A lot of people believe
that the things I talk about
had been talked about in the past.
When I was a member of 'Technocracy'
they said they had blueprints for the future.
I never saw any. I asked to see them.
The only blueprint they had was a rough [outline]
on the continental hydrology, irrigation
but no real detail on it.
How the lift locks work on the canal or anything.
I asked Scott how he felt about circular cities.
He said "No, I believe in linear cities."
And he did not question "Why circular cities?"
He just told me that we're going to use linear cities:
cities in a line.
If you start here and you go through the whole city
you have to go back to where you started from.
In the circular arrangement, if you go around
you come back to where you started. You don't need to go back
and your car is there.
In a circular plan, or distribution center
there are areas marked:
refrigeration, air conditioning, whatever it is; and you park your car
adjacent to that, instead of just parking in a big parking lot.
You have to then walk over to the shoe department
or the eyeglass department.
This way it's marked on the outside of the circle what's in there.
So you park adjacent to that area.
If more people use the food shopping area
there's a larger parking area for that.
But the only way to find out is:
how many people a day go to the food area?
What percentage go to the eyeglass area?
So the parking areas are based on that, not Fresco's decision.
What people have to understand
is how statistics are gathered;
how they're decided upon, and that's by the behavior of people.
If most people go to the childrens' center
that has the largest parking area.
If, later on, the schools become more efficient
they work with less students at a time.
The optimum amount of students depends on their age.
The older people get, the more they understand if they're exposed.
But children... You take a lot of children
and you talk to them like I'm talking to you
and you get feedback from the children.
The kind of feedback you get from the children
determines how many children you can effectively change
within the given time.
If you find out that you should have no more than 15 kids at a time
depending on how sophisticated the subject is
you have to try it and find out how it works.
And then when you write your conclusions
you say "In the system that I use
a certain number of children seem to learn faster.
I haven't tried 17 different systems yet.
There may be other conclusions. We welcome them."
(Roxanne) To me, to summarize this, it's saying
"Why don't you give your technology away today?"
I'm giving you everything I think they need
to make this jump.
Now they ask "Why don't you give your ideas away
and make them available? After all
what you're trying to do is make the world a better place;
so if you choose, just give your ideas away."
If I design a round city
and I gave it away, it'll be a commercial city.
You couldn't move in unless you pay so much a week.
See, like there's so many dentists in that city
so many barbers not a whole bunch of barbers
the amount of barbers needed to take care of that city.
But they will rent it out at a high price
because opening a restaurant in that city is a sure thing
because there's 5,000 people. Do you understand?
So it becomes commercial and damaged.
They say "Well, what about the good that it does?"
Well, let's take a helicopter. It could be used as an ambulance
or for machine-gunning people.
Most helicopters are used for military purposes;
machine-gunning people.
The laser beam can be used to diminish the effects of
optical disorders.
I mean, ophthalmology.
Lasers can be used in surgery.
They can also be connected to weapons.
If the laser beam is on the person, the bullets come out.
We have no evidence to support ideas
that were put out there for free.
And there are people who say "Well, Fresco really doesn't believe in
having his name put out there."
I do when it comes to a book that I wrote.
If people ask me questions, I can answer them.
But if another guy copies my book
word for word and
he gets a credit for that;
and people ask him "What do you do about this or about that?"
They don't have that kind of background. They can't answer questions.
But if you check with history, not Fresco
you'll find that Louis Pasteur
recommended vaccination. It never was a team of scientists.
You find that the Wright brothers
really developed the first powered flying machine.
So you can go and write to the Wright brothers and say
"How do you make your propeller?
How much pitch does it have? " Only they know because they made it.
You have to go to Edison, saying
"How do you know how much of a vacuum to put in a glass lamp?
How do you decide the elements you use?"
You have to have to go to Edison. The gas company can't tell you that.
When I was a kid there were people who went around the streets
lighting the gas lamps that were all along the street.
He was a lighter, with a long pole, and he lit those lamps.
Then, when Edison's system came out
he had to instruct people as to how it worked.
When Tesla invented the Tesla Coil, he had to instruct people.
But if another guy lifted it
and he says "What's the resistance of the wires in that?"
They didn't know, only Tesla knew.
So it seems that in history
Einstein's theory of relativity
Pasteur, Darwin's theory of evolution
as against a religious concept.
Is it perfect? No. But it's a hell of a lot greater.
And Darwin spent many years
trying to put this stuff together.
I'm not against teaching people physics and science. That's fine.
That's the elements for putting things together.
The books that I read by other people
did not have all the answers. Semantics never touched the social system.
Jacques Loeb informed us
a great deal about plant tropism, geotropism
all these things that we knew little about
but Jacques Loeb was associated with it.
So when you have the nuclear program
to develop the atom bomb, there were always people in charge
like Oppenheimer; he was in charge of nuclear research.
Einstein's formula helped in nuclear research.
There were many lead scientists that directed that.
When you went to Germany, you'd find Wernher Von Braun
as head of rocketry.
Why was he head? Because others didn't experiment.
He experimented before it became necessary to build rockets.
He belonged to a young German group
in which they experimented with rockets.
When Hitler got in, Hitler backed him.
But Wernher Von Braun had to educate
all the scientists that knew nothing about rockets.
Where did he get the ideas from? Dirty, hard work, with no financing.
There was an American scientist named Goddard
who spent his own money on rocket development
and he was able to get rockets to go up a mile high
and people thought he was a dreamer.
And he said "If I talked about rockets in the scientific community
I was looked upon as a foolish person
who was not practical. " Do you understand?
Are scientists the prime judge of things?
No, they're not. You have to ask Goddard
"How do you make your fuel combust?"
In other words, when you launch a rocket
with, say, 20 pounds of propellant
you're lifting that 20 pounds of propellant up there.
So the theory of rockets is to burn all the fuel you can
and get the most propulsion, so you're not lifting up the fuel, too.
If you fill to your car with gasoline to get to California
you're not going to get as many miles by filling it as you go.
Otherwise, you're carrying the gasoline with you.
Somebody who found that out, we should know who he is
so we could question him. But
what happens is, it appears, that
some members of The Zeitgeist Movement
and The Venus Project think that Fresco
picked up all these ideas from books. No, he didn't.
He worked his ass off, compiling bits of information
and taking out the inconsistencies.
Now, people come along and they say (like some people do)
they quote all the different things of The Venus Project
and do not quote the source.
So they get the applause, and they get the approval
but they've done nothing to arrive at these ideas
and then they tell me to give out ideas.
Did they give out ideas? Did they make any contributions?
Did they sponsor me in the 40 years of work?
I had to pay for that myself, just like Goddard had to pay for it.
If they finance the books and publishing, sure I'd give them away.
It belongs to the public domain
but we don't live in that kind of a world now.
So laser beams are used on machine guns.
When the beam is on the person, or on the airplane, the bullets come out.
When it's not, they don't come out. Somebody developed that.
And the reason they took a patent out on it is because other people
would take patent on it, if they talked to them about it.
And they would not get paid for their research.
It may take 10 years to develop a laser.
If you develop a laser and give it to people
you don't know what they're going to do with it.
You have no guarantee, and the guy that invents it
doesn't care what they do with it, as long as he gets paid for it.
People don't care if Hitler used helicopters
to bomb cities or as ambulances.
I prefer that they be used for ambulances
or for surveying, aerial surveyors of farm equipment
and diseased plants.
It isn't so much the knowledge that science offers
it's how it's used.
A lot of people get mad at technology
but it's not the technology they're really mad at.
They don't know what they're mad at. What they're mad at
is the abuse and misuse of technology.
So if I put the ideas out there, and people sign an agreement
that those ideas will not be used for weapons
and they'll not be put in the public domain
only amongst those that are building The Venus Project;
otherwise, it will go off in different directions.
So, the invention of the airplane
is a wonderful thing. It could be used to move passengers faster
from one area to another.
But they can also be used to carry bombs.
Their use depends on the leadership of the country.
I don't know the leadership
that would pick up ideas that you just put out there.
Would they be used for the public good?
The doctor that told other doctors to wash their hands
before they did surgery
due to childbirth fever
he was kicked out of the hospital
because other doctors knew that they couldn't see germs
and they thought it was a theory.
The guy that found germs was a millinery man.
He worked with fabric and he noticed germs under a microscope.
It wasn't a scientist who found germs, but the man's name
is out there, in all the books on where the microscope came from.
If you don't know where the microscope came from
you don't know which questions to ask.
The guy that invented the microscope would be asked
"How did you think of it? Where did you get the idea?"
Well, the public doesn't know that. If you get up and say
"There are wonderful instruments, x-ray machines.
We don't need to cut the body open. We can use fiber optics.
Light pipes to see cancer..."
But if you give it to people, they don't use it appropriately.
They use it for profit. If you don't understand that
look at the earnings today of the large corporations
that work for profit. They don't work for the betterment of humanity.
Doctors are supposed to take care of people.
That's part of the oath, as you become a doctor.
But if you can't afford certain things, you don't get it.
I'm talking of socialized medicine
or making medical procedures available to everyone.
The doctor says "How am I going to make a living
if I make it available? " He's trapped in this system!
He has to charge [money] because he has to pay for things.
The doctor has to pay for all the electronic equipment
he uses in his office.
Hospitals have to buy materials
and they have to pay a contractor to put up a building.
They don't put a building where the guy's going to treat people.
So, they put up a building, then they think of all the staff working there
and the people that invested in putting up the building:
there are people that invest, and they put up the money for a return
on their investment. You've got to understand
that that is a predatory system
where everybody makes money on any human disorder.