The first question which is, goes like this, Bismarck once said that history is quite simply a piece of paper covered with print and the main thing is still to make history and not to write it. But my question to you is whether the U.S. president can still make history with this needle-threading micromanagement of Congress of our foreign policy? Well, they've made it more difficult and it goes back before my presidency for a long time. I think there has been a constant effort on the part of not all the members of Congress but enough of them to create a problem to reduce the powers of the presidency. And I think presidents have basically fought against that as much as they can. Now they haven't been able to completely stop things. We felt that some students had to be made safe that were down in Grenada and we made them safe. But that was some time ago. It seems to me that the present rate of congressional encroachment, Mr. President, on your prerogatives and constitutional obligations in the field of foreign policy were headed for a constitutional crisis of major magnitude. Well, and I think a president has to fight and there's one thing a president has got to remember and I intend to fight that, not just for myself but for those who will come after me. And that is that you have to do everything you can to preserve this difference in the powers of the two bodies. And I'm not going to give up on it. I'm going to continue to fight for that. And you have to take, I think the basis is you take the case to the people about that because the president is the only elected official who is elected by all the people. All others have to remember a particular obligation to, if in the Senate, a state or in a congressman, to a district.  Well, hasn't the time come, Mr. President, to test, for example, the constitutional alibi of the War Powers Act by taking it up all the way to the Supreme Court? Well, if that has to be done, but right now I'm refusing to invoke those because I don't think that, first of all, I don't believe that it was constitutional either. So why not test? And that may be the thing that you have to do. But right now, I'll continue to, I'll observe it if it, being the law, if I think that the situation warrants, but the things that they are now demanding, some elements in the Congress that they say it should be invoked for some of the things going on now, I don't agree at all. Well, at which point, since it is still the law of the land, do you feel, Mr. President, that it should be invoked?  I think I'd almost have to see the issue. I would think that what it really would be intended for is the sending of armed forces into an attack against another force or another nation, or a situation of that kind. Not retaliation. No. Every place I have ever asked our forces to go, I have said they go there with the knowledge that if they are attacked, they defend them to. In recent years, Mr. President, Congress has voted down arms sales to foreign countries, proposed, in fact, imposed in some cases arms control negotiating positions on you, on your predecessors, which have automatically weakened your bargaining leverage. They've tied strings to foreign aid. They've reduced foreign aid. They've circumscribed COVID intelligence operations. And I'm asking you in a historical perspective whether that doesn't mean that we are somehow transforming our presidential system, which our founding fathers intended, into a parliamentary system. Well, whether it's going to wind up as a parliamentary system or not, with its advantages and disadvantages, I don't know. But I do know that what you say is true about these other things, and if we look at the whole record, and the record maybe should be presented to the people, the media can be helpful in that, let's just look at what they've done and what the record is. Vietnam. We finally, the president came in and negotiated an end to the war in Vietnam. For peace terms, we had to sell the South Vietnamese on accepting the peace terms. We had built up and trained a very sizable army of South Vietnamese. We left, but we left our, we left weapons there, helicopters, tanks, jeeps, all of this. We knew that the North Vietnamese had still not withdrawn. They were still in South Vietnam territory. They had agreed to the peace settlement also, but we said to the South Vietnamese, if they violate this agreement and attack, we will provide the fuel and the ammunition for those weapons that we have left with you for your army to defend yourself. Well, they did violate the treaty. They did attack. And when that president asked the Congress for the money to provide those things, the Congress denied them. And today we see a communist empire extending all the way from North Vietnam clear across to the border of Thailand. Now Angola and Portugal gave up their colony there and it allowed it independence. There was factions started competing as to, well like an election here, as to who was going to set up the government and so forth. And one faction appealed for help, the Soviet Union and Castro. And today, well, these years later, they are fighting there. The then president asked the Congress to allow them to provide weapons for and help to the more democratic faction there so that they at least could fight back. And again, the Congress denied that. And so today we see a government with 37,000 Cuban military personnel in there fighting this other faction, which I think every bit of evidence indicates is more representative of the people of Angola than is the present government. If the people could actually choose, I think they would choose Mr. Savimbi's United Forces. But you can go back way before that or you can come up to the present with the things that they're doing in Central America and all the rest. And so you've mentioned, Mr. President, very quickly you've mentioned half a dozen congressional amendments that we've seen since Cambodia that have, in effect, made the world safer for the Brezhnev doctrine. We see this over and over again, and now we have the Byrd Amendment being the latest example. Isn't it time for the president himself to explain to the American people there isn't one American and a hundred who understands the history of these amendments and the impact they had? But again, Arnold, present company accepted. I have spoken across this country to audiences of all sizes up to as many as 40,000 in a rally and spoken of things like this. And I don't see it on the TV news after I've made the speech. I see myself on the news saying something like, I'm glad to be here, and then they switch to a voiceover, but also in the print media. No press, maybe. Here's these things, but there are just constant things of that kind, and when you mentioned the foreign aid and all the rest, that is a horrifying thing that we're doing. We're in a contest, the two superpowers here, with regard to which way many of these newer and lesser developed countries are going to go. And we have said that we're going wherever people want freedom and democracy, we're going to try to be of help to them. Soviet Union does it in another way. They do it with military force. And to shut down, as the Congress has, on our ability to help these other countries is literally to be, well, it's in line with the Brezhnev doctrine. How do you presently assess the consequences, Mr. President, if the Congress satisfied with the few cosmetic changes made by Nicaragua's Marxist government, refuses to fund the Nicaraguan resistance? What message does this send to the rest of the world, and couldn't our adversaries, for example, interpret this as some kind of retrenchment that is leading us back to isolationism? Yes, and it's a case of the Congress doing that, of making us once again no longer trusted as not too many years ago we had gotten in that position, that the United States couldn't be trusted when they withdraw this ability to help. We, I think from the very first, have said that we would prefer, as I think everyone else would, a democratic settlement in which the people of Nicaragua would be allowed to choose the government, the form of government, that they want to have. We've been accused, on the other hand, that all we're out for is a military victory. Well, no, what we have said is the threat of force and overthrow is what is needed to bring the present totalitarian government, the communist Sandinista government, to bring them to what everyone is trying to persuade them to do, and that is democratization. And that can only happen if the freedom fighters remain a viable element. Now we're willing to go along with the plans that have been proposed, our own that we suggested with Congressman Wright, and even the Arias Plan, which we think has some loopholes in it that are making it difficult, but we're willing to evidence that yes, if it is possible to bring about a democratic transition, nonviolent, this will do. But we insist on maintaining the freedom fighters as a viable element there in order to try and make the Sandinista government honest in whatever it may pretend to do. So you do believe that the Marxist government could conceivably negotiate its way out of existence? Is that your basic premise here? Only if there is that threat there in which they would see themselves faced with a war and an overthrow, that is your only chance.  Now we have to be on guard, and I think that the other Central American countries are pretty much of a mind, to stay on guard that they're not going to fall for just cosmetic changes and pretend democratization. But Mr. President, I think you know better than I do that all they have to do is reopen Radio Catolica and La Prensa and then people up on the hill will say, you see, they've done it, no more for the contrary. I know. But what we have to do is make sure that those other people up on the hill that do believe as we do are there and are aware that there are restraints that have been put on La Prensa and Catolica, the radio program, and that basically the bulk of the press remains totally subservient to the Sandinista government and that they must be aware of this. And again, as I say, if willing to go along with this, they've signed and then either they must truly make good or reveal themselves as being unwilling to abide by the agreement they signed with regard to the peace effort and at that point we must be prepared to help the freedom fighters get the kind of government the people of that country want. But I understand from the freedom fighters or their commanders, sir, that they may have to start pulling their people out by October 15th unless they have assurances that they will be refunding. You know that the Secretary of State has announced our desire for $270 million and we are willing to and I know that the freedom fighters are willing to engage in a ceasefire. But it must be the result of negotiations between them. It can't be just a unilateral declaration of ceasefire with the Sandinistas. In one situation you have what is presently a government and their army is going to remain a factor. The other, the freedom fighters are just that without a government. They cannot be expected to lay down their arms and disappear in any kind of a ceasefire. So it must be a negotiation in between the two. You would surely take more seriously what the Commandantes say for their own internal consumption than what they tell the outside world and I don't know if you know that Commandante Jaime Wielach explaining the Guatemalan peace plan to his own people, to the Cadres, said that our top priority task is to continue to fight the mercenaries until they are liquidated, strengthen the armed apparatus of the state and defend the revolution. So the Sandinistas keep sending signals that their revolution is not up for negotiation. So why didn't you ask for $270 million up in the front? Well, no, wait a minute. This is the one thing. We here in ourself, we understand what we're up against and we don't want failures. We are still deciding the timing of this and our request. But we mean it.  I just have to plead that we really want this. We want them sustained and with the experience we have in the bargaining with the Hilonor, we're trying to do what we think is the best way to get that end result. There's no sense in going up there and then being defeated, and there it is. Well, you asked me, sir, if you recall in early 1986 what my main concern was, my main fear, and I said that you would return to Rancho del Cielo in early 89 having left as one of your legacies the consolidation of a Marxist-Leninist beachhead in Central America and you said, oh, no, you can bet anything you want against that happening. Would you give me the same reply today? Yes, I would. I'm going to do everything I can to see that what I told you then happens. But is it within your power today, sir? Well, this is what we have to find out. We received quite a setback with the last election and the return to domination of the Congress by the other party. We couldn't have achieved the things that we have achieved economically or anything else if we hadn't had one party, the Senate, for those six years. But now we're back to the thing that we've known for a half a century now is the Democrats' power with both houses of the Congress. So our strategies had to be changed a little bit. Well, Arnold Bauchman talking about what's happening on the Hill, I don't know if you had a chance. I'm sure you had other things to read today, but Arnold Bauchman wrote in our commentary section, Dr. Bauchman from the Hoover Institute says that he expressed concern that people like Newt Gingrich and Bob Dornan and Bill McCollum collectively say that the number of hard left members of the House of Representatives who are now acting as pro-Soviet agents of influence is growing and that they have undue influence on what happens up on the Hill. Yet when this is pointed out, it automatically triggers accusations of McCarthyism, etc. The whole process is becoming increasingly sophisticated in the old days. It was easy to see what was going on. Now it's a much more subtle process. So what is to be done when two dozen pro-Marxists with real political clout can in our own Congress influence great issues of defense, arms control and international security? This is a problem that we have to face and I don't know, it would be easy enough to just stand up and start shouting, but some years ago I happened to know because I've been a student of the communist movement for a long time, having been a victim of it some years ago in Hollywood.  And they have succeeded. You know that today a voice raised in that even the people that are anti-communist, there is a tendency to say, oh, enough of that. Hey, this is the old term McCarthyism and so forth and all of that. Well, they're taking advantage of this now. Remember there was once a Congress in which they had a committee that would investigate even one of their own members if it was believed that that person had communist involvement or communist leadings. Well, they've done away with those committees. That shows the success of what the Soviets were able to do in this country with making it unfashionable to be anti-communist. So you have to be careful in opposing them to not trigger that reaction on the part of your own people that you're depending on to support you. And it's no fun, but it is true. They have a disinformation campaign we know worldwide. And that disinformation campaign is very sophisticated and is very successful, including with the great many in the media and the press in America. And on the Hill, too. And on the Hill. One question about Iran, Mr. President. Secretary Weinberger, as you saw yesterday, says there's no way to deal with an irrational and fanatical regime like Iran has today. We also know that arms embargoes are not very effective. In fact, they're ineffectual. And the Soviets say they'd rather try the UN flag for warships that don't belong to the region. The French say they're interested in this idea. How do you react? I am willing to hear the details of what it is that the Soviets are proposing. And listen to the details of that. But my own feeling is that what we're doing there is just what we've been doing for many, many years. As a matter of fact, we've had a naval force there for 48 years. Just as we have naval forces in other places that in the event of conflict would be essential to our national security in the Caribbean, in the Mediterranean, or in the Philippines, in the Pacific, in that area. And the same has been true of this body of water. And all that we're doing there is, well, we're carrying out what I have always said that we won't send any of those units any place without giving them the right to defend themselves. And I think that the main issue is not just Iran or not just whether Kuwait ships carry an American flag. What is an issue there is the maintaining of international law and international waters that those waters are open to the traffic of all the nations on earth. And if we ever once give in and back away from one of those waters or areas such as the Persian Gulf, I think we lose any standing that we have in the world. We once again are back an untrustworthy ally. But we also, where does it stop? And someone then, as well as Qaddafi tried, get us to withdraw from the Mediterranean. Cuba say that we can't be in the Caribbean anymore. I don't think we should set a pattern of that kind. If you were dealing with rational people in Cuba, you were dealing with a irrational person in Libya until you heard from you on April 14th, 1986. Yes. Aren't we going to be faced with the same situation in Iran dealing with these people until they learn the hard way that they've got to behave differently? That's right. And that's, you've just said it, what the answer is until they learn the hard way. So when they zap us they can be expected, we can expect that they'll be zap-backed. But you think that will bring them to their senses? Well, the main thing is what we have to do is continue with this effort to bring the war to an end. And here again we have a number of allies, I think most of the countries in the world, including the Soviet Union in this instance are on that side. And that should continue to be our main effort. You mentioned the Soviet Union and I noticed that I only have three minutes left of your time, Mr. President. Do you really feel that a new dawn for a new detente is upon us with Glasnost? Is that your reading of Glasnost? No. I'm normally an optimistic fellow, but I believe that the record is such that I believe that we must continue. But I think I summed it up in a Russian proverb that I recited, Mr. Gorbachev in one of our meetings. I'm not a linguist, but I learned this one in Russian. Dovya, no provya. Trust, but verify. And that's what must guide us. I think some of the people that think that any effort to, for example, have an arms agreement or whatever with the Soviet Union, that to ever make any such move is wrong, I think those are people that whether they realize it or not down inside have decided that war is inevitable, that someday the end result must be a war. Well, if that's going to be a war with nuclear weapons, where do we live then once they've poisoned the land with radioactivity and we've poisoned their land and where do we all go? But I believe that peace is worth trying for, but not blindly. We know their record and so forth. And so, yes, we'll negotiate, no, but it'll all have to be based on verification. Then why did we make such a big to-do about INF before the fine print of verification was nailed down? Well, because for the first time we have come to what has amounted to an agreement in principle between the foreign ministers. Now they will meet again as the secretary has announced in October. They'll go with another meeting. That should either we'll fail and there won't be or that should pin down the details in which then Mr. Gorbachev and I could sign a binding agreement with verification principles in it. I do believe that it isn't a case of whether someone is suddenly or they'll ever changing its spots or not. But they have some very real problems that could make this desirable to them too, mainly economic. And it has been brought on by their great spending in arms and all. So they're faced with a problem in which it's to their advantage to if we can find a way to reduce these arms. My last question, Mr. President, is that by my reckoning about 12 million people have been killed in 145 conflicts since the end of World War II, none by nuclear weapons. But nuclear weapons have given Europe 42 consecutive years of peace. You seem to be envisaging a denuclearized Europe, which would make war thinkable again, wouldn't it? No, I don't think so. Because let me tell you what, first of all, in all of that peace since World War II ended, part of that, I think, came about because of a very wonderful thing that's 40 years old now and that's the Marshall Plan, which we, every war that I can ever remember in history in Europe or elsewhere, in the settlement of the war, has laid the foundation for the next war, the victor imposing things on the defeated to where one day they have at it again. This time, the Marshall Plan was something that was completely different in that we extended it not only to our former allies, but to those that had been enemies themselves. And isn't it strange that the biggest factor today, the threat of bringing about war again, is by a country that was allied with us in that other war, the Soviet Union. But I think, as I say, I think that there are things going on there that, well, as I've said, a nuclear war cannot be won unless never before. But let me also point out something else that I'm afraid some people don't understand. In this medium range situation, they're giving up, if this is signed, thousands, a few thousand warheads. We're only giving up a few hundred. Now they talk about the great superiority of the conventional weapons of the Soviet Union. I admit that they do have that superiority. But that is countered by the tactical weapons, the battlefield nuclear weapons. Now those are not being touched in this agreement. Before we ever touch those, we must be negotiating on conventional weapons also. We must never take nuclear reductions to a point that suddenly we have left them with a military advantage. So that, for those who think that this is what we're doing, doesn't go. But remember also, in keeping that peace, I departed from this in some of my lecture here, in keeping that peace for all these years, in addition to the Marshall Plan, I should have said this earlier. Remember that when we guaranteed Europe the nuclear umbrella, we were the only ones that really had the umbrella. And it took quite a while before suddenly the other side had a bigger umbrella than we did, or at least a bigger wind for blowing our umbrella away. And this is where I think that the goal must be to rid the world of those weapons. You think it would be a safer world, denuclearized world. Yes, I even wonder if they, this is the first time any Russian leader has ever proposed eliminating weapons they already have. And I wonder if maybe part of that isn't having lived with Chernobyl. And Chernobyl, bad as it was, was less than the effect of one warhead, a single warhead. They must have had some second thoughts about an exchange of nuclear weapons.  But what has happened to both countries? And where do the people live? 90,000 people still can't go back to their homes at Chernobyl. Totally denuclearized world, Mr. President, means 17 American divisions, 180 Russian divisions. Who would be perceived as a paramount military cow? No, because as I say, before we denuclearize. No, that has not, well, we've been continually negotiating with them, as you know, for years now, not only under our administration and under others, on the conventional weapons. But when it gets down to more nuclear weapons, as I said before, no, those others have to be tied in also. I know that I'm getting lots of signals, Mr. President. Right, thank you very much. I don't know if Charlie Wick passed this onto you. I thought you might give us a couple of chuckles and some useful phrases for people traveling in dangerous terms.


Hello, everybody, and welcome to another episode here on Esoteric Atlanta. Today, Stephanie and I had the privilege of doing a deep dive investigation with Angie Tilman on Athens, Georgia. When we started this episode, I thought it would be a pretty innocent episode. But of course, sometimes these investigations take a left turn. And man, did this investigation get really, really deep and really, really poked. This investigation into Athens, Georgia led us down roads that we were definitely not expecting. And there were 100% be a part two and probably a part three on this topic alone. Because this episode ended up getting very potent and very dangerous, we have had to put the episode over on Rumble where we could speak more freely. So do me a favor, follow the link down below to see the full episode. But before you go over to the full episode, make sure you do subscribe to Angie's channel as well as Stephanie's channel if you aren't already subscribed. I also have a link to Stephanie's website for bookings and for her terror course. And there's also a link to Angie's company, Fickles, where she pickles food products. And if you check on the community tab, there is a discount she's offering right now. Check that video out on the community tab so you can get a discount on some of her services. After that, make sure to head over to Rumble to check out our investigation.


It's one o'clock on Tuesday, February the 15th. I'm your host, Pete McGinnis-Mark, and you are watching Science at Soast. This whole series is intended to showcase some of the exciting new research being conducted at the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology at UH Manoa, that's Soast. And we bring in both graduate students as well as postdocs, young scientists to tell us something about their exciting new research. And I'm really pleased to say today we have Nadia Mosewa, who is from the Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Nadia is a specialist in the physics of aerosol transport and atmospheric phenomena. And today we're going to be talking about a topic which is close to my heart, tracking volcanic fog. And if any of you live on Oahu or on the Big Island and have allergies, you will certainly know a lot about fog because it's not very pleasant. So, Nadia, welcome. I apologize if I've corrupted your last name. I would just call you Nadia, but thank you very much. Thank you very much for appearing on the show.  Your specialty is atmospheric sciences, correct? That's correct. So I am a researcher with the Vogue Measurement and Prediction Program at Wachmonewa. And I've joined about nine months ago, so not too long ago, after completing my doctoral work in atmospheric science. So I did that at the University of British Columbia in Canada. And my work now focuses on numerical and dispersion modeling with kind of a broad goal of improving air quality prediction in Hawaii and providing model guidance for hazard mitigation. OK. And let's just back up a little bit. Maybe some of our viewers aren't familiar with the term fog. Can you give us a more general public description of what is fog? Right. So fog is a bit of a Hawaiian slang, actually, because it's a combination word, kind of joining volcanic and smog, but mostly in other places around the world. It's referred to as lace. So it's this haze that you see. It's in Hawaii. It's predominantly made up of sulfur dioxide and sulfate aerosols. Both of them are harmful pollutants and they affect visibility. And they have impacts on human health. They have impacts on agriculture and vegetation. So they're not great. And so we try to model how they move in the atmosphere and how downwind communities might be impacted and to what extent. And so then the state officials, the public, they can plan to protect themselves from fog and reduce the exposure. And so fog is directly associated with ongoing volcanic activity at Kilauea Volcano? That's correct. So Kilauea Volcano is pretty special in that it's been erupting near continuously for like four decades. So since 1983. And so it keeps putting out a substantial amount of emissions on a quite continuous basis. You can think about it if you take the dirtiest producing plant in mainland US, it produces an order of magnitude more pollutants on a fairly regular basis. And it does so for a very long period of time. And so that's why we typically get fog fairly regularly in Hawaii. Obviously, people on the big island would suffer from fog more often than those of us here on Oahu. Is it island-wide? I suspect you'll tell us where some of the plumes will go. But we only get fog here on Honolulu infrequently. Is that just due to the volcano shutting off or is it due to atmospheric air circulation? Yeah, so this is an excellent question. It's actually related to the predominant weather patterns that we get in Hawaii. So often we get what we call trade winds. And so those are the winds that go from the east to the west, actually from the northeast to the southwest mostly. And it relates to this high pressure system that sits just to the north of Hawaii islands. And it's responsible for these trade winds. And so we get this pattern quite a lot. So often the fog just kind of blows out from Kilauea into the ocean. Some of it gets recirculated back. And we'll see that on some of the slides I'm going to show. But generally, things move left to right on the map and most of it ends up over the ocean. And thankfully not over Oaxaca where we have, you know, lots of people living. So most of our population, yeah. So a lot more people. Lots of allergic people, yes. Well, for viewers watching on the mainland, maybe they aren't familiar, but I think your first slide will show just a little bit of the effects of this fog. So Michael, if we could have the first slide and tell us Nadia, what is it we're looking at? It looks like two totally different localities. Unfortunately not. So that's the Kona coast on the big island on a clear day versus under rock conditions. And so this happens quite regularly, unfortunately, when we have volcanic activity. And you would think that the Kona coast, that's on the Leeward side, and it would be protected by, you know, the tall peaks we have in between the volcano, the Kilauea summit and the Leeward side, but that's not the case because a lot of it gets recirculated back to the mainland. And so this haze that you see is actually, so sulfur dioxide or SO2 and sulfate aerosols. And they create that, not so they don't only create those health impacts, they also have, as you can tell, visibility effects that impacts aviation. And when we have those trade wind conditions, we often get this strong inversion from the above, which sort of keeps a lid on them. So they keep getting mixed down to the surface. And so all of those pollutants are trapped near the surface where all the people live. And so it's a big problem. I was gonna ask what altitude above sea level would that haze be? And you just said it can get trapped almost down that sea level. Yeah, so it's, and again, some of those slides that I'm going to show will probably make this a bit easier to visualize. But generally the layer closest to the surface about a kilometer deep, we call it the boundary layer. And within us is a mixing layer where things really get constantly mixed in during the day by ambient turbulence. And this layer is about a kilometer deep and things generally get kind of uniformly mixed through the depth of this layer. And most of the volcanic emissions end up in this mixed boundary layer. And so whatever we get out of the volcano ends up getting well, well, well mixed through and just first down to the downwind communities. So that's not great. You've called for some of the other slides. So let's take a look at the second one. I think we'll show the viewers a little bit better what kind of dispersal pattern you're talking about. So if you have slide two, here we go. Sure, and I'll give a bit of background on what the slide is actually showing because it's one of the products that we create. So what we do at log measurement and prediction program or VMAF for short is we create these operational forecasts of air quality so people can go and look and see if their community might be impacted if they need to take steps to protect themselves. So we have this online dashboard. It's user friendly, it's mobile friendly. And you can go every day and we update the forecast twice a day and you can see those, this is a sample image from October actually because we had more vlog, but you would see the current most recent forecast extending 60 hours into the future. So what we're looking at is if you actually look at just the gray shading on the map, so the fairly faint gray shading, that's the aerosol plume. Sort of visualize as if you'd be looking down at it from an airplane. So if you peeked out an airplane and look straight down, this is what you would see. The reason it's useful for us is because this way we can know where the plume is and we can compare it with satellite data, but it's not necessarily useful from perspective of forecasting air quality because people don't live where the plume travels, they live at the surface. And so we really want to know what's happening at the surface and how high is the risk of the surface? So the colors that you see, which is kind of the orange, yellow, red, it shows the likelihood that a certain location on the map will experience poor air quality. So where you see more red, like if the location you're at you're showing a lot of red in the next few hours, this is animated on the website. You see that into the future, you're gonna have a lot of red. It would be a good idea to try and stay indoors, avoid strenuous activity and try to protect yourself from unnecessary exposure. So we create these forecasts every day and this is a very typical pattern that we see. It does change based on ambient weather, of course, and the emission rates and all sorts of other conditions. But this unique pattern of things blowing from left to the right is very common.  So there's a bit of what we call island blocking. They go around the south point of the big island and then they get recirculated back towards the leeward coast. We call them the Kona Eddy. And unfortunately that brings aged plume and all of those pollutants right back to the people of Kona. And so it's an unfortunate and a very persistent pattern in terms of air quality. And generally, once that unfortunate stuff happens, things often go off to the ocean and then we're not as concerned about health impacts down there. Of course, this is what happens most of the time, but not all the time. Sometimes we get Kona winds and things, it turns towards the other islands and then everybody gets impacted. But this is a fairly usual picture that you would see. So these maps are generated every 12 hours. What kind of data do you use to run the model? Is it atmospheric? Is it emission from killer wire? What kinds of measurements need to be collected in order to run your model? Yeah, so this is a good way to refer to it as not just a model, it's a modeling framework because it requires a combination of models and a combination of data sets. So kind of the most bulk chunks that we have in this framework is first of all, we use a numerical weather prediction. So that's your meteorological weather forecasts that everybody is used to seeing. So we run our own weather model like the H-Manoa and we take those forecasts and then we use them in combination with information about the source, the emission rates, the vent behavior, the heat fluxes. We do plumerized modeling and then we put it all together and then we run a dispersion model using all of those kind of combined fields and that's what gives us the forecast to make it even more exciting. This is not a deterministic forecast, it's not just a model we run once. You can think of running the framework many, many times. So we run it 27 times to be precise and then we look at the likelihood that something will occur. So by running it many, many times, we get more confidence about our results. So we change things a little bit and see how much impact they have on the forecast and that's why we can create those probabilistic forecasts you see on a map which tell you how likely it is that you're gonna get log at a certain location. I see, okay. And I think the third slide would show a little bit about one of the probabilistic models. If we go to the third slide, there's three different images here. Explain to us what we're looking at on the left hand panel. That looks like you've got the volcano at the bottom and then all these gray paths are traced out. Is that your probabilistic estimate of where they would go? Not quite. This focuses on that one component of the framework, the plumerized modeling. And I'm a bit biased here because that's what I like. I love learning about buoyant plumes and how they interact with turbulence. So this is the piece that I bring to the program where I can sort of use my background to help improve a piece of the framework. So if you recall, I mentioned that we use numerical weather prediction and then we have all this information about the source conditions and then we somehow take all of that information, combine and then put it into this version model and how we combine that information is very important. So I come from a background of wildfire smoke plume models and if you look at that left hand side panel, it's actually a simulation of an idealized wildfire but it looks so awfully similar to the upper right hand side image of killer way eruption that you can see that there's quite a bit of overlap and the reason for that is because they're actually, so the heat fluxes and the buoyancy that they generate is actually quite comparable in magnitude between volcanoes and wildfires. It's the same scope of, same type of an event. It's a natural hazard. It's not a campfire. Campfire will not give you that plume and you can see that it has a lot of interesting dynamical features like it generates vortices that we see in volcanic plumes. It has this initial up drop that then disperses in a thick layer. So there's quite a lot of overlap. Of course there are differences and the difference are that the source is quite, it doesn't look the same at all. So the source is, yep. I would imagine that you would say that the plume rise component is one of the more important aspects of this whole endeavor. Let's just back up a bit. The plumes which you're measuring, they aren't like the recent Tonga eruption where you had the big violent explosion that hurled ash many tens of kilometers into the atmosphere. This is, as you say, it's more similar to heat rising from a forest fire. The energy comes from the thermal uplift as opposed to simply being thrown into the air by the volcano. Right, so if you have jets forming kind of a violent eruption that would add an extra component that generally doesn't occur in wildfires. But if you're looking at activity sort of like the most recent eruption and the previous eruption after that, there is not a lot of initial forced convection that happens above the vent. A lot of it is free convection that's just generated by the heat. That being said, the Tonga eruption, I mean a lot of the plume modeling has very similar underlying equations between volcanoes and wildfires. It used to not be the case and it's not because the volcano modeling was wrong it's because the wildfires weren't catching on. They only really became a big thing recently.  They're actually quite similar. They also, they can penetrate, they go into the stratosphere. Practically we can see traces of them all the way up. They can circulate the planet multiple times. So depending on the scale of events you're looking at, there are similarities for the kind of eruptions we typically have. They're a good proxy but the source conditions are different. It's too bad you weren't here in mid 2018 when there was a really big eruption down near Capoeba on Kilauea. I was in the field at the time when we're seeing these great big thermals and there is even lightning storms and things like that simply because the heat from the lava on the surface was creating its own weather patterns but presumably your models could take care of that as well as eruptions at the summit. Exactly, so essentially when we have something with that amount of heat, it's not like the surrounding surface it will generate its own weather. It will generate its own updraft and the strength of that updraft really depends on the strength of the heat. So how much energy is going into the plume? So if that... If we go back to slide three, you can talk a little bit about the heat coming off of the lava lake at Hale Maumau, right? So... Yeah, so the nice thing why I really love modeling bog blooms is unlike fires, they don't run away from you. They don't move with the wind like the source doesn't run away, it doesn't succumb to fire suppression efforts, you don't have to worry about fuel types and soil moisture. So you can really get down to, you can really constrain the problem. And it's very important because if you... So the reason why even study plume rise is because you can think about it as if you make an error of about say 10 meters, 200 meters predicting that vertical rise for downwind dispersion, that means errors of tens of hundreds of kilometers. And that's because often in atmosphere winds just don't blow in the same direction. So near the surface they could blow in one direction, higher up they can blow in another and also different atmospheric layers behave differently. So the mixing is going to be different. So that error has a lot of impact. And so if you just improve this one piece of the modeling framework, you have a lot of potential to improving overall accuracy. And so when you have very well constrained source conditions and you have all these scientists from USGS from HVO setting up camp essentially around the summit and measuring and observing all of this. And there's so much expertise and there's so much detail in the measurements you can really focus on the problem you're trying to solve. So it's much easier to volcanic plumes because you have better input data for it. And USGS is USgeological Survey. And HVO is the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory. So we collaborate with them a lot. We rely a lot on their expertise on emission rates on the behavior. So one of the things they do is they operate that thermal camera which gives us that detailed image of the source condition so we can always see what the volcano is doing and adjust our model to reflect that. Now, I think you have techniques to sort of ground test some of the plume height measurements. You have on the fourth slide, I think you're making some measurements of either variations of optical density or aerosols. If we go to the fourth slide, maybe you can tell us a little bit. We're seeing the instruments presumably on the left-hand side and then an impressive color diagram on the right. Yeah, so that's one of the directions we're taking is with instrumentation as well. So what we're trying to do is understand a little bit better of what is happening in a vertical and atmosphere. So how does this mix layer where the pollutants are trapped? How does it change throughout the day? How does it grow and how is it decreasing? So we recently acquired this really cool new instrument. This is a LiDAR Solometer. And we've set it up in Pahala. So you can see us setting it up with a lot of help from the Department of Health. And it allows us to collect data every minute. So here I'm just showing a sample plot from one day. This is February 2nd, so fairly recent. And you can see the level of detail that provides us to us about the mix layer growth. So we generally now can tell that, it stayed below 1,000 meters on that day. We can see where the clouds are. So the blue scatter points are clouds at various levels. Which altitudes those clouds are. We can see how the thermal activity dies down for the night. So because this is an UTC time, the night is where all the blue is near the surface. So you can see that the winds change and the backscatter intensity, which is what we're actually measuring. It decreases because the turbulence dies down. So the mixing regime changes at night. We can actually see precipitation. So if you look kind of near 3 a.m. UTC, you see a lot of red and that's the light are actually catching raindrops. So it can tell us about precipitation events. And all of that has a lot of implications for actually figuring out both the physics and the chemistry of how Vogue behaves in atmosphere. So all of that has great potential to improve our forecasts. The light, it's kind of like a laser and it's simply looking straight up. So you have like a point measurement. How did you decide to put the light out of Pahala when the plume might be going offshore or somewhere else? Or is it these data are better than no data at all? Or is this the best place to be? So this actually relates to, you know, to the sample forecast light I've shown. We have the trade winds. And so most of the time we have a very consistent weather pattern. So Pahala gets hammered with Vogue a lot because it's directly downwind under trade wind conditions. And because of the blocking that the topography creates, a lot of the Vogue gets pushed to Pahala. So they experience a lot of the Vogue events. And the Department of Health has their air quality monitoring station there naturally. So we actually wanted to co-locate with the air quality monitoring station. So we set up the slaters right where they're measuring surface SO2 concentrations. And we can cross compare what's going on with vertical with what's going on the surface. So this was an easy choice because both we get a lot of Vogue and we get measurements simultaneously. Do you get the LiDAR data in real time as well so you can feed those measurements into your models or is it done retrospectively? So that's the long-term goal. So yeah, the idea is that we're going to be extracting mixed layer duct and we're going to use that to actually nudge the numerical weather prediction forecasts that are driving the dispersion models to have a better representation of the depth of that layer. So one thing is get mixed in it, we're mixing it over the layer. That's the correct depth. How big a deal is that you say the health department is monitoring in Pahala? I know you're an atmospheric scientist but do you have any idea of the health hazards associated with this Vogue? Yeah, so unfortunately it is an air pollutant and unfortunately it does cause distress especially for sensitive individuals. So people with asthma, children, essentially it acidifies, when you inhale it it acidifies your respiratory tract. So it's very irritating. And not only that, so that's what sulfur dioxide does and then when it converts to SO4 or sulfate aerosols those are very, very small aerosols. So they can actually be inhaled very deep and they go all the way into your lungs and once again cause damage there. They're also hygroscopic aerosols so they tend to kind of react with water in the atmosphere. So when we have like a typical trade wind conditions roughly 70% humidity, you get a mixture so that mixes with water and it becomes like 30% sulfuric acid which is battery acid and water. And so you're inhaling battery acid as you can imagine it's definitely not good for you. And so unfortunately we see like hospitalization spike during Vogue events and similar to other pollution episodes they spike full sorts of reasons. So it's not just people with respiratory issues coming in it just makes everything worse. So we definitely see that reflect in hospital admissions. Right, I think in the final slide you've got a few computer renditions of some of your plume predictions. Let's take a look at that, Nadya. Yeah, so that's another direction that V-Map is going in. We're kind of trying to stay on top of things in science and one of the more recent trends that's been happening in numerical modeling with the computers getting more powerful is we're able to simulate things at a finer, finer scale. So what I'm showing here is our preliminary work with large eddy simulation. So those are numerical models that run at super fine resolution so they can actually resolve individual turbulent eddies individual thermals. And it takes a lot of guesswork and modeling out of the equation. So we don't need to model things we can explicitly resolve them using these simulations. There's a cost. It's exceptionally computational expenses that runs on the high performance computing cluster. So you can see this one rendition of a plume evolving from just initial eruption from Kilauea summit. It's about six hours long to reach that state on the bottom panel. This took about a day and a half to complete. So obviously it's not very useful as a forecast tool yet just because by the time you finish the simulation the events you were trying to simulate already over. But it is very useful to try and understand how things work in the atmosphere what kind of mechanisms and feedbacks there are. And we can then improve our operational tools and make our forecasts more accurate and more timely. So that's not a direction we're taking. I'm afraid we're almost out of time but it sounds as if this is a really useful endeavor that the Amnistroic Sciences Department is doing and partnering with various other agencies USGS as well as the Health Department around the big eye. I'm really sorry we've run out of time. I'd love to quiz you about whether you've been to the volcano or whatever. But let me just remind the viewers you have been watching Science at Soast. I'm Pete McGinnis, Mark Hill host and my guest today has been Nadia Masiva from the Amnistroic Sciences Department. So Nadia, thank you again for being on the show fascinating and important work that you're doing as well as your colleagues at the university. So thank you again for coming on the show. Thank you so much. And thank you for watching and we will have another exciting episode of some of the other research being conducted at the University of Hawaii same time next week at one o'clock here on Think Tech Hawaii. So goodbye for now.


Good afternoon, folks. This is Steve Rhodes coming to you live from the shores of sunny Delray Beach, Florida. This year, 2 p.m. Update and currently have a bit of a mixed bag out here. The Dow up point 17 and transports are up 42. The other nurses are trading to the downside. The Dow are the S&Ps off 19 and Aztec 183. Russell's off 8. Semi's are down 48. You've got gold trading off $9.50. 1975-20 is the print there. Silver's off 29 cents. 25-74 lights. We grew it is up $2.00. And the 30-year Treasury is down two ticks, I'm sorry, two points and nine ticks trading out at $140.29. Let's go spend a little time with our Indicea charts out here. Let's go see what kind of messages we can grab from them. In the upper left-hand corner you've got the Dow. What does the Dow have? It's got a valid TD-9 count bottom. Price is above its green oscillator and change line. That says that, well, first, if it can clear, now I'm not talking about today, but if it can clear its recent high from about three or four days ago, that's at the 34.908 level. Price can clear that. We're headed up to 35.201. Its message right now is bullish. Valid bottom and price above a green oscillator unchanged line. Those are bullish conditions. The S&P 500 has a valid bottom, TD-9 count. Price is targeting its oscillator and change line. That's at 44.74. If price can clear that, then you're looking at 46.03 to the upside. If price negates, it's TD-9 count. You're looking at 42.51 to the downside. NASDAQ 100, TD-9 count bottom. Oster and change line have changed color. Price and that line should catch up to each other. That ion or the Oster and change line is printing at 14.348. If the TD-9 count were to fail, price would go target 13.475. Russell 2000, not a whole lot for me to comment here. It's not that it doesn't have a valid top or bottom. It's just been trading in a sideways consolidation. If it can close above that red oscillator and change line, which is currently priced at 2023, that would be able to show come. The semis, they've got a TD-9 count bottom. That will remain in place unless price takes out the low from April the 12th out there. Price should target its oscillator and change line. That's in a 31.70 level. Transports, no bottoming pattern or signal out here, but price still may be targeting 15.071. The New York Stock Exchange valid TD-9 count bottom. If price can close above 16.635.47, the New York Stock Exchange will be communicating to us who wants that to 16.932. NASDAQ composite TD-9 count bottom. Can I get the message here? What do we have? Eight charts, six of the eight have got valid bottoming patterns out here. So we know what the market is attempting to do. The question is, will it do it? Stay tuned, folks. Your favorite polar bear, David Weitz, up next. Tom O'Brien to take us on home. Have a fantastic holiday weekend. I'll look forward to seeing you again one o'clock sharp on Monday afternoon. Take care. Be safe.


Ladies and gentlemen, this program is for you, not your children. The story you are about to hear is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent. Fatima Cigarettes. Best of all, long cigarettes bring you dragnet.  You're assigned a homicide detail. A woman and her two-year-old child disappear suddenly. There's no apparent reason for it. Five days pass. No trace of them. Your job? Find them. Webster's Dictionary. Definition of the word compare. Compare. Examine for purpose of discovering resemblance or difference. Now, let's compare Fatima with any other king-size cigarette. The resemblance. Fatimas are the same length as other king-size cigarettes, 85 millimeters. Fatima has the same circumference, one and one-sixty-fourths inches around. And Fatima filters the smoke exactly the same long distance as other king-size cigarettes. The difference. In Fatima, the difference is quality. You see, Fatima contains the finest domestic and Turkish tobaccos superbly blended to make Fatima extra mild. You get all the advantages of extra length plus Fatima quality, which no other king-size cigarette has. So, compare for Fatima yourself. Your first puff will tell you... Ah, that's different. Yes, in Fatima, the difference is quality. Buy for Fatima. Best of all, long cigarettes. Dragnet. The documented drama of an actual crime. For the next 30 minutes in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department, you will travel step-by-step on the side of the law through an actual case transcribed from official police files. From beginning to end, from crime to punishment, Dragnet is the story of your police force in action. It was Tuesday, April 20th. It was overcast in Los Angeles. We were working the day watch out of homicide. My partner's Ben Romero. The boss is Captain Blaine Steed. My name's Friday. I was on the way back from communications and it was 1.35 p.m. when I got to room 42. I'm aside. Hi, Joe. What's doing? Well, not much, Mac. Where'd Ben go? Inside, Captain's office. Be right back. Oh, thank you. Keeping you busy? Oh, about the same. Little hectic around the house, though. Well, that's right. Ben mentioned something about that. You're getting ready for a wedding out there, aren't you? Yeah. My daughter Alice. She sure got a nice fella. Well, that's all. Yeah. Ambitious kid. Part-time accountant. Goes to law school at night down Loyola. Real nice fella. When are you getting married? Week from Saturday. It's going to be a big church thing. Sure glad it doesn't happen often. Oh? What do you mean? Big production. Never saw so many bills in my life. New dress for Alice. Going away luggage. Bridesmaids dresses. He eats drinks. New carpet for the hall. New curtains in the living room. Wife must think I'm made of this stuff. Well, you should have had all boys, Mac. Yeah. You're giving your daughter away, huh? Yeah. Well, that reminds me. I got to be sure and send my suit to cleaners. Get a good press job on it. Sure is funny. What's that? Seems for years, the wife's been afraid we'd never get Alice married off. Now it's finally in the works, the wife's still unhappy. Well, how's that? Goes around, moping around the house, wiping at her eyes, keeps muttering something about losing her little girl. Her little girl is leaving her. I don't know. Well, how old is your daughter? Thirty-two. Well, I'll be down the stats office if anybody wants me. Right, Mac. Oh, pardon me, Ben. Excuse me. I didn't see you. Okay. Hi. Where you been? Making a couple of phone calls. I think we might have something. Yeah, what's that? It was a Gorman case. I had a call from one of their neighbors while he was gone. Where is that calendar of ours? Yeah, I don't know. Oh, here. I got one in my pocket here in my wallet. Oh, right. Here you are. Okay. Well, let's see now. Mrs. Gorman and her little girl Nancy disappeared on the 15th. Is that right? Yeah, Thursday. Why? And the husband, Mr. Gorman, filed a missing complaint on Friday morning, right? Yeah. What are you getting at? Well, you remember when we talked to Mr. Gorman, he couldn't think of any reason why his wife and his little girl should disappear like he did. Yeah. Remember me asking him the question if his wife ran around at all, if she was interested in any other man? That's right. He told you no, didn't he? This man who just called in, he lives out in the Gorman neighborhood. He swears up and down that Mrs. Gorman was keeping company with another man. Well, who is this neighbor anyway? His name's John Pearson. He lives about four blocks from the Gorman's. Well, we talked to neighbors a lot closer than that to the Gorman's. They didn't seem to know anything about it. What else does this guy tell you? Well, let's see. The man Mrs. Gorman was supposed to be running out with is Ralph Kaine. He lives next door to Mr. Pearson. Well, how'd this Pearson sound to you? Pretty typical neighborhood watchdog. But here's the interesting part. Mrs. Gorman and little daughter Nancy disappeared last Thursday. According to Pearson, this Ralph Kaine hasn't been seen around since Friday night. He told me on the phone he saw Kaine toss a couple of suitcases in his car late Friday night and drive off. So he hasn't come back in. Yeah, it might be something. Well, how much of a romance was Mrs. Gorman supposed to be having with his Ralph Kaine? Well, it's pretty heavy, according to Pearson. Said it's been going on for six months anyhow. And Mr. Gorman didn't know anything about it? He got me there. If he did, he didn't let us in on it. Wonder if he'd have any reason to cover it up. It's possible. I guess didn't want the scandal. How sure are you that Ralph Kaine's really missing? Might be just off on a weekend, though. No, I checked the place he worked. He's a printer. Didn't show up for work Monday. Didn't show up a day either. No message, no excuse. Nothing. I called a friend of Kaine's that Pearson knew about. Friend doesn't know where he's going. I guess we better get on. That's the first decent lead in five days. Yeah. Just thinking, Joe. Neighbors like Pearson. Uh-huh. What would we do without him? Five days before on a Thursday evening, a Mr. Philip Gorman returned to his home in the Westlake District of Los Angeles to find his wife Barbara Gorman and his two-year-old daughter Nancy missing. There wasn't any note, no explanation of any kind. Few clothes were gone. Mr. Gorman filed a missing report and a broadcast and an APB were gotten out on the mother and daughter. Neighbors, friends and relatives were checked. No leads. Routine investigation failed to turn up anything. Mr. Gorman could give us no explanation for the disappearance. After three days, we got out of a radiogram. Still no results. Tuesday, 1.50 p.m. Ben and I got in the car and drove out to see John Pearson who'd phoned in the information about Mrs. Gorman's supposed boyfriend, Ralph Cain. We found Pearson out on the back porch of his home feeding some milk to a pair of house cats. I thought everybody knew that, Sergeant. Mrs. Gorman running around with that Ralph Cain. I'm no busybody. I wouldn't have mentioned at all if this hadn't happened. We say Cain had been seeing Mrs. Gorman for the last six months. Is that right, Mr. Pearson? About six months. That's how long I've seen it go on. I changed.  Let Fred have some of the milk, too. Greedy little devils. Do you know of anybody else in the neighborhood who's been aware of this? Mr. Pearson, I mean Mrs. Gorman and this Ralph Cain. Well, I know for sure that Thelma White next door knows about it. She's mentioned it to me. Cain used to park with Mrs. Gorman near that vacant lot by Thelma's house. Those were the nights that Mr. Gorman was working late. Would you know if Mr. Gorman was aware of this, that his wife was running around with another man? I'm pretty sure he did, Sergeant. That's the strange part about it. How do you know? For George, the man who delivers the groceries, he just happened to mention it to me once. All right, James. Right, it's all gone now. Run off and play. Yes, George, the grocer man, he made a delivery to the Gorman's once and heard them around about it. George said Mr. Gorman was very mad. Talked divorce, all that sort of thing.  Tragic, Sergeant.  Mrs. Gorman kept her under an iron hand.  She's not much of a mother. Not the way I look at it anyway. Well, what's your opinion of all this? Do you think that Ralph Kaine has run off with Mrs. Gorman? Well, what else can you think? Two of them carry on for six months. Mrs. Gorman disappears Thursday. Mr. Kaine leaves Friday night. What else can you think? This neighbor of yours, Thelma White, does she live in this house over here? We'll go in the right. That's right, right next door. You go over and talk to her. She's home now. Thelma will tell you the same thing I did. All right, I should thank you very much. Not at all, Sergeant. Just one thing I can't understand about Mrs. Gorman's little girl, little Nancy. I can't quite understand why she's gone. Doesn't seem to fit somehow. How do you mean? If you're going to run off with a man, you don't take your family along. 2.15 p.m. We went next door and talked with a neighbor, Thelma White. She told us the same story as Pearson. From the two of them, we got the description. DMV furnished us with a license number of Ralph Kaine's car. We checked further with Kaine's friends, relatives, and his landlady. No one had seen or heard from him since late Friday. We searched the duplex where he lived. No leads. We went back to the office and checked Kaine through R&I. He had one arrest for petty theft. We got out of broadcast and an APB on him. That night, Ben and I drove out to see the husband and father of the missing woman and youngster, Philip Gorman. He was employed as a groundskeeper at one of the baseball parks in the city. Pretty fair turnout tonight, huh? Yeah. Weather's cleared up a little. Probably helped, huh? Where's the groundkeeper shacked out the end there? Yeah, you can't see it from here. It's just below the end of the bleachers there. Wow. It's not here very often? Not as often as I'd like to. It's down this way. Watch your step, Bert. Joey's in mud puddle. Yeah, I see it. Oh, sorry. You'll have to get back in the stands. You're not allowed down this end. Harry, Mr. Gorman, Friday in Romero. You remember? Yeah, sure. I didn't recognize you for a minute. We got a few minutes, Mr. Gorman. We'd like to talk to you if we could. We're sure right now if you want. You found out something about the wife, little girl? No, sir. Nothing definite. Got a few questions we'd like to ask you. Well, explain with me. I got nothing to do for a couple more innings. What's it all about?  Yeah, I remember. There's nothing I can think of, Sergeant. Would you recall us asking you if your wife might have been interested in some other man, somebody she might go off with? Yeah, I remember all that. I told you I didn't think that was it. Now, look, if you know something and you're not telling us because you don't want the scandal, you could forget that, Gorman, because whatever you tell us is in strict confidence, you know? I don't know what you mean, Sergeant. I told you everything I know. Well, we'll be honest with you, Gorman. We think you're trying to cover up. Well, that's not true. I don't have anything to cover up. We picked up some new information on your wife this afternoon. We hear she was pretty friendly with a man named Ralph Cain. Lives a few blocks from your house. We hear that you knew what was going on.  You talked divorce. How about it? Well, let's go inside the shack here and get away from some of this noise. Fine, sure. I hope you don't mind it in here. It's a little dirty. I keep all the maintenance stuff in here. That's all right, Gorman. Now, how about Ralph Cain? Yeah, yeah. I knew about it. It's like you said, all the scandal. I just didn't want to get out. Well, look, if you're going to hold out on us, it's not going to help much to find your wife a little girl. I know, Sergeant. I just didn't want people to find out what a bum I made. You know what some neighbors will like. I can't understand how it happened. I met the wife when I was in the Army. I see. I brought her back out here. Everything was fine. After the baby was born, she started to change. Nothing satisfies her. She began to run around. Nothing but a bum that I guess I found out too late. Well, that's Ralph Cain. What do you know about him? He's a single guy. He works at a print shop downtown. He's a pretty good-looking guy. He's got money to spend. That's all Barbara cares about. Well, what's your idea about him?  I'll tell you the truth. I'm not sure. Maybe they did. I've been trying to check around them all. We're not getting very far. It's only one thing I'm really worried about. That's my little girl, Nancy. I don't care what my wife does or how far she goes. I just want my little girl back. Do you have any idea at all where your wife might have gone? Oh, none at all. She didn't know California too well. She's only been out here a year. You don't know any of Cain's friends. His hangouts or places you think he might go. No. Well, I've never even met the guy, son. I'm going to. I know what he looks like. I'll meet him. There's just one more thing, Grumman. If your wife was set on running off with another man, why did she take your little girl with her? She wasn't too devoted to the baby, understand? Yeah, that's right. That's what's got me worried. The only thing I can figure out is that wife hated me more than I thought. She knew that I thought Nancy's about the greatest thing alive. I guess rather than let me have her, she took Nancy along with her. Was it possible she might drop the baby off with some friend or relative and tell him to keep her? Well, I've checked on that already, Sergeant. You got the names of all the people we know. I'm sure they'd get in touch with me if they had Nancy. Well, we'll double-check them anyhow. All right.  All right, Sergeant. It's just the baby, that's all Nancy is. As far as I'm concerned, my wife never lived. It's kind of hard to take her away. Yes, it is. I think you got the finest setup in the world. Nice home, job, baby, good furniture, everything you need. Yeah, everything but a wife. The search for the missing wife and the two-year-old daughter went on. The broadcasts and teletypes on Mrs. Gorman and Ralph King failed to net us a thing. A week passed. There were no leads. Another week went by. Nothing.  They were blind leads. Wednesday, May 5th. We got a call from the manager of an auto court in the south end of the city. He told us that a man, a woman, and a little girl answering the description of the missing trio had stopped at his place the night before. Along with Jack McCready from Homicide, Ben and I drove out and interviewed the man. We showed him pictures of King, Mrs. Gorman, and two-year-old Nancy. He identified all three. He could give us no idea where they'd gone. We checked through the cottage where they stayed. No, nothing. Just about as clean as you can get. A little something here. What's that? Look here. A kid's picture book. Let's see. Yeah, take a look right here. This book belongs to Nancy Gorman. Well, we know they were here. That's about it. Hey, Ben. Yo. Hey, Mac. Where are you? Out in the back. Come here. All right. What have you got? Come here. Have a look. Where'd you find that? Foken around this trash barrel here. Looks like part of a little girl's dress, huh? Yeah, there's not much there. Did you find the rest, Ollie? That's all there is, just that little collar. Well, take a look here, Ben. These stains right here, over here, too? Yeah. What do you think? Mac, blood stains? I'd say so. We went to the office to the crime lab and had Lee Jones run the stains on the dress. He ran a benzodine test and then a biological precipitant. The stains were made by human blood. Well, it still didn't put us any closer to the missing child or her mother. The search went on. We redoubled our efforts. No luck. Another 10 days passed. We had a few more responses to our all-points bulletin, but none of them panned out. On May 16th, we got two more leads to check out. They went nowhere. We got back to the office a little after 6 p.m. Better call Mr. Gorman after we check in, huh? Keep them off of our backs? Yeah. I hate to keep telling him the same thing. No word. Yeah. How about it?  All right. Mac, what's Dylan? Got something for you. Sheriff's substation called. East L.A. Yeah, what about? The Gorman case. They found him. Where? Another auto court right there in East L.A. Ralph Kane and Mrs. Gorman. They got him both under surveillance. How about the little girl, Nancy? That's a hitch, huh? No sign of her. You are listening to Dragnet, authentic cases from official files. Now, let's look at our Fatima files. Listed under H. Hardwick. Cedric Hardwick, distinguished actor. He says, I find Fatima a very pleasing cigarette. It has a distinctly better flavor. K. Kelly. Nancy Kelly, star of the Broadway hit Season in the Sun. She says, Between scenes and after the show, I like to relax in my dressing room and light up a Fatima. They have a really different flavor. And what's important to me, they're extra mild. Listed under L. Love it. Vice Admiral Leland P. Love it. United States Navy retired. He says, I smoked Fatimas when I was a midshipman. I still do because they have a better flavor and aroma. Fatima is easily the best of all long cigarettes. Friends, our files show Fatima sales are going up, up every day. The reason for Fatima's ever-increasing popularity can be summed up in two words. Fatima quality.   You'll find they now cost the same, but your first puff will tell you. Ah, that's different. Because in Fatima, the difference is quality. Buy Fatima. Best of all long cigarettes. Saturday, May 16th, 9 p.m. along with Levinson McCready from Homicide, Ben and I drove out to the sheriff's substation in the east end of the city. One of the deputy sheriffs directed us to the motor court where Mrs. Barbara Gorman and Ralph Cain were under surveillance. We found the two of them in one of the rear cottages. There was no trace of two-year-old Nancy Gorman. Levinson and McCready took Ralph Cain out to the car to interrogate him. Ben and I remained in the cottage with Mrs. Gorman. She was a tall blonde, thin-faced and nervous. She spoke with a decided accent. We questioned her for more than two hours. We got nowhere.  Relax. How can anyone relax these questions? You have no right to do this. Maybe you haven't got it straight, Mrs. Gorman. This is a pretty important matter. We'd like to find out about your little girl. I told you I don't know. She ran away. Yes, ma'am. Now, we've had 10 different versions. You stopped at a hotel in Nevada and she disappeared. You were at an auto court in Bakersfield. She ran away during the night. We've heard just about all of them. How about the truth?  She's gone. That's all. She's gone. I've got to be an explanation for it. Where is she gone? She ran away. How many times do I have to tell you? I left with Raph. We went out of the city. After a few days, Nancy got lonesome. She wanted to see her father. We were asleep one night and she ran away. That's all there is to it. Simple.  You're going to have to do better than that, Mrs. Gorman. Now, how about the truth? What happened? I can't keep me here all night. Where's Raph? I want Raph. Why did you take a child with you in the first place, Mrs. Gorman? It's pretty obvious that you didn't want her. Did Cain want you to take her along? Oh, no. He wanted me to leave her, just he and I. That's all he wanted. I should have left her there, all these trouble questions. There's an easy remedy, ma'am. What'd you really do with a little girl? She wanted all. It's the truth. We didn't know it.  We couldn't help it. How about the little dress we found in that auto court with stains on it? Same questions. You always ask the same questions. What about the dress, ma'am? Do I always have to repeat? I told you. Raph got his hand. He was shaving. Just a no dress, a rag. Raph bandaged his hand with it. Well, you usually wear bandages a while, don't you?  It was only a scratch. You didn't need the rag very long. Quite a few stains on the dress, ma'am. Must have been more than just a scratch. No, it was just a scratch. Can't you believe anything I say? No, not so far. Please. Can't I go outside for a few minutes? I have a headache. It's so hot in here. All right, Mrs. Gorman.  Yeah, thanks. The air. It's so good. Terrible headache.  Please. Can't you let me alone for a minute? Why did you leave your husband? Him. Any woman would leave him. It's Raph. I love Raph.  What about her? My husband wanted her, not me. I'm just not like that. I didn't want her in the first place because a mistake. Terrible mistake. Is that why you got rid of her? What? It's pretty obvious by this time, ma'am. When you left your husband, you took your little girl along for spiked cane and water. You found out you didn't need it, so you got rid of her now. I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that at all. Joe, Ben. Yeah, Mac, over here. Cain's given us half the story. It shouldn't be too hard to get the rest. It's a lie. There's no story to tell. Nancy ran away.  He and Mrs. Gorman here got in the room and turned on the gas. He didn't tell you. He didn't tell you. It's so, ma'am. That's your boyfriend's story. What else, Mac? Well, as I say, Cain and Mrs. Gorman got in the room and agreed to end it all. They had a little girl with them in the room. Well, why was that? Cain says he doesn't know. He seemed to simplify things, having a kid with him. You tell you what happened? Yeah, they turned on the gas. No. No. Never mind. Mrs. Gorman? Never mind. You don't have to say it. You want to tell us about it? Mrs. Gorman? Yes. I'll tell you. 3 a.m. We went back inside the cottage at the auto court. We gave her a cigarette and Barbara Gorman sat down and told us the story. Four days after she'd left with her two-year-old daughter and Ralph Cain, she knew she'd made a mistake. She admitted that she never should have taken the child. She said the little girl seemed to be in their way all the time. Cain was all for deserting the child or sending her back to her father. Mrs. Gorman wouldn't agree to it, just out of pure spite. One night in an auto court, she and Cain had a big drinking party. They brooded over the mix-up that they'd gotten themselves into. Cain didn't have any money to get married. He knew he'd lost his job. Even if they could get married, Mrs. Gorman wasn't sure she could get a divorce. Another full day and night of drinking, and they decided on a lover's death pack. They turned on the gas. I don't get it, Mrs. Gorman. Why'd you have your little girl in the room with you? Why didn't you leave her with somebody, with anybody? She was mine, wasn't she? I thought we could go together, all three of us, but it didn't work that way. Well, what happened?  I looked over Nancy. She wasn't moving. It was just like she was asleep. What'd you do then? We got in the car, left. We found a nice place in the desert. There were nice flowers there. We buried Nancy. How about you and Ralph Cain? You knew you were in deeper. Why didn't you try it again? We did a couple of times. We loved each other. It's the only thing we could do, but every time we tried, we couldn't go through with it. We'd try. We never could finish it. Ralph got a job. We were going to buy a gun. Tomorrow, we'd try again. Can you show us where you buried your little girl? Yes. Place in the desert, out near Palm Springs. It was a nice place. There's lots of nice flowers around. You understand, don't you? We were in love, Ralph and I. Yeah. My husband wouldn't understand the way I loved Ralph. It was everything. It was the whole world. Ralph and I. I didn't mean it that way for Nancy. It was a mistake. You've got to understand. I didn't mean it that way. That's the way it is. It doesn't matter. You can't hurt us, not Ralph and I. You can't take away what we've got. You'll never take that away. All right. You want to get your coat? Yes. It doesn't matter what happens. It's for Ralph. I don't care what they do. Keep on loving him. The same way I love him now. It doesn't matter. We'll pay for our mistakes. Yeah, lady. They're going to cost you. At 5 a.m., we put in a call for Lieutenant Lee Jones and the Crime Lab crew in the corner. When they arrived at the auto court, we drove to the spot in the desert near Palm Springs where Ralph, Cain and Mrs. Gorman pointed out the spot where they'd buried Nancy. The body was uncovered at the exact spot. It was taken back to town to the county morgue, where an autopsy was performed. Cain and Mrs. Gorman were booked on suspicion of murder. By 5 o'clock that afternoon, we had the results of the autopsy. Yeah, doc. Uh-huh. Right. Thank you. Bye. What's the story, man? Not what we thought. What do you mean? I think Mrs. Gorman sold us a bill of goods.  What did the doc say? He found two bullet holes in the body. That night, after hours of interrogation, Ralph, Cain and Mrs. Barbara Gorman both broke down and confessed that they'd killed the child in cold blood. They pleaded drunkenness, that they weren't responsible for their actions. They were returned to their cells and held without bail. The child's father, Phillip Gorman, was notified. The following morning, Ben and I accompanied him to the county morgue. It's this way, Mr. Gorman. Oh, thanks. You sure you want to go through with this, sir? Mr. Gorman? Well, I might as well tell you the truth. I'm not sure I do. He isn't going to help much, Mr. Gorman. Believe me, then. Well, I just wanted to see her just once more. Yeah, well, it doesn't work out. It wouldn't be the same. Not the way you remember. Yeah. Just wanted to see her. I just wanted to find out. What's that? Bottom mother, Ralph Cain. Hmm. What is it that could make them do it? Really, girls? She's only two. What could make anybody do a thing like that? Your wife called it love. The story you've just heard was true. Only the names were changed to protect the innocent. On September 10th, trial was held in Superior Court, Department 89, city and county of Los Angeles, state of California. In a moment, the results of that trial. And now, here is our star, Jack Webb. Thank you. Friends, tonight you've heard just a few of the reasons why you should smoke Fatima. It sums up this way.  Tamara, buy Fatima in the golden yellow package. Remember, they're extra mild with a different, better flavor and aroma. Mrs. Barbara Gorman and Ralph Donald Cain were tried and convicted in Superior Court of murder in the first degree. Mrs. Gorman was sentenced to life imprisonment. Cain received the death penalty. He was executed at the State Penitentiary, San Quentin, California. Ladies and gentlemen, the Bill of Rights section of the United States Constitution protects our freedom. Today, that freedom is endangered by tyranny and aggression. Every American must help make our free government an example to all peoples by dedicating himself to a constant, active citizenship. Freedom needs you. You have just heard Dragnet, a series of authentic cases from official files. Technical advice comes from the Office of Chief of Police, W. H. Parker, Los Angeles Police Department. Fatima's cigarettes, best of all long cigarettes, has brought you Dragnet transcribed from Los Angeles. Stay tuned for Counter-Spy, next over most NBC stations.