Interview With James McCanney

Contents

• Part 1

• Part 2

Return

Part 1

On July 18, I had the privilege of speaking with physicist James McCanney again, this time in more detail, about the Sun, the solar winds, our unusual weather patterns, and his latest book. Remember that all of his provocative information is noted at his www.jmccanneyscience.com Internet website.

While a more complete biography for Professor McCanney was presented as part of the front-page story in our May 2003 issue of The SPECTRUM, this brief version comes to us from the Coast-To-Coast AM late-night talk-radio program (hosted by George Noorey) website, when introducing him as a guest on that program:

[quoting]

Professor James McCanney, M.S., is a physicist who has spent decades promoting his theoretical work showing that the Solar System is ever changing and is electrically active. These theories have been confirmed with space probe data and prove that there are definite Earth effects resulting from our Sun’s electrical activity. He has openly opposed NASA’s view that outer space is electrically neutral.

McCanney was a faculty member of the Physics and Mathematics departments of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. He has researched theoretical Celestial Mechanics and Plasma Physics (for the layman, these are the studies of planetary motion and electrified gases in outer space), and has presented his theories at the Los Alamos National Laboratories and American Geophysical Union.

[end quoting]

With that intro, let’s see what Professor McCanney has to say:

Martin: I realize you have a new book out and I would like to talk to you about that, but before we get into that I would like to talk to you about the announcement by the World Meteorological Organization saying that our weather is going crazy, and in all probability is going to continue to go crazy.

How do the solar winds influence our atmosphere and our weather, and what is going on with the Sun? Talk as long as you like about the Sun, about SOHO, about satellites, about the general public’s inability to monitor what’s going on, what is NASA afraid of, and those kinds of things.

I know that’s a VERY loaded question.

McCanney: [Laughter] That’s a big little question.

I actually had a short, brief note in one of my early comet papers and I talked about the electrical nature of the Solar System and what comets were. I had a short, maybe even a one-sentence note saying:

"The effect of the electric fields in outer space on Earth’s upper atmosphere and weather should be investigated."

That’s all it said. At the time, I thought there must be something here. We have jet-streams. I knew there was an energy problem, which means that, basically, there is not enough energy in the local environment to cause tornadoes, hurricanes. There is no source of electrical energy to cause lightning.

In fact, I guess this is the simplest way to put it: If you do an analysis on solar energy strictly based on visible light that many people consider as the source of energy for our weather system and for the heating of the oceans, and ocean currents, and all of that, there simply is NOT enough energy to do the kinds of things we see.

To begin with, let me go through the standard theories.

The standard theory is that the sunlight comes in and heats up the ground, and then that energy is lifted up somehow, magically, causing the jet streams to flow. That’s totally incorrect. It violates the first, second, and third laws of thermodynamics to have an energy source that’s first dissipating and then reconcentrating into organized energy fields like the jet stream. It, basically, doesn’t work.

Also, there is just not enough energy to do that. Take, for example, hurricanes and tornadoes and the kinds of storms that build-up and develop into these larger storms. Once again, simple energy calculations show that, in an average small hurricane, you would literally have to take the energy from the entire globe for, probably, a couple of days to feed into that storm to give it enough energy to cause the storm, which means that the rest of the globe would go without any energy, just to feed that storm. Clearly, that’s not happening.

The standard theory for how hurricanes develop now includes salt content and basically says that hurricanes develop because the cloud system is absorbing the warm water, evaporates, causing a stirring form of motion around a low cell, starts to spin, and then this forms the hurricane. But how can you maintain that low cell when you have wind rushing into it at 200 miles an hour? There’s clearly a problem here.

Let’s take a tornado. They talk about wind sheers in, say, a cold front and a warm front coming together, and these move by each other causing the rotating motion that would cause a tornado. Clearly, if you look at tornadoes, they come DOWN OUT OF THE CLOUDS. They do not have anything to do with wind sheer, especially down at ground levels where they are very damaging, where the biggest tornadoes develop.

There are all kinds of physics problems involved in meteorology.

In the formation of the jet stream which gets up to the upper atmosphere, where we’re dealing with interaction of outer space and Earth, there are obvious connections with the jet stream and high-and low-pressure cells in the atmosphere, because the jet stream will wrap around, up and over, and down below high and low cells. So, there is some association between the high-and low-pressure cells that are down at the surface of the Earth and the movement of the jet stream which is up in the upper atmosphere.

We know that there is an Ionosphere which exists on both the day and night side of Earth, equally. It’s not different on the night side. Well, it’s a bit different but not extremely different on the night side as it is on the day side of the Earth. And we have the very interesting property of the northern and the southern jet streams. We have three jet streams on planet Earth. The northern tropical belt or semi-tropical belt flows eastwardly around the Earth. The southern semi-tropical belt flows eastwardly around the Earth. And the central equatorial jet stream flows westerly around the Earth.

What causes this counter-rotating set of jet streams? The northern and southern jet streams snake around and dip down toward the Earth, and snake wildly—kind of snaking patterns—around the Earth. Whereas the westward equatorial jet stream moves in a very, very steady, concentrated stream, westward, right around the equator, sometimes just a little north of the equator, sometimes a little south.

None of these things make any sense given a Sun which just is putting out solar light radiation in the form of visible light and ultraviolet light, and the other forms of light that affect Earth.

The other thing is that most of the light that comes from the Sun—the ultraviolet, the infrared, the x-rays, everything but the visible—is pretty much lost in the upper atmosphere. So, the only thing that really reaches the surface of the Earth is visible light. And, of course, that turns into infrared heat which the animals use to see, and the fish under the water. There is a lot of infrared light that is generated from the visible light coming in. In other words, things heat up; they give off infrared light, kind-of like an iron that you iron your clothes with. If you plug it in and heat it up, and then put it on the table, you will not see the iron at night with your eyes, but an animal would, because they see in the infrared. Infrared light is secondary light, secondary transmission, but the point is, our weather simply could not form, we would have very bad weather.

Let’s take a look at another issue here, and that is cloud production. How do clouds form? There is a very interesting piece of equipment in physics; it’s called a cloud chamber. You put moisture in there, and then you put a high electric field along that chamber, and water droplets form. In fact, they use it. It was one of the very early forms of detecting subatomic particles. The subatomic particles would move through the cloud chamber, ionize the water, and leave a little trace, and therefore you could see these subatomic particles moving around and spinning in a nearby magnetic field. That’s literally called a cloud chamber. But, you would not form the cloud if you didn’t put this extensive electric field across the cloud chamber. To translate that into our atmosphere, clouds could form, a water accumulation could occur, but the big Cumulonimbus, the storm-type clouds and the hurricane-type clouds, those clouds would not form at all if you did not have some kind of significant electric field.

So, to start putting all of this information together. Looking at weather in general through many different aspects, the science that is taught in meteorology is simply wrong. It could not possibly explain tornadoes, and cyclonic storms, and thunder coming out of clouds that have lightning bolts coming out of them.

The standard explanation for lightning, for example, is that there are thermal currents in a cloud. You can see those thermal currents. But, that is not the source of lightning. Lightning is an electrical phenomenon. You could have all of the movement of thermal currents that you would like, but it’s not going to GENERATE an electric field that is going to then send a lightning bolt down to the ground. Whereas, with the vertical upward electrical phenomenon above major storms, there is no mechanism for lightning to leave.

Say it did form by that mechanism. There is no way for this lightning to then leave that cloud to some place else because the cloud would be, basically, electrically neutral relative to everything else.

So, the lightning and the spikes that we see above the storm system, and also below the storm system reaching the ground, has to be the result of some much larger electrical system in the atmosphere.

You put all of this stuff together and you realize that standard meteorology today is just bogus. It cannot explain anything. That’s why weathermen are right 80% of the time. Their models can predict under normal circumstances.

Let’s talk about weather modeling and climate modeling as it is performed today by meteorologists and related professionals. What they do is, they take PAST data and they say:

"Today is like a day that occurred 3 years ago, similar weather patterns, similar wind patterns."

Then they do a statistical analysis. This is also the way they predict where hurricanes will go, by the way. They take this past data, and then they say: "This is what our computer model predicts." But, this is why they are wrong on the very violent storms—because they’re using past data that has nothing to do with the SOLAR conditions that exist today, when they’re trying to predict.

Let’s take Hurricane Floyd; it came into Florida. The computer models said that the storm would approach land and then turn northward. And, in fact, they were correct in that. But, if certain other conditions were a little bit different, that would not have happened, and Floyd would have come into Florida, killing millions of people, because they didn’t give any evacuation notice to Florida.

So, they are, basically, using very crude, incorrect models.

[Editor’s note: Furthermore, you more aware readers are likely to be wondering where artificial weather control enters this picture. And, of course, the answer is that such covert manipulations add yet another layer of unpredictability for the already befuddled meteorologists to contend with.]

It turns out that the most important component of weather forecasting is in the SOLAR electric fields. The solar wind passes by Earth, that carries the electric field with it; and I’ve identified 17 of what I call local environmental batteries, or lebs. These are, literally, batteries or capacitors that exist around the planet Earth and they are built-up by the solar conditions.

The Solar System is dominated by the Sun. I would estimate the Sun is putting out 100,000 times more electrical energy than it is putting out physical light energy.

We are very much buffered from this energy because we have a huge magnetic field, and there are many other conditions in space which buffer us from this electrical energy which is just pouring by us, continually.

Let’s look at a New Moon. The Moon moves in front of Earth, breaks that electrical flow, and then moves out of the way. It gives us tremendous bombardment after that Moon moves out of the way, the first and second day after the New Moon. That’s the condition that has been identified as being one of the leading causes of kicking-off major hurricanes and storms. What it does is: The Moon is interacting with the solar electric field. It’s that CHANGE which causes the storms, and causes the environment around Earth to change, and thus affects Earth weather.

Planetary electrical alignments are another factor. There has been a lot of misinformation about planetary alignments regarding, say, earthquakes and all kinds of devastation when the planets line-up. There was one alignment back in the 1990s where we had, I think, 5 or 6 planets lining-up, and everybody thought the world would come to an end. People were predicting gravitational effects. They were ridiculous predictions based on a very poor understanding.

Gravitationally, we are NOT affected by the other planets. What we are affected by are the electrical alignments that these planets hold with the Sun. When the planets line-up, there are electrical connections made which increase the energy flow around Earth. That can affect us and, in fact, does affect our weather.

I’ve made a lot of weather predictions based on the electrical alignments of celestial objects—especially when you throw a comet in, for example, which is very large, electrically. The electrical size of a comet is very much larger than its physical size. That’s something that standard astronomy and space scientists and astrophysicists simply don’t understand.

In fact, to date, astrophysicists, space scientists, and astronomers deny that there is anything electrical in outer space at all. They want to explain everything in terms of gravity and magnetic fields which, somehow, self-exist out there—which is another quagmire in modern space physics.

These scientists, many of whom have very poor physics backgrounds, talk about magnetic effects. I’ll just name off a few:

Io, the small moon of Jupiter, close to the big moon of Jupiter, carries with it a tremendous electrical current. The astronomers say: "This is due to the fact that Io is moving in Jupiter’s magnetic field and it causes the 'dynamo effect’, and this causes the electrical current." When, in fact, it’s the OPPOSITE.

The electrical current is part of the electrical current flow between the Sun and Jupiter, and the small moon is just getting in the way and carrying the current with it. That’s creating the magnetic field. What they don’t understand is that these magnetic fields do not just self-generate. In fact, it goes back to very fundamental electrical physics, called Maxwell’s equations. It’s a set of four equations that describe the interaction between magnetic fields and electric fields, and basic electric charges.

Fundamentally, magnetic fields do not self-exist. They only exist when charges move and create magnetic fields. To understand magnetic fields in outer space, you have to understand that charges have to move to create those magnetic fields. For charges to move, you need some sort of battery or capacitor that is sustaining the condition; in other words, it’s there all the time. These charged currents, then, create the magnetic field, not visa-versa.

There’s another thing that space scientists and astronomers talk about, called "magnetic reconnection", where the magnetic field lines go around and then reconnect. It’s as if they float out into the middle of nowhere and then came back and reconnect into a particular region. What they don’t realize is that this is simply a SECONDARY effect. The more fundamental thing you have to look at is: what are the electric fields that are causing the electrical current, that are causing the magnetic field? It’s that progression. They are looking backwards, and they never get to the electric fields, or the electrical currents, because they don’t understand the fundamental concepts of Maxwell’s equations.

These modern concepts of "magnetic reconnection" include a thing called "solar pick-up ions". Another fallacy is—it’s actually an impossibility—astronomers have been trying to explain why the solar wind particles accelerate once they’ve left the Sun. Throughout an interplanetary stage they’re moving along, and all of a sudden they see these tremendous accelerations in the solar wind particles. And so, they theorize that the magnetic field is sweeping out and it picks up these ions and sweeps them out by some kind of magnetic acceleration. There, again: in fundamental physics the only thing a magnetic field can do to a charged particle is change its direction; it cannot add energy. So, once again, the fundamental physics that these scientists have created, based on magnetic fields, is fundamentally flawed.

This leads all the way back to meteorology, where scientists talk about the magnetic storms on the Sun, and what causes solar flaring. They talk about "magnetic bubbles" in the Sun that burst, and the energy comes bursting out in these streamers of charged particles. Totally false! A magnetic field, of itself, cannot impart the energy to a charged particle. It can only change its direction of motion, once again, going right back to Maxwell’s equations.

The reason I’m going through all of this is because it would be impossible for these scientists to come to any kind of correct conclusion when they don’t understand the fundamental processes at work in the Solar System. The real fundamental processes come back to the Sun, which is putting out an excess current of protons, thusly causing a huge capacitor. That is the electrical driving-force of the entire Solar System.

What I’m saying is: I realized this in my early study of the Solar System back in 1979, when I was observing these phenomena and theorizing that comets were not dirty snowballs and that the solar environment has to have an electric field, a SUSTAINED electric field.

There is something about electric fields in outer space. They cannot exist for very long by themselves, because currents would quickly move and cancel them. So, there has to be an ongoing source of energy to continue to resupply this battery or capacitor. That turns out to be the fusion of the Sun.

Now, that leads back to the condition of the Sun. If the Sun had fusion in its core, as these astronomers theorize, then there’s no way to get a charged differential up to the surface, and therefore out into the Solar System. So, now we’re talking about the solar energy source—fusion.

Literally, every basic theory that modern astronomers use turns out to be incorrect. They are fundamentally flawed. There is no way that you can translate this into meteorology and come up with any kind of correct prediction or answers because they don’t understand the very fundamental, basic energy source in the Solar System, and that is: the Sun’s fusion is not in its core, it’s at the surface of the Sun, up at the upper atmosphere.

One of the fundamental properties of fusion is that it separates charge and the protons go out. It’s a rather complicated situation but, basically, the Sun is like a "super atom". It has a corona of very high-energy electrons which are in orbit, literally at very high velocities, around the central, positively charged core of the Sun. So, you have the super-atom state. When the proton streamers come off of the Sun, they are accelerated through the corona, which is NEGATIVELY charged; then they come blasting out. This is the cause of solar flaring. In fact, you would not even have solar flaring with the solar core fusion model, where fusion is IN the core.

In fact, before SOHO and these solar satellites were up in orbit, the standard concept of the Sun was that it was just a very smooth, glowing, orange ball. That’s what would be predicted if you had the core model of fusion IN the Sun.

When they got up there, all of the data contradicted that model, yet they kept the model, which is one of the big problems in astronomy. They continue to use models that are outdated, even though all this new data tells you, directly, that the model could not possibly be true. So, decade after decade these scientists are flying around the world, going to conferences, spouting totally incorrect physics.

Their papers are being published because it’s the thing to do, the mode to follow, and there’s no progress being made. NASA now has 10-year programs in place; one is called "The Sun-Earth Connection". They are just beginning to ask some of the very fundamental questions that I already had answered back in 1979 on how the solar wind translates into energy in the Solar System.

Back to the whole idea of weather. To understand Earth weather, you first have to understand that the Sun fusion is not in the core; it’s up at the surface of the Sun. That translates into tremendous electrical energy in the Solar System. The planets and the comets and the moons of the Solar System all are discharging this battery or capacitor that’s built-up around the Sun. In the process of discharging this capacitor, the electrical energy is blowing through the Solar System all the time and is, basically, the cause of our weather.

Now, a good example of a hurricane, that according to standard theory could not exist, is one that was observed on Mars. Mars has no oceans, no water. But, a huge hurricane, large enough to be visible from Earth, was seen on Mars and it lasted for days, moving around the Martian atmosphere. This was a major hurricane. So, obviously, the theory that warm water is the cause of hurricanes could not possibly be true, and also for all the other reasons that I’ve stated. That’s just one counter-example.

Scientists just totally ignore those contradictory examples because they’re stuck on their theoretical structure that, unfortunately, is totally wrong. But, they are the people who have the press. They have the journal publications, the grants, the whole system of funding.

And it’s all locked-up on these people, many of them who are quite old. The young guys have to buy into this or they don’t get their PhD, get funded, and so on. It’s a system that is terribly troubled and in big trouble, but it goes on because the funding is locked in place.

In fact, this year, interestingly enough, the National Science Foundation and most of the congressional budgets for science doubled. Somebody asked me if I thought that would help improve science. I said: "No. You’ll just get twice as much of the same." And that’s really what will happen. In fact, it will help lock-in these theories even more, because now the fundamental driving force in science, which is money and funding, is even greater, and that’s the control mechanism that is keeping science in a big rut.

So, that is all related to how weather gets predicted and analyzed. The fundamental situation with weather, however, is that the main driving force of our major weather systems, including our winds, is the electrical component of the Sun. Without that, within a day or two, Earth would turn into a cold nothing. And literally, within a week, our atmosphere would freeze and fall down to the ground as crystals. It’s just incredible the amount of energy that comes from our Sun.

When people talk about climate or long-range trends, I don’t believe any of that. I never believed the "Greenhouse Effect", for example, because very simply, our daily allotment of energy is coming directly from the Sun. A good way to understand this is:

When we are in daytime, we are receiving from the Sun, directly. Then, as the Earth spins around and you go into nighttime, you’ll probably drop an average of 20-30 degrees between day and night temperatures. And, say that as you came around again, the Sun wasn’t there the next day; it just shut-off for some reason. Now you would continue to drop 10, 20, 30 degrees per day—actually, per half day, in fact. And within a very few short days, the entire Earth would just be frozen and we would continue to go into a deep freeze, very rapidly.

So, our Sun, our climate, literally everything on Earth is very intricately related to the solar output on a DAILY basis. This is not years, or centuries, or anything else. It’s on a daily basis.

The other thing that I’ve discovered about weather is that not only is the energy for these storms coming in from outside the planet, but in many cases water is building-up in these storms from outside the planet, also. This occurs when we, basically, electrically attach, just like a comet does, to the solar environment, and the hydrogen and oxygen that are in our local environment in outer space combine and they come pouring in.

Now, you can see a storm develop, coming across, say, the Rocky Mountains into the mid-Western states or from the Pacific Coast into, say, Oklahoma and that region, and you can see these storms building up. The satellites are looking down, and the satellites show how much moisture is in the air. You can look directly at the infrared and at the components of the satellites that look at just water, and you can see that, as those storms move in to the center part of the North American continent, water is being added to that system.

You have to ask yourself: "Where is that water coming from?" It wasn’t there when this storm came off the coast. In many cases there was no storm coming off the coast. The storm actually developed in the middle of the country.

I just saw last night an example—this was Hurricane Claudette—which was moving-in off the Gulf Coast into Texas. Just as it reached shore, I snapped a picture of the National Weather radar, and also the water content in this storm. At the same time, there was a weather system moving through the midwestern states—specifically, Illinois and Indiana and Michigan. And in the same time that Claudette, the hurricane, moved-in off the Gulf, the storm in the Midwest gained, probably, three times as much energy and three times as much water as the hurricane. And all the focus (and the news) was on the hurricane.

I’m just pointing out that this hurricane was going over the ocean, picking-up water, yet a storm in the Midwest in the United States, in the same amount of time, and with no source from any ocean or body of water, picked-up three times the amount of water in that storm as the hurricane, which had been passing over the ocean for days.

Another point here is that water is, literally, coming down from above to drive these storms because there is simply not enough water in the atmosphere to drive some of these storms.

Ask, then: Wouldn’t we be flooding? Wouldn’t this be a huge build-up in the ocean levels?

The answer is: Very quickly, much of this water moves in a hydrological cycle. There’s a three-cycle motion in Earth’s atmosphere that very quickly takes most of this water up to the North Pole and down to the South Pole, where it builds up very rapidly.

Here’s an example: After World War II there was a prop plane with five fighter pilots that had to make an emergency landing up at the North Pole. And they left them there. One of the people who was a pilot of one of those fighter planes said, I believe it was 10-15 years later, whatever it was, they got some money together and they were going to go up and salvage those airplanes. When they got to the site, the planes were nowhere to be found. They started digging. The planes were 200 feet under the ice pack. They had just been sitting there, and that’s just in a short, say, 10-year period, which shows that a couple of feet per year of water is building up—or, possibly as much as 20 feet per year of ice is building up.

So, that’s where the water is going on a continual basis from the influx of water into the atmosphere.

You have to understand, all of these components are not understood or recognized in modern meteorology. But, that’s kind-of an overview of where modern meteorology is, of current astronomical theories, and of my view of weather.

Now, let’s take the announcement this past March from the World Meteorological Organization. They made the statement that weather is going bonkers.

One thing that I’ve been almost preaching for years now is that the Sun’s energy is peaking, and it’s NOT going down. NASA keeps putting out news releases saying: "The Sun has peaked; it’s finally going down to solar minimum." The fact is that, in the year 2000, the solar maximum year, the Sun peaked AND IT NEVER WENT DOWN IN ENERGY.

What I’m talking about is the electrical energy component of the Sun. We are at a state now where the Sun is putting out tremendous, tremendous amounts of energy, over and above a normal solar maximum.

The other thing that I noticed was that comets were coming in from the southern celestial hemisphere. In other words, our south, if you look out the south end of Earth, from that direction, you would see comets coming in, just raining into the Sun. There were big ones, almost one per day. I was seeing these courtesy of the SOHO satellite images. I’m convinced that’s why they had to take SOHO down, because it was just becoming too obvious.

In fact, the big comet NEAT-V1 that came in. We just saw some very big comets coming in from the south.

My interpretation of this is that there is a very large object which has broken into the outer reaches of the Solar System, into the solar capacitor, probably way out beyond, many Pluto distances out, but in the southerly direction, at the bottom of the Solar System, so to speak, and is moving in and bringing with it an entire entourage of smaller objects, and this object is moving in.

There are a number of reasons to believe this, besides just being the rain of comets coming in from the south. One is that the U.S. and the Vatican and many other groups have put a lot of money recently into large observatories at the South Pole, and none at the North Pole. There is something very interesting going on in the southern skies. It’s very difficult to see anything down there, unless you’re near the South Pole, just because the majority of Earth’s land mass above sea water is in the Northern Hemisphere. There is very little land in the Southern Hemisphere, especially as you get down toward the South Pole. There are no good astronomical viewing locations down there. The only good place is at the South Pole, and most of us don’t have the ability to staff and build astronomical observatories at the South Pole.

At any rate, there is something very interesting going on in the southern skies and nobody is talking about it. I believe that is one of the main things that is driving our weather. Something is influencing the solar capacitor, which then is interacting with the Sun and giving us this incredible weather we have been witnessing here. And it’s just beginning to show it’s ugly head. I think it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets a lot better.

I think everybody will agree, we’re having very unusual weather, all the way back into the 1990s. We had typhoons back in the ’90s, in the old Hale-Bopp days, that had 300+ mile-per-hour winds. It also was at the same time when China and Scandinavia, those two regions of the Earth, had 250 mile-an-hour straight-line winds that came down to the surface of the Earth. In other words, the jet stream came down and touched the planetary surface and did tremendous amounts of damage. This is all the result of very unusual electric field situations around the Earth.

That’s just kind of a summary where the weather is today. We’re just beginning to see the things that are making people kind of stand-up and really take notice.

Martin: The other day, NASA announced the "discovery" of the Methuselah planet.

McCanney: Oh, yes.

Martin: Let’s talk about that.

McCanney: That was a really bizarre announcement. There are many assumptions in astronomy. Just to review what the Methuselah planet is, apparently about 8 years ago they said they first discovered this planet, if in fact, that’s what it is. They discovered it around a pair of stars that they believe one to be a white dwarf, one to be a pulsar. These are bizarre forms of stars, let’s put it that way. They detected a wobble in the motion of these two, and apparently they were finally able to get a picture of this kind-of "nub" off to the side of this twin-star system and positively identify that there was a third object there, which they called the Methuselah planet.

Of course, Methuselah was the man who lived for 900 years in the Old Testament. They called it this because it was believed that the stars in M4, which is the star cluster they were dealing with, it was believed that these stars were 12 billion years old, some of the oldest stars in our galaxy, and therefore, close to the age of the universe.

Now, you have to make the assumption—or they do—that the planet formed when the stars formed. Of course, to my way of thinking, that’s absolutely incorrect. The planet did not have to form when the star formed. So, that’s the first error in their list of assumptions.

Then they go through this convoluted argument that there could have been other planets that formed around there at the same time, thusly forming life-bearing planets. So these civilizations could have lived 12 billion years ago, not that far away from us in the galaxy, and would have died-off on the planet.

Now, this statement really surprises me, because the obvious conclusion to any thinking person would be that possibly, in that 12 billion years, they became space-going, and may be residing on this planet today. But they don’t make that connection. They simply say that they died-off on their planet.

Then they talk about the fact that this planet is 12 billion years old, almost the age of the universe, and that contradicts the "Big Bang" Theory because it was believed that these stars had to form two and three generations of stars before the heavy elements formed, like iron and the other heavier elements, that would then form the planet.

At any rate, they have all kinds of contradictions here. Is what they are looking at even a planet, being twice the size of Jupiter? Maybe it’s a small star, not even a planet at all. The other assumption is that planet, if it is a planet, formed when the stars formed, according to their theory that solar systems form all at one time.

What I am saying is that these astronomers are being paid a lot of money to speculate and daydream, because there is not a single one of them who can prove any part of any of this. I’m personally getting rather irritated at paying people to daydream. I like to daydream, too, but I don’t expect people to pay me for it, or fly me around the world to attend extravagant meetings, or go to NASA and have national news-releases based on wild speculation and daydreaming. And that’s all this is.

Why would NASA announce something like the Methuselah planet when they had discovered it 8 years ago? The answer is: NASA is hurting. They’ve got no space program. They’ve got nothing in space. The Shuttle is not flying. Nobody believes the Shuttle story. And, basically, NASA is a space agency without a space program. So, they’re trying to build-up public interest by giving these news-releases.

I think that is what’s behind the story here because, like I said, they discovered this 8 years ago. Why are they releasing this story now and making such a big deal out of it?

Martin: Part of me thinks that this is to deflect attention away from the whole Planet X scenario. And, also, this is kind-of "parallel", because the timing is about the same. Two nights ago I saw a brief mention on CNN about NASA announcing that people should not be worried about our planet being hit by asteroids because the odds are way against it. It was a several-minute blurb about asteroids and not to be afraid of asteroids. Now, why are they talking about that now, and why are they mentioning this planet now? Is it all Planet-X related?

McCanney: That’s a very good statement because I’ve heard that too, that statement about the asteroids. They’ve said: "It’s been recalculated that the probability of us being hit by an asteroid is much lower than previously thought."

Martin: Right.

McCanney: So yes, I think they’re trying to, in a subtle way, plant these bugs in the people’s minds:

"Don’t think about that dangerous outer-space stuff. You just keep working, and paying your bills, and we’ll watch the sky for you. Don’t you think about that."

Martin: [Laughter] And, of course, nobody even brings up the subject of "action at a distance".

McCanney: Right, absolutely. The real issue here is exactly that: "action at a distance". They keep pounding on the theme: "Oh, we have to be hit by something" and it’s standard disinformation. They have the reigns of the press, so they keep pounding on the same falsehoods. Their goal, of course, is that 95% of the people will be lulled to sleep and not think any more about all these issues.

Martin: I would imagine that, not only because of the Shuttle situation, but I would imagine that NASA is feeling some real heat about now, from many, many sources, because it seems like so much of their water balloon is leaking all over the place.

McCanney: Well, yeah. NASA is an agency, like many government agencies. When it started out, everybody was an engineer, doing something. When they had a project, everybody was in there working, including the head guy.
 

Then, after a few years, some people became administrators and they were administrating programs, and it got bigger. Now it’s to the point where nearly everybody is an administrator of some kind.

Martin: [Laughter]

McCanney: There’s too many chiefs and few Indians. So, connected to all these programs, all these administrators do is fly around, go to meetings and chat, write papers that are published in the journals that they oversee, and then get more funding. We’ve got $15 billion dollars a year going into "administering" a space program that has no space program.

Martin: Let’s go back to the SOHO satellite and consider the fact that SOHO is not the only thing up there to watch the Sun, and yet, we are not able, as civilians, to see what’s happening.

McCanney: SOHO is the best satellite in existence for watching the ongoing, real-time activities of the Sun—the flares, the comets coming in, the very-near Sun activity, the energy coming off the Sun. It was planned to be de-commissioned some time ago. So it’s not that unusual that it should be going off-line. It has really over-extended its lifetime by quite a bit. But what is NOT being talked about is the fact that, this past Spring 2003, two very large, new, big satellites to replace SOHO were launched with the specific job "to measure momentarily and on an ongoing basis the energy output of the Sun in all different aspects". In other words, that’s something that SOHO really didn’t do. It took pictures, and you could get a feel for that.

But now, these satellites are much more sophisticated. They have two of them for the simple reason that you need a perspective view of the Sun to see if these big flares are coming directly at us and are going to hit us. Because with SOHO, you didn’t know if it was going to hit us until it hit SOHO, and that’s only a million miles away; so by the time it hit that it, essentially, was on top of us.

So, these new satellites, with a two-eye perspective, so to speak, will be able to see the flares that are coming right at us. Also, they can measure a lot more specifically all the different kinds of energy coming off the Sun. They did this for a very specific reason. In the "inner circle" it is very well known that the Sun is putting out far more energy than it did 10 years ago. So, that’s the specific story on SOHO.

The other story is that we have probably 40-45 ground-based solar observatories that are staffed and funded by U.S. scientists, all over the globe. We have magnetic measurement stations and systems all over the globe. We have at least 20 other satellites—modern, very sophisticated satellites—which are observing the Sun and Earth weather from a distance, moving all around the Earth, out into outer-space in our vicinity, some in Earth orbit, some in more complicated orbits that go way out into the solar winds.

But we don’t get a smidgen of data from any of these. Well, maybe just a little bit, but what filters down to the public is absolutely miniscule. We’re paying for very expensive toys for very few people. This information is being funneled-up into what I call the "Secret Societies", basically the small groups who manipulate the news and are in control, building cave cities, stocking them for themselves, creating wars in Iraq, and so on.

The scientists who work in these agencies form an interesting statistic: 99% of all PhDs today are employed directly by the government. That is especially true in space-science, astronomy, and astrophysics. In that capacity, they are very much locked-in with non-disclosure agreements, and literally cannot say anything about anything that they’re doing. That’s why you only get these vague, general, gee-whiz news releases out of NASA or the Hubble Space Telescope, like this Methuselah planet, which is a non-story. It’s really a non-story when you see all of the other, very important things going on. But, that’s what they want the public to think, that they are getting some kind of really important science here. It’s really just a bunch of bull.

But, literally, the skies are crawling with these satellites—and that doesn’t include the military satellites that are up there looking at the weather. And, of course, they have all of their own meteorological departments. There are tens and tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, and companies making tremendous amounts of money on these satellites, and we do not get a single scrap of this information. We still have our weathermen in their newsrooms getting their weather feed from the National Weather Service, and they can’t tell you if it’s going to rain tomorrow.

Martin: Are there any, that you know of, observatories in the Southern Hemisphere that are, let’s say, friendly to the people or accessible by the common man?

McCanney: No, I’m not aware of any.

Martin: So, really, they’re all locked-up?

McCanney: Yes, yes. Everything is top-down controlled. There are spokespersons who would have you think that NASA is open, and there is no problem, and they would always tell you if something was going to happen. The reality is, that’s not true at all. It’s a totally cloistered, close group of people. None of them can talk to you. If you think otherwise, just call them up and ask them a real question.

Martin: [Laughter]

McCanney: You’ll see that you cannot get one word out of them. What they’ll do is tell you: "Oh, you want to talk to so and so." Then, after you’ve been passed around long enough, you’re going to realize that there is nobody who is going to talk to you there about anything real. They, literally, cannot. There was a time in the past when I was able to pick up the phone and call lots of people. But, of course, those days are over. In fact, I’m sure most people have a little sign on their desk: "Don’t talk to McCanney."
 

Go Back