The Unexplained - Howard Hughes - Edition 309 - Andrew Basiago and Professor Kevin Warwick

Aug. 28, 2017 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes

01:18:47

Edition 309 - Andrew Basiago and Professor Kevin Warwick

Two great guests - Kevin Warwick on the rise of AI and robots and Andrew Basiago on the"secret time travel programme..."

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Across the UK, across continental North America, and around the world on the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes, and this is the Return of the Unexplained.
	Returning to you in a bit of a heat wave, August, the very end of it, has played a bit of a trick on us here in the UK.
	We have a bit of a mini heat wave, so outside it's about 28 degrees, which is 82 Fahrenheit.
	Where I'm recording this right now, it is even hotter than that.
	So the weather's played some tricks on us.
	We've had lousy weather for weeks, and suddenly it's changed.
	All very bizarre.
	Who knows what it's going to do by the time we get to October?
	Thank you very much for all of your emails.
	No shout-outs on this edition, but I promise that I'm going to do a big session of getting up to speed with shout-outs and also talking about some of the things that you've suggested and some of your stories in the next edition of this show.
	Keep the emails coming, please.
	I love your stories and thank you for the nice things you've been saying.
	If you want to email me with a suggestion or anything, really, go to the website theunexplained.tv, designed and created by Adam from Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
	Follow the link and you can send me an email from there.
	Also, if you can, please make a donation to the show.
	Your donation's vital to this.
	And if you remember that like a Starbucks coffee in the UK is at least a couple of pounds, and in the US, I think it's about $3, $3.50 for a basic coffee.
	So a couple of dollars to the unexplained is going to help us massively and won't even be the cost of a cup of Starbucks or other good brand of coffee.
	Two guests on this show, we're going to be talking about artificial intelligence and robotics off the back of a couple of things that have happened recently.
	One of them, of course, the comments of Elon Musk and his debate with Mr. Zuckerberg from Facebook.
	Also, Facebook's decision to take offline a couple of chatbots because they appeared to have developed their own way of speaking to each other, their own language that only they understood.
	That made all the papers around the world a couple of weeks back.
	So we'll talk with Professor Kevin Warwick, the man they call Captain Cyborg, about all of this.
	He is one of this country's leading experts, one of the world's leading experts on robotics and artificial intelligence.
	Love having him on this show.
	He's always welcome here.
	Then from my radio show, somebody you've been requesting for a couple of years now, Andrew Bashiago, will be here.
	It'll be the first appearance for him.
	And we're also going to do a podcast with him in a month or thereabouts.
	So two great guests on this edition of The Unexplained.
	Thank you very much for all of your support, for everything that I do, the nice comments you make.
	You know that can't do it without you, and you keep me going.
	These have been trying times for reasons that I won't bother going into right now.
	It's all too boring, but they have been.
	And maybe it's all to do with Mercury retrograde, if you're an astrologer and believe that kind of thing.
	I don't know.
	All right, let's get to the first of the guests.
	Professor Kevin Warwick, we're going to talk about artificial intelligence and its continuing march and onslaught in this world.
	So, Kevin, this story was all over the papers this week, and I'm not sure whether they've got the right end of it.
	You know, what do you make of it?
	This is in terms of intelligent machines and the potential for taking over the world.
	Well, that's the kind of suggestion that's been made, but I don't know whether that is the case.
	I read the comments section on the Daily Telegraph version of this, and the comments are all over the place.
	Some people think this is the beginning of the end for us as the human race, and other people think this is a storm in a digital teacup.
	Yeah, well, there seems to be a difference in thought.
	People like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, very eminent people, have been saying for a while now that having super intelligent machines or just intelligent machines that get out of control is a big danger, probably the biggest danger and threat to humankind.
	Whereas there's others, people like Mark Zuckerberg, who say, no, it's not a danger at all.
	I mean, for me, it is a potential danger.
	There's no getting away from that.
	Not just intelligence.
	If you've got on a machine that's sitting somewhere and you can switch it on and off, well, that's not particularly a problem.
	You do with it what you will.
	But when an artificial intelligence system that is part of a network and can make decisions that directly affect humans, such as in the military domain, then it doesn't really have to be that intelligent.
	It certainly doesn't have to be intelligent like a human.
	So when you get things that we've seen recently by a couple of conversation systems actually learning between them some basic form of new language that people can't understand, it's a step on the way.
	It's getting out of control a bit.
	We're not sure what's going on.
	And I think there are definite dangers.
	I'm certainly in that school.
	And I think people of position that suggest there's not a threat there are really irresponsible in this.
	Well, I mean, the only thing I can say, and you know, I have to be fairly neutral about these things, but, you know, I do have my views.
	And the only thing that I can say about this, Kevin, is if there was no problem with any of this, why did Facebook turn them off?
	Yes, yes.
	No, I mean, I agree with you.
	And it's if you look at networking, it's networking that's the critical thing as much as intelligence here, where you're not sure what the end result is going to do and where the information has come in, in this case, for the new language to appear, why they've gone that way.
	And I think once you throw in networking, which a lot of people don't understand the power of a network.
	You know, our brains are networks and our brains are incredible things, but here we've got a worldwide network that can have pockets of intelligence that speak to each other.
	If it doesn't do anything physically, it's not such an issue.
	But as soon as it starts doing things that affect our lives directly, there's a potential danger.
	Network isolation is an in-buzz words at the moment, that you isolate areas where you think there are problems.
	That's all well and good.
	But with intelligence, artificial intelligence, you can't be sure where the problems are going to be.
	One of the researchers involved in this told, and I'm quoting the Daily Telegraph, but other papers and of course the BBC and others reported this.
	One of the researchers said it wasn't possible for humans to crack the AI language and translate it back into English.
	And I quote, it's important to remember there are not bilingual speakers of AI and human languages.
	In other words, that admits that they had created something that is beyond our ken.
	Yes, and I think not just with AI, with machines, with robots, this is what you get.
	The robots sense the world in different ways.
	Humans have a very limited perception spectrum.
	The frequency spectrum, even our visual input is very limited.
	And you've got machines that are taking information in directly electronic information off the web, but also maybe information from other machines.
	And us understanding, perceiving that is very difficult.
	It's like how does a cow think?
	How does a spider think?
	Well, we don't know because we're not cows or spiders.
	We don't have their input.
	We don't have the decision making.
	How do cows, how do spiders communicate?
	We don't know because we're not cows or spiders.
	And it's really the same thing here.
	How are the machines thinking?
	Well, it's different to us, but what does it mean?
	And what decisions are they coming up with?
	Well, it depends, you know, how they're sensing the world and what they tell each other.
	But am I right, Kevin, in saying that it's always going to be ultimately safe for us because we set the parameters for the devices.
	They cannot exceed those parameters or can they?
	Not at all, not at all.
	That is, you know, I don't want to sort of shout at you here, but really, realistically, the whole concept that computers are just programmed, they will always do what we want them to do, that is completely and utterly 100% wrong.
	And when we're talking about artificial intelligence, intelligence in this sense means machine learning.
	The information is deep within the system, which we probably don't know what information is there.
	We can't make any sense of it.
	But once they learn, it's a bit like letting a child loose, that you push the child out into the world, and the child will learn, and it will make its own decisions, some of which any parents there listening in will know the child probably will decide completely the opposite of what you think is good and what you think is bad.
	And that can happen exactly to artificial intelligence.
	You push it out there with goodwill, thinking, yes, we'll put it into this particular system and we think it should do this and it should do that.
	But it's not like a mathematically programmed system.
	You can prove it's going to work.
	It will come up with its own decisions based on what it's learned.
	And that may well be something completely different that you never conceived that could potentially happen.
	As an example, we had some little robots years ago that would move around in a little corral taking ultrasonic, like sonar signals, and we got them to learn how to move around.
	So they'd move their wheels in order to move forwards and not bump into the wall.
	Well, the one time we were demonstrating these things at a school and the school children all crowded around.
	So whichever way the robots went, it was wrong.
	If they went forwards like this with the wheels, it was wrong.
	If they went forward like that, in the end, the one robot just stopped.
	And it was still working, but it had decided everything that it does was wrong, so it wasn't going to do anything.
	Now, there's no way we could have, it wasn't supposed to do that at all.
	Not what we'd set it up to do, but that was the decision it took.
	And that's what you're looking at with artificial intelligence.
	It will come up with a decision that you couldn't conceive that it would come up with because you're not a robot.
	But Kevin Warwick, some people may be a little surprised.
	You know, I read your comments in various newspapers this week about all of this, saying exactly what you just said to me.
	But you are the man who's been at the forefront of all of this technology.
	I mean, for goodness sake, you've had chips implanted in yourself in the past, in the cause of research.
	I would have thought you'd be all for this.
	Well, I'm for the research in it.
	I think it's only through doing research that we can find out what's possible and what's not.
	And it's great that this has been reported and reported, as you say, that they switched it off.
	If there wasn't an issue there, why did they bother switching it off?
	Just for a news story?
	Come on, they're not into that.
	Or maybe I'm being a bit cynical.
	I don't know.
	But I think it's only through research and testing things that you find out.
	And through years of working practically in the field of artificial intelligence.
	So, yes, my end conclusion is there are dangers there.
	We really do have to be careful.
	This particular incident with communication and learning a new language doesn't surprise me at all, but it's another step on the way.
	It's another indication that there are dangers, there are threats there.
	Machines around the world could be communicating with each other.
	We've no idea even that they're communicating with each other.
	Certainly not what they're communicating.
	But there's a great divergence of view about this, I guess, in the scientific community.
	A few weeks ago, I interviewed Professor Michio Kaku, who, as you know, is very well known around the world.
	And I asked him about all of this.
	This was before this story appeared, of course.
	And I said, you know, robots taking over our jobs, and have we got to worry about the future for all of us and this world?
	And he said, oh, no, no, don't worry, because robots will do the things that we don't want to do.
	They'll take out the rubbish.
	They'll go to places that are difficult to clean up.
	They'll do all the stuff that we don't want to do so that we can have a better life.
	You think perhaps that's only partly true?
	That's partly true.
	I mean, that's right.
	Everything that he says, that's right.
	Yes, we've got machines to do that.
	And the nature of jobs will change, as it has done.
	If you look over the last 30 years, a lot of the physical jobs we used to do have gone.
	And now people are doing jobs that are related to computers and looking after the computer.
	So the jobs will change.
	But in this case, we're not only using, if you like, silly or stupid robots that will just do particular specific manual physical tasks.
	We're using them nowadays.
	This is the whole thing of artificial intelligence to do elements of our thinking for us and making decisions for us and carrying out those physical decisions if you look at the military and the financial situation.
	And it's that loop really that the AI doesn't have to be that clever, but once you make the loop through the network, so the decisions that the AI takes have a direct impact physically on humans and we're out of the loop.
	We don't have a veto.
	We don't have a control over it.
	That's where the danger really comes in.
	But being honest about it, Kevin, it sounds to me like this is a dynamic that cannot be stopped.
	There is no way that you can make everybody design robots that won't do this kind of thing.
	Well, I have to say, unfortunately, that's a conclusion I would tend to agree with.
	It's not good news, but we're heading for the edge of the cliff and we can't put the brakes on.
	It's that sort of thing.
	And I mean, the whole basis of doing research with implants, of trying to upgrade human intelligence by linking it with artificial intelligence, is one way of diverting it into another direction.
	We don't have the AI acting against us because we join it effectively.
	We become part human intelligence, part artificial intelligence ourselves.
	So we have it working for us rather than against us.
	So in the words of Star Trek, we become assimilated.
	We become assimilated, exactly.
	That's it.
	But it's a shared process, as I would see it.
	The human brain has a role to play, as the machine brain does.
	But it's all in one.
	But that does mean, even if we take that as a positive way forward, those that are not part of those that are not assimilated are, you know, second-rate citizens at best.
	Oh, boy.
	And the fascinating part of all of this is, you know, on any level, could they have known what they were doing?
	Perhaps not.
	But maybe perhaps, you know, were they just digitally problem-solving or were they conversing?
	I think this, you know, do they know?
	Did they understand?
	These are all, if you like, sidetracks.
	And people, a lot of research goes on into are machines conscious?
	What it means, are they conscious like humans?
	Well, Alan Turing years ago had good answers for this.
	Machines have a form of intelligence which is different to that of humans.
	They have a form of consciousness which is different to that of humans, just like other animals do.
	But other animals don't have their fingers on buttons that control missiles.
	You know, a cow by its actions this morning is not going to change the financial situation in the city of London.
	I would hazard a guess not anyway.
	But machines can do that.
	And that's the whole point here.
	So whether they're conscious, whether they know, whether they understand in the way that we would think of it is neither here nor there.
	It's the end result that's important.
	Let's assume now, I hope it's not happening, but let's assume now a cruise missile is heading on its way to you now.
	And if you point towards the skies at the missile where you think it's coming from and say, oh, you're not conscious like I am, you don't know and understand like I do, therefore you can't hurt me, well, it will just blow you up.
	That's it.
	I mean, that's, you know, throwing philosophical arguments at a missile is not going to divert that missile from doing what it's intending to do.
	So we have to start thinking more, and I'm returning to Star Trek here because it throws up so many good examples in so many different ways in different occasions.
	You know, Mr. Spock in Star Trek was guided solely by logic.
	Well, actually, he had a human portion which used to pull him back from that.
	But he was, you know, his Vulcan race were guided by logic.
	We have to understand that it's algorithms that will guide computers.
	And if a computer, robot, chip-laden device, whatever it might be, decides to do a thing because it believes it is the best thing to do, even if it's catastrophic for us, that's what we're dealing with here.
	That is what we have to contend with.
	That's right.
	That's exactly.
	You've nailed it perfectly.
	And I do think some people that will go and say, oh, yeah, everything's all right.
	You don't have to worry.
	You can have your cocoa at night, are doing it partly, I hasten to say, because they want to be like themselves.
	They want to be popular.
	They want people to go to sleep and drink their cocoa at night and feel, oh, yeah, isn't he a good guy?
	Isn't she a good person?
	That they've said everything's going to be all right.
	We like them.
	And this person that's saying, hey, we've got to watch out what's going on here.
	No, we don't like them.
	We don't want to hear that.
	Much as, I dare say, Winston Churchill was pilloried for suggesting that Adolf Hitler was doing something nasty.
	No, we don't like Winston Churchill.
	But when it came to it, we had to call on him, or the country had to call on him.
	Do you really believe that the scale of what we might face could be as bad as war?
	Um, oh, I think ultimately, if we go, that's, Because we're looking here with AI at a form of intelligence.
	It's like if you, I don't know if you've read War of the Worlds, H.G. Wells.
	I mean, I know that's in terms of aliens, and we're not into aliens here.
	But the whole basis of that was people couldn't really relate to or understand these other creatures that have come in.
	They sensed the world differently.
	They had a different life.
	We didn't even know what they were like in terms of a life form.
	I think that's what we're looking at here.
	And something we have created.
	This is not coming from a different planet.
	This is coming from our own.
	We have created the things, artificial intelligent devices, that we don't really understand.
	How are they thinking?
	How are they?
	We don't know.
	It's not really the same as us.
	But we can't say, oh, it's not the same as us, therefore everything's all right.
	We can't say that.
	Even if people like us if we say it.
	I'd love to say, yes, everything's all right.
	We don't need to worry about it.
	But that's not the truth.
	So I'm not going to say it.
	And we have to worry about it and try and, if we can, divert research, not away from AI, but more into it.
	So we understand it an awful lot more and really watch out how we use it and employ it within networks.
	And of course the quote from War of the Worlds, which I personally love and it seems that you do too from what you just said, the great quote is the chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, but still they come.
	And that's a lovely quote, because that's exactly the situation we've got here.
	There might be those saying, oh, there's no problem at all.
	It's a million to one or a billion to one, whatever it is.
	But there's that possibility.
	And I mean, you know, if we had to look at time scales, is it going to happen next week?
	I hope not.
	Probably not.
	Is it going to happen next year?
	I think there's still some way to go.
	But if you look, you know, 10, 20 years out, then you're getting, it's not way beyond it's all in our lifetime.
	So it's a scary thought for all of us.
	And of course, Kevin, the one thing that people don't allow for, even the experts that I've spoken to, and this worries me faintly, they don't seem to factor in the speed of change.
	As you just said, it may not happen next week or a week next Tuesday, but 20 years from now.
	And our understanding of technology and the developments within technology are proceeding at such a pace that who knows, we could be there in 10 years.
	Yeah, quite easily.
	I mean, if you go back only just over 100 years ago, really, I mean, it's amazing it's so short a time, but the first flying machines, you know, machine powered by motors of one kind or another.
	And then in the first 10, 20 years, an awful lot of people didn't understand how the machines were controlled and the fact they were inherently unstable in flight and that instability was used to control them and so on.
	People are still learning about it sometime afterwards.
	And yet, seeing how we are now, how things have changed the world dramatically, and I think in a way with artificial intelligence, we're at that sort of time.
	We've got the rudimentary, we've got the elementary artificial intelligence systems that we're using here, there, and everywhere, but we don't really understand exactly what they do.
	But rather than being positive and friendly, like aeroplanes, you know, we use them, we're in control of them.
	AI systems that are networked potentially could get out of control.
	Does this mean we have to come up internationally?
	And you know what it's like putting together international protocols for things.
	They tend quite often not to work unless it's absolutely, you know, the prospect is cataclysm and that's nuclear power.
	So maybe this is on a par with that somewhere down the track.
	To get the scientists who are creating these things to agree to a protocol that says we'll be good eggs about it and we'll make sure that nothing like this could happen and we'll design it out.
	Yes, I mean, it is, as you say, nuclear power, stroke weapons, climate change, we see it's very difficult to get global agreements.
	I mean, first thing here would be to look at it seriously, sensibly.
	As you say, in newspapers, there have been reports heavily in one direction, heavily in another direction.
	Hey, there's a problem here.
	Oh, no, there's no problem here.
	Shut up.
	And I think that's not helping at the moment.
	We really need to talk seriously, sensibly, using a scientific basis, not some feelings.
	We don't want it to be a problem.
	Therefore, let's close our eyes or put our heads in the sand and it'll all go away.
	Everything will be all right.
	We've got to get over that and start talking sensibly, seriously.
	Like I believe people such as Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, that is what they're doing.
	They're approaching it from a scientific point of view and saying, hey, look, there's a problem here.
	So we've got to firstly say there is a problem and then at least try and come up with, as you put it, some sort of global agreement that says we do this, we do that.
	Let's research, let's look a lot more what artificial intelligence is all about.
	But let's really be very, very careful in how we deploy it, particularly the power we give it, whether we do isolate it within networks, rather than letting it sort of generally do things and have power and control and get information from all sorts of sources, that we isolate it specifically and use it for specific tax and jobs.
	Like Michio Kaku is saying, if it's just used for specific jobs, then great.
	Trouble is when we were developing the internet, Kevin, if we'd done this 30, 40 years ago when we were developing the embryonic internet, we wouldn't have an internet.
	That's right.
	And I mean, that's a good point to raise the internet because even as you look at it now, we depend on it, we defer to it, and we can't really control it.
	If we could control it, we could switch it off.
	And I mean, even if you said, right, world, we're going to switch off the internet, everybody's got to not use emails for the next 24 hours, no way would that physically, practically be possible.
	And, you know, it may mean people's lives are lost if you switch off the internet.
	We rely on it.
	And therefore, we don't fully control the internet even now, which is a danger in itself.
	And we just have to try and make a roadmap to the future here.
	You know, I was telling somebody today that 20 odd years ago when I worked for Independent Radio News in London, of course, we couldn't research on computers.
	We didn't have them 25 years ago.
	But we had a news information department and a wonderful man called Charlie who ran the news information department that was full of newspaper cuttings that he'd kept and he had a brain full of facts.
	We had no idea that 25 years down the track, all information pretty much, some of it a little biased, skewed and distorted, but all information would be available to us.
	Yeah, I mean, I think when you say biased, distorted, it is biased and distorted, but it always was biased and distorted.
	I don't think it's maybe changed how it's biased.
	You know, people grumble about Wikipedia and say, oh, there's not.
	But if you can bet any encyclopedia, I think we've got a Hutchinson encyclopedia that is so biased towards Oxford for some reason, because that's where it comes from originally.
	And it's unbelievable.
	You think everything was invented there.
	So I think things like that, there is a bias, but it's going to happen whatever information comes from.
	It's biased.
	And as we said, and just as we come to the back end of this conversation, and thank you for doing this, Kevin Neil, The scientific community and people around this area can't agree on a stand to take about it.
	We've had the recent spat between Elon Musk, who had a public falling out with Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook, on exactly this thing, because Elon Musk was trying to raise alarm bells.
	Yeah, well, I mean, whether Zuckerberg said that for business reasons, whether he said it for, you know, just wanted to be a popular figure, I don't know, but he certainly didn't say it for scientific reasons.
	Elon Musk was spot on.
	So what have your scientific colleagues, if they've been saying anything to you this week since you had your say in the papers, various other places, what have they been saying to you?
	Have you had a lot of agreement?
	People saying, Kevin, you're absolutely right.
	Thank you for raising this or what?
	I don't think I ever get that.
	But no, I think how it is, it's mixed.
	You know, you get some people saying, great, yes, that's fine.
	Like, like, like, that sort of thing.
	But then you get the opposite opinion.
	I think it is polarized very much.
	And only through trying to explain might you convince somebody, but some people are really fixed.
	I wonder whether they just don't want there to be an issue or problem here, rather than actually thinking about what the practical solution is.
	I think some see it, that it's raised as being something to do with super intelligence.
	And somebody, well, machines aren't conscious like we are yet.
	Therefore, there's no way they're going to be super intelligent in the next 20 or 30 years.
	Therefore, there's no problem.
	I don't think that directly is the issue.
	Yes, if we have super intelligent machines that are networked and have a physical effect, then that's an enormous problem.
	I hope everybody would agree with that.
	But here, the intelligence doesn't have to be super.
	It can be pretty stupid intelligence, but if it's networked and has a physical effect, then there's a problem.
	There's an issue.
	And personally, I can't understand why anybody cannot see the issue with that.
	Are you fundamentally optimistic or pessimistic about the way this will play out?
	Well, I think if one thing, if it does raise the argument, the discussion, so exactly the discussion we're having now is raised seriously on the table with scientists, then that would be a good thing.
	We have to do that, as has happened with climate change, you know, is it there?
	What does it mean?
	Exactly like that, which isn't happening at the moment.
	Artificial intelligence conferences and so on are looking more about what algorithms are being developed.
	And putting on the table, is it safe?
	Isn't really, it's not on the table.
	You can't do that at an academic conference where we need to be able to do it seriously, one way or the other.
	So perhaps this will raise the issue so it is actually put on the table and not just academics but all people involved with the field can then discuss the problem in a sensible, serious way on a scientific basis.
	I think you need to speak with Kathy O'Neill, who's a number cruncher from the US.
	She formerly worked in finance but is a mathematician.
	She's written this book called Weapons of Math Destruction and she is very, very concerned about the way algorithms are deployed.
	It seems to me that you and her are singing from the same hymn sheet.
	Yeah, it sounds like it's related, coming from a different angle, but very much related.
	Yeah, I'm sure I would agree with quite a bit that she's saying.
	Kevin, thank you for taking the time again to help me out.
	Thanks, Howard.
	Good talking with you, man.
	One of the top people in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence in the UK, Professor Kevin Warwick, who's been a big help to this show.
	And we're looking forward to getting him back on again, too.
	I find he talks an awful lot of sense in this modern world, whatever you may feel, about the onslaught of AI and robotics in our lives.
	Your thoughts, of course, welcome as ever on that subject.
	Go to the website, theunexplained.tv.
	Send me an email from there.
	Next up, from my radio show on Talk Radio, Andrew Basciago, a guest who you've been asking for for a few years here, and I'm delighted to say that we got him.
	He's going to be coming specifically on the podcast very soon as well with a follow-up conversation.
	But right now, here is my conversation, the first one with Andrew Basciago.
	I'm about to tell you something now that if I were to give you bullet points of what it is, you'd say, oh, God, what's on TV?
	I'm not going to listen to that.
	When you hear the man who is about to speak with you, you might well change your mind.
	He's made a pretty big impact on me.
	I've been listening to interviews that he's done for several hours today, and I knew all about him because I heard him on an equivalent program that's huge in the United States.
	His name is Andrew Basciago, and he's online to us here at The Unexplained across the UK around the world.
	Andrew, thank you very much indeed for coming on.
	Thank you for having me, Howard.
	Now, look, we have so much to talk about.
	It is going to be very difficult for us to encapsulate all of it.
	And I think if it's okay with you, I'm going to regard tonight as being an introduction to you.
	So if you enjoy what happens tonight, then you might want to think about coming on and we'll talk some more.
	Let's do that.
	I would appreciate that.
	That'd be a lot of fun being on.
	Let me launch into it.
	So I'm sort of taking a breath to launch into all of that.
	You say that there has been a 45-year cover-up of a transportation technology that allows us to travel in time and space.
	And you say that we had crossed the threshold of time travel by the time we got to the back end of the 1960s.
	How so?
	Well, essentially, the very physicists who brought us the atomic bomb, we might caption them as the Los Alamos physics community, was secretly working on time travel.
	And I was brought into that project when I teleported from the old Curtis Wright Aeronautical Company facility in Woodridge, New Jersey with my late father, Raymond F. Bichago, who was a special projects engineer for the Ralph M. Parsons Company.
	And we teleported via a Tesla teleporter.
	And then we drove from the Santa Fe, New Mexico State Capitol Grounds.
	Those are the state capital grounds of the state of New Mexico in Santa Fe, into a meeting with Dr. Harold M. Agnew, who was arguably the quintessential Manhattan Project physicist.
	He had been one of the graduate Students of Enrico Fermi, who was controlling the graphite rods that were controlling the atomic pile when they experimented in the squash courts at the University of Chicago.
	He was present at Alamogordo and Los Alamos when the bomb was designed and tested.
	And he took the nuclear trigger for the Hiroshima bomb from Los Alamos to the island of Tinian so that it could be installed aboard the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.
	And he even calibrated the magnitude of the Hiroshima blast from a chase plane called the Great Artiste.
	So by the late 1960s, early 1970s, that man who had been entrusted by the entire war effort to take, for example, to take the nuclear trigger from where it was designed and built to where it was then installed aboard the atomic bomb was placed in charge of the incipient time-space program that was emerging secretly under the scientific direction of the same scientists, men like Dr. Edward Teller and Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer.
	I did not meet Oppenheimer, but I met Agnew, Teller, and Emilio Segre, a third Manhattan Project physicist, when I was serving on DARPA's Project Pegasus in the early 1970s.
	So you are saying that the people, let's get it very clear here, that the people who developed the bomb then moved on to the next challenge of time travel.
	Was there a connection with the work that the Nazis were doing?
	Because of course the Nazis were doing a lot of work on the atomic bomb and a lot of the rocket technology, as we know, we've looked at the Apollo program and what NASA has done, made its way across after the war to the United States.
	Well, Project Pegasus was clearly an intelligence funnel into which was put ancient technology, foreign technology like the Soviet Russian and the Nazi German, extraterrestrial technology, as well as the works of leading contemporary inventors like Nikola Tesla.
	So there was certainly a Nazi component.
	But during my service on Project Pegasus, under DARPA, with my father and I regularly having contact with Dr. Agnet, it was made clear by my father, who was essentially one of America's leading experts on Tesla teleportation,
	because he had repeated Tesla's teleportation work at the Thomas A. Edison Research Laboratory in West Orange, New Jersey, where he was employed between 1956 and 1964, as well as Carl Jack Pruitt, who was a team leader on Project Pegasus, who would go on, according to Nichols and Moon, to become the research director of Project Montauk, as well as a leading electrical engineer on the project who went on to an illustrious career.
	He went on to develop 20 or more of the leading electronic components that became part of the personal computer revolution.
	That's Dr. Robert Beckwith.
	All three of those gentlemen, during different periods of my service on Project Pegasus as a child, emphasized to me and the other children in the project that the project owed its greatest debt of gratitude to Tesla.
	Essentially, when Tesla's papers and effects were seized by the War Department upon his death on January 7th of 1943, initially they were forwarded to the National Archives, and from there a decision was made to forward his papers and effects to the world's leading physicists and electrical engineers who by 1944 were gathering in Los Alamos,
	New Mexico to design and build and test and deploy ultimately the atomic bomb.
	Now you talked about the Montauk project in our next segment after we've taken commercials in a few minutes.
	I want to get onto that because I've interviewed Al Bierlich, the late Al Bierlich, who was part, he said, of that Montauk project.
	But we won't talk about that right now.
	What I want to clarify is something that I've heard before on this show.
	We interviewed a man called Captain Randy Kramer.
	Are you aware of him?
	Yes.
	Randy is one of the Mars whistleblowers.
	During my college years at UCLA, not in the 70s now, but in the first half of the 1980s, I was basically conscripted into a second defense technical project, which was utilizing one of the time travel devices developed by Project Pegasus in the early 70s to put U.S. personnel, rather easily, in fact, on the planet Mars.
	So I've developed, in addition to my own testimony, I've developed a thread of seven Mars jump room whistleblowers, and then Randy Kramer followed that pattern of disclosure, those seven.
	He's sort of the eighth.
	In fact, I interviewed Randy recently on stage about his Mars experiences and found him quite believable.
	I did, but there were one or two.
	I mean, his story was very consistent, as indeed is yours.
	I mean, what you say, and I've heard many interviews today with you and over the years, is backed up with a lot of detail.
	But one thing where it was a little shaky was where I asked him, okay, you say that you're part of this Mars Corps, whatever it is, this force who travel regularly to make sure that the bad aliens are kept at bay and that we have a presence on Mars.
	And I said to him, what is written on your paycheck?
	And he said to me, I don't get a paycheck, which seemed to me to be very convenient that he didn't get a written paycheck.
	So there is no paper trail there.
	But that's a little bit of a sidebar.
	The point is that we're not going to be able to do that.
	But actually, Howard, that's consistent because in order to keep these projects secret, we were not paid.
	So, for example, I can give you hundreds and hundreds of facts, and I've brought forward three fellow teleportees from Project Pegasus and three fellow Mars jumpers from the Mars Jumpering Program of the 80s, which embody essentially eight years of personal and direct service by myself to the U.S. defense technical community, and yet I was not paid.
	I was not benefited or covered, that is, under the GI Bill of Rights.
	And I received two checks when I made about 40 round-trip journeys to Mars when I was in college at UCLA in Los Angeles.
	And yet I was paid twice.
	I was paid something like $34 and $55.
	And in fact, the U.S. agency that was listed as the payer on those checks was not the Office of Naval Intelligence, but the Department of Naval Intelligence.
	And the only other claimants besides my fellow jumper William Stillings, the only other claimant who has cited that obscure U.S. agency was Robert Lazar when he talked about working on ET craft.
	So Randy's claim that he was not paid is entirely consistent.
	We were not paid.
	In fact, our service, the fact that we were conscripted into this form of service for our country, violated the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits anybody, not just the government, but any individual or organization from imposing slavery or involuntary servitude on an American citizen.
	So that's actually concerned.
	So they were doing it within the law.
	There are two things that you have in common, it seems to me, with Randy Kramer.
	Number one is that your father was connected, and so was Randy Kramer's father.
	You had connections with the dark arts of the intelligence services.
	And the other thing is that you were both pressed into service as kids.
	Yes, and that was quite common.
	In order to keep these projects secret, they were not only not paying the participants, they were drawing the participants from families where typically the father was either connected to the executive branch of government, the presidency or some executive agency, the intelligence community, or the military.
	In my father's case, he had been working on sensitive defense technical projects going back to the ramjet project.
	He was on the team that designed the metal alloy by which the ramjet was to be built.
	And he was pressed into that service in October of 1952, several months after the famous overflight of Washington, D.C., by, what was it, nine Nazi contingent, or the surviving contingent, or ET craft clocked at traveling at 7,000 miles per hour.
	So my dad was really in the thick of it during the Cold War in terms of his service to the aerospace community and dealing with the Soviet Russian and the extraterrestrial.
	And now we're learning more about the surviving Nazi remnant in South America and Antarctica.
	But he was also in the U.S. military.
	He was a major, even though he had served as a private first class in France and Germany during the war.
	He, in his maturity as a mid-career professional, he was in what was called the Second Reserve of the U.S. Army, which was kind of a contingent of ordinary Americans, high school principals and engineers and lawyers and dentists and so forth, who would step up and become our substitute political and military leadership in the event that the United States was invaded and subjugated by the Soviet Army,
	which, believe it or not, was the number one national security threat within the contemplation of the U.S. intelligence.
	Well, you know, in today's generation, that's hard to comprehend, but I certainly remember when that was seen to be the primary threat.
	I'm guessing that a lot of my audience listening to this now, though, will find the way that you're saying what you're saying very credible, but will find the things that you're saying somewhat incredible.
	And the thing that I found difficult to take on board is you say that you were first of all involved in these projects.
	When you were six years of age, you were constricted into all of this.
	And all right, you didn't do your major things until you were older than that.
	But you were very, very young.
	And I guess the question that flows from that is, why would they be using kids?
	Well, when I was six, I first teleported.
	And I think that my dad brought me along on that trip because he wanted to impress upon Dr. Agnew, who then was the director of the weapons division at the labs, and would go on by 1970 to become the director of the entire Los Alamos National Laboratories, that if teleportation, that is vortile teleportation, what we also call Tesla teleportation, was safe enough for his number three son, as he introduced me to Dr. Agnew, then it was safe enough for anybody's child.
	Now, I would officially enter Project Pegasus in the fall of 1969 when I was seven, and then I turned age eight within a week or so because I was born in September of 61.
	So I actually entered government service officially as an eight-year-old, which was very common.
	Now, in the case of this particular defense technical project, there were a number of pressing reasons why they were using children.
	The first is that we were experimentees.
	They were expressly, explicitly testing the mental and physical effects of teleportation on bright, sturdy children from stable, church-going families.
	The ethics of that sound really questionable, though.
	I mean, children should be allowed, surely, their innocence and not pressed into service on any level.
	And the other thing about it is, I'm amazed that you all, if you were part of this at that age, that you could keep a secret.
	When I was six, I couldn't keep secret what my sister was getting for her birthday.
	Well, that's interesting anecdotally, but in fact, we received specialized training so that we were basically trained to never talk about what we were doing outside the circles of the program.
	But let me just elaborate on the reasons, because I think you'll see that in the Cold War context, even though it was essentially an abuse of human subject experimentation and laws protecting children from working, from labor, which were certainly in place in the United States in that era, you know, we had passed legislation outlawing child labor, but they had pressing reasons.
	First of all, contextually, we have to remember that they were confronted by clearly by the Soviet-Russian threat, by the possible threat of whatever the extraterrestrials would bring.
	And now we know from the work of researchers like Joseph Farrell and Michael Sala, whatever this contingent of Nazi aerospace and advanced aerospace experts would bring.
	Okay, so it was a national emergency.
	Now, in addition to testing the teleportation, they had a need for bright small people because in one of the time travel devices, A device called a chronovisor.
	A chronovisor is an electro-optical device that propagates a moving hologram of a past or future event.
	And so that when we were standing on the stage and that hologram was turned on and brought around us so that it enveloped us, we would subjectively experience going to that, what I call a time place, that coordinate in the time-space continuum.
	And they needed to use either diminutive adults or bright children.
	And they decided to use bright children because the third reason they wanted to use us was we were essentially time-space cadets who would be expected to go on to the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis after high school as a pretext for involving us in later time travel activities.
	And also we were prized for the fact that children have very keen perceptions in the sense that they don't, that their perceptions are not guided by the bias of what they've previously encountered.
	They are tabula rasa, basically, blank slates.
	And so they knew that when we were time traveling, we would tend to see things as they were rather than as we would presume they were.
	For example, they used the example that if we were walking down a street in Los Angeles, California in the 2200s and somebody would walk past us with a holster, an adult would tend to see a pistol in that holster where the child might more accurately see a scientific implement.
	I still think that I have to say from a modern day perspective, and you certainly seem very rational in the way that you speak about this, the ethics of using children in whatever straightened times the nation faces, whatever threat it is confronted, I'm afraid I find that really questionable.
	But you certainly seem to be quite balanced about it.
	You didn't actually start speaking about this, though, did you, until you were, I think, 37.
	Is that so?
	I started researching my experiences directly.
	I did three major fact-finding trips to New Mexico in 2003, 4, and 8.
	I began calling people around the country.
	I even got admissions against interest by some of my dad's colleagues.
	For example, I phoned Joseph Connison, who at 90 was still alive, one of my dad's closest colleagues at Parsons.
	And he listened for a half hour and denied ever meeting me.
	He remembered my dad fondly, but denied meeting me, denied ever being in New Mexico, denied working on time travel.
	And then when he asked me what I was going to do with the data that I was gathering, the information about the teleports, the teleporters, the chronovisors, and my experiences, and I told him that I was going to write a book and try to get it made into a feature film.
	This is a direct quote from a retired engineer for Parsons, one of the world's leading process engineering companies, arguably the most advanced, the most accomplished.
	He said, a book, a movie, nobody on the outside knows about that stuff.
	So look, there has been a time travel cover-up.
	It was centered in the atomic research community, but the defense contractor that gave the United States government time travel was Parsons, which also designed and built the MX missile system.
	Parsons was responsible for building the city of Yanbu on the coast of Saudi Arabia for the Saudi regime.
	We're talking about literally, arguably, the leading engineering company in the world, and they were largely responsible for these accomplishments.
	Okay, one rapid question.
	Then we have to take commercials in a minute or so.
	But you say that you were shown a document that you wrote in 2008, but your father, you say, showed you that very document in 1970 or 71.
	71, correct.
	What the public, especially the American, but I believe the world public, needs to know is that as a result of time travel emerging in 1970, the U.S. intelligence community and government has been using what I call quantum access.
	That's the ability to gather information about unknown things in the past and as yet not occurring things in the future as a result of sending people to the past and future as time travelers, but also gathering information about the past and future remotely using different time-space accessing technologies like the chronovisors.
	And then the chronovisors themselves also became devices to physically send people to the past and future.
	So one of the things they were doing, for example, was identifying future American presidents and then briefing those individuals of their destiny so they could psychologically adjust when they would ultimately become president to the great responsibilities of their office.
	Also, in my case, I remember that in 1971, I was permitted to read a paper that I would not publish, indeed write and publish until 2008.
	And that was my landmark paper, The Discovery of Life on Mars.
	All right, we have to park it there for just a second, Andrew, for two reasons.
	Number one, we've got commercials to run, and I'll be in big trouble if we don't.
	Number two, your phone line's crackling a bit, so we need to phone you back, I think, but my producer will talk with you.
	In the meantime, we're hearing from Andrew Bashyaga, and he is a man who says that from a child he was involved, and he was not alone, in some very, very secret work that involved teleportation, time travel, and trips to Mars.
	I've got a lot of reaction coming in about this, Andrew, as you might expect.
	Let's just clarify one thing.
	I mean, you are not somebody who does this for a living, are you?
	You have a career.
	Am I right in saying that you're a lawyer?
	Yeah, in fact, I'm almost the perfect witness because at 55, professionally, I'm a member of the, as an attorney, I'm a member of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the federal court in the Seattle area, as well as the Washington State Bar Association.
	I have six post-secondary academic qualifications, including degrees in history and in environmental studies from top universities like UCLA and Cambridge there in England.
	At 55, I've never been arrested, accused of a crime, convicted of a crime.
	I have no history of mental illness or drug or alcohol abuse.
	I'm basically an unimpeachable witness because I've lived basically a very obstamous and responsible life.
	And the two defense technical projects that I'm bearing witness to historically really happened.
	And as somebody who entered them with a superb memory, I've basically, I'm the historical witness that history will rely on to be able to identify when time travel emerged and when we began our first voyages to Mars.
	So I'm making a historic set of disclosures.
	And in now 13 years of testimony, going back to my first public talk in 2004, I have not been impeached.
	And I've shared hundreds of details.
	And in fact, I've gotten affirmation from both people in the United States government and my co-participants who are sort of, you know, on the outs now or former government insiders.
	So that begs the question, you know, what is disclosure?
	Are we going to wait for the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to come forward with this information?
	Or are we going to rely on highly credible witnesses like myself who can give an insider's account?
	And Howard, that's what I'm doing.
	This is essentially my life's work.
	I realized in my late 30s that what I had been part of initially was DARPA's Project Pegasus, but then later I then began discussing what happened in the Mars Jumper program 10 years later.
	But when I began to reflect on my childhood and I started to research the people I had met, for example, when I was on the project, I thought, my God, this was an epoch in time.
	This was literally the emergence of time travel.
	And most of the participants were deceased because most had been mid-career professionals or older when we were serving on the project together.
	Just some of the oldest surviving physicists were still around.
	I think Dr. Agnew ended up dying at age 90.
	Joseph Conison lived to 90.
	Dr. Robert Beckwith, I think, lived to 90 years of age.
	Dr. Sterling Colgate, I believe, was 90 or 93 when he died.
	So I realized there were a small group of engineers and physicists who were still alive, and it wasn't going to be easy to find the other children.
	But, you know, I found, I can't remember whether it was five or six of the children in New Jersey who were immediately trained with me.
	We called it the learning lab.
	This was an educational exercise, sort of at the front of the time travel and then during our time travel activities.
	And every one of them placed the Montauk chair in that lab, that educational lab, and one of them remembered teleporting between New Jersey and New Mexico.
	Why don't you all hold a news conference?
	Andrew, this is all so compelling stuff, and it's important for the public.
	You think it is, otherwise you wouldn't be putting yourself on the line and doing this.
	Why don't you get together with a bunch of these people and hold a news conference about it?
	Well, it was hard to even discuss it.
	You know, people had different views of the past.
	There was a propensity not only to forget details, but I would have a conversation on a Saturday afternoon with one of them, and then the next Saturday they would forget, seemingly forget even talking to me.
	So you would be concerned that if you all stood on a platform in a press conference, you wouldn't all be saying the same thing?
	No, no, it was really a matter of the fact that I was revisiting the ancient past with them.
	I mean, this was we were first trained beginning in the fall of 1969, and I was reaching out to them in the early years of the 20 zeros.
	So we're talking a passage of at least 30 years when I began.
	And, you know, now almost 20 years have passed.
	So we're talking about, I mean, next year, I'll celebrate the 50th anniversary of when I first teleported for Darkest Project Pictures.
	You can't expect people to forensically remember everything.
	I've got a question in here.
	I don't know what you'll make of this.
	I mean, there are some people tweeting in right now saying this is all garbage and the rest of it.
	It's not.
	Well, that is their understanding of it.
	And, of course, listeners must make their own judgment.
	I've always said since I started this show, I'll put it out there.
	I will ask the questions.
	You decide.
	You're the jury.
	So, you know, these are the views that are coming in.
	But Jonathan has got in touch.
	Listener Jonathan has got in touch to say extraordinary claims.
	Yeah.
	Let me just put this to you, if I may.
	Jonathan has asked, regarding Tesla, now I don't know anything about this, so I'm just going to tell you it like it's been put before me.
	Regarding Tesla, Donald Trump's uncle was the first person into his room after he died.
	Does Andrew think there is a long-running connection between the Trump's government and the time travel cover-up?
	Now, these, what you're about to say will be your views and not mine.
	But what do you think of that?
	Do you know about that?
	Well, I only share what I know.
	I want to share the information I know.
	What I know is that when Mr. Trump came on the Phil Donahue show in the late 1980s, during one of his visits there.
	One of the biggest morning talk shows there's ever been, yeah?
	Yeah, one of the biggest chat shows really in the history of the States.
	And my father, who knew the identity of some of the future presidents and shared them with me, indeed, we shared meals with the Bushes and with Mr. Clinton in the early 70s, shortly after they were apprised of their future presidency.
	My dad shushed me and then said in regard to Mr. Trump, I want to watch this.
	He's one of the future presidents.
	So I can say this, that as the nephew of John G. Trump, who was closely connected to Tesla's surviving paperwork and effects, was literally one of those officials who had access to Tesla's papers and effects shortly after his death in 1943,
	that Mr. Trump, like the other recent U.S. presidents, was identified as a U.S. president as a result of the emergence of time travel in the year 1970.
	I don't know if that's when he was identified, but as a result of quantum access becoming an inextricable part of the way that the U.S. intelligence community functions after 1970, or has functioned since 1970, Mr. Trump almost certainly was appraised of his presidency after being identified as a future president, because the living presents have been.
	So I can say that it's true that John G. Trump, the physicist, engineer, and inventor who was the uncle of President Trump, was certainly very closely connected to the surviving Tesla material that gave rise to several of these devices, including the Tesla teleporter, and also that the CIA knew of Mr. Trump's identity as a future president, but he shared with me 25 years before he became president.
	An awful lot to be said about this.
	Now, I just have to say one thing, talking about not teleportation, but current technology.
	The phone line that you're on is deteriorating, so we're coming in a couple of minutes to some more commercials.
	We'll try and call you again and get a clearer phone line, Andrew.
	I've got a point here from my friend Mark from the band The Pocket Gods.
	Hope you're all right tonight, Mark.
	Mark is asking, he says it's fascinating what you're saying.
	He says, what world leaders are involved in all of this and why, good point, are there so few leaks or there are no leaks to the press about it?
	Well, there are leaks to the press.
	I've actually, quite frankly, I've been sort of persecuted by the press.
	I mean, I've been sharing my data with the public since 2004.
	I've done over 100 radio interviews originating in 12 countries.
	I've lectured in three countries, Canada, the United States, and Argentina, on this material.
	I've done some mainstream television shows, including shows with the actor William Shatner and the political figure in the United States, Jesse Mentura, the former governor of Minnesota.
	And quite frankly, I think that the media, the mainstream media has been remiss in covering this material, but has not been remiss in utilizing its, you know, the fifth estate, as it were, to basically ridicule me.
	And I'm literally served my country, and I'm sharing what was epochal, what is information about epochal advances within the modern scientific culture of our planet.
	Why do you think, Andrew, and I know this phone line is bad and deteriorating, but just as we get to commercials here, let's ask this.
	Why do you think people need to know this?
	What difference is it going to make to their lives?
	Because people need to know the best available technology to solve our problems, because in our lifetime, we're going to go from 7 billion to 9 billion human beings aboard our planet.
	And the public deserves to know that since 1970, we've been able to teleport people uninjured.
	And none of us wants to be living in a world of 48-lane freeways.
	In 2010, for example, there was a traffic stoppage in China on a 50-lane freeway that lasted for six days.
	150 Chinese police officers were involved in bringing food, water, blankets, and flashlights to the people trapped in their vehicles.
	The automobile form of transportation will become outmoded in our lifetimes as a result of the mere limits to growth, as the Meadows called it.
	And therefore, we need to use superior technology to get people from point A to point B. It's as simple as that.
	And if we do that, we're going to take a major share of the greenhouse gases that human industry contributes to the atmosphere every year out of the atmosphere.
	And that may very well make the difference between whether or not we see that coming global superstorm that was predicted by our Darryl and Whitley Street work.
	In the day after tomorrow.
	As made into the film the day after tomorrow, which is really just a dramatization of the future findings made by Andrew Marshall when he was the director of the Office of Net Assessment.
	This is one of the most distinguished public servants in the history of the United States.
	And he found that if we reach a new high of global warming, we could melt the polar ice caps.
	That could dilute the oceans, the salinity of the oceans.
	There would be less, as a result of that loss of salinity in the oceans, there would be a failure of the heat exchange between the warm equatorial waters and the cold polar waters.
	And if that was to reach its tipping point in the winter, we could have a new ice age with glaciers reaching as far south as the southern Cape Carolina.
	Of course, there's all the stuff that we experience here in the UK with the jet stream.
	I just want to keep to the core point.
	And as I say, we've only got seconds in this segment now.
	But it seems to me, and you tell me if I'm wrong here, that the reason you're putting this out here is that you want the public to know, and you're being allowed to let the public know, that we've been doing this, that we know about better technology.
	We know that there are better ways of doing everything that we do, and there are answers to many of our problems.
	You're asking the public to agitate for this, to say, we've listened to Andrew Bashiago.
	He knows this stuff exists.
	You need to come clean.
	Is that what this is about?
	I am waging a truth campaign because I felt I was ethically compelled to do so because these technologies embody the state of the art in transport.
	I'm not calling for a time travel revolution.
	I'm calling for a revolution in practical transport involving teleportation in real time.
	And you know something?
	If it's not medically safe for human beings, as was to some extent the case when we were serving on the project, there were injuries, we should at least be doing this with the shipment of goods, which would make our highways or motorways as they're called in England, safer.
	All right.
	I'm going to park it there because this phone line is now unusable.
	So we're going to call you back during some commercials.
	This is a big story.
	Remember, this man is a lawyer and is still working as such.
	He is an educated, intelligent man, and he is saying stuff that is, in modern parlance, as they say, out there.
	But he has a right to say it, and you have a right to hear it, it seems to me.
	Andrew Bashiago, we're talking Project Pegasus.
	We're talking teleportation, time travel, and going to Mars and existing there and combating supposed threats from alien species and all that sort of stuff.
	Andrew Bashiago puts his case, you have to say, whatever you might think of it.
	And, you know, a lot of you tweeting in right now telling me precisely what you think of it, putting it very clearly.
	I got one tweet, Andrew, a little earlier from Hedi, who's a scientist.
	And the teleportation thing, Hedy was asking if you could just, in a sentence or two, explain the principle of teleportation that you're using.
	Tesla, from my training, I'm not a physicist.
	I'm a lawyer and a writer.
	I'm a social scientist and not a scientist, so I won't claim that I am a scientist, but from my training I can tell you the basics, and that is that Nikola Tesla discovered a form of energy that he called radiant energy that is latent and pervasive in the physical universe and that has, among its capabilities, the capability to essentially bend the fabric of time space.
	So what they were doing was they were radiating radiant energy between two elliptical shaped booms so that when we jumped through that curtain of shimmering radiant energy, the inertia of our bodies in movement, in fact, we were required to move through that curtain of shimmering energy faster than a meter per second, or we would be dismembered.
	As a result of that inertia, we were opening up tunnels in time space itself.
	So the teleportation that we were doing involved punching a hole through time space, or another way of looking at it, is as we were moving forward, the universe was being brought around us.
	That's what the theory of relativity would indicate.
	It was, in a sense, the opposite of the way that teleportation is frequently depicted.
	Indeed, was depicted the very year this emerged in the U.S. defense technical community on the television show Star Trek, where someone, the teleportee is disintegrated and then reintegrated at the destination.
	That would kill a living organism.
	But we were surviving as a result of punching vortal tunnels through the fabric of time space itself, and then we would see a light at the end of the tunnel, and then very quickly we would be struck by the light because there was the vanishing distance was asymptotic.
	We would essentially be kicked out of that tunnel, and we would find footfall wherever on the face of the planet the tunnel closed.
	All right, so just to make this clear, I am holding here a Sainsbury supermarket carrier bag, okay, that I brought in with me.
	It's all high-budget stuff.
	The way that you're saying this works is that I've got the two sides of the carrier bag here.
	They fold together, and I'm sticking my pen through the carrier bag, through both sides.
	You're saying that that's how this portal works.
	Essentially, they were opening up a tunnel in the fabric of time space, and hence there wasn't a requirement of a device at the destination.
	The destination occurred wherever the tunnel closed.
	So Tesla had found a way to essentially punch open a tunnel in the fabric of time space.
	You know, time space is not, we tend to think of it as empty and very low in energy because of the concept of the vacuum of space.
	But in fact, time space itself is so dense that one cubic meter of time space contains as many ergs of energy as there are grains of sand on every beach on Earth.
	So we're living in a very densely packed universe, energetically speaking.
	And Tesla found a way essentially to slice through that in a cylindrical way so that the teleportee essentially moved through a vortal tunnel in time space.
	Okay, you mentioned Montalk projects.
	Now, this was the Philadelphia experiment where we had Al Bielik on this show in its very early days when it was on Talk Sport Radio, our sister station, and it was a big AM station back then.
	It was an interview that I only recently rediscovered.
	And Al Bielik, of course, died, I think, maybe five years ago, possibly a little more.
	But he was a fascinating interviewee.
	I just want to play a little tiny clip of Al Bielik that you might be interested in too, Andrew.
	Let's just hear him.
	The ship did a lot of strange shiftings, and there was a lot of shifting of realities and so forth.
	And if the sailors were standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, they would either flip down and fall into the steel or get frozen in the steel.
	And there were three more who got frozen in a bulkhead, one of which was our younger brother Jim, who enlisted after World War II started.
	And the third man had his hand up to his wrist buried in the steel.
	He's the only one that lived.
	They cut his hand off and gave him an artificial hand later.
	So, look, Al, this is a terrible thing, a momentous but terrible thing to happen.
	People died here.
	How was, if we assume that this happened, how was the U.S. Navy able and the U.S. government able to cover it up?
	Very carefully.
	I'm not saying that to be jokeful.
	Well, no, I guess you'd have to if this happened.
	They've covered it up.
	They never told any of the personnel who died or disappeared.
	Some disappeared by jumping overboard also and never came back.
	And what about you, Albielik, because you know about it.
	Yeah.
	Well, they did.
	They denied that there was ever such a test.
	They said that the personnel were lost at sea in the war action, which of course was a lot of war action and a lot of other ships involved.
	And they lied to the families about what really happened.
	They have never told the true story of the Philadelphia Experiment to this day.
	Why are you now telling the story?
	Why?
	Because I have some feeling and compassion for those who died on the ship.
	And I made a promise to all of those guys that I would tell the story regardless and try and get some recognition to the families of what happened to some of them.
	Because we lost quite a few persons all on board that ship.
	A lot of them were lost on deck.
	Some of them who survived were declared crazy, insane by the Navy, and put in the various locations, either the funny farms or the veteran VA hospitals, particularly one on Long Island and another one in Succend, Arizona.
	What happened after that?
	Because presumably you, as a faithful servant of the U.S. government as you were, were told to shut up.
	Well, the first thing they did, they sent another, they sent a special crew on board the ship because they could get no response on the radio and no response from the captain.
	So that was the special crew that came on board after we were back in the harbor area near Philadelphia.
	They found the buried sailors and they reported out by two-way radio.
	Yes, we did have two-way radio then.
	And then they sent a second crew on board to bring the ship back.
	The late Al Beerlik, part of the Philadelphia experiment, which was basically, to cut a long story very short, they were trying to make a ship, a naval ship, invisible.
	They used rotating electromagnets.
	This is a very complicated thing that I'm trying to simplify.
	They found that the ship was catapulted through time, and when the ship came back, people found themselves trapped between the steel of the decks and that sort of thing.
	I suppose what I'm asking Andrew Basciago now, live, is you hear the late Al Bielick there talking about the Philadelphia experiment.
	Just quickly, how did what you were involved in and are involved in, how did that tie into that work?
	Did the two correlate?
	Did the Philadelphia experiment happen?
	Yeah, sorry.
	There is a connection.
	This is very complicated to deconstruct, but I'll try in a short period of time.
	Essentially, the story that Albie was sharing was the Philadelphia Experiment cover story scripted by the Office of Naval Intelligence after the war.
	There was an experiment with Tesla teleportation, not radar invisibility.
	And it wasn't of the Eldridge, it was of the Martha's Vineyard.
	And it wasn't in Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
	It was in Long Island Sound.
	And one of the major de-linkages they were trying to accomplish with the cover story is that at the helm of that ship, the Martha's Vineyard, were Edward Teller and J. Robert Oppenheimer.
	So the Philadelphia Experiment cover story that Al was sharing was an attempt to delink the three critical connections that led to Project Pegasus, namely Tesla, Tesla teleportation, and the Los Alamos physicists.
	But there was a mishap when the ship was powered down.
	It went back to harbor at, not in Norfolk, Virginia, as the cover story suggested, but Newport News, Virginia, as it really happened.
	And there wasn't a spate of sailors killed or trapped in the hull of the ship.
	There was one sailor who was impaled on a support column of the splash cowling of the ship.
	So basically, I don't know what really, I think that Al was probably sincere.
	He may have been asked to tell the story, or this may just be an example of sort of the post office effect where a story was told over and over and over from the time that it occurred, and certain details began to change and change places and so forth.
	But he's basically, in that tape, he was sharing the cover story.
	But something like that did happen during the war.
	It was attempted.
	But the critical thing, and its connection to Project Pegasus, it was an experiment in Tesla teleportation after the Nazi Navy began chaining ordnance to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.
	So they were seeing if they could essentially detect a mine and then teleport the ship to the left or right to avoid contact with the Nazi ordnance and hence an explosion that could sink the ship and kill all aboard.
	Okay, I understand.
	Now, unfortunately, the seconds, well, the minutes are ticking down on us, and I will get you back if you would like to come back.
	Can you talk to me, we've only got a few minutes to do this, about the jump room and the trips to Mars that were part of that?
	Well, one of the devices was essentially an elevator that would morph from a box into a cylinder and, again, achieve a kind of a wormhole effect, very much like the Tesla teleporter would cut into the fabric of time space.
	And that was in use within the U.S. secret space program as early as 1976.
	And the director of the program that was spun off, the so-called CIA's Mars Jump Run Program, was your namesake, Howard Hughes, Howard Robart Hughes, the legendary aviator.
	His death in 1976, April of 1976, was faked to protect him from abduction or assassination when he was working on sensitive defense technical projects linked to the CIA.
	And one of them was the use of this technology to put U.S. personnel on Mars by the late 1970s.
	And so ultimately, Project Pegasus grew into an aerospace project in which we were using one of the technologies to put American astronauts on the planet Mars, and I was one of them.
	And I've been sharing that account.
	So if we've been able to do this, and I really hate the fact that sometimes the clock is our enemy, and there's so much more I want to talk with you about, which is why maybe we can do one of my podcasts together or certainly have you back on this show.
	If we've been going to Mars in this way for a long time, since the 70s, why are we now investing such huge resources in going to Mars with existing technology, which is the natural successor of the Shuttle and Apollo and everything else?
	Well, and the rovers.
	Essentially, because billions of dollars are being spent to hide trillion-dollar programs.
	And think of the ethics of that.
	You know, we could focus on the abusive human rights involved in using children in time travel, and that's an important issue.
	But I think it's more significant that in a world in which a person's right to eat, to be sheltered, to be clothed, to be educated, to be employed, to receive medical care is not guaranteed, we're spending billions of dollars on programs that are essentially disinformational rather than scientific in their thrust.
	And that's wrong.
	That's a moral wrong.
	Okay, we've only got a minute.
	We have 60 seconds.
	I'll throw this at you last.
	It's quite an amusing one from Steve.
	Thank you, Steve.
	Is there an ethical code that you have, if you're traveling in time, not to bet on the outcome of future events?
	If you know who's going to win the Indy 500 or whatever, you don't come home and bet.
	During a tour of one of the facilities in the program in fall of 1970, we were told, it was explained to us that the adults on the project, which of course would have included my own father, had signed a security oath in which they pledged literally to not do that.
	In other words, not privateer based on learning about future events, trends, conditions, prominent people, and so forth.
	Thank you for answering that.
	Thank you very much to everybody who tweeted and texted.
	And if I didn't get to yours, I promise next time I will.
	Andrew Basciago, if people want to read more about you tonight, where do they go?
	My public discourse about the time travel cover-up is, in the main, it's being covered on...
	Right.
	Project Pegasus On Facebook.
	Andrew Basciago, your thoughts on him?
	Welcome.
	Go to my website, theunexplained.tv.
	You can send me an email with your thoughts from there.
	Always grateful to receive them and your donations too to keep this work going here.
	I'm so pleased to know that so many of you appreciate this show and what I'm doing with it.
	I'm very, very grateful, but always glad to hear from you wherever you are.
	And when you get in touch, don't forget, I always say this, but it's still valid and important.
	Tell me who you are, where you are, and how you use this show.
	More big guests in the pipeline here at The Unexplained.
	Thanks to Adam at Creative Hotspot as ever for his hard work on the show.
	So until next, we meet here at The Unexplained.
	My name is Howard Hughes.
	I am in London.
	And please stay safe, stay calm, and above all, please stay in touch.
	Thanks very much.
	Take care.

▲