AB: My guest is Richard C. Hoagland. We've discussed the Meisner Effect. Somebody just sent me a fax. It says, "Art, check Edmund Scientific Catalog. These kits have been available for years. What's the big secret?" And indeed, here is an educational superconducting ceramic disk demonstrating the Meisner Effect of magnetic levitation, and you can buy them for...I don't know, $20, $36, somewhere in that range on the model you want. I hope you've begun to grasp what the big secret is, and we will explain that so that you can understand it, and I can, in a moment. With respect to this superconducting ceramic disk experiment which is fairly basic stuff, science, but fairly basic, there is nothing that is a big secret. The big secret would appear to be that above this, they have now measured a reduction in the weight of anything placed above it. In other words, they have proven that this is actually not just the Meisner Effect, but it is actually reducing the weight of any object placed above it. That, folks, is anti-gravity. That is shielding from the effects of gravity. Correct, Richard?

RH: That's the excitement here, and apparently nobody before Podkletnov in Finland in 1992, who...his own background, he was looking at superconductive films and materials and I guess that's how he got intrigued with all this, as he says in his own paper, nobody in their right mind would have imagined, I guess, that there might be a negative or decrease of G, the gravitational force, and so they didn't measure it. Science is people being curious and looking at things that nobody else has looked for. That's the big deal here, because you've got this disk floating on the Meisner over a magnet. That's standard stuff now. Any high school kid, anybody can go out to Edmund Scientific and buy the disks and buy the material and do this in your kitchen, and I don't recommend it because liquid nitrogen is pretty nasty stuff. You know, what it will do to a hot dog, it will do to your finger, and you basically can get a third degree burn instantly by putting liquid nitrogen on exposed skin. So we don't want to encourage that. We've got to have this done under supervision. That being said, the real amazing thing here is that, as you suspend with a very delicate and digital balance device, measuring balance beam, a material, glass, a neutral material over the disk, Podkletnov found that the weight was decreased, and it was a rather remarkable decrease because 0.05% is not trivial under these conditions.

AB: No, and didn't you tell me that they were in the bottom part of the building and, literally, every object on floors above...

RH: That's later on. Let's not get ahead of the story. Let met continue reading from page 442 of his original paper which, as I said, is in the physics lab on our Website at www.enterprisemission.com.

AB: Or they can go through my Website to yours because we have an immediate link up there. A lot of people are used to going to my Website, www.artbell.com.

RH: Absolutely. Okay. Let me continue. "The sample with the initial of half a gram, 5.5g (sic), was found to lose about 0.05% of its weight when above the disk. Now, when the rotation speed of the disk was increased." See, we had a stationary disk before, and it lost weight. Now what he's done is he's turned on these three other little magnets in sequence, so he begins to make the disk rotate, like a free-spinning rotor in an electric motor. This is what's really incredible. "The sample, when the rotation speed of the disk was increased, the weight of the sample became unstable and gave fluctuating readings from -2.5 to +5.4% of the initial value. At certain speeds of rotation, and at certain frequencies of the electromagnetic field in the rotating magnets, the weight of the sample stabilized and decreased by 0.3%." Which is stunning! Now, this is, of course, what made my ears prick up because, when I read this, I thought, "Okay, rotation." Remember that old joke about business? You know, the three maxims of business? Location, location, location. Well the three catch-alls of hyperdimensional physics are rotation, rotation, rotation. So I'm looking at this, and I'm saying, "Oh, my God, the effect goes up in proportion to the spin rate. This has got to be hyperdimensional physics."

AB: Why?

RH: Because we have found in our own work, theoretical work, based on observations of the planets, that the inverse effect of the hyperdimensional gate makes G, the gravitational constant, go down proportional to the total angular momentum. In Podkletnov's experiment, everything is constant, right? The mass of the disk is not changing. You're not adding or taking material away.

AB: Correct.

RH: You're not adding or taking material from the magnets. All you're doing is changing the spin, which means you're changing the total angular momentum of the disk, and the decrease in weight was roughly proportional to the increase in angular momentum.

AB: Why?

RH: Well, that's what we're all going to find out, aren't we? We don't know yet. Apparently, what we're dealing with here is a set of resonances. Remember how he say's earlier in the paragraph: the weight became unstable? and it went up and down?

AB: Yeah.

RH: All right. That means that in some rotational speeds the weight actually increased a little bit. So we not only have anti-G, we have positive G. We have variable G. In other words, something in this experiment is changing the basic constant of the universe called G. Now, remember a few weeks ago, I came on your show, and I talked about this basic Newtonian proportionality constant called G, which is used in all the equations for calculating the gravitational force between two objects, had been remeasured in the last years or so by four major laboratories all over the world?

AB: Yes, sir.

RH: Two in Germany, on in New Zealand, and one experiment at Los Alamos, here in the U.S., in fact not very far from where you're sitting at a microphone tonight, right? And in all those experiments, G, that big G in the equation, has changed. And this is a kind of a static experiment. This is done in the laboratory without things rotating. This is basically measuring the gravitational effect of the earth itself.

AB: Can I stop you for a second, Richard, and ask you something? This is absolutely stunning, and it ...

RH: It's stunning, Art, because it's real. We're talking scientists, journals ...

AB: Okay, but I'm going way out on a limb here.

RH: It's not new age, flaky stuff.

AB: No, I understand. What I want to say is this. I've interviewed a lot of people. I've talked to a lot of people about experiments that were supposedly done long ago. You know, the Philadelphia Experiment, and all that sort of thing, and if you look into the actual electronics that were said to have been used during the Philadelphia Experiment, for example, they used rotating magnetic and RF fields, and somehow mentally, I'm beginning to make a little bit of a connection here, and I'm wondering if a rotating introduced RF field in all of this would have an effect as well.

RH: You're getting very good at this, Art. Your intuition is exactly along the right lines.

AB: Is it?

RH: Yes, because there are two ways you can get things to rotate. One is you physically rotate the bulk item. Like this disk you're spinning. The other is you manipulate the atomic structure within the bulk item by electromagnetic field so you get those to all spin in synchronization. And that's what the Philadelphia Eldridge Experiment would have done. Now.

AB: So that science makes a kind of, it does make a kind of sense, doesn't it?

RH: I have always thought, and we're getting a little digressed here, but...

AB: I know.

RH: No, I think it's a useful digression. I have always thought that if the Philadelphia Experiment had any anchor in reality, what happened was they were looking for one thing, radar shielding...

AB: Found something else.

RH: And they found something else, and they basically tripped over such an awesome set of physics, and it has such a catastrophic back effect that it got hushed up because: a. it was too uncontrollable, and b. it was too wild, and c. in the wrong hands it would have been too disastrous to let out on the gaming board. And what we have seen in the last 50 years has been the same kind of disinformation, all kinds of wild wacko stories to keep real physicists from pursuing the real possibilities of a real Philadelphia Experiment. And I think your intuition is exactly...You have a nose for news, Art. You're definitely in the right profession. All right, you are seeing patterns. You are seeing the right patterns. So, what we see in the experiment of Podkletnov in '92 is, as he varies the speed of his superconducting disk, the weight of the little glass or quartz sample which is hanging on this little monofilament above the disk, goes up and down, changes, becomes unstable, oscillates and then, as the disk speed increases up to a certain speed, it bottoms out at about 0.3% lower than it would in a room without anything turned on. He says, "The readings in the stable regions recorded several times with good reproducibility." Meaning he turned everything off, started up again and got the same reading. That's what good science is. And remember, this is in a published refereed paper in a refereed journal of world-class stature in 1992. So why was there not an explosion of interest. Why wasn't he on CNN. Why wasn't there the same huge explosion that Pons and Fleischman generated over cold fusion?

AB: Because unless, for example, Richard, the average person, unless they had sat through the last hour, coming up on two hours, of explanation and understanding of this, they cannot comprehend it, and included in the average person category in the press, and if they can't understand it, they can't properly report it. That's one answer.

RH: Ah, but you're missing a huge component here because Physica C goes to physicists who don't need two hours. In reading this, the first thing they should be looking at is: a. it's in a journal, b. it's been refereed, c. the procedures look like they're pretty good, and then d. they should say, "Holy cow, I gotta go and find out if this is true." And nobody, Art, nobody, seemed to have done that.

AB: You're talking about the scientific community. You asked about the press. I gave you an answer for that. I can't...

RH: No, I said, "Why didn't anybody make a big deal?" And I included that the scientific community, because this is, of course, a technical paper published in a technical peer-reviewed publication, so it would go to a technical audience. They didn't react. They didn't respond, and we got to ask ourselves, "Is everybody asleep?"

AB: Yeah, that's bizarre.

RH: This is Nobel laureate world-class, dynamite, into orbit, globalistic kind of stuff, and nobody sat up and took notice.

AB: Okay. I have no explanation.

RH: The neat thing here is tonight you and I can create a revolution. Just between the two of us, and a few million of our closest friends. Because out there tonight, all across America, are, hopefully, eager curious people, some of whom are in government labs, some of whom are in private labs, some of whom who know people in labs, some who have brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers who work in labs, and all of whom have kids who are in school, and if tomorrow, beginning tonight and through tomorrow, I don't get a series of faxes and posts on the Website, and you too, of people desperately, eagerly pounding on our door saying, "How do we do this? How do we do this?" then I'm going to go into storm windows. Because this is warp drive. This is Star Trek kind of stuff. This is liberation of the human family from the tyranny and bondage of gravity to planet earth, and if nobody sits up and takes notice and salutes, then you and I are in the wrong business.

AB: It's also energy independence.

RH: Oh, of course. Absolutely, because there's all kinds of ways to turn this simple little device into what we would cleverly call "a perpetual motion machine," because you can imagine that if you are getting a 2% decrease in G over the disk, then you're basically setting up an inverse waterfall. If you have air above it, air is going to rise and then fall, so you can put it in a pipe, and you can constrain it so that as long as the disk operates, or as long as it's hovering and rotating, you've got a basically up convecting current of air to drive a turbine.

AB: Wasn't that demonstrated also in that lab? There was something about smoke.

RH: Apparently, according to Matthew's, the writer for the Telegraph, Podkletnov gave him an anecdote that the way they got onto this was somebody was smoking a pipe. You know, you have this cliched kind of image of two guys with goatees standing next to a lab bench in a Finish laboratory. It's kind of cute. And one is smoking a pipe, and because you're dealing with liquid helium, liquid nitrogen, you know these things are very cold, right? And we all know that cold air falls. It sinks. And apparently, one of the guys noticed that his pipe smoke, instead of falling over the experiment, was rising, which was a dead give-away to a curious scientist that something pretty strange was going on.

AB: All right, so the headline could read, listen here Clinton administration, "Smoker Helps Change Scientific Paradigm."

RH: (Laughter) I think you've given Bob Dole his answer to get to the White House.

AB: There you go. (more laughter) So what happened was, when this smoke should have been getting sucked down by this immense cold, instead it took off like a rocket ship up.

RH: Yeah. Now, the magnitude may have been exaggerated for the sake of the art form here, but you get the idea. And then that's when they set up the disk with the threads and the little glass beads. In other words, do it systematically.

AB: That was the "Ah-ha" moment.

RH: That's right. And there should have been a cascade of ah-has all over the world. So, my question tonight is why weren't there?

AB: Well, because perhaps they stumbled into some sort of technology that has been pursued by others for some time now? Could that be?

RH: Yes, yes. And we're thinking Area 51, right?

AB: Well, yes

RH: And Australia and STS 48, the video that we have seen, and I put at the end of our UN presentation, and all this hush-hush super-super black secret world of electrogravitics that we're not supposed to know exists, and what I find fascinating is that Dr. Podkletnov is doing fine, and he's publishing and he's getting quiet reviews and analyses, and everything is going along until he talks to a reporter for the Sunday Telegraph of a week and a half ago, and then suddenly all you-know-what hits the fan, and he is forced under very peculiar and dramatic circumstances, which are detailed by Matthew's second piece, which is on the Website tonight, to withdraw his paper on the eve of publication. The university is apparently disavowing all knowledge of his actions. It's straight out of Mission Impossible. His co-author, get this, his co-author...It's like Peter, you know, three times before the cock crows?...claims he doesn't even know him and know of the experiment, and the physics journal, Physics D, in Britain, which was going to publish the latest paper, has a signed document with his co-author's signature on it.

AB: God, what's going on here?

RH: This is cloak and dagger stuff, boys and girls. In other words, you keep hearing out there, all you folks who are so skeptical, that us crazies think that the world is filled with conspiratorial people, sucking up interesting inventions and keeping the human race in bondage and chains. Well, surprise, surprise. We got a live one here because apparently that's what is, in fact, going on tonight, and this poor scientist co-author is so afraid of something that he is denying his participation in this experiment and denying the validity of his own signature, which has in the safe-keeping of the British journal and is not a fake.

AB: Do you want to speculate about what's going on here?

RH: Well, I think that what happened here is that, because nobody responded to the original paper in '92, for whatever reason and we can have fun speculating...

AB: They let sleeping dogs lie.

RH: That they basically didn't do anything because it's like, okay, wait a minute, nothing's happening, leave them alone.

AB: Better we should just keep our mouths shut and let it go?

RH: That's right, but what happened now is that he raised the visibility by talking to a member of the, oooh, the press. The Sunday Telegraph apparently did a big deal on this. Suddenly it's very visible. There is a major paper coming out in a major journal, and all heck broke loose, and a lot of muscle has been applied to some people somehow somewhere, and when my individual, my researcher, actually talked to him earlier in the week, she said that he sounded extremely nervous, and he said to her that the piece in the Telegraph was a big mistake. Now, I think I understand what he means, and he's not quoting Arnold Schwartzeneger.

AB: Did he say it was inaccurate or a mistake?

RH: That is was a big mistake.

AB: A big mistake.

RH: And we can fill in the blank. Now Matthews has filled them in very nicely for us.

AB: All right. Hold on, Richard. We've got a break here at the top of the hour. And when I come back, we'll catch everybody up a little bit, as we have some stations joining at this hour, and then I'll read you something I got on the withdrawal of this paper. Something big is going on. This is CBC.