hydrogen atom And that question that I used to ask when I was in high school, which was, gee, how come hydrogen is the only atom that doesn't have neutrons, is answered by this answer, and that is because hydrogen atoms are neutrons.
	Now, I know particle physics, we don't want to get into that, it's just too deep.
	Alright, again though, I'm willing to buy the fact that we've got continuous creation, in effect, underway, and that oil may be, in fact, I wouldn't say endless, but we don't know the rate at which it's being created if that creation process is still underway.
	In other words, we may be using it at a rate far faster than it's being created, so we could still run out of economically feasible oil, or of course foul the planet completely.
	You know, Art, I don't like to get into prediction business, and basically almost every time you do it, you end up being wrong.
	It's a dangerous position to be in.
	You basically have to go by the science and also the history.
	One of the things you can use is history, and that's what I do.
	The history of oil is that there's more and more, and it seems like there's more, and some of these wells that seem to be depleted are renewed.
	Here's another example.
	You know what a salt dome is?
	I do, but you're going to have to salt them.
	Just hold on to that thought, and we'll pick up when we get back.
	It's the bottom of the hour.
	My guest is Neil Adams, and his theory is perfectly reasonable.
	Actually, when you consider steady state and the Big Bang, there is something in the middle, and that's a kind of a continuous creation that's been described.
	From the Philippines, I'm Art Bell.
	Indeed, Southeast Asia.
	Good day, everybody.
	I am Art Bell.
	My guest is Neil Adams, and this program has always been dedicated to examination of things that are not exactly mainstream, not exactly pure science, and that's where we are with Neil.
	I mean, what he's saying makes all kinds of sense to me.
	It really does, even the part about The creation of more oil, although I don't think we're creating it at a rate that we're using it.
	That would be my opinion only.
	All of this does kind of make sense.
	more of it and salt domes in a moment.
	Okay Neil, salt domes.
	Yeah.
	Well, you know, scientists tell us that salt domes are, well, of course, salt domes are these things that are under the Earth, and a lot of people don't know about them.
	Let me describe a salt dome for you real quick.
	Sure.
	A salt dome can be, it's under the Earth, and it can be as much as 10 miles long, as much as 3 or 4 miles wide, or as much as 5 miles long, or give a number of miles wide.
	It can be as much as a half mile deep, solid salt.
	Edge to edge.
	Like a giant stone.
	In fact, salt is called the only rock we eat.
	Anyway, salt domes seem to collect under the Earth.
	Now, scientists will tell us that these are evaporated oceans, or evaporated portions of seas.
	Doesn't make any sense to me.
	I don't know of any area that could be four or five miles wide, three or four miles wide the other way, and a half mile deep of evaporated salt.
	Doesn't make sense.
	But if the Earth grows, Salt is made of two gases, sodium and chlorine.
	Those are two elements.
	If matter is made inside of the earth and gases seep up through the earth like hydrogen, oxygen, sodium and chlorine, those two gases can combine once they get past that like hot layer that's just under the surface of the earth.
	Once they get past that and rise up into the earth and hit a cooler area, Those two separate gases can combine.
	If they combine in a normal part of the earth, they'll join with certain minerals and they'll become part of the minerals that plants absorb the salt from and we eat the plants and we get salt into our body.
	Or, they may be attracted to salt domes, join in crystal bonds to the salt that's under the earth, that may have started with a seed crystal but essentially has grown into this gigantic crystal, and be and grow under the earth like a geode.
	Now, if this happens, What that means is that the shallow seas that were on the Earth in the age of the dinosaurs, before the deep oceans, didn't have any salt.
	They were freshwater seas.
	So they didn't evaporate.
	The salt domes may have been collecting under there.
	But until we had the rifting and spreading of the deep oceans, and then the cracks that the material comes up in the middle of the oceans through these cracks, What happens with those cracks is all the gases that come from inside of the earth enters the ocean.
	That would include sodium and chlorine.
	Goes directly into the ocean from the gases that come up that crack.
	Before those deep oceans, all we had was water on the land.
	And as you may know, even now, the water on the land is not salt water.
	Unless it's invaded by water from the ocean.
	Quite correct, yeah.
	Okay, I get it.
	Everything you say makes as much sense as any of the other theories about it all.
	International Line, you're on the air with Neil Adams.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	International Line, going once.
	International Line, going twice.
	International Line, gone.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Neil Adams.
	Hello?
	Yes?
	Yes, I'd like to, just before I start, do you guys respect intellectual property?
	My guess is Neil Adams, since he does what he does, has a very great deal of respect for intellectual property.
	If I say this, will I get the proper credit for it?
	Because I'd hate to tell the theory of everything and someone else take credit.
	I mean, if you go on an international talk show, sir, and you spew something forth, you have to imagine somebody might grab it.
	It doesn't matter, because I'm Josh Ladner from Moselle, Mississippi, and okay, you have to look at the universe as if God would create it.
	He would want the universe to be balanced.
	It would never be out of balance.
	But you have a universe and an anti-universe.
	You have your universe and then the opposite of your universe running in backwards time compared to yours.
	So time is a loop.
	Okay?
	Math and matter... Math and matter do expand, but they expand in a way that it was complicated, but you guys were poking around, so I had to come out with it.
	Okay, as mass and matter expand, everything else expands relative to them.
	Gravity is the force that keeps this ratio constant.
	So if something is expanding on our side, then it's also relative in size and space.
	to everything else, so it doesn't appear to be expanding.
	It doesn't appear to be growing, yeah.
	Okay, I think I've got it.
	Neil, does that make sense?
	Sure.
	I reckon.
	I don't quite understand it, but I reckon it does.
	Well, he's suggesting that everything is growing, and because everything is growing in proportion, it all seems not to be... I know it doesn't make sense, but if everything's growing at the same rate, it just doesn't seem to be I think what that would mean is that atoms are growing, and that is not the case.
	Mass is being created and is adding to the universe.
	So, no, I don't think that that's the case.
	All right.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Neil Adams.
	Hi.
	Hello there.
	Yes.
	Howdy.
	Howdy.
	How are you?
	Hello.
	Go ahead, sir.
	Yes, go ahead.
	Oh, okay.
	Great show, guys.
	Quick comment, actually, on two questions.
	One of the questions that you asked, Art, earlier about there being giants in the Bible.
	I know this is different from the subject, but actually, according to the Old Testament, there were about anywhere, if I remember correctly, 15 to 18 different races of giants.
	And they were the result of fallen angels coming down and having children with the women of the earth, to answer that question.
	They were all wiped out in the flood of Noah's time period.
	The main reason why I called was in reference to the caller that called talking about faith and the age of the earth.
	In Genesis 1-1 it says that God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void.
	If you go to Isaiah, I believe it's 55 or 56, there's a scripture that says whenever God speaks, His words never return to Him void.
	So in order for him to create the earth and it to be void, there had to be a time period in between the two where something happened that caused the earth to be void.
	Now, most Christian scientists will use the genealogies of various people in the Bible to calculate the age of the earth, but they can't calculate it because there's no measurement for that gap in between God created the earth and the earth was without form and void.
	So, I know it's a different subject from what you were talking about, but anytime I hear somebody call about faith, I try to get my little answer in.
	There you go.
	Alright.
	Okay, let's go to this wildcard line.
	You're on the air with Neil Adams.
	Hi.
	Howdy.
	Hi, Neil.
	How are you?
	Hi Neil, I'd like to ask you a few things concerning your ideas on dinosaurs, expanding Earth theory and the creation of matter.
	Sure.
	I really wanted to know if you could design any experiment that could test or prove or disprove that the Earth is expanding by the creation of matter deep in its core rather than the work of tectonic plates, I mean the movements of the continents as the work of tectonic plates.
	Yeah, one of the ways would be if you measure the Earth and it got bigger.
	And at times, folks have measured the Earth and it's gotten bigger, but I don't think that it's been definitive.
	And if it was, then all the textbooks that we have would be rewritten by now.
	And what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to present all the evidence from all the different areas.
	To say that there's definitive proof would be foolish of me.
	I can't do it, because if I could do that, then everything would have changed by now.
	It's been a difficult road.
	All I can do is, for example, if you've been to my site, you've been to the site that we have up, is to show you the maps and the continents and how they fit together, and to explain the logic that that would be impossible.
	To explain how in another science, dinosaurs could not possibly be the size that they're indicated to be, And still have the same bone density.
	To talk about the various things that we've had, all these explanations from science that have been presented as a justification for science as it's taught today, in which there are many, many contradictions.
	And to point out those contradictions, if I could get the true measurements and I could get it nailed down, which may happen, I don't know that I would be believed.
	I mean, if a scientist in 1992 says, we've measured the Earth and the equator seems to be getting bigger every year, but we've got an excuse for it, something is pushing down from the top and the bottom, pretty much there are an awful lot of people that are going to say, well, that's not proof enough.
	So, you know, this is a battle that I'm in.
	This is a concept that I'm presenting.
	And it's not just me.
	It's been presented for 40 years.
	I cannot claim that I originated it or in any way Was the first to say it.
	What I've done is I've taken all this material from all these various sciences and I've put it together in a bunch.
	And in order to understand it, you sort of have to have a good memory.
	You kind of have to go, I remember this, I remember this, I remember this, I remember this.
	And therefore, all of that seems to make a better explanation, a far better explanation than what I'm hearing that's so contradictory.
	How there was a Pangea and somehow three quarters of the surface of the Earth was stripped away and thrown away.
	Where did it go?
	That it broke in half and you can't explain the dinosaurs based on that.
	There's so many contradictions in the theory that we have today that this theory has, one, can be tested on the basis, does it explain everything better?
	But that's not going to satisfy everybody.
	There has to be specific proof.
	One of the things I have, if you look at my site, is I explain how the Pangea, the island of Pangea, has a certain density.
	For example, granitic rock is 2.5 times the density of water.
	Basalt is 3.0 to 3.3 times the density of water.
	If you put all that stuff on the other side of the Earth, on one side of the Earth, and the ocean is one time the density of water, and it's 4 miles deep, between 2.5 and 4 miles deep, then what happens is the center of gravity of the Earth has to shift toward Pangaea by approximately four kilometers.
	If that's what happens, the middle of the Pacific Ocean would rise above the water and the middle of Pangaea would sink beneath the water, and that is not explainable by science.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Let's go west of the Rockies.
	You're on the air with Neil Adams.
	Hello.
	Hi, Art.
	Hi.
	Howdy.
	You expatriate, you.
	Good to talk to you.
	Good to talk to you, sir.
	What's up?
	I'm so happy you have somebody talking about dinosaurs.
	Okay, now dinosaurs, we have evidence that the dinosaurs in Antarctica hibernated during the winter.
	Dinosaurs, in my opinion, were the crown of creation.
	If they had another five to seven million years, they already had binocular vision, opposable thumbs, they would be having their eyepods and stuff today.
	I think you're probably right.
	I wonder though, I wonder if that really is true.
	In other words, it seems to me that the process of continuous creation and evolution walk together just hand-in-hand just fine.
	There's not a problem, is there?
	No, there's not.
	And in fact, you know, it's a toss-up whether or not dinosaurs could have survived because in a way Because of their advantages, they had so much against them.
	Remember that mammals, first of all, had fur.
	Second of all, didn't move from the area that they lived in so that they experienced the cold and the hot.
	They burrowed under the land.
	They carried their eggs inside of their body and gave birth to young, alive.
	They had all the advantages of a creature that's going to survive.
	All these advantages were taken away from the dinosaurs because of the dinosaurs' advantages.
	In other words, they were so superior for the world that they lived on, and then when the world changed, in a way, it betrayed them, and they couldn't survive.
	Okay.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Neil Adams and Art Bell.
	Hello.
	Art Bell, this is Danny Borders in Nashville.
	How are you?
	Hi, Danny.
	I'm a very long-time listener, and congratulations on your move to the Philippines.
	I've been there myself.
	It's been a month, about 30 years ago.
	And had a couple weeks off, was playing music, and hung out on the South China Sea up there north of San Fernando, and was amazed at just how beautiful the Filipino people are, and what a beautiful country, and I've never forgotten it, and I hope to come back one day.
	Okay, that said, Neil, do you have, I'm sorry, do you have a question for Neil?
	Yes, I do.
	I picked up the, I picked up the phone when I heard him, heard you referring about the duckbill platypus bones.
	In Antarctica.
	My question to you was posed by an earlier caller about Immanuel Velikovsky's books, and I can set your mind at ease.
	His books are really about recent history.
	He's a Ph.D.
	in geology, astrophysics, and astronomy, and what he basically did was embark on a journey much as Donnelly did before he wrote his 1880 book, Atlantis in a Deluvian World.
	And visited very many, you know, remote parts of the Earth.
	And his theory was that there were basically two major events, both which happened within the last 10,000 years, where Venus was a comet at the time, you know, it wasn't stationary, and it was the first event which triggered the Great Flood.
	It passed close to the Earth and turned it on its axis.
	And then there was a second event, and he basically tied it all in with Greek mythology, and showed scientifically how some of the things that had been recorded in history, in the Bible, the manna from heaven, the second event was while the Israelites were fleeing Egypt, and explained how these large objects passing by the earth turned the earth on its axis.
	And it's a very interesting reading and certainly nothing that would, you know, interfere with your theory, which is, you know, much more expanded in time and in scope.
	Well, considering that Venus is about the size of the Earth, to describe it as a comet is probably not very good.
	And since its orbit seems to be a fixed orbit, I probably would kind of negate that too.
	So I guess scientifically you'd kind of have to say That's a little difficult to swallow.
	Okay.
	First time caller line.
	Not a lot of time, but you're on the air with Neil Adams.
	Hi.
	Hello there.
	First time caller line.
	Can you hear me?
	I'm sorry.
	Yes, I hear you.
	Okay.
	Thank you for serving, first of all.
	And Neil Adams, I think you're absolutely fabulous.
	I don't know what your website is, but I'm just getting so excited to hear this.
	NeilAdams.com.
	There you go, neiladams.com.
	And you can go to the Coast to Coast website, and they have stuff there.
	Do you have a beard?
	No, I don't.
	Okay, I'm looking at it different.
	I googled you, but it must be the wrong guy.
	What I wanted to share with this, to the caller, the gentleman who called in and said something about the Giants, that is a misinterpretation.
	They were not fallen angels.
	It refers to Basically, the sons of God were referring to the children of Israel, and basically it was the men were having women, but it was probably from the family of Cain, and that they were taking these women because they were very beautiful, and they were marrying with them.
	And that's what that's all about.
	But if somebody suggests that, then yes.
	And I sent you a link on that as well, Art.
	But what I wanted to share with you, I am a Christian, and because of what you're saying, I've always based my belief on facts.
	I've read Josh McDowell's books and so forth.
	But as I read those things, and the things that you're saying make me very excited, because when you talk about that little, was it the Protron that went around the thing?
	And then it disappeared?
	Uh, Protron.
	Earlier on, when you started talking about that, and you started to get into that scope of it, there was something that, in my heart, that was impressed upon me, because God, to me, is a continuum.
	He is beginning and end.
	And so, one day I was I was thinking in church people always talk about how, you know, you walk in the spirit and then we live in the physical world.
	But I look at it on the opposite end of the spectrum.
	I look at it in terms of we live in a spiritual realm.
	In a physical form.
	So with what you said, for me at least, it made total, absolute sense, because if you look... Alright, listen, on that note, we've got... I'm sorry to have to cut you off, but we are very short on time.
	Thank you very much.
	It's neiladams.com, correct Neil?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Neil, you know the one thing I didn't ask you throughout all this?
	Where does, or does God fit into what you believe?
	Well, I don't think that God changes in a universe that's created.
	I mean, if you say that the universe always existed, it kind of questions whether or not you're actually fitting God into there at all.
	If the universe is created, then it certainly has a better place in it than it always existed.
	All right, buddy, that's it.
	We are totally out of time.
	I had to get that one in, though.
	Thank you very much, Neil.
	Take care.
	Okay, Art.
	Alright folks, that's it.
	That's Neil Adams and I think a lot of what he says, though it can't be backed up with hard science, makes absolute sense as much sense as any of the other theories.
	From the Philippines, I'm Mark Bell.

▲