AB: All right. Basically, we are discovering what the Meisner Effect is. It's basic science. It can be done in school, preferably, not at home. It involves a composite ceramic material that has a charge going through it and is above a magnet. It will levitate in the air. Now this is not new. This is old science, relatively old. What has been discovered apparently in Finland is that objects, any objects, placed above this operating system...and it got a little more complex over there. They used rotating magnetic fields produced by just common motors...is that any object, in this case a piece of glass or anything else, non-metallic, loses weight or gains weight fluctuates in weight, and significantly so, so you're actually shielding against gravity. In other words, you have produced anti-gravity. Now the man who made this discovery apparently has mysteriously withdrawn his paper, and I got a fax from somebody commenting on it that might lead us to where now want to go. "Robert Matthews, the journalist who broke the story of the anti-gravity/gravitational shielding experiment in Finland, has just released the following information: (and remember now it's the author of this fax introducing his own comments, here) 'I've spoken to the editorial offices of J Physics D for an update. Dr. P. (I'll call him that), lead author of the paper claiming to have constructed an anti-gravity device this morning contacted the journal's offices and asked to have the paper withdrawn. No reason was given, and his request has been accepted. The LOP (whatever that is, Richard will tell us) is taking no further action. The paper was accepted through peer review. Had it been published, it would have been part of the public record. If the effect is real, and if the effect does indeed correlate to some kind of gravitational shielding effect, then the strong possibility exists that the originators of the paper would have received a Nobel Prize.' What possible reasons could he have for withdrawing his own paper with explanation? Was he threatened? This is truly getting surrealistic and is further evidence to me (now the faxer talking) that the entire subject is being manipulated. Will this go the same route as cold fusion, debunked in public but researched in black project labs at taxpayers expense for military application. Perhaps the author prefers staying alive to winning a Nobel. (Obviously, at that point, editorial comment.) Richard?

RH: Yeah, and this is not editorial comment by Mr. Matthews, who is the science correspondence for the Telegraph.

AB: No

RH: That is an excerpt with a few quotes from the much longer article that Matthews, himself, wrote on the strangeness around the paper leading up to its withdrawal, which is, at the moment, on our Website, and in fact is in verbatim transcript, and you have not received it. Keith was going to fax it over to you and apparently didn't get to you in time.

AB: It will be in the next half-hour. I'll have a copy of it. It doesn't matter. It is the essence though. It's roughly correct, isn't it?

RH: Except for the editorial comment. You know, he's obviously speculating wildly there, but the fact is that Matthews found that Podkletnov's own co-author whose signature is on file, because you can't get these paper's published without going through a rather meticulous process. The Journal Physics D, which is in Britain, as opposed to Physica C, which is in Holland, had agreed to publish the later paper next week, or next month, I guess. And now Podkletnov has withdrawn it without giving any explanation. Well, his co-author claims that he was not even part of the experiment, and they've got his signature on record.

AB: Yeah, but Richard, knowing all that, the speculation is not that wild.

RH: No, it is not, but let's make sure that we're speculating. Now, this is something that obviously that writer of that fax is not aware of. We're talking about three papers, not one. There was the original in 1992, which I've been reading from tonight, which was published in the esteemed journal, Physics C, out of Holland, in October 1992. Then there was a review of that paper in 1995, published by the Max Plank Institute. Its author is Giovanni Modanese, and it's available from the Max Plank Institute, and if you look in the references in that paper, it turns out that there is a third paper, which is by Podkletnov and A.D. Levitt, called "Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk Yttrium Barium Cupric Oxide Superconductor Below 70K Under Electromagnetic Field." It's a ?Tampiers? University of Technology report, dated January 1995, and apparently, according to Matthew, who is the British journalist, the science correspondent, a patent has been applied for by ?Tampiers? University on the basic technology. And he was unable to verify that, but that was one report he got from the university itself. So it's not one paper, Art. It's three papers, the last of which has disappeared into a black hole, but there are previous papers, plus a review, so in fact, we have four papers on this set of experiments, and it's more than one experiment. It's a series of experiments going back four years, and we've got the original papers, so there's no way this genie can be stuffed back in the bottle. If it were not for the Internet, however, it would have worked, and this is why the audience tonight listening to us across America, if you guys don't come to the aid of this scientist and verify, because it's so simple to do, the basic elements of the claim here, which is that when you take a superconducting disk of this ceramic, immerse it in liquid nitrogen and put a weight over it, that weight loses gravitational mass, or apparent weight, as it's sitting above a suspended disk hovering over a magnet on Meisner field suspension. If you don't simply duplicate that and write it up and send it to us so we can published it electronically, then this will be another one of those wonderful possible discoveries that simply disappears forever.

AB: You've got to wonder if this technology hasn't come a long, long way in labs since those papers were published, and that some of the devices that are seen by people floating and flitting about in our atmosphere, and at times leaving it as in the photographs in STS 48 and all the rest of it, if this technology actually is not been developed and is being used and obviously following this trail, Richard, is going to bring one to that eventually, and ...

RH: Yeah, but the fact is there aren't enough FBI agents to arrest every high school kid in America. Okay, I mean, come on. This is why the Internet is so vital. This is going to be its first test. Is it more that just a cute social club where people love to shoot their mouth off and talk about all kinds of blue sky things with no accountability, or can we start a process where we can really, literally verify something that is of pivotal, practical importance and can blow the doors off some very important areas of research and verify, at a level that is so democratic and so democratizable and can't be stuffed back in the bottle, something that is of non-trivial import.

AB: All right. Let me try this one out on you. Again, out in left field but maybe not that far, Richard. Listen to this fax from Ed in Nashville: "Art. With Art's parts, it was conjectured that applying an electric current to the bismuth material, bismuth magnesium, would cause it to lose mass, and therefore, lessen its weight from the pull of gravity, could this Meisner Effect be involved. If the interior of the ship that was constructed of the material was shielded from gravity, wouldn't it be able to move the ship? The whole experiment Mr. Hoagland described would be contained within the material." Ed in Nashville. Now, is it not possible, whether or not this was from an extraterrestrial craft, Richard, that the material that I possess is, or was, part of advanced experimentation leading from the work in Finland?

RH: You want the long answer or the short answer?

AB: Short first and then expand if you want.

RH: Yes.

AB: I thought so.

RH: But, see I don't think the work in Finland is part of this. I think that what Podkletnov did is independently trip over the same phenomena. And he published, he got it through the filters through some mechanism, and of course, no filtering system is perfect, and by the time it got out there, everybody who's in the know, you know, the black budget programs that have been tracking on this since '56 when they all disappeared. They basically said, "Okay, we're not going to do anything." And they didn't do anything, and nothing happened, and nobody noticed and nobody followed up, and that's really weird, but when it really hit the fan is when this reporter started snooping around, and we understand from my researcher that it was because Matthews has a good set of sources over at Physics D, and they basically called him and said, "Holy cow. Do you what's coming in and has passed peer review and is going to be published?" And what it was was a much more sophisticated version of Podkletnov's original experiment back in '92, and at that point, it really, they had to do something, and what they've done is obviously something so severe that his co-author basically says, "I don't know that guy." The university says, "Oh, he doesn't work here." And this poor guy is hovering in his house, cowering in his house, afraid to answer the phone. Now we sent him a fax two days ago, which basically said, "Dear Dr. Podkletnov, we're a private research group looking at various things. We have discovered some astrophysical data that is apparently connected with your laboratory results. Let us share information." Now, normally if it was a level playing field you'd imagine the curious scientist who's found something pretty neat is going to want to talk to other people about something neat, right?

AB: Sure

RH: That will corroborate. There has been a deafening silence from Finland. He hasn't phoned. He hasn't faxed. In fact, when we called this afternoon, we think his daughter answered the phone and said that he wasn't home. So the poor guy's in hiding, and he said to my researcher that it was a mistake, and I think he means a political mistake, and he's feeling very bewildered right now, I would imagine, because he thought it was a level playing field, and he's now suddenly realized that the real world is a lot more nasty and that this is awesome power and somebody doesn't want this awesome power out there and recognized, and if it were not for the Internet and the ability of your audience, bright as they are, to duplicate this on a kitchen table (please don't do that, but that's the metaphor), it would go away, but I think we can pull this off and verify it with a lot of different experiments, put it on the Internet, published, so we finally get the big guys to admit that something here is bizarre and wondrous and must be paid attention to.

AB: Well. Where I was going, again, with Art's parts was: Could this not be evidence, this material that can't be duplicated, and by the way, they've tried in labs, that a black project somewhere has taken the work he is doing and they've gone far, far beyond?

RH: Oh sure. I mean, obviously we start out with a very simple experiment and you prove the principle, and then, as with any technology, you spend a lot of money and you bring a lot of people together, and you go all out, and you basically refine it. Now, one of the cues here, one of the key clues, is that when the disk is just hovering, not moving, not rotating, there's a certain decrease of gravity above it just by virtue of is hanging there in space, a weight above it, a little glass bead, the silicon dioxide bead on the monofilament, loses about 0.05% of its weight. When the disk is spinning it loses more weight. As it spins faster, as you go through various frequency zones, it loses and gains weight. It becomes unstable. Finally, up at a certain RPM or RPS, it lost about 0.3% in the original experiment, and stabilized. Now that means that gravity and the effect of gravity on this and the effect of the disk on the gravity on the little silicon dioxide bead is not a static field. It's a dynamic thing. It has a frequency. And what's happening is there's some ?hysteresis?, some resonance, between the spin rate, what's going on in the vicinity of this disk, which I think is a lot more interesting than simple caverite shielding, and the apparent decrease of weight, i.e. inertia, i.e. mass, of something suspended above it.

AB: Let me get way out on a limb again. Richard, you know those people who have talked about flying disks and such being at Area 51 and all the rest of it, there have been fairly graphic descriptions of the internal workings of these disks, involving many rotating fields within.

RH: You've got it.

AB: I know I got it (Laughter) So. Boy I'll tell you. This is all beginning to come together, and I...

RH: And it also says something else. It says that Bob Lazar is full of it.

AB: Okay.

RH: I have always that Bob Lazar was another very clever disinformational thing put out there to lure all real scientists away from the hyperdimensional control of gravity. And Dr. Podkletnov's ...

AB: And yet, there had to be an element of, there were elements of ...

RH: Oh, I think Bob Lazar was shown a real functioning vehicle and lied to bizarrely about how it worked. In other words, he became a stalking horse. He became a deliberate plant, put out there, brought into the fold, broken, under psychological stress, and put out there to lead all the other guys in the wrong direction, as to how it's done. Because the key thing in science is not that something exists, it's how do you make it exist again. How do you duplicate it?

AB: Yeah. What was the deal about the floors above the building...can you tell me about that?

RH: Oh basically, one of the observations was that the decrease in gravity appeared to be on the floors above the original experiment, and I don't know whether that is merely hyperbole on the part of the reporter, or in fact...Here it is, here it is. Let me read it to you, okay?

AB: Okay, sure, go ahead.

RH: This is Matthew's piece that appeared originally in the Sunday Telegraph on the 30th or 31st of August. I forget how many day August has, so someone will tell me. All right. Let's see. I'm reading, I'm reading, I'm reading. Uh...It's too bad we can't go to a commercial while I find this.

AB: We can go to a commercial while you find that.