Richard C. Hoagland - Anti-Gravity Program

Art Bell Show Wednesday, September 13-14, 1996

Transcribed by Dorothy Takashina and G. Varano, Part 7 of 8

(During the break, Art presented a commercial about a product called the Levitron Anti-Gravity Top. He recounted his experience with the toy and described it as a permanent magnet with a top that will spin in mid-air above the magnet. Richard and Art begin their next segment talking about this toy. Art gave the number for the company that sells it: 1-800-275-2877)

AB: Before we go on, Richard, how does that work.

RH: I've got one.

AB: Yeah, how does it work?

RH: Well, I'm going to get to that. I found it in a Star Trek convention in Seattle, and I introduced it to Laura Lee, which is how she got in on her show, and it's sweeping the country. I talked briefly with a physicist, who I don't think understands at all how it works, because the explanation doesn't cover the interesting detail. Now, what you described was fine up to the point where you left off the details. The details are critically important because not only do you have a nice wooden base with a permanent magnet in it and a plastic on top of that, which you spin your little Levitron, which looks like a classic flying saucer with a little rod sticking out the top.

AB: That's right.

RH: It's got a little bubble on the bottom, which you spin it on. It's a little disk. It is another permanent magnet. Now, on the shaft, which you grasp with your two fingers, and it's all in the fingers, spinning it, on that shaft you are supposed to place, depending upon what hour or minute or second of the day or day of the week...

AB: It changes.

RH: ...little, tiny Life Saver shaped wafer-thin weights, and they supply a series of these little weights in gradated form. There are thick ones, thin ones. There's some made out of plastic, some made out of metal. And you're supposed to put them on the little Levitron until it balances.

AB: Correct.

RH: Now, here is the $64 question for everybody all across America tonight. You've got two permanent magnets. The strength of the magnets is on the order of a hundred times the strength of the earth's magnet field. We measured this with lab data.

AB: Yes, sir.

RH: Why do you have to keep changing the weights? In other words, if I start tonight.

AB: There is no explanation for that. None that I know of.

RH: Exactly, because everybody's avoiding this. This is the key to figuring out how this works, and when I got it, the first thing I said was, "Why do you have to keep changing the weights?" It's on a par with Kirk asking, "Why does God need a starship?" It's a huge question, to which the physicist who has invented this thing avoids answering over and over again, because here's what's supposed to be going on. You're sitting on the earth in basically a constant gravity field and a constant magnetic field. You're spinning your little Levitron on its constant magnetic field, and it's so overwhelmingly more powerful that the earth's field that, even if the earth's field changed by a factor of 10, the Levitron wouldn't noticed. So, why do you have to keep changing the weights? If you spin it at 7:00 at night and you come back to it an hour later, you got to change the washers on top. It will not spin. If you then spin it there, and then you leave it, and you go away for a couple of hours, and you come back, you got to change the weights again.

AB: So the answer is: The earth's... the shifting magnetic field, and we do know it has shifts in it...

RH: Have nothing to do with it.

AB: ...couldn't possibility effect it.

RH: No, no.

AB: So the answer is?

RH: It's a hyperdimensional device. It is doing what the little weight above Dr. Podkletnov's device is doing. There are tiny minute changes in the inertia of the mass of your Levitron. As the earth is rotating, the moon and the sun and all the planets in the solar system, which are changing the hyperdimensional gating phenomenon of the solar system, and the reason you have to keep changing the weights is you have to match the rise and decrease in the moment of inertia of the Levitron with the instantaneous constants that are not constant. So, what you have purchased and are selling is the most democratizable hyperdimensional device that's going, at the moment. Now, let me tell you how we measure this, all right? What we do is we get some bright kid out in a physics lab to put this in a sealed bell jar, so that the air can be withdrawn? So that we get a partial vacuum.

AB: Right. You'll get a lot longer spin.

RH: And what we do is we set it up so we can put little air jets in, so he can give it a little pulse to keep it rotating, although he shouldn't have to do that. With very low pressure in the bell jar, it should spin for days. Now, he has to have a constant temperature because one of the critics will say, "Oh well, it's a changing temperature." So you wrap the bell jar with electric coils, and you put a little electric heater so you can keep the temperature in the bell jar within a hundredth of a degree or something. Not difficult. And you let it spin, and you put a video camera on it. Now, nothing is changing, right? The damn thing will fall down. I guarantee you, or flip off because the inertial properties of the mass of the Levitron is responding to the changing G field in the hyperdimensional terms, and that's what this little device has democratized all over the world.

AB: Well, that's why I said, again going back to the original discussion we were having regarding the Finish experiments, that if what you're suggesting is true, then as this experiment becomes, to use your word, more elegant and complicated, somebody's liable to stumble into something awful, or wonderful. It's hard to say which.

RH: Well, no. It's going to be wonderful. There isn't much you can do with small energy that's awful. What gets awful is when you put two billion bucks behind it and keep it a secret. That's when you get awful. But, let me give you the up side. I got a post in the conference a few minutes ago, where someone wanted me to consider the implications, in terms of humanity, fragmented warring, of such a stunning discovery.

AB: All right. I've got the same question. Hold on. I want to lead you into it. Let me give you a couple things here. Number 1: "Richard, you're excited about the decrease in gravity. Wouldn't the increase in gravity be every bit as important. Increase in gravity could also have commercial and military use. Too much gravity and you've got a black hole."

RH: Well, that's taking it to extremes.

AB: Extreme, yes, true. Isn't he right. Isn't the increase, in effect, as important?

RH: Oh, yeah. Let me tell you why. You've noticed those pictures of the astronauts floating around in the shuttle. You've noticed the medical experiments where we're wondering, "Can we go to Mars because we'll lose enough bone mass it will basically deteriorate it, and by the time we get to Mars, we'll be rubbery astronauts, and we'll die."

AB: Calcium and...yes, sir.

RH: Well, here we have the mechanism potentially for creating artificial gravity on a space station, in a spacecraft going between planets.

AB: Precisely. In other words, in fact, you could have one situation on the outside of the craft and a totally different situation on the inside of the craft.

RH: If it's tunable, which this little primitive experiment indicates that with merely changing the frequency of the exciter field and the rotation of the disk, you get measurable changes in gravity, plus and minus, until it stabilizes at a certain band.

AB: Well, again, though, I would be very tempted to begin experimenting with rotating RF fields at varying frequencies.

RH: Sure, and counter-rotating disks.

AB: All right, now...

RH: Let me get back to Switzerland, here.

AB: No, let me finish up asking you this. Here's another one: "Reference Art's parts. The alternating magnesium bismuth layers, instead of applying an electrical field to this device, why not attempt a rotating electromagnetic RF field? Sounds to me like each layer of magnesium bismuth may be one complete field reducing device. Therefore, Art's parts may be truly and anti-gravity device." And now, to get down to what you were about to do, from, let's see, News Talk WSDR, in Sterling, Illinois: "Art, please ask Richard what the practical end uses of all this would be in the long run."

RH: Oh my God. Ha, ha

AB: In other words...

RH: Limitless

AB: Well, but give...

RH: Let me enumerate them for people who aren't...

AB: Please do, so they understand the magnitude of what we're talking about here.

RH: The Telegraph piece went into a couple of them. Let me take you back a couple of years, and I do want to go back to Switzerland, so I 'm not going to forget that. Let me take you back a few years when I was at the Hayden Planetarium, and we had an oil crisis. In fact, I don't have to take you back a few years at all, I only have to take you back to 1991, where an entire war was fought over Saudi soil with a guy named Sadam Husein, who, again, we're rattling sabers against tonight, basically because this guy is sitting within striking distance of the world's most critical resource, which is oil, energy. Now most of the oil or energy is used for heating and/or transportation. To take away the heating for a moment, how is it used in transportation? It is used in jet fuel, it is used in gasoline, it is used in diesel oil, in locomotive oil, it is used in moving things....ships....moving masses, cargo, product, materials that are vital to a technological civilization, to the well-being of 5 billion people on this planet....

AB: makes the world go round to the degree that we have said and I am sure would go to nuclear war if need be to protect our access.

RH: ...You've got it. Now, since that energy is overwhelmingly being used to counteract by brute force the effect of gravity, imagine a technology where you flick a switch and the mass of your cargo becomes zero, to where with a fingertip you can push ten thousand ton pallets of goods across a shop floor, or a factory floor, or a loading dock floor. Where instead of having 747s, you have vehicles that are ten times, a hundred times bigger, and they don't fall down because they literally don't weigh anything, and in fact they have to be kept down by means of reactive forces or engines that are aimed downward slightly so that they don't drift off into space. In other words if you could get rid of gravity or make gravity controllable, the economics and well-being of everybody on this planet would take a stunning leap forward.

AB: And even that doesn't do justice....

RH: It does not, but it is the beginnings of the kind of revolution that we would enjoy, because most of our economy in terms of energy consumption is spent moving masses from one point to another, and fighting gravity. That's why ocean travel or rail travel is so much cheaper than the other travel, because it is what is called equipotential surface travel. When I have an ocean liner on the ocean, gravity is basically counteracted by flotation, by displacement. So I only need a little bit of power to make the thing go put, put, put, put, put along, and overcome resistance of water.

AB: There wouldn't be any more boats....

RH: That's right. That's why people want to bring back dirigibles, which would be nice idea if it weren't for hurricanes and storms and cold fronts and stuff like that. They're too fragile. So what we have here would be the best of all possible worlds. We would have vehicles perhaps the size of supertankers with the ease of take-off and landing of helicopters and V-stall aircraft on any place, on any continent, in any place in the any time, with almost no energy expenditure.

AB: Elevators that needed no energy beyond.....

RH: Well if you build this stuff right you could make skyscrapers that would literally be a hundred miles high, because you make floors, and if this stuff could be layered and you could reduce the gravity on each succeeding floor, then it ultimately makes possible all kinds of extraordinary architecture, and, "Oh my God! You mean it might make possible things miles on the moon?!" You see where we are going? Mega-engineering in control of ....this is so much bigger than cold fusion, so I come back to my original question. Why wasn't there a huge excitement in the scientific community, and a publication of papers of experiments refuting Podkletnov's original results. If he is all wet, is he is wrong, if he did it wrong, why wasn't there a set of papers out there showing that he did it wrong? Instead, it fell into that big white porcelain receptacle, and until a few days ago was never heard from again. And now he is on the run and in hiding and has withdrawn his latest experiments, which by the way prove it is not shielding.

AB: Richard, I am going to take you back to Switzerland now with the following. The only sighting I've ever had of an unidentified anything was very dramatic and very close..... and I think I told you about was a triangular craft that floated over me and my wife. It didn't fly, Richard. I know aerodynamics. I know what it takes to produce aerodynamic flight. This thing utterly, silently, so that I could hear crickets 3/4 mile away, floated above my head at about 150 feet. My wife and I stood and watched it float across the valley headed toward what would have been Area 51. I don't know what that craft was. I don't know that it came from somewhere else. It may be ours. But Richard, what that craft did is an extension of what we are talking about. Now what kind of metals did our friend in Switzerland, Billy Meyer, turn over?

RH: Well they were yttrium, bismuth, copper....I haven't looked at that data in a long time. The point is that it was the same kind of stuff that the IBM guys got their Nobel prize for turning into a room temperature superconductor.

AB: Really! There was bismuth involved? I didn't know that.

RH: Yes!! Now let me tell you, there was a very famous scientist who is no longer with us. He was the inventor of the floppy disc coatings for IBM. He lived in California.....What is his name? Someone will fax us. He was a really neat guy. He was into crystallography, into materials. He was given, through a set of circumstances, another sample from Billy Meyer, ostensibly, and he narrated a video of his beginning analysis, and I've got the video. The thing that struck me about the video, and I guess struck him, was that he was looking at this sample with an electron microscope and normally what you have to do with some materials to prepare them for electron microscope scanning is you have to coat them with gold to increase their conductivity. He felt that what he was looking at through the electron microscope without any preparation was a multi-layered superconductor, and he said so on the video. And this was supposed to be the multi-layered plating of a beam ship a la E.T.s given to Billy Meyer. And before he could show the samples to the folks at the Ames Research Center, the sample disappeared.

AB: Richard, here is something to deal with. It is a very interesting question.(Presenting a question sent in by a listener to the Art Bell Show:) " As far as I am concerned I'll be happy if billions of people don't get their hands on this technology all at once. For starters here are just a few of the things that any crackpot on the face of the earth might be able to do if this phenomenon turned out to be true and the information entered the public domain: 1. Create a major windstorm anywhere at any time. This might mean a) taking down airplanes. b) taking down satellites by disturbing their orbits with the device. It also might mean interfering with all global communications, including market and military information, and/or taking out our ability to perform espionage and collect information, etc." (Laughter from Richard)

RH: Now this guy is thinking. He has got it right. How do you answer that?

RH: Oh, go home. You know, look. If we are going to let fear govern ourselves.....let's all go back to the caves, cut off all electricity. Look, we live in an extraordinarily complex very fragile technological society. In the last twenty years, the number of incidents where technology has been misused, has killed people, can literally be counted on one hand. You know, on a planet where there are hundreds of millions of people, most of whom on most continents other than this one are starving to death at night, literally go to bed hungry, the fact is that society is much more resilient. And this technology has all kinds of pluses that will make people richer, wealthier, happier, and give them many more advantages and will decrease the social pressures of malcontents and discontents and people who do not have. And all that reasoning is "Oh my God! There's something unknown out there! Let's not look at it because it might hurt us." If we really believe that, then we should not have invented firearms, the NRA should not be allowed to promulgate politically what it promulgates. Cars should be banned. Look how many people are killed simply driving. 25,000 people die every year because half of them mix alcohol and a 2-ton piece of steel. The fact is that this is a piece of technology that it would be very difficult to misuse. And the positive uses so far outweigh the possibility of negative uses, and the negative uses would be on such a scale that you obviously would see them coming.

AB: But we were wondering why has the paper been withdrawn. Why are people denying they were co-authors? Well, there is one answer. There is one group particularly interested in negative uses of this kind of technology. Who would that be?

RH: I would imagine the Military.

AB: I would imagine that, too.

RH: Those people sit up nights thinking of better ways to kill people. That is not a slap on the face of people who are serving military.......but we have an industry of death on Planet Earth. Let me give you one very positive possibility here. This technology if properly pursued will give you a force screen. It will give you an impermeable bubble. Which means I can stand inside and you can shoot at me all day and you can't reach me.

AB: From Dick in Hawaii here is a pretty good question: "Richard, does all this have something to do with how they built those inscrutable pyramids?"

AB: How else would you get those blocks in place?

RH: Well you see this is what Bauval and Hancock and I have been quietly working at. We obviously live in a society where there is knowledge that we are supposed to be playing with, and knowledge that we are not supposed to be playing with. Now I would not have said that 5 years ago. I wouldn't even have said that 3 years ago or 2 years ago. But I have unmistakable evidence that there is an "in" crowd and an "out" crowd tonight. And that 100 years ago somebody decided that this planet should not evolve. That there were things we should not know. There were forces we should not master, and achievements to which we should not attain, and levels of sophistication and evolution the human race should not aspire to, and they basically have got us going down the wrong track. And this is the clearest example, what is happening right now with the Ford Paper on this discovery and Dr. Podkletnov, because on the eve of his vindication, where people would be looking at this and had achieved a level of notoriety where it could be replicated and proven or disproven, something very nasty has happened to this researcher and he is running at Warp 9 away from what he should be facing, which is verification of what he claimed four years ago. And I think that it is up to us to basically rescue the process, and fortunately we have got the Internet, we have programs such as yours, and we have a lot of great people out there, and the technology to duplicate this is trivial. And so I am expecting that we are going to get a lot of submissions, and let me tell you how we are going to handle them. We have a rather eminent physicist who is part of our Enterprise family, his name is Dr. Eugene Maelov. He was the former head science writer at MIT. He resigned over a point of principle when he found MIT researchers faking data attempting to prove cold fusion did not work. He is now running a small laboratory in New Hampshire. He runs a magazine called Infinite Energy, and I am going to prevail upon him to be one of the referees of these papers. So that when we proceed to publish electronically this work, it will stand the test of good science ethics and protocols, and it will verify or negate the claims of Dr. Podkletnov and his colleagues in 1992.

AB: If the papers and the peer review that has been done until it went all crazy are correct, all that is really already been done, so we are re-doing it.

RH: But you have got to re-do it to go beyond. Because what was not done is the experiments were not duplicated. What peer reviewers do is they basically read a paper, and they look and see if there are any glaring holes in the procedure. That is all they are really supposed to do. They are not supposed to conduct their own experiments to verify that in fact it really happens the way the guy says it happens. That is left for the people reading the paper. What I find mysterious here is that nobody in the Establishment went and duplicated his result. Now let me tell you what happened in terms of our conversations with NASA. My researcher talked to NASA, and there is a group at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, the same place by the way that the central portion of Flight 800 was sent for analysis a couple of weeks ago. This group has also got a division called "Advanced Concepts", and apparently, according to Robert Matthew's piece in The Telegraph, they have been looking at Dr. Podkletnov's experimental results for some time, and they are talking about duplicating. Well I had my person this afternoon ask them point blank how long it would take them to duplicate the results of his 1992 paper. Guess what they told her? Come back in a year! We are talking something you can borrow or buy from Edmund Scientific for $1.95 and get some liquid nitrogen from down the street and have it set up in a day! This is why nothing is happening folks. Your government is not doing what you would like it to do, which is to vigorously pursue new and important economic things or discoveries! And we are not telling anybody.

Of course I don't believe that for an instant. I think that this individual was shining her on and basically there is a lot of activity going on in the back rooms of the laboratories and it is basically none of your business. You just pay our salary, you don't really get to know what we are doing over here. Do you really think you should know what we are doing? A year!! A year!!

AB: The oil industry is gigantic. If this technology is what we think that it is, obviously it would be held back until it really was needed because the interests and the forces that would hold it back are probably the strongest on the face of the earth economically, in every area you can measure.....

RH: They can't hold back high school kids all over the country!

AB: No they can't, but they would use it for military applications certainly....

RH: But they are already doing that guys. I mean just for the fact that we don't verify it in public doesn't mean that there is not billions of dollars know that there is 50 billion dollars a year in the (Black?) slush fund? That is totally unaccountable? And that is not a number that I picked out of a hat, that is a number that was written carefully about by a guy named Wyner for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is one of the country's best newspapers, still doing really good investigative journalism, and he wrote a book called "Blank Check". 50 billion dollars a year off the books doing God knows what. Did you know they found the other day that NASA has got about 3 or 4 billion dollars that it is not accounting for? Just something that Dole had forgotten to tell us about, that he has got in the Slush Fund, that has now surfaced through some accounting procedures in either the GAO or some other place......

AB: Here you are making friends with NASA again!

RH: Well, boys and girls, and I mean that really, boys and girls, go and do this. Write it up. Video it. Make the measurements. Get your teachers and physics professors to help you, and the world is your oyster, because there is history here. And we will publish electronically. We have a process. We now are world wide on the Web. We have got a lot of good people working with us. This is the mechanism to simply go around the centers and the filters and come to the rescue of a very well-meaning if slightly naive scientist who thought that science was something and has now found out that in the last week it is something else.

AB: All right now the audience has a basic understanding of what we have been talking about. It took a while and it was important that we lay it all out carefully or they would not understand it but I think they do now. Let's try a couple of calls and see what they have to ask about. And they will inevitably ask important questions. We will try and filter it as we can.

AB: East of the Rockies, you are on the air with Richard Hoagland:

CALLER: I was very interested in Richard's comments on conductivity and the use of the technology and the .... (Question?) I was just very interested in talking with this individual because I have information that might be valuable to him.

AB: (Instructed him to FAX info to Richard at 201-271-1703)

AB: West of the Rockies............

CALLER: I would like to know the implication of E=MC2. What would be the implications on mass in the E=MC2 .......... the energy change?

RH: Well since there is no such thing in the hyperdimensional model as constants, they are a function of external parameters, like angular momentum(?). It means that at any one moment that you are measuring these so-called constants, in the next moment they will have changed measurably.

AB: ...and that is proven by the way the Levitron operates.

CALLER: (continued) As I understand dimension, it has an infinite quality, a finite quality and a base, and that hyperdimension......say eternity and infinity being infinite qualities, mass and energy being finite qualities, and time and space being the base that things are measured on, and they would ....what would be the effect of the change of mass...let's say you've got a body traveling at the speed of light...if you change its density by changing its relative weight or its gravitational...its "G"...wouldn't it essentially expand. In other words density would diminish......(I'm sorry I'm so nervous I can't think)

RH: Where he's going is if you look at the macroscopic implications of this, if you start thinking cosmologically....think in terms of the universe, think in terms of solar systems and galaxies and natural processes on huge scales, or artificial craft going between stars in galaxies at high speed, you can begin to think about possibilities or variabilities that have not been considered. We are raised thinking that certain things are constant. That relativity notwithstanding, at normal rates of speed on the earth, as I drive my car down the street, its mass doesn't change, its length doesn't change. Although there was a case where a guy tried to avoid a ticket by running a red light, claiming that he actually had been traveling at such a rate that the (red) light appeared because of the Dopler shift relativistically to the green. The judge actually carefully considered it and ruled in his favor and then got him for speeding, because he was exceeding the speed limit.

CALLER: I have a question about an experiment that I did with some friends one time. It had to do with 5 people, and one person is seated in a chair..........

RH: I know. This is the same thing as people with their fingertips can raise large weights. It does relate. I have actually performed that kind of experiment with other people and I can attest with first hand experience that it worked. I don't know how it worked, and the only thing I can say is I know it is not an illusion. I know that we are not all suddenly developing super strength. I have a feeling, and this is just an intuition, that it has to do with the synchronization of the thinking process and the focusing of concentration. And because the hyperdimensional physics gets into that fuzzy boundary between consciousness and material reality, I think it has to do with a resonance that is set up between people and the effect that has on the momentary inertia of the object and the person sitting on the chair, for instance, or the table that you all want to raise...... The implication is that the inertia, the resistance to motion which is how we measure mass, has changed. In Einstein's equations, mass and inertia are supposed to be equivalent. Its called the Principle of Equivalence. In fact, in the hyperdimensional model, there may be no such thing as the equivalence. Which means that if you can diminish the inertia, the resistance to motion, then in effect you have changed the mass, because that is how you define the mass, is by the inertia in current contemporary equations. Now how you do that just with your mind....... It would be difficult to imagine off the top of my head how you would measure in a reproducible way that effect, but I have participated in that kind of an experiment, I know the phenomenon is real, I don't have a ready explanation, and I am kind of thinking off the top of my head here, but what this shows you is if you remove the boundaries.........

AB: Richard we are beginning to touch some nerves. There was an article written about me which I just FAXed to you so that you could see it up in Canada, absolutely attacking me. An article which referenced Art's Parts, and these people made it up, they didn't consult me, they made it up as they went. They just sat down and wrote an article, never talking to me, never doing any serious investigation whatsoever. They just made it up. I was absolutely astounded.

RH: Well it is kind of like the Washington Post when we had our press conference in Washington. The guy there made it up, called me really interesting names in a reportorial piece. No, we are obviously getting close to interesting things here, and the key thing here is this is a democratizable, testable effect. If the audience is as smart as I think they are, there are people out there who are busily thinking of how to find Edmund Scientific's phone number when it gets to be the way it is just becoming dawn here on the East Coast. We have gone through another night Art.

AB: I can see the article now. I can almost write it Richard, after the one I sent you, the one we've got up on the Internet now. "Crackpot says anti-gravity is real. Talk show host promotes would go on and on . I can almost sit down and write it myself.

RH: Oh I hope they do. I really hope they do.

CALLER: Richard you made reference earlier and you have made reference in previous programs, going back to about 100 years or so you talked about somebody that ...?...not to suppress and make changes and what not at that time. Very briefly, when you mentioned the word "oil", and I can give you a name to be associated with that that would have been powerful enough back at that time and is still currently powerful enough to control things: the name Rockefeller.

RH: Yes of course, but so what? So we have a name. The fact is there is more of us than of them. Whatever name you want to give them, we outnumber them. And that's why I'm saying this doesn't have to stand. For the middle of the curve, for most people who look to the New York Times to give them their reality every morning.....the science writers of the New York Times (who are not bought, they are just sometimes a little bit slow) they are looking to the journals to tell them what reality is, what other scientists think. Scientists themselves didn't pick up on this in 1992. Nobody did the follow-up work, nobody that I can find (I've only had a week to look)...but I would have found a paper, if there was a refuting paper that basically claimed that it didn't work. Let me give you an example. A few years ago there was a laboratory report out of a university in northern Japan....I think it was Takeuchi University but I could be mistaken...They reported that if you spin a gyroscope in a gravitational field it will lose weight, depending upon which direction you spin it and what it is made of. And this caused a mild sensation for several months, until a laboratory in France duplicated and then published in Nature, which is the most prestigious science journal in the world, a paper claiming not to find any effect, and then the whole thing died down. Well what I find remarkable in this instance is we can't find any paper that claims that Dr. Podkletnov's results are not corroboratable. In fact we have a paper from Max Plank, which basically goes into a theoretical analysis and finds one possible theoretical explanation, and although it is unlikely, at least there is someone who is taking him seriously enough to follow through at that level. Now we found the latest paper where the device is much more robust. It is giving a much bigger effect: two percent as opposed to one tenth of a percent, and suddenly we find that he is running and in hiding and the paper is withdrawn and all that. No one is publishing negative results, because maybe it is so easy to duplicate, they can't publish negative results.

AB: Richard, what is bothering me is whether it is your work or Art's Parts or anything else that we are talking about, it may not be necessary to have peers knock it down scientifically. Today it may only be necessary to slam the other words, as the Washington Post came after you, that newspaper came after me, it may not be necessary to do anything other than to immerse the great unwashed out there in basically slanderous, derogatory comments and the general public goes O.K........

RH: As a matter of fact, now we have a test. We are going to find out whether the net, the Internet, the web, is more powerful than the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, etc., and if enough people out there follow very simple rules, and duplicate this. Go to the web site, down load the papers, follow the instructions, call us or FAX us if they want help. We'll put them in touch with the right technical people....and don't put nitrogen on your fingers or toes, because they are fragile....but if you could do this at the right level of supervision, you are going to get some really interesting results that are going to go down in the history books, and we will publish....I promise you that we will print this electronically so that it raises the visibility to where no suppression of the current work is going to stand. Let me get to a part of why I think this is so exciting and why I don't think it is simple shielding. If you look at the diagram in the Sunday Telegraph, which is on the web, in the reproduction of the electronic version, you will see that in his latest experiment, Dr. Podkletnov actually replaced the disc with a ring, with a toroid, with something that looks very similar to those little washers on your Levatron. It has got a hole in the middle. Now here is a common sense question for everybody. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to explain this. In the original experiment he had a disc, a solid disc spinning, and the weight above it lost weight. In the current experiment he has a ring, a toroid, a doughnut, a lifesaver, spinning, and the weight is suspended over the hole, and he still gets the effect. In fact he is getting .2%. How do you get shielding with a hole in the disc? It is not shielding. It is something more interesting. It is hyperdimensional physics, boys and girls.

CALLER: Good morning, etc.......There are a lot of anomalies out there and originally I had misgivings about Richard's term hyperdimensional, (but & etc.) .....One thing I noticed that applies to this antigravitational thing is we were working with a microbalance and we just happened to notice that if light hit the pan (and I think I mentioned it to Art before) there is an attraction, and of course we figured it was a thermal effect ............We put the light, a very small amount on the bottom of the pan and it pulled it down. We did it to the opposite pan on the microbalance and it had the opposite effect, so light does not give pressure. Believe it or not it gives attraction, it is out in a fifth place.

RH: It is a good old Doc Lensman tractor beam. Which means there is a frequency interaction which is very similar to the frequency interaction of this experiment.

CALLER: Refers to a book called Unconventional Flying Objects. It is called a scientific analysis, and there is reference to a professor Herman Ober, who was the first to conclude that UFOs would send gravitational energy to propulsive purposes.....

RH: He was a contemporary of Van Braun in Germany before the war, and was part of their rocket experiments and their basic space flight inclinations leading up to World War II.

CALLER: There was a Frank Edwards who said that after World War II the West German government hired him to head a commission for the study of UFOs.

RH: Edwards was an American journalist who was a friend of Dorothy Kilgallen who died under rather mysterious circumstances a few years ago.

CALLER: Well if UFOs would be propelled by the conversion of gravity, wouldn't it simplify space travel since it would more or less cross out the necessity of carrying fuel?

RH: Obviously. And there are two ways of doing this. One is you can do it dumbly, which is that you basically have a nuclear reactor in your space ship and you spin something, either in the vehicle a la the experiment we have been talking about tonight, or with radio frequency fields you spin material within the material, in other words you actually spin the atom. Or, if you are really neat about it and you understand what you are playing with, you basically use the device as a free energy tap on the hyperdimensional physics, and you power the null gravity by means of the free energy. There are various ways you can get sophisticated. The point is that you are at the beginning of an explosion of discovery in technological application, and there apparently are folks that don't want us to walk down this road in public.

AB: That's because they probably are already far down the road......

RH: You probably are correct.

CALLER: I was wondering if he has any indication of what forces are underneath the disc, and how it relates to the last time Richard was on the show he had the experiment where he grew grass over the top.............

RH: Let me read you from Dr. Podkletnov's original paper: "At certain speeds of rotation and at certain frequencies of the field in the rotating magnets, the weight of the sample stabilized and decreased by .3%. The readings in the stable regions were recorded several times with good reproducibility. (Here comes the neat part) The levitating superconducting disc was found to rise up to 7mm above the magnet when its rotation momentum increased. Test measurements without the superconducting shielding disc but with all operating solenoids connected to the power supply, had no direct effect on the weight of the sample. So the disc itself gets lighter boys and girls." Art: What about that area directly below the operational area. Would there be an effect there?

RH: I would suspect there is because I don't think it is shielding, I think it is a complex geometry, almost like a toroidal field......

AB: Wouldn't that answer the shielding question versus what you are leaning toward?

RH: Oh yes, absolutely. And that is the kind of thing that neat experiments now could do very easily to map the field. I can think of several ways that we could map this field. Let me give you one. For one thing, you are not limited in the size of our disc. Suppose you made a big disc. In the latest experiment the disc was supposed to be a foot across. Or you could make one two feet across......the ceramic an be molded pretty easily. So you can imagine a big, thin, flat disc that gives you a lot of area of work over. And nitrogen is cheap. And magnets are cheap. All of this stuff is cheap, cheap, cheap. So if you have a big enough disc where you can actually put something of measurable size in there to measure various parts of it, what you want is basically one of these electromagnetic tuning forks which vibrates back and forth at a certain frequency. The vibration is dependent on the mass of the tuning fork and the force applied in the solenoid that is actuating it. If I put a vibrating tuning fork into this field around the disc, if it is a field effect and not just shielding, as I move it from the top of the disc to the bottom of the disc, the tuning fork frequency, which is basically the rate at which the little mass is vibrated back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, should change.

AB: Wouldn't you also want to examine the field area with a magnetometer?

RH: Sure. I can think of all kinds of neat experiments, but that is going to be for the guys and gals out there are bright and curious and not fettered by what can happen or not happen, and who will simply do the experiments.

CALLER: Going back to something you said earlier. I have a technical background so I have been following along pretty well, but I wasn't quite about sure the correlations you are making between Arts Parts and the experiment in Finland other than there are some similarities because Art's material is layered and it contains bismuth, but supposedly it needs to have two million bolts applied to become a so-called lifting body and negate gravity (Art: I have heard one million) Ok, but a large voltage. There isn't any such voltage used in the Pillan(?) Experiment....the correlation between the superconductivity and high voltage.......

RH: Let me give you a crude analogy, and this is only a crude analogy, and for people who are technical they'll get it, for people who are not maybe we'll have to explain it.....We used to make radios with big things called vacuum tubes, which were glowing things with hot filaments. Electrons sputtered off and they were captured by little anodes sitting like little radar antennas inside the vacuum tube and all that. (Interrupted for break, caller holding)


This transcript is Copyright 1996 The Enterprise Mission. All Rights Reserved. Copying of these HTML documents are prohibited under the law. Permission is hereby granted to link to these pages. (
Previous Segment | Back to Physics Lab | Next Segment |