1970′s Bertrand Comparet Interview

HUBBARD: Was it brought out in court however that the circuitry at that time was inherently unstable?

COMPARET: Well, none of us knew enough about it. Now, I remember at that time Rife saying that Hoyland had not used a simple straight forward circuit as Rife had used, but he thought he had a short cut, through use of harmonics and so on, and Rife had no faith in Hoyland’s circuit. Now it may have been that heat instability that was a problem in those days. I don’t know if it was really Hoyland’s fault, or if it was just one of those things. So, at any rate, we finished, we were in charge of the corporation, they had tried to take it over, and we defeated that, we were in charge of the corporation, we had some instruments, oh, a dozen or fifteen sitting in the store room which we couldn’t sell because we couldn’t tell anybody they were reliable, and, well, there was just nothing to go forward on.

29. HUBBARD: Well now, let me ask, at this time, had the Bridges’ maintained any interest in what was happening with this corporation?

COMPARET: No. Rife was a very strange man. A brilliant genius, now, he had been employed by the Bridges family as their chauffeur. They had a beautiful big home up on the crest of Point Loma here on the west side of the bay and they knew of his interest in scientific things, and being wealthy, they sponsored him on some of these things. Originally he did this work over the garage in the Bridges home. Later they gave him, across the street from the big Bridges estate they had a several acre park and a big home and everything out there and later they gave him this beautiful concrete laboratory and he continued work there. He had some of these other doctors, including this one from McGill University, Kendall was one of them, and Rosenow. I can’t remember the Canadian doctor, (Dr. Gruner M.D.) I know for years they still had his little nameplate on the door of the room in laboratory where he did his work.

30. HUBBARD: Is that building still Intact over there on Point Loma?

COMPARET: It probably has been demolished to make way for subdivisions and development there.

31. HUBBARD: Yes, go ahead.

COMPARET: This man from McGill was working there and Kendall and Rosenow were working at the laboratory…

32. HUBBARD: Before the lawsuit?

COMPARET: Before the lawsuit, yes. By the time I got in it these other men had been there and gone. Their work was finished and they went on elsewhere. So, the thing fizzled out. Now, as I say Dr. Yale, finally took over, oh, a dozen or so of these instruments, which he continued to use up until his death, some years later. Dr. Couche had two of them. Now the original instrument had a tube, like an X-ray tube. That was the way in which Rife developed it. You see, all the X-ray work necessary was done with a beam projected from a tube. So Rife worked on the same basis. Now later when John Crane came into the thing, Crane has a pretty good analytical mind all right, he is as stubborn as hell and he is his own worst enemy but he has a good mind. Now, as part of the defense of John Crane, on criminal charges, Rife was still living then, down in Tijuana, and we took his deposition. And I asked Rife, because I thought Rife would certainly say that the way Crane was working on it then was still using the Rife principal, but he indignantly denied it.

33. HUBBARD: Aahhh, very good. I suspected this. I suspected it all along.

COMPARET: Now, Crane said “Well now look, Rife himself admits that no matter how much tube and ray, and so on, you have, you can’t get any results unless you’ve got the right frequency. Therefore the real clue to the thing is the frequency and not the means by which you deliver it.

34. HUBBARD: Let me interrupt you. Do you have any copies of depositions of Rife or was there a transcript made of the trial, of the attempt to take over the Beam Ray corporation, was any transcript of that made?

COMPARET: No, no there wasn’t a transcript because nobody had the money to appeal it. It was a long several week trial.

35. HUBBARD: And what happened to the stenographic notes, do you have any idea what happened with those?

COMPARET: Well, they were kept with the court reporter until lost at the time of his death undoubtedly.

36. HUBBARD: So, for practical purposes, I was over at the court house Monday and Tuesday and they told me that after five years they destroy the court reporter notes. So for practical purposes there’s no way, there would have been several court reporters on this case wouldn’t there, since it lasted for such a long time?

COMPARET: Well, no, normally one reporter would follow it through from day to day. Now, if you needed a transcript, he had somebody in his office to make up the transcript while he was spending the day in the court taking more notes.

37. HUBBARD: So you think there was just one person taking notes on this case?

COMPARET: Yes.

38. HUBBARD: And it is very possible that the person who took the notes on this case could still be alive and still have his notes. This must have been a very famous trial here, wasn’t it?

COMPARET: Yeah. On the John Crane thing, there might be some possibility of something still preserved there.

39. HUBBARD: A transcript of that trial was made for appeal and there is a copy of that in Washington.

COMPARET: Now, neither side introduced the deposition of Rife at the time of the trial so it wouldn’t be in the transcript on appeal.

40. HUBBARD: All right, I see. But, getting back, you say that Rife was very indignant, that the machine that Crane was building was really his (Cranes) idea. I suppose he did not compromise on that, did he?

COMPARET: Oh no, he just blew up.

41. HUBBARD: All right, All right. I suspected that all along.

COMPARET: Now, here was an X-ray type of tube, they even made their own tubes out of, let’s see, one type is Irwin Meyer, and what’s the other, the flask with the flat bottom?

42. HUBBARD: Well, the Irwin Meyer is a cone type flask, and it has a flat bottom.

COMPARET: Yeah that’s what they used. They got those and made their own tubes out of it. Well…

43. HUBBARD: But this deposition was not used… (Laughs)

COMPARET: It was not used. I was trying to show, you see they had accused Crane and the people with him of conspiracy to cheat and defraud and I was trying to show that what he was doing was following the best information he was able to get. It was a perfectly honest attempt to produce what he was claiming. So, when Rife let us down on that, I didn’t introduce it, and the other side didn’t introduce it either, so that never got into the record.

44. HUBBARD: Oh, the other side had a copy of Rife’s deposition?!! I’m surprised about that, I didn’t know that if you took a man’s deposition that the opposing attorneys had a right to read the deposition whether it was introduced in court or not.

COMPARET: Oh yes, they had the right to be there and cross-examine at the time the statements were taken.

45. HUBBARD: Were they there?

COMPARET: Oh yes.

46. HUBBARD: Oh, how interesting. Go ahead. This is very interesting.

COMPARET: Now, I’m not betraying any confidences here, because I’m telling you things that all came out at one time or another in the court proceedings, either the original Beam Ray case, or the John Crane case. Now, when the work was being done on John Crane’s development of the thing, Crane called in a man whose name I can’t recall (Verne Thompson) at the moment, he was the radio repair man who kept the San Diego police department radio in repair. So, he was called in to monitor the thing (AZ-58) and see if it was always operating perfectly, and Crane said that we were not using an X-ray, although it was a tube similar to an X-ray tube. But Crane had said that of the various wires going into this tube, one was left disconnected, which prevented the ray from being an X-ray. Now this other man said, “No, we were using a soft Xray,” and he said, “The way I know it is, when I wanted to test for strength, I put a piece of photographic paper on the table and lay a key on it and then put my leather wallet on top of it and make a shadowgraph picture through that, that shows it had to be an X-ray.” Well, anyway, they started out duplicating Rife’s experiments. (Dr. Robert P. Stafford had tests done on the Ray tube before he would use it on any patients. The scientific tests that he had done proved that there was no X-ray coming from the ray tube).

47. HUBBARD: You mean trying to duplicate them with Crane’s machines?

COMPARET: Well, Crane originally was, with more modem techniques, duplicating the Rife machine, tube and all for early experiments. And, as I say, he came to the conclusion that you just weren’t getting anything additional by the use of the tube. If you didn’t get the frequency, you could run the rest of it indefinitely and nothing happened. So, what Crane did, he got an audio frequency generator. Now, you could make them up yourself by an awful lot of work, or you could buy a Heathkit audio frequency generator and get all the same results with a lot less time and effort. So he was using these Heathkit generators. Now instead of a beam projected from a tube, a ray, he simply had two wires, I think they were aluminum knobs on the end of them, which would be used, they would be put on the body in such a position that the natural flow of the current from one to the other would go through the diseased area, and he got astonishing results. Now, the judge who tried that case, nobody ever accused that man of knowing even the slightest amount of law. It was the usual political appointment as a judge, and the poor stupid bungling oaf was doing the best he knew how, which was very little. So, the basic rule of evidence is that anything that really sheds any light on subject is admissible unless there is a rule of law that says no. But all this poor guy knew was that he had heard that there was some rules of evidence that didn’t allow certain things in so therefore unless he knew it was admissible as evidence, why, there was nothing doing. So we had plenty of available evidence that he never allowed us to put in. Now, there were many people there who had been treated unsuccessfully by M.D.s. Now, naturally, whatever sickness they had was diagnosed by that M.D. and he had not been able to cure them.

48. HUBBARD: Fair enough.