All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 29, 2006 - Art Bell
02:31:46
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Glenn Steckling - ET Moon Bases - Nick Begich - Weather Changes
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now, I don't listen to music softly.
I'm one of those people who turns it all the way up until I can feel it in my gut.
And Abydos had ear mites when we got him.
Took him right away to the vet and had them removed, but it damaged his hearing.
And tonight, as I was playing music before the program, Abbey Dose just went berserk.
It was like, holy mackerel, I can hear that!
I can hear something!
And he was trying to get up to the speaker.
It was really something.
He really, really liked the music.
And it's because it was so loud.
Either he could feel it, or he could actually hear it.
I think his hearing has been, you know, like somewhat damaged.
And he just wanted to be on the speaker.
It was like, hey, I can hear!
It was really cute.
I'm running a risk.
They're both in here.
Dusty and Abydos are both in here tonight.
We'll see how it goes.
Of course, ABC World News Tonight co-anchor Bob Woodruff and his cameraman were seriously injured Sunday when the Iraqi Army vehicle they were traveling in encountered one of these, uh, one of these damn improvised explosive devices and, uh, My understanding at this hour is that it looks like they're going to live.
Their injuries are apparently not life-threatening, thank God.
But many others have died.
Subject for another show.
Dr. Nick Begich and HAARP.
They go together.
Dr. Nick Begich is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr.
and political activist, Peggy Begich.
He is well known, very well known, in Alaska for his own political activities.
He was twice elected president of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education.
Heavy stuff.
He's been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for His entire adult life, Begich received his doctorate in traditional medicine from the Open International University for Complementary Medicines in November.
of 1994. Dr. Biggage is editor of Earth Pulse Flashpoints, a new science book
series.
Biggage has served as an expert witness and a speaker before the European
Parliament. He has spoken on various issues for groups representing citizen
concerns, statesmen, and elected officials, scientists and others. Tonight
we're going to talk about climate change, gas and oil issues but we're gonna get an update on heart
Now, we had a program scheduled tonight, originally, with... Get off my keyboard, you little monster.
See, the problem is they open programs and sometimes run them.
Sometimes they get up there and the toes tap correctly and they take one of my programs and put it in the trash bin.
They have not as yet ejected it from the trash bin entirely, but it's close.
Anyway, where was I?
Yes, the program we had scheduled, Dr. Biggitch and Bernard Eastland, and Bernard Eastland cancelled.
Had to cancel for one reason or another.
Now it is being rescheduled, and that's going to be a hell of a program, because Eastland is the brains, pretty much, behind HAARP.
The ever suspicious, mysterious HAARP project in Alaska.
And so we'll get an update on HAARP.
I have my own suspicions about what it's doing to our shortwave bands, which I will not keep to myself.
and uh... we will discuss harping that of course uh... the weather
and uh... climate control and that sort of thing in a moment
All right, here we go.
What a pleasure.
All the way to the state of Alaska, which by the way will certainly serve well as a discussion point for the climate and the changes we're experiencing when we get to that.
That's where Nick Biggage is, of course, in Alaska.
Welcome back to the program, Doctor.
Hey, it's good to be back with you again.
It's good to be back on the air talking about these subjects.
A lot has happened.
You know, over the decade that we've been talking about these issues, so it's always good to get people up to speed on what's new and what's the latest on some of this technology.
Right.
We don't have a lot of time, so we're going to knock down a lot of subjects here.
Number one is HAARP, of course.
Now, we had a program scheduled with yourself and Dr. Eastland, and that would have been one mama of a show.
Now, I understand it's being rescheduled.
Do you know anything about that that I don't?
Yeah, it is being rescheduled.
In fact, I'm going to have an opportunity to have dinner with Dr. Eastland next month in February when I'm in his part of the So we'll get a little bit of a chance to kind of get him up to speed on what we've been covering, and hopefully we can get him on the schedule.
Because I think that's going to be, from my perspective at least, probably the most important program you and I have ever done on the subject.
I quite agree with you.
Please tell the audience just in, I don't know, 30 words or less, what HAARP is.
What we're talking about.
HAARP.
H-A-A-R-P.
It's a project currently run by DARPA, and it's a field of antennas, radio frequency antennas, that essentially focus radio frequency energy in a unique way that can be manipulated for a number of weapons applications.
Some of those include things like weather modification, which is sort of the narrow subject of the night tonight.
But this whole concept of weather modification is something that Since the very beginning of the HAARP program, it's been looked at again.
I know something that Dr. Riesel will, I'm sure, talk about when we're all together, but he had actually done work for the European Space Agency after the HAARP project was underway with ideas about utilizing the HAARP system or systems like it for knocking out, for instance, the energy of tornadoes.
Yes.
And then, you know, from there was work done by Eastland again for NASA and for FEMA.
Looking at space-based systems, using space-based lasers for accomplishing the same kind of activity in terms of tornadoes.
Is it fair to call Dr. Eastland one of the main brains behind AHARP?
Yeah, absolutely.
He hired the original team, put together the team that became later Arcopower Technologies, Inc.
He was actually running all of that, put together the original patents, You know, all of the critical patents with HAARP, and some of the things in the patents, which is again something that we'll get into when we get him on the air with us, but this whole issue of weather modification and the ways you might approach it in a little different approach than what he had originally conceived of, and then at the same time, one of the big aspects of those patents that's never been explored is the use of
This type of technology, for instance, for replenishing ozone.
Well, I wonder how much of what he originally conceived, Doctor, really is the main focus of what's propelling HAARP now.
Right.
It's much different now, and I would definitely agree with that.
He's been out of the project now You know, a number of years, enough years, so that his original agreements with ARCO, which had 15 year secrecy provisions, are now expired, and that's where you get a lot more.
Interesting conversation.
What percentage of what he tells us do you think, maybe that's the wrong way to ask it, how much do you think there would be that Dr. Eastland knows that he could not open his mouth about?
Well, I'm sure there are some areas that he can't get into.
I mean, certainly.
And he's done work, you know, going back to the Atomic Energy Commission in the 50s.
So there's lots of projects that he can't talk about.
And, you know, and that's just part of it, but there's You know, there's a change that says, you know, in my view, you know, I've gotten to know Dr. Rees over the last decade, you know, fairly well.
And, you know, he's gone through some, you know, changes in terms of how he views his science.
And quite frankly, at this stage in his life, you know, including the weather modification issues, he knows that if these issues are going to be pursued in a safe and responsible way of pursuit at all, it can't be done in the darkness of military A planner has to be done in a much more open... What do you think he'd say if I said, Dr. Eastland, is HAARP potentially screwing up shortwave right now?
Is it screwing up the ionosphere?
Is there a chance it's HAARP doing it?
What do you think he'd say?
Do you think he'd admit the possibility?
I think he would.
I think there's a lot that he will, and in my conversations with him, clearly there's been a lot of things that he's pointed out as big caution points, and I think the The approach that he's taken, even in his more recent papers, is really the suggestion to other scientists to start looking at multidisciplinary approaches to their science, because often things are missed because you just don't have the training.
I remember just before your last appearance, I think it was, there was a story that there had been an aurora going on above the HAARP project.
And they poured like a billion watts or whatever it is into this Aurora.
And the scientists were able to rush outside the building and look up and see all this sparkly, these various colored sparkles being produced by the power they were hitting the Aurora with.
And I thought, oh my God!
Right, that's exactly right.
They can produce that kind of visual effect by Pulse modulating the signal on the ground and having it interact.
Well, that's toying with mother nature.
There's no other way to put it.
Absolutely.
And there's huge, you know, huge, huge risks involved.
I mean, when you think about, um, and again, why, why, you know, what's happening with this science is really important because, you know, you have a congressional committee right now in the House and one in the Senate being formulated.
There's bills pending to formulate.
commissions to look at weather modification in terms of commercial and non-commercial applications.
Well, you've spoken extensively with Dr. Eastland.
Has he admitted to you directly that there are, in quotes, huge risks?
Not to use those words, but he's indicated to me where the risks are.
How about I can say it that way?
And as a physicist, how big is a huge risk You know, it's big when you look at the potential downstream consequences of coupling a machine to the environment.
His cautions to everyone is, look, when you're working in big science, you can't do it in a closet.
You have to do it in the open, where you get the full benefit of knowledge, because you can't play games with... Man, it's not like the old days.
Cloud seeding is something.
We're talking about huge implications.
You can play games.
Now, let me push you a little bit and ask you, to the best of your recollection, Doctor, how did he describe these risks?
You know, I think the biggest concerns were triggering whatever runaway effects might be triggered in the upper atmosphere, in the ionosphere, when you start to accelerate electrons, which is Where the big action is, and as the system gets more powerful, you're literally coupling it to the magnetic field lines of the Earth in certain applications.
Yes.
You're plugging into the dynamo of the planet.
So when you start, it's just a high-risk area.
Now here's where his newest work has gone, and this is again why I think it needs to be out in the open, and he did a paper that was delivered at Penn State Lehigh campus, and it was on the artificial generation of acoustic and gravitational waves in the atmosphere for weather modification applications, is what this paper is about.
And it uses, from what he has learned in these interim years, is that as much as 1,600 times less energy, perhaps, to create weather effects than what he originally anticipated.
So when you start to think about it in those terms, Then everyone needs to take a deep breath and a pause and say, wait a minute, let's... Doctor?
We're being very careful.
Doctor, how does he know he's not screwing up the weather now?
Well, you know, he's out of that project.
I mean... Well, okay, okay.
How does he know HAARP is not screwing up the weather now?
That I couldn't say.
You know, I mean, my own personal view is that there are...
Implications to HAARP based on what we already know that say, yeah, when they operate it, in certain modes of operation, it's having weather effects.
Okay, so we're not saying that this and what we're about to discuss is being caused by HAARP, but I would like you to describe the changes taking place around you.
Now, you're in Alaska.
Right.
And everything I've read in every science journal, every story has suggested that Alaska is in big trouble.
Disproportionately big trouble compared to the rest of the world right now.
Right.
Is that fair?
That's a fair statement.
In fact, You know, where the canary in the coal mine is, is literally what we are in Alaska.
So how's the canary doing?
What's going on up there?
Well, you know, we've had the warmest temperatures on record, of course, like everybody has, but we have more extreme.
You know, they say average temperatures in the ocean increase one degree, supposedly takes 50 years.
Well, here in Alaska, in a counter-cyclic to El Nino cycle a few years back, we had 5 to 15 degree temperature increases in our ocean.
Oh my god.
Now, and this is enough to where when you, I fish every year, subsistence fish every year, and when you're in the water, you notice 5 to 15 degrees.
I should say, yes, are you sure it's that high?
Absolutely.
In fact, the articles that ran on the story, it baffled scientists here because it was the opposite cycle of the El Nino cycle.
It was back in the latter part of the 90s.
And when you look at that situation and sort of what else has been seen since, you know, we've seen Migrations of fish species in our waters that we've never seen before.
I mean, even in South Central Alaska and Anchorage, we don't have a deer in this region, or we didn't.
They've spotted them two seasons in a row now, migrating up from the south, something that's never been seen here.
That's incredible.
You look at the vegetation footprint across the North Slope of Alaska, it's increasing over the last 40 years dramatically when you look and compare aerial photographs.
And what that does, as snow covers are removed and more dark Ground cover is revealed, it increases the amount of heat absorbed, which then creates a huge chain reaction in terms of adding to this problem of climate change.
And we see it here first.
Well, alright, the glaciers in Alaska, that should certainly illustrate something to us.
Over the last, I don't know how many years, how much retreat on average has there been in the glaciers?
What's going on with the ice?
Okay, where I'm standing right now, which is just a little bit north of Anchorage, the glaciers 6,000 years ago were 4,000 feet thick, where I'm standing.
Now, in the last, in my lifetime, a place called Portage Glacier, which is not far from where I am, it's about 60 miles from here, the glaciers retreated to the point where as a kid I could see it and the ice would form in the lake, and it's gone.
It's all the way around the corner, but that glacier has receded Almost nine miles over the last hundred years.
And, you know, the rate, the real change, though, is happening now.
I mean, we're seeing huge increases in the last 40 years, decreases in the ice level in the Arctic by 40%.
Our glaciers, they say, are contributing more fresh water to the oceans than even Greenland right now, coming out of Alaska, because of the way our glaciers are melting down in the way the current hit south central alaska which is where most of the glacial uh... glaciers what about your tundra well this is the big change to as as i as i said when you get the uh... uh... heating effect in the northern part of the state it starts to melt the permafrost under the tendra which acts as a cap forum uh... really that the methane gas that that is produced by the dick decaying material some of which has been there you know a hundred thousand years yes
And so this produces methane in large quantities, which actually contributes to the heating, which exacerbates the whole thing.
So you get this amplifying effect that sort of feeds on itself in the Arctic.
And then, you know, you have these changes in glacial formation, like some places it's laying down an awful lot of snow these days, adding to glacial thickness.
Not in Alaska.
But the reason for that is, is these regions that used to be so cold, you couldn't get precipitation, you couldn't get moisture formation from the oceans going up into the sky, forming snow and then dropping down on glaciers.
So now you have this change where some areas are building, other areas are shrinking, but the net effect is global warming.
And coastal cities around Alaska, there are small villages or small communities, up to 60 of them, are at risk right now because of more extreme storms in the seas and rising sea levels.
Doctor, as you go north in Alaska, way north, toward the pole, it's become so bad, I saw a special on Discovery Channel that indicated that polar bears, polar bears, in increasingly large, disturbing numbers, are beginning to drown Because they can't find ice.
Right.
And this is, again, the Arctic region.
They're actually, if you look at it at the pole, if you look at where we sit in terms of the Arctic from Europe, in terms of sea routes, they're predicting that's going to be open in the next 10 to 12 years.
Yeah, did you hear that, folks?
The sea route over the pole is going to be open in the next 10 to 12 years.
The armed services are figuring out how to navigate what's going to be a sea up there.
I mean, this is, you know, Doctor, we're not supposed to notice things, changes like this in our lifetimes.
I mean, our lifetimes are just whoosh!
And we should never see these kind of massive changes in our paltry little lifetimes.
It should be millions of years, not decades.
Well, it depends on whose theory you ascribe to, because there's really two theories, and I think there's probably a little of each to be considered.
Well, I subscribe to the facts.
Yeah, and the facts say cataclysmic change does occur from time to time, and it also says that gradual change occurs.
Absolutely.
But when you combine those two, especially When you look at what's happening around the planet today, significant changes are taking place.
And these aren't just in terms of climate.
You can see the same kind of patterns in terms of earthquake frequency and intensity.
You can see it in tidal heights in the North Sea.
i mean you have a lot of factors doctor last night uh...
i had uh... guest on in the first hour who talked uh...
very extensively about a poll shift and
it appears uh... by the list of questions that i've been supplied here
that uh... you feel that perhaps everything that we see going on
leading toward or part of the poll shift
Is that going out too far?
No, I think that actually sums it up.
I mean, I really do think these things are all interconnected.
I don't think they're operating in a vacuum.
Although, you know, we artificially separate the disciplines and the sciences.
Nature doesn't.
You know, these things all work together.
And when you look back at the consequences, I'll give you a good example.
If you think about the pole shifts, the interim shifts, not the full reversals.
Yes.
And there's been a number of those.
You know, if you go back 80,000 years ago, The Magnetic North Pole was about the middle of where the Yukon Territory and the border of Alaska at a place called Whitehorse.
If you look 50,000 years ago, it was off the coast of Scandinavia, and if you look 15,000 years ago, which is a really interesting number, it was right at the bottom of Hudson Bay.
You know, I've heard that it's been, perhaps, you know, there are small shifts all the time, but there have been some pretty good jump-arounds.
In fact, I think our poll now is headed for Russia, isn't it?
Right, at a really fast rate, accelerating beyond what has been like a very sharp, steep curve.
This is what it seems to be the case, and when you think about 15,000 years ago, that was the beginning of the Ice Age, where ice moved all the way down into the Midwestern United States, and if you put the North Pole and move the globe, you know, look at where that would be if that was the ice sheet, the center of the ice sheet, and compare it to today.
And so when you see these shifts, and then 15,000 years ago moving to its current location, and then from there you saw the receding glaciers that happened very rapidly, And in my part of the world, extremely rapidly, leaving behind a clear message of when and what occurred.
And we're in this same kind of acceleration now, when you take a look at climate change, and then you look at what man's contributing, what nature does, and when you talk about heating the engine of the Earth in terms of weather, you also have to factor in what's going on under the seas, which occupy most of the surface of this planet.
People have very diverse opinions on this, but if we do experience a sudden pole shift, what is your view of the effect it would have on all of us?
Pretty devastating.
I mean, if it were a sudden shift, I would expect wind velocities that we've never even heard of before, and I would expect to see Two or three hundred miles an hour?
Yeah, that kind of, you know, 300 mile an hour winds I think would be, you know, expected.
You know, what else happens when you lose, you know, when the pole actually makes that shift?
Nobody really knows, you know, but every organism, every living organism has a biomagnetic component that's very important to life on the planet.
So what happens on those shifts, I think, is going to be Really interesting.
I mean, migration patterns that are organized based on... It's magnetite, I believe, isn't it?
Magnetite in brains, including the human brain?
Right.
Birds use it to navigate, that sort of thing?
Yeah, exactly.
So you've got navigation issues, and you already see it.
You know, where you already have pole shifting, you've got these really bizarre things happening with migration patterns reported anecdotally in the 90s and more frequently now.
And I think you'll see more of that kind of shift because that's how these animals migrate.
When you start to look at energy interactions in human health, we're finding out that very little change in energy concentrations, densities, the way in which we interrelate, can have profound effects on our health.
Do you believe that a pole shift would be the end of life down to the cellular level?
Would it be that bad?
I don't think so, because we know we've had them every 750,000 years.
So you can look at the geologic record and you can see You know, changes, but not total starting over.
What a real bad day for the planet.
Yeah, a real bad day for everyone.
The thing about all of this, too, is we don't know when exactly that is, and certainly we're in the frame of time where it can occur, given the geologic record, full reversal.
But we absolutely know there's a pole shift taking place, an accelerating rate, and there's no disputing it.
The science proves it.
The implications of that You know, everyone wants to argue about it.
It's like arguing climate change.
Is it man, or is it nature?
Well, at this point, it's not as relevant as the fact that it's changing, and those changes are going to have profound implications for every living thing on the planet.
Alright, well, almost every living thing on the planet, human-wise, knows what happened this last year with hurricanes, Doctor.
Now, I'm afraid I view that as just a warm-up.
No pun intended.
Just a warm up.
And I think that in the next several years, we're going to see a lot worse than we saw.
And it was terrifying.
I think I agree absolutely.
And you know, we've said it and you've said it, you know, in the 80s where the 90s doubled, you know, and dwarfed what happened in the 80s.
And this century is already dwarfing the 90s.
But the reality is even If you assume man was fully responsible and we stopped, all the experts say if we stopped everything dealing with fossil fuels and the contribution, it'd take a hundred years to stabilize.
But when you add in natural releases of energy and increased energy being displaced on the planet, all of those things combined, there is no reversal at this point.
It's only a recognition of the reality of climate change, the reality of Earth changes generally, and the smart The issue is to not dispute so much the cause, as to say, how do we deal with agricultural changes?
How do we deal with what's happening?
I mean, here we're seeing it.
I don't forget the argument.
Just forget whether it's man-made or cyclical.
Who cares?
It's happening, so we have to react to it if we want to stay alive.
Exactly.
And like here in Alaska, the spruce forest.
And you remember how they are in South Central Alaska.
They're beautiful.
Oh, yes.
And we've lost our spruce forest by The over infestation of spruce bark beetle which is cyclic again but with climate warming they don't die off like they did normally and so we've lost
Bruce, now the birch in our part of the state are infested with mite that's killing them off.
This is incredible, folks.
I was in Alaska some years ago and I saw the beginnings of what you're hearing being talked about right now.
And you just looked and there were dead and dying trees all over the place.
I mean, it's totally freaky.
It's one thing to sit here and talk about it.
But to be up there and to see the trees dying and to understand why, it's just, it's pretty chilling stuff.
And you know, historically, you know, when we start to look at climate trends, there's things that we can look towards that, you know, give a lot of good indicators, you know, from tree ring growth to know that certain things are cyclic.
But when you look at the compilation of things happening on the planet today, it's like a lot of factors moving together.
And then you look at Government development of technologies to interface with the environment and actually control environmental effects.
You know, maybe there's a lot more known than meets the eye.
Well, Dr. Eastland believes that HAARP absolutely has a use in weather control.
Is that a fair statement?
Absolutely.
And you know, and here's the thing about all that, and this is the important thing to remember, is the planet is so complex that figuring it out, you know, we're still figuring it out.
Everyone's figuring out how this engine connects to itself.
You know, so when you start throwing things into the mix when it's already unstable, that's where the danger lies.
And again, where, you know, this science is being pursued already by governments, has been for decades, The problem now is that what we've learned and what scientists have discovered can be done with so much less energy, and then you start to see people like William Cohen, when he was commenting on weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism back in 1997 at the University of Georgia, he talked about environmental weapons that terrorists would possess that would manipulate
Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and climate using electromagnetic waves.
He said that at the University of Georgia, and I think he was lecturing with actually Senators Lugar and Nunn at the time.
Alright, by way of the HAARP experiment and other stuff, we probably don't know about, doctor.
There's no question about the fact that governments are intensely interested in weather control.
Now, you can either take the view that they are in fact controlling the weather, or that somebody in a private situation room meeting at the White House said, look, here are the real facts.
We're in deep crap.
We need to do something, and HAARP at least has the possibility to perhaps control the weather.
So, do you think that privately, secretly, our government is saying, we are in deep stuff here, and we need a way to get a handle on it, let's give more money to the people at HAARP, or whatever?
You know, in terms of this type of technology, absolutely yes.
Because the military and our government, and every good government, plans for every possible Contingency.
And when the scientific evidence is mounting, you know, and this administration hasn't always been the most responsive to that scientific evidence, but... Publicly.
Publicly.
Yeah, but bureaucracies function apart from the leadership to one level, and that is when you get deep enough in bureaucracies, the research, the programs, and the preparedness, the machine kind of runs on.
It's just too big.
And as a consequence, you've got a direction that has already been set of preparedness, because everyone who understands what's happening, climate-wise, agrees that the changes are here and they're not going away in the short run.
Right.
And so, it's not a time to get all panicky and uptight.
It's a time to say, Given this, and we know it's happened historically, let's get our best minds together to say, first of all, what can we do that makes sense?
And secondly, if there's technological applications that can be applied, let's see if there's a way to do that.
Let me ask you about one of those, if I might please.
When we're talking about weather modification, that's what we're doing.
In what way can you imagine, or can Dr. Eastland imagine, that HAARP could in fact control the weather?
Technically, how would it be done?
Would there be something dispersed in the atmosphere and then enormous energy reflected on the substance, or what do they imagine?
though it would be you'd be able to modulate uh... grab gravitational waves
in a way or perhaps mod modulate uh...
he'd be honest here in such a way as to divert or control of the flow of jet streams and from their control than
where weather goes and how it flows and that's the name of the game i mean if
you can control jet streams
and then there's the uh... moisture flows that are in different parts of of
If you can control those factors, then you've got it made.
What if you can control the temperature of the ocean?
Now, we all know hurricanes.
We were all instructed endlessly on CNN and elsewhere how hurricanes form and what feeds them.
When they go across hot water, what happens?
When they go across cold water, what happens?
Could HAARP affect the temperature of Let's say the water ahead of a big storm.
That's part of the work that Ben has been doing in terms of knocking out the intensity of tornadoes, as an example, because that's the same kind of situation except it's a warm front hitting a cold front and you get that shearing tornado spin.
By heating up the cold front, the idea is that you don't have that temperature differential that creates those.
In terms of the heating of the Oceans, the amount of energy involved, and discussing that specifically with Dr. Eason, that's probably not in the picture at this point, at least not with HARP as it's currently configured.
But, you know, when you think about using systems that can resonate with water to create heat and release of energy sufficiently to increase the strength of a hurricane, The Russians have claimed that technology going back years, and it's been reported in the New York Times and other publications.
So we know there's technology out there that can accomplish that.
And that's what they've said publicly.
Yeah, now here's the other thing that is not being considered that I think needs to be considered when you talk about temperature increases, whether it be in the Caribbean or in the Pacific, is undersea Uh, volcanoes.
And there are volcanoes within the Caribbean.
In fact, there's one, I think, smoldering down there now, and in Central America.
When one of those... Here's sunlight.
You know, it strikes the surface of the ocean.
You know, most of the heat is dissipated and reflected, and only a very small amount is absorbed into the sea, and it stays at the surface.
Right.
Because it gets colder the deeper you get, and heat rises, and that's the basic physics of it.
But, heat energy released undersea, in the form of venting or a volcano, 100% of the energy is absorbed into that water, And then that can contribute significantly to heating of oceans, and very rapidly.
So, when you think about those kinds of disturbances along with climate change and weather modification changes that are taking place naturally, that's adding tremendous heat into this equation, whether it be in the Pacific or elsewhere.
And then that's changing this whole dynamic of the way in which weather flows, and we're seeing the extremes of it literally everywhere.
Moving into one other area that's, I think, right in the middle of all this,
if you look at the changes in ocean currents over the last 10 years, and even more specifically,
even just the last couple of years, the current that keeps Europe relatively temperate
is beginning to splinter and beginning to stall.
Right, this is a big promise from the fresh water coming off of Greenland, which is actually dragging that heat back.
Sooner, so it's dropping down faster, it's not making it to Europe.
Yes.
And so it's true, you know, when you say global warming, you can't apply that everywhere because it changes in ocean currents than, as I said earlier, with snowfall.
Some glaciers are melting, others are getting thicker.
Right.
But it's the same is true here.
If you think about the citrus belt in the United States even, you know, it used to grow a lot more citrus a lot further north than we grow today, and yet the average temperatures are warming.
Climate change is the better word than even global warming, although that does apply.
When you start to think of Europe changing, there's again a major implication in terms of food production, distribution, all of those important things to modern cultures.
So when you add all of this up, Doctor, it adds up to something awfully ominous.
And I refuse to believe that even an administration that is not famous for its environmental sensitivity on how dire it really is and I I personally think it's very dire indeed and and so what could they do but look to people who were doing experiments and work that might head off what otherwise looks to me like something pretty big
Well, I think, firstly, is proper modeling so we can figure out where those new agricultural areas are going to be.
And I can assure you, some of them are going to be in this part of the world.
We have some of the best potential agriculture here.
And Canada, again.
So you've got to look at what's happening and then how weather patterns and water patterns are going to change.
The other big consideration is coastal cities.
Over the next 50 to 60 years, this is going to be, do we rebuild in places like New Orleans?
And the answer is probably, and disappointingly to many, the answer is probably no.
We have to be more sensible and recognize these changes and start addressing them because there's not enough tax dollars to do it one disaster at a time.
You know, Katrina was a $300 billion disaster in climbing.
And, you know, we have opportunities, I think.
And that's where some of the best minds in the world need to be engaged in looking at the opportunities that climate change brings, as much as it brings destruction.
Because at the other end of the day, the question is, the human race will survive, should survive.
But, you know, we need to use our heads a little bit.
So if you were the one who had made the decision with regard to rebuilding of New Orleans, if you'd been able to make that decision, you would have said, Higher ground, folks.
We've got to do it the right way.
Do not rebuild there.
No, it's just not good to build below sea level when you know it's only going to get worse.
Well, I think we are going to, and we are in fact, rebuilding New Orleans.
The question is, how many lessons are we going to be served up before we decide not to do it?
You know, it's our stubbornness.
And again, so many people want to fight over the Politicize the environmental debate, and it's not about that.
It's really about what's obvious to everyone.
And, you know, having a government that addresses what's obvious to everyone is what everyone sort of expects.
Hey, Dr. Bigot, if we could do this, leave me all night long, buddy, and we'll have you back when Dr. Eastland is available.
That'll be shortly, I trust, right?
I hope so.
I hope we can get him on soon.
Okay, my friend.
Thank you for being here.
A very quick hour indeed.
I'll talk to you shortly.
Well, thanks.
Pleasure to be with you again.
Take care.
The man is Glenn Steckling.
The book he's written is Alien Bases on the Moon.
That's the name of the book.
Glenn Steckling has assumed the responsibilities of his family work in the field of UFO and ET research since his father, Mr. Fred Steckling, passed away in 1991.
This knowledge represents years of personal experience and collective data, now armed with first-hand sightings That's quite a line. He continues to present the materials
discovered and bequeathed his family, spanning over 60 years. Mr. Stoeckling's
latest revision to his father's book, Alien Bases on the Moon Now,
Alien Bases on the Moon 2 contains a combination of over 100 of
our NASA photographs, challenging the continued myth behind the, in quotes, dead moon
and inhospitable planet theories and exposes the increasing possibility of
extraterrestrial activity there. Now, I'm gonna say just before I bring up the pot
and bring on Glenn that I'm a veteran of many years on coast now.
Many visits with Richard Hoagland and with others, I might add.
Some very good minds, frankly, who absolutely believe that there has been and is now something on our moon.
I have interviewed men who have walked on the moon.
And, strangely, one of them said to me that, in some strange way, he didn't really remember the time that he was on the moon.
I said, you know, what was it like, Doctor?
And he said, well, you know, it's kind of, it's odd, Art.
You'd think I would remember every last little tiny detail, but I didn't.
And I always found that comment, it just rocked me back.
A man who walked on the moon, And yet, he kind of doesn't remember the details of what happened when he was there.
I thought that was really, really odd.
Glenn, welcome to the program.
Good evening, Art.
It's a pleasure to be with you tonight and your listeners.
So, look, I am a skeptic, Glenn.
Maybe you can convert me.
Many have tried.
But on the other hand, I have this suspicion That something, something's wrong.
We haven't gone back to the moon.
We've sent some, you know, some probes, but I mean, man has not walked on the moon since.
That's true.
We've done some very extensive lunar surveys.
The Clementine probe, which was for the military, extensively mapped the moon and lunar surface as far as geologically and also with pictures.
If there's nothing there to see, one wouldn't spend so much money for an expensive mission.
Well, ostensibly they claim they're looking for water, I suppose, or looking for certain minerals, or something or another, but let's cut to the chase here.
Wouldn't alien bases on the moon be simply impossible to hide, or would it?
Well, it would depend as well.
First of all, let's take a look at some of the evidence that's been provided here.
I've got an article here from the England's Royal Astronomical Society.
Okay.
And over a period of time, 40 members with their telescopes were looking at various geometrically shaped light patterns, confirmed sightings, 50 mile long opaque objects, Great wide domes, long bridge-like structures, and in 1958 the Russian scientists saw as well huge oval glowing objects that were unexplained.
And this is just one of tens of thousands of reports.
I have another document here in front of me that came from NASA, in fact, it's a chronological listing of lunar events.
This was put out in 1966 at Goddard Space Flight Center.
Yes.
And at list, going back as far as 1870, lunar volcanoes, purple haze, part of the crater of Plato glowing with light, small red glowing objects moving around the moon, luminescent areas around the crater Tycho, and it goes on for pages and pages and pages.
So there clearly is some type of activity going on up there, and we talk about Water on the moon?
Already here in 1971, the news released that moon water was detected.
And there seems to be a familiar reoccurring theme, that information comes out, it kind of fades away for 20-30 years, and then the same information comes out as well.
The same as regarding Mars, I have these articles as well.
What about our own space program?
Glenn, we sent men to the moon, and men to the moon.
Now, Walk me through it a little bit.
How do human beings go to the moon, some of them remaining in orbit, circling the moon really closely, with a view like nobody's ever had.
I mean, just a really good view.
And then we had people walking on the moon itself.
Now, granted, they might have only seen a tiny slice of what's up there, but surely, with the massive size of the things that you're talking about and others have talked about, they had to have seen them!
Well, let's look at some of the quotes.
You may be familiar with the astronaut and physicist Brian O'Leary.
I am.
And his quote was, Contacts between extraterrestrials seem to have been going on for decades.
But we still don't want to admit it.
Now, we all know Gordon Cooper, who recently passed away.
And in 1976, on live television, he made a quote.
Intelligent beings from outer space visit our world in an effort to enter into contact with us.
I have encountered various ships during my space voyages.
NASA and the American government know this and possess a great deal of evidence.
Nevertheless, they remain silent in order to not alarm the people.
Now, there's another gentleman here by the name of Maurice Chatelain.
He holds 11 patents for the telecommunications of the development for the Apollo system.
Now, this man who sits in Mission Control Center has written a book, Our Ancestors Came From Outer Space, and he categorically lists That it seems that all Apollo and Gemini flights were followed both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin, flying saucers or UFOs.
This is a direct quote from his book.
So, some have talked, some have not.
There's a great deal of pressure, and there's a great deal of oversight in this particular subject, and absolutely when it has to do with our ranking officials and officers that are going into space.
And we all know that there are certain papers one has to sign, so... Okay, but you know, a lot of these were generic comments, startling as they were.
They were generic comments and they weren't, hey, I was on the moon, and I'm going to break by silence, and I'm going to tell you exactly what I saw.
It wasn't that.
It was sort of a general belief in extraterrestrial life.
Now, do you expect that before they die, one of our astronauts may do something like that?
It may.
It may happen.
You know, everybody has families and children and grandchildren, and they have to weigh the consequences.
The potential problems that may occur by divulging such type of information.
Also you find that the general public is often not very sympathetic or very supportive and so you risk being ostracized both from your professional peers.
There is that.
And also from the general public as well because they're such an incredible reticule factor that has been attached over the last
several years. I know, but even Neil Armstrong has made several kind of
cryptic wondrous remarks over the years. He doesn't talk very often,
but when he does he really makes some odd comments. Yes, that's true.
And of course then we have the fact that many astronauts have ended up in divorce and various
forms of real trouble.
Uh...
Certainly, you wouldn't expect that of all these guys with the right stuff, but they have.
As if, you know, there's a lot of pain in trying to hide something.
I'm not saying they are, but it could be suggested that they're under stress.
Absolutely.
Absolutely, and I think that here's the key phrase that perhaps we should take a look at.
I don't believe that it is either realistic or something to expect that somebody is going to, or a number of individuals, are going to stand up and conclusively satisfy our curiosity.
I mean, enough people have.
We look at Major Kehoe, we look at We look at Frank Edwards.
We look at Waverly Girvin.
I mean, there is really such an immense list of people.
Professor MacDonald, who went before the SEPS Committee in 1968.
If people really would have an idea at the plethora of information and the immense amount of so-called names that have come out in support of the release of this information, they would be truly astounded.
And I believe that it's very important to remind people of the rich and very real history that is associated with this subject, and we have gone off in some very convoluted tangents.
How about a straight-on question, Glenn?
Why do you believe, and obviously you believe, that our government has absolute knowledge of what's on the moon?
Yes?
Yes.
What motivation does our government have, in your opinion, for not telling us?
Well, it's difficult to put yourself inside the head of somebody else.
Let's put it this way.
Certain policies are initiated and they are continued Just as a matter of fact.
Okay, that just tells me about the ever-continuing cover-up.
What I want to know from you is why you think.
In other words, would knowledge of extraterrestrial presence as close as the moon be too much of a social disruption?
Would it disrupt our churches, our faith, our very basis for everyday living?
Is that it?
Well, it would be if we wanted to remain closed-minded.
It depends on the type of expression that we wanted to foster as far as ourselves as individuals and as a people.
I don't believe it would necessarily have to do that, but it depends on how closely we wanted to hold on to old beliefs.
Remember, they burned Bruno at the stake for his beliefs.
We believe the Earth was flat for a long time.
We have come up with some peculiar habits and some peculiar ways of persecuting those who come to enlighten us a little bit
and it's not necessarily a very pleasant deal.
Yes, that will of course bring up another topic and that is whether you think that
this extraterrestrial presence is benign or you think there's a really good chance that it is
very ominous and very evil by our standards.
From the information that I have been able to be exposed to, and I look at this from several different angles, historically when we look at The type of contacts that are reported in historical records, whether we go back into the Middle Ages, back into Biblical times, or only as far back as the early 1950s, we're looking at the type of interactions where it's reported there is a non-hostile, beneficial interaction, provided, of course, that we wish it as well.
So, in other words, nobody is taken against their will or done terrible things to.
And I find it very interesting, and so did Major Kehoe in his book, Aliens from Space, that in 1961 the whole direction of this very real subject went off to the scare tactic, and I believe there are specific reasons for that, and I believe to a great extent that is generated here.
You're telling me the negative stories, and I've heard many of them, I've interviewed people, the negative abduction stories you don't buy.
Let's say that I look at them with the same critical and skeptical eye that you have.
Fair enough, I guess.
I'm not saying that, let's put it this way.
We experiment with all types of different research and development equipment here.
Ultra-high frequency, low frequency, microwaves, the list can go on and on.
And a lot of these have psychological repercussions.
They cause loss of memory, which can be attributed to lost time.
It causes agitation.
It causes aggression.
We are experimenting with a great deal of our own type of equipment.
And we do this in a general fashion, not necessarily just on laboratory animals.
And so, whether, and I'm going to say this, all the stories of what people are talking about can be attributed to visitors from other worlds, I call that into question.
I'm not saying that all of them are and all of them aren't, but I'm saying I have to look at them with the same critical eye that we should look at everything.
Well, I would say it would be a safe bet to say that a lot of what's reported probably either didn't happen or was the source of somebody's overactive imagination or whatever, but clearly there is something going on.
I've interviewed enough people to know that something, something real is happening.
People are being taken.
I'm not sure that I can agree with your skepticism about their intent.
The big question is by whom?
Or rather the fact that you think that, I guess, that they're relatively benign and that you dismiss stories of people who have been taken against their will and have things done that they were not happy with.
There are an awful lot of those stories for you to be in doubt of them.
Well, there's a great deal of those stories as well, and I also look at it from somewhat of the eye of Carl Sagan, whose name we all recognize.
Sure.
And his quote was that if we take the percentages upon which this is being reported without some type of a critical eye, then hundreds of millions of people are taken, including your neighbors, and we're not noticing that happening.
We have a great deal of looking into that particular side.
I'm not saying that everything is benign.
I'm just saying that when you look at what is questioned officially and how information is disseminated and how it is collected, there is definitely a two-tier level to this particular subject.
Do you believe that these visitors, Glenn, are watching a genetic experiment that they began?
No, I don't put such a clandestine spin on it, so to speak.
I believe that we are being observed.
Why?
Simply because it's a learning process.
Why not?
I mean, we go to a different place, a different country, we observe the environment, we observe the people, the culture, the customs.
Why would it be any different for anyone who comes to watch and look at us?
When we look at, when you monitor the television and the radio and you watch what's going on in this world, you must admit, it is a very difficult classroom in the psyche of the human mind and human expression.
We do a lot of things that are are clearly hypocritical and, shall we say, non-consistent with what we say and we do.
So I find it an excellent classroom to see the psychology of how we developed and how we think and how we react here.
Why, I don't consider that strange at all.
And we're talking about alien bases on the moon.
That's no small matter.
Just a quick note here, turning to my back computer, There is an update.
NASA climate expert says U.S.
tried to silence him.
It's in the New York Papers.
It reads, NASA's top climate scientist has accused the Bush administration of trying to stop him from speaking out after he called in a lecture for swift cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
James Hansen Director of the U.S.
Space Agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his forthcoming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard website, and requests for media interviews.
According to the New York Times now, quote, they feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public, said Hansen, who told the paper he'd ignore the restrictions while NASA says Don Acosta, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs at NASA, denied to the Times that there was any effort to silence Hanson whatsoever.
So, that's one you should digest, think real hard about.
Real hard about.
we'll be right back with when speculate you know skeptic is probably the wrong word up
I'm not really a skeptic about this sort of thing.
Bases on the moon.
I think I'm more like an agnostic on the subject.
In other words, I surely do see it's possible.
I've seen and heard an awful lot of things over the years that make me suspicious, really suspicious, but I can't say that I've seen anything that's knocked me out.
Anyway, back to the ants for a moment, Glenn.
Surely a race of people who could get here from there, and we know there is a long way away at best.
Impossibly far away, at worst.
I mean, that's a lot of power.
They'd be a type 2, type 3 civilization.
They might regard us, I don't know, as an infestation.
Why is that wrong thinking?
Well, I'm not going to say that Eddie's thinking is wrong thinking.
Let's look at this in a different fashion, so to speak.
When we're talking about the complexities of space travel, The technology that's required is immense.
We're so used to science fiction where we just say warp speed and everything happens, but it really belittles the immense technology that's required to travel space, to navigate magnetic storms, asteroid belts, gravitational fields.
We're talking a type of advancement and scientific capability It is a great deal past where we are today.
Now, why would we assume that any civilization could advance a thousand, two thousand, how many thousands of years ahead of us in order to be able to travel space in such a fashion, but still remain archaic or barbaric in their sociological or intellectual development?
And I think that That we need to equate the two.
We don't go into the jungles of Papua New Guinea and expect to find NASA rocket scientists or engineers that build 747s.
So, technological development comes in conjunction to sociological development and education and awareness and thinking.
And we shouldn't sell that division short.
Well, I'm not, though, and I'm not suggesting that they would, you know, be monsters just wanting to kill us.
I'm just suggesting they might be so far advanced that we would be inconsequential to them.
Totally inconsequential, as an anthill might be to your boot, you know, if you step in the wrong place.
Well, if we look at the records so far, and based upon the Air Force's records alone, there were a period of time when there were many as 700 sightings in the United States alone.
This doesn't encompass the rest of the world in cyclic periods of time.
And, if they wanted to squash us, they certainly could have done it over the thousands of years while we were running around with swords and spears and arrows and everything else.
That's a very good point.
Right?
And so, when you look at the amount of sightings and interactions and films and really tangible evidence If we were going to be squashed, it would have been simple to do it at any time, and it's still simple to do it at any time.
So perhaps we ourselves need to step and take a step further than that and see, well, if that's not the case, what is happening?
And perhaps there's more to it than just that.
Well, that's a good answer, Glenn.
I've got to agree.
We have all of this evidence that's piled up.
I mean, obviously something, in fact, is going on.
Back to the moon for a second.
Richard C. Hoagland made some remarkable claims about glass structures on the moon, crystalline glass structures.
I've heard that from any number of guests.
Gigantic things, just monstrous things actually going Very high above the surface of the moon.
Do you give credence to that?
There have been reports and it has been done by astronomers and both amateur and professional ones with different types of equipment in different locations so that you get a varying angle so that you start to eliminate, you know, haze factors and triangulation and things like that.
And there is an area that has been reported.
I myself have not seen that.
A large Van de Graaff type structure that stands, and based upon the measurements of its shadow, they're talking about it perhaps 5,000 feet high.
Yes.
I know, I discussed this with John Lear, and I consider John a friend even though we agree on some things, we disagree on others, but we share the same desire for the truth.
And we served together flying airplanes, so we have talked about this subject as well.
No kidding, you served with John, huh?
Yes, we have.
John, as you know, is quite a good friend of mine.
Did you ever have the opportunity, just an offhand remark here, to hear the program I did with John in which he did what I called the Lear Test?
No.
Oh, too bad.
No, but I've talked to him recently and we're planning to get together in his neck of the woods.
Well, when you see him, be sure you take the Lear test.
All right.
I did, and it's worth doing, Glenn.
Believe me, it's worth doing.
He's quite a guy, and I know that he has a lot of beliefs about the moon.
Yes.
Some of which even extend, Glenn, into its being a relay station.
Brace yourself for souls.
Well, there can be all kinds of speculation.
I, at this stage of the game, have dealt with the NASA photographs that my father collected due to his association when he went to lecture between 12 and 22 scientists at Goddard Space Flight Center in 1967.
Actually, it was an invitation along with the Pentagon as well thereafter.
And I've seen the microfiche and the volumes of photographs where you go through and then you order the photographs and they come in 8x10s or 20x15s and then you go through them, high quality pictures, and then you can start to pick out things like clouds and formations and areas that appear to be under construction.
And so, there's a great deal of information and I don't believe the government hides that from us.
It just requires a curiosity factor and a diligence on our part to go and
look for it.
Alright, now listen to me folks. We've put some photographs, Glenn has put some
photographs up on the Coast2CoastAM.com
website. Now Glenn, what I want you to do is knock my socks And I want to invite the audience to go up and take a look at these photographs as well.
And if I can see anything like you have described that people have seen, or even anything that I can truly regard as artificial, Then I'm going to be with you, Glenn.
Let's go through them and see what we've got, okay?
Alright, very good.
Now, reminding that these are just some of them that we had available on the computer.
There are literally hundreds of more that are, I would say, higher quality.
But let's take a look at what we've got here.
These look pretty good, especially this first one.
it looks like to me a really barren moonscape.
So tell me what I'm looking at.
Are you looking at the one here, the Apollo 12 from the dark side of the moon?
Let's see.
You see a large luminescent object.
Apollo 12, dark side of the moon, large luminescent object lighting a huge area of lunar surface.
Now, that appears to be...
Well, okay, I see it.
Something very, very bright is reflecting from the moon's surface.
There's no question about it, but now this is photography, right?
That's correct.
So what do you maintain this is we're seeing?
Well, this is the question, and this is the reason the book exists, and this is to create an open dialogue about what we have theorized about and what we have perpetuated over decades and what tends to exist or question those things.
So what do you think it is?
This here on the dark side of the moon on this particular orbit, it was during the time of the sun's in the opposite direction, so you see down here on the surface normally this photograph would be taken on the dark side with nothing luminescent on the surface and of course you'd have a black photo.
Right.
And barely be able to see any of the topography or geology involved.
Looks like they dropped a flare.
Yeah, well, a flare that would illuminate, well, shall we say conservatively, perhaps 25 square miles would be quite a flare.
So we're looking at a shot that's taken.
This is a Hasselbalch picture, so it's a high-quality, high-definition picture.
It is, indeed.
Of a large, illuminated area on the dark side of the moon.
And that, of course, brings into question Is it on the surface?
Is there something down there that is creating it?
Is it between that's flying over the surface?
Okay, what does NASA say it is?
Well, I haven't asked them.
I doubt seriously that they would give you a definitive answer.
Well, I sure as hell would expect one.
I mean, it looks like the sun.
From the moon.
It looks like a portion of the moon is so bright that the sun, and in fact, could it be the sun?
Well, how could it be the sun if you're looking at only the bottom corner of this section of the photo?
If you would have sun luminescence, it would include a terminator in which you would have light and dark.
And it would be greater than in just one square corner of the picture.
Okay, I agree.
It's very weird.
What are the best people outside of NASA who have been willing to comment on this photograph think that it might be?
I would say that my father got a great deal of support and a great deal of verification on the pictures that he put together in here.
And there's a number of them that I believe show that there are UFO activity I won't get to that.
I'm just, right now, with this incredible brightness.
What do people say it could be?
Well, they don't give you any reasons for that.
And that, I think, is definitive of this entire subject.
If you ask people, if somebody takes a picture of a UFO or takes a sighting or whatever, you get, often for many years, swamp gas, temperature inversion, and so on and so forth.
So you get the runaround.
And at this particular stage of the game, Nobody bothers to even address the situation.
So you've got a high-quality, high-definition picture of the moon showing what appears to be something as bright as the sun emanating from it, or reflecting from something, and NASA won't say, well, yeah, this is interesting.
I mean, they won't even comment that far?
Well, I believe that, you know, they are strapped for cash.
They're not getting a whole lot of public support.
Every time you look at their budget, it continues to be dwindled down, and their technical people and scientists and educators are thrown on the streets.
And so, literally, when you look at these catalogs, tens if not hundreds of thousands of pictures, this is sitting away in warehouses, and you don't find people going through that, because they're too busy trying to maintain their jobs to work current projects.
We don't give them the support they need, we don't give them the finance they need, and we certainly don't promote NASA as a space program.
And it would help, of course, if it was inclusive.
Now you certify to me that this photograph is an unaltered NASA photograph, right?
Absolutely.
Every photo in that book is included with the NASA serial numbers on there for the general public to order for themselves, just as we did.
You got me there.
It's a pretty good anomaly.
All right.
And I'm just sorry you can't come up with any guesses about what it might be.
Well, my guess is exactly that.
I consider that to be either a surface lumination or above the surface.
But either way, it's not a natural phenomenon.
So that if it's not ours, then it has to be somebody else's.
Second photograph.
Second photograph.
I'm looking at a photograph here.
Materials being moved from small crater and pouring into larger crater below?
That's correct.
There are actually two shots of this.
The one in the book is actually much closer up, but if you look in this central crater here, the larger one that's about 12 o'clock and halfway up the photo, and just above it is a little tiny one, and you see this material It is coming over the rim of the crater and bellowing into the bottom of it.
Now, when you take that and look at the enlargement of the photo, it's much more concise.
I see it.
I do see it, actually.
And there are areas on the moon where you can see terracing very much that you see over the southwestern United States.
When you fly over and we're looking at our strip mining, they're terraced down.
You see areas where material is moved.
You can actually see something pouring out and collecting, in fact, inside that crater.
Well, it tells you to.
First of all, something's conducting that activity, and secondly, in a vacuum, materials don't move concisely from one area to the next, so you have to have some type of atmospheric pressure To be the vehicle or the medium to hold the dust particles to carry them from one place to the next.
There is no atmosphere on the moon, right?
Well, that's not what they said.
That's not what who said?
Well, that's not what said at all.
In fact, when you see some of the NASA photographs, you see a very thin layer, a very hazy layer.
In some areas of the moon, depending on what's susceptible to the Earth's gravitational pull and what's not at a particular time.
Is that debris just being held by the moon's gravity?
It can be held by the moon's gravity, but once you have lunar gravity, and then you have reports of water geysers, and you have reports of clouds, then you start to put together the... Clouds?
What reports of clouds?
Well, here, when we looked at the chronology of listings here, we're talking about mist moving over the floor of Crater Chicard, obscuration of the floor of Crater Platte Hill, and so on and so forth.
So they're talking about atmospheric disturbance, of course, greatly reduced from what we're accustomed to here, but some atmospheric disturbance on the Moon.
On this particular Article they're talking about that Dr. John Freeman in 1971 said that instruments left on the moon detected moon geysers lasting for 14 hours.
Moon geysers?
Water?
Water clouds erupted through cracks on the lunar surface and the clouds spread to cover an area of more than 10 square miles.
Well, a cloud has to be supported by a medium.
It cannot spread in a vacuum.
So, one step leads to the next.
Well, that's amazing.
Are there photographs of these geysers?
That I don't know.
There's a photograph in the book of a very large crater.
I can't recall it off the top of my mind, but there are two orbits on this crater.
On one orbit, the crater is approximately 50 miles in diameter, and you see that the northern edge is completely obscured.
The rim, the floor, everything.
On the next orbit, that entire area of mist and clouds has moved north of the crater, And now the entire crater that was originally obscured is completely free and you can see the rim and the floor and everything.
I just wonder if I can see this because you have suggested it to me and it is an odd formation of nature but I mean it really does look like something's pouring into that crater and I would challenge a lot of the audience to go up there and take a look themselves.
It really, really, really looks that way so You take a look yourself.
Certainly what we're seeing here would not be consistent with anything that anybody figures ought to be going on on the moon.
The moon should be dead as a doornail.
At least that's the conventional wisdom, is it not?
But it's not any longer.
We're talking about lunar earthquakes, volcanoes, water geysers.
In a moment or two I'm going, oh yeah, I do see that.
Now, I don't know that the light bulb has gone on over this second picture, but it's pretty interesting.
It could be something else, but when it is described as it has been described by Glenn, it's not hard to see.
It's really not hard to see.
I don't know if all this adds up to the immensity of there are alien bases on the moon or not, yet.
But, then again, we're not done.
we'll be right back okay so you can follow along
with these photographs Glenn Steckling has them up on the Coast2CoastAM.com website and you're welcome to follow along with us.
Photograph 1 of the moon dark side, big glowing something there.
Definitely intriguing.
Photograph 2, something pouring from one crater to another crater, also definitely intriguing.
The third photograph, is of one of our astronauts.
So, Glenn, let's talk about that.
That's an Apollo 12 photograph, another Hasselbalch high-quality photograph, as well.
And it shows an elliptical object staying within the frame, as you can see, an elliptical bean-shaped luminescent object hanging over the astronaut's head, casting enough light and luminescence to completely light up The left side of the astronaut as we look at the frame.
It's true.
It's blossomed out, bloomed out, I think they call it in photography.
It's bloomed out.
Now, why isn't that the Sun we're talking about?
Well, when we look at the Sun, we look at an area that, of course, is not shaped as an ellipse or a bean shape or saucer shape.
We're looking at a complete Complete planetary body that's casting light from it. So
you're looking at a severe rather than an ellipse It's a totally different
Configuration Well
It's it's weird. I'll give you that the best thing You know, it does seem to be illuminating the astronaut.
Now, what about the possibility that the photograph itself is simply overexposed, terribly overexposed?
Is that possible?
Well, how can you overexpose a section of it in such a fashion?
Look at the rest of the photograph.
Look at the ground and the topography here to the left side of the photograph, the little ridge.
Yep, I see it.
Alright, and you look at the stones that are here on the ground as well, the ones that are laying flat are not overexposed.
They're not overexposed either.
Yeah, yeah.
So once again, we're talking about interesting photographs showing interesting features to cause us to talk about a lot of other possibilities.
Yeah, okay.
So that's pretty interesting, alright.
You're right, the rest of it is not overexposed.
There's a single point source for this light and it's an extremely strong light.
All right, now, how about this, Doctor.
If such a thing was going on as we see pictured here, how could the astronauts not have been going, oh my God, there's something above us, something lighting it.
It's like the sun has come out.
Well, how would we know that they didn't?
There is some telemetry.
I recall, I believe that was from Apollo 15, where they were talking about You know, they were seeing some type of object or what have you and Mission Control was asking him to switch to a different ultra-high frequency so that it wasn't on the broadcast channel.
Is that so?
So, I mean, these particular frequencies are monitored expressly by their governing agency.
Do you happen to have any audio of that?
I would sure love to hear it.
I have recalled that the transcript is in one of the publications and I will make a note.
Yeah, I know there's transcripts going around, Glenn, but what I'm saying is, do you know anybody who has actual audio of that?
I once recall seeing it on a documentary There was that short film clip, I believe it also showed the Lunar Rover moving around, and there was a section in there, and I'm going to have to see.
I cannot recall off the top of my head.
I mean, there's such an immense amount of material.
If I find it, I'll definitely forward it to you.
Okay.
All right.
I agree, that's weird.
Let's go down.
What in the world have we got here?
This is a Lunar Orbiter 4 picture.
And it shows a certain area of the moon and we're looking at a very straight, for lack of a better description, cigar-shaped object parked right next to the crater.
And you can tell if you look at this from the photographic standpoint that the sun is coming from the top of the picture or the north of the picture, illuminating the southern wall of the crater.
And then it would be like putting a cigar or pencil right next to it.
And perfectly straight.
No, it doesn't.
But it's not... It's still not what I would call clear evidence.
a very irregular shadow behind it as well.
That can be due to a number of possibilities, either it not being totally on the ground or what have you.
So once again, an interesting shot and certainly does not look like a natural feature.
No, it doesn't, but it's still not what I would call clear evidence.
I mean, for example, if we got a shot of, an unquestioning shot of a building, Glenn,
or I don't know, something that clearly everybody who looks at it says,
that ain't natural.
Now, this is interesting, but it doesn't, you know, come up to that high a bar.
Well, that's based on individual interpretation, and everybody, of course, has that right to do that.
When you look at lunar orbiter pictures, You're looking at a different quality of a shot.
Much earlier in the space program, this is not a direct picture taken by a Hasselbalch camera.
Right.
You know, so we're taking a completely different quality of photo here.
Alright, next one.
Lunar Orbiter 4.
You're claiming this is actual construction activity.
On this particular shot, there are some numerics into the frame itself, so someone else At the source was clearly doing some research on this particular picture.
Also those numbers came that way from NASA?
That's correct.
Ah ha ha ha.
So there's areas in here where, and it goes I believe as far as five, since this is a smaller crop version of the original picture, and it shows particular areas of interest here, and in conjunction with this shot there seems to be an area where there Seems some type of activity.
We talked about terraced craters, walled areas.
There's also an area which seems like there are reservoirs or constructions, irregular factions, like we have in Southern California for water that, when you look straight down on them at one particular point, you can see into them.
And other times, from different angles, they're silvery, like reflection of water.
So this is one in a series of perhaps 25 different pictures taken.
Pretty weird.
Different.
Pretty weird.
You know, I don't know if I can attach all the meaning that you just did to what I'm seeing, but it is weird looking.
It's busy, I'll give it that.
Very busy.
There's a lot there.
But I don't know that I could look at that and say that's construction.
Well, yeah.
Each one has to determine what they see in it, and then it also helps to see the rest of the photographs in conjunction with it in the series.
I wish it wasn't like a Rorschach test.
Well, we have to remember, too, we're talking about a body 250,000 miles away, and you're going there in orbit, and you have to get used to looking at things from above to look for the shadows where the sun reflects where it's dark and what have you, so it wouldn't be any different than flying at 70,000 feet or even much higher and determining geological features.
Okay, this next one is really interesting.
It's the last one in this series and it says Lunar Orbiter 4 cloud
hanging over left side of crater.
Now, it does look like that.
You know, actually it does look like a cloud hanging over a crater.
There is not supposed to be atmosphere on the moon.
That's all there is to that.
There's not supposed to be any atmosphere there.
Now, if that's not a cloud, let's think, what the hell is it?
Um...
Hmm.
When you look at this picture, you can see there on the left-hand side,
you can see very clearly as you follow the rim of this crater,
as you come up to this obscuration, the rim stops, and then continues on from underneath it from below,
but also it casts a bit of a triangular shadow underneath the obscuration that hangs over the rim.
Hmm, it does, doesn't it?
Yes, it does.
So once again, another photo to Yes, correct.
Remember the obelisk and two...
Oh yeah.
Many, many scientists believe that the moon very likely may have one of these, an object like an obelisk, or something That is intended to make a transmission or a communication when we, man, reach the moon and uncover it.
I mean, they actually think this is a likelihood that another, that an alien race would put something like that on the moon.
What do you think?
It's possible.
I can't say whether it would be or not.
I mean, it's possible.
Since we have no evidence of that, that's the best we can do is leave it at that until we uncover it.
Of course it'll be difficult to uncover unless we really put together a united front and go back there and actually do something.
Well, I'll see you around to something.
Let me ask you about this.
It has been that long since man has been to the moon.
We haven't been back.
There are a group of people, John Lear might be one of them, who believe, Glenn, that we were told not to come back.
We were told to discontinue space travel or we perhaps even were warned to discontinue space travel and there are those who believe that's absolutely true.
Do you?
I think the other way.
I think that the exposure from space travel and the exposure to the possibilities out in space and the communications and what can be learned from that poses a change, a change to our way of thinking and a change to our way of life.
And we are very resistant to that change.
In 75, when the space program terminated, it terminated from lack of funds, it terminated from lack of interest, political will, etc., etc.
But there's more to it than that, just that.
Because when you get exposure, they bring about changes In the environment and in the patterns of how we conduct business on this planet.
And I think we are more worried about that than the other way around.
Well, it apparently ended because of interest and no funding and all the rest of that.
Yes, apparently that's why it ended, but a lot of people are not convinced that's all there is to it.
Well, then let's look at it in the other fashion.
If you are being warned off not to go there, Then why in the world would you come back with untold sightings and landings and things like that that continued, obviously, since 1975 if we were supposed to be warned away and then this would be supposedly covered up or smothered over or what have you?
The actions contradict, in my opinion, that particular theory.
Officially, certainly, it is a secret.
If we found things, saw things, know a lot of things about the moon, it's obviously being kept secret from us, despite the comments of various people, and despite sightings, despite all of that, officially, it's being held secret.
Right?
That's correct.
And we just have to determine the reasons why.
I personally think that we When we look at some of these crafts and we know what type of propulsion they have, and this was one of the discussions that was conducted at Goddard between the 22 scientists, they knew what type of electromagnetic propulsion was being used.
Free energy, for lack of a better word.
The fact that the planet produces that as a giant Van de Graaff generator, hundreds of trillions of immeasurable volts.
And if we continue to Uh, evolve scientifically where we stop fighting against the natural forces and merge towards them, we will find that a lot of our energy problems, pollution problems, global warming problems can be alleviated.
And certainly the industries and the financial markets have a great deal to think about.
But you're not giving me a reason to hold it secret.
You're giving me lots of good reasons to make it public and have a big parade down Main Street.
Well, yeah, that's what you think, but then, you know, we have to look a little bit deeper than that.
Well, look deeper for me.
All right, let's look deeper for a moment.
Free energy suddenly creates no more oil consumption.
The people who are making money out of petroleum products, which isn't just for our cars and jets.
It overflows into plastics and into medical.
It has come into every aspect of our consumer product lives.
The repercussions from that, every one of us has 401ks or looking for retirement.
We have stocks and companies.
We have all vested interests in maintaining A comfortable social climate that we have gotten accustomed to.
So what are you telling me?
What I'm telling you is that we do not want rapid change until we have managed to incorporate it in such a fashion that we can charge for it.
So then free energy would destroy the world as we know it?
It would change it.
Well, yeah, but I mean from the point of view of those who peddle oil, not an inconsequential group to be sure, Glenn.
That's true.
It would end life as they know it, right?
Well, they certainly wouldn't be pleased about it.
Well, absolutely not.
It would end life as they know it.
So, do you believe that's a big enough reason?
I believe it's certainly a large, definitely a large percentage of that reason, absolutely.
And then we go a little bit further as well.
Let's say that we become in contact with people who have explored greater parts of the universe, and we have greater insights into things.
Right now, we're a society of theory, and we theorize about everything, and we build theory upon theory until nobody can figure out what's real anymore.
And we need to become more knowledgeable about what is, what is reality and what is truth, and stop theorizing about it.
Do you believe that presidents know about this?
I believe that some presidents absolutely have been exposed to it.
In fact, not too long ago, the History Channel put out a very excellent program based upon that.
But they are just... Believe it or not, you can't walk into certain areas of government and say, I'm President so-and-so, open the door.
It doesn't work that way.
Well, there are many who feel there is a cabal which is either in touch or not in touch with any current sitting president that controls all of this information.
You know, sort of above top secret and all that.
I've heard that term.
Would that be your view?
That some presidents know and some don't, but there is a cabal that definitely knows and... I would say that there are some elected officials that have had some exposure, for instance.
There were sightings in the fifties, I believe, Truman and Eisenhower.
There's been some reports about President Kennedy.
Ronald Reagan, while he was governor, flying his jet in California, reportedly saw one and was a believer.
Jimmy Carter put out a report when he was serving as a military officer, I believe, on a nuclear submarine.
And so they have some type of insight.
As to how much information that they are allowed access to, well, we leave to the levels of government to determine.
Well whatever else I think of Jimmy Carter, I think that if there had been free energy out there, Carter would have blown the whistle if he knew about it.
So this goes back to some presidents perhaps know, and some don't.
I would think those with a closer connection to the military-industrial complex would be perhaps aware of what's going on.
Those considered unfriendly to the military-industrial complex probably, well, it would be, I don't know, probably just not mentioned to them.
Well, and it's once again based upon What exactly is going on at the time?
I mean, you know, we have political events, we have governments and wars and all kinds of things that are going on each and every day.
Yes, we do.
Earlier today, I think I saw it on CNN, so some of you probably will have seen this commercial,
and that's what it is, is a commercial.
It's sort of a proud commercial, and it's a Saudi Arabian conglomerate corporation that owns A big part of a lot of our corporations, you know, and they're proudly saying, we own a whole lot of your life.
We own part of this corporation, part of that corporation, part of this corporation.
It is, I forget what the name of it is, something like Kingdom Industries or something like that.
And when I saw that, I thought, man, talk about shifting fortunes.
You know, they have taken, obviously, a great deal of their oil money.
And they've invested it right back into the U.S., into companies in the U.S.
mainly, and it was just kind of a shocking commercial to see in a lot of ways.
So I can buy what you're saying about oil, but it seems to me U.S.
interests would be not in shifting our Fortune in America to the countries that have what's left of the oil.
But if we had free energy, it seems to me like we'd break that baby out and begin to use it, figure a way to charge for it.
I don't know what they do, but something or another to prevent our fortune from going overseas.
Now, so there's that.
And then there's this, Glenn.
What about Yeah, we've been to the moon.
Maybe we're keeping a big secret, but the Chinese right now, Glenn, gee, they're getting ready to go to the moon.
There are going to be other countries that are going to go to the moon.
And, well, the Chinese, they've got to just about buy all the oil they get.
If they get up to the moon and find there's something up there that will give us free energy, I doubt they're going to keep quiet about it.
Well, that's a distinct possibility.
The Japanese also are very active and they allocate a certain percentage of their budget.
And they have, over the last decade, have set up plans to put up a moon base with honeycomb type of construction and hotels.
So there are other countries who are taking the exploration of space quite seriously and believe the benefits of it.
Oh, yes.
Yes, indeed.
So, isn't that where the bubble bursts when other countries get to the moon?
Even if we've successfully kept the secret this long, we've got to know the cat's about to be out of the bag, and we're going to be holding the bag.
Well, it depends on several factors, of course.
The geopolitical situation changes every hour, and it depends on who's beholden to whom at this particular time.
We seem to sell off all our interest, as you mentioned, the Corporate Kingdom Corporation, but we have to also remember that we are happily selling off our country and our assets for profit to anybody willing to pony up enough money, and so we're as much to blame as those who are purchasing it.
But once the Chinese or the Japanese or any other consortium of countries get up there, Then it depends on what kind of pressure could be exerted, budgetary-wise, militarily-wise.
There are still some factors in this equation.
Well, maybe.
But if China gets up there, I mean, they're competing in the world oil market right now.
With us, that's what's driving up, part of what's driving up the price of oil.
They need a lot of it, and they're competing in the world market for it.
So, seems to me, particularly in their situation, they would have nothing but an interest in, you know, blowing us right out of the water and saying, look what America did to the world for X number of years, when really the answer was here all the time.
All the more reason to work collectively.
rather than playing this game.
And that's basically what it comes down to, whether it's in this particular field of UFOs
or many other fields.
Do me a favor, Glenn.
Back away from the phone just a little bit.
It's causing a crackling noise.
Alrighty, how's that?
A little bit better.
So, you know, sometime between now and when the Chinese might get there, we are going to have to come to some kind of agreement if what you're suggesting is true, wouldn't you think?
That perhaps can be the case, and I would hope so for greater involvement and greater openness in this particular subject.
It may take another generation, but Hopefully sooner rather than later.
We've waited long enough as it is.
Well, the whole UFO world and community could use more credibility, right?
There's no doubt about that.
How do you think that might conceivably be obtained?
The credibility factor comes in several different levels.
First of all, I believe that the type of information that you represent and the way you represent it It stands for itself and the type of people who represent it as well are either a credible or non-credible source.
Also, as we take this more seriously and are willing to embrace it a little bit more from a real and scientific standpoint, then I think that we will get a lot more cooperation in that field now, too.
This field is a sea of confusion.
It is a menagerie.
It's like the Three Stooges, everybody pointing fingers at each other.
Well, it's not helped by some of the people that are in it, of course.
No.
It tends to attract the fringe element, and that's enough for the rest of the people to just sort of shake their heads and laugh or whatever.
Correct.
However, I've seen something myself, Glenn, completely inexplicable.
Actually, I've seen something twice, and so many humans have had that experience, so many, that damn it, you know, there's something real to it, but I just don't know how we nail it down, add that credibility factor that just has to be there to get us moving.
Well, yes, that's correct.
And once you see something, then you start asking questions.
And the more questions we ask, and the more we network and converse with people, we find out.
I talked recently to some gentlemen in the former Soviet Union, Russia, and they talked about the number of these craft landing and the openness that's involved in the interaction.
Oh, I know.
We open up the dialogue and the more we interact, that's how we bring down the barriers.
We've seen that socially, just in the way we interact with each other.
Well, I've watched Friends trying to open this whole thing up well-intentioned.
Very brilliant people like Dr. Greer, who have really gone after it in the most conventional way you can imagine, amassing powerful witnesses, offering to give testimony that would be at the very least shocking, but the poor guy, he doesn't make a lot of progress.
And he's doing it sort of from the inside, I mean, the right way.
And still, he bats his head up against the wall, and I'm sure he'd be the first one to agree with that.
Well, absolutely.
And, you know, Professor McDonald and Major Kehoe and Dr. Alan Hynek went before the Senate in 1968 and 1969 in order to bring this mantle of secrecy out and be more open with it.
And it was relatively squashed at that time, too.
And so I think that that is a valuable lesson.
In order to promote greater education in this field, it doesn't have to be in front of CNN or in front of the International News Conference, because that's where you reach the greatest amount of resistance as well.
You have to go amongst the people.
And I think that's a very clear reason why we saw so many UFO sightings in so many contexts, and I can't even count them, at least a hundred countries, during a particular time because They found out that, from the official standpoint, they were not going to release this information, even if they flew in formation over the Capitol building as they did in 1952.
I was going to say, they did.
They did.
And they did it again in 1965.
And there are photographs of all that.
Absolutely.
We have photographs.
It's a damned a thing.
We just don't... So if our officials are not going to relay the information, then what do you do?
You go amongst the people.
And we do that normally, too.
If we talk to a government and we find that government doesn't want to embrace our freedoms and our democratic ideals, we go to the people and hope that it works them through the back door.
Right.
But so far, none of that has worked.
The whole backdoor approach just... I don't know.
It just falls apart.
And there's too much there for this to be happening, and yet they succeed in Oh, limiting the subject, I guess would be a way to put it.
Yes, they limit the subject, and I think to some degree we also have, we carry the burden of some of that responsibility, because our attention spans are so short.
When we come to general elections, there's always a consensus, a laughter, that the attention span of the electorate is no more than 20 minutes, if you're lucky.
And I think that says something about ourselves, too, if we have become so I can't think of the proper word, but if we become so enthralled with everything else, we carry actually more interest for tabloids, or what the Hollywood crowd is doing, or who's wearing what, than we do concerning information that is... Well, not so much the crowd you're talking to right now, to be sure.
But yes, generally in society, certainly you're right.
And we're talking about we need to have mass support in order to get something to change, and so we have to be able to appeal to the The interests of the masses, and that's a very slow process.
Talk to me about Adamski.
Well, we met George Adamski in 1963.
Our family was in downtown Washington, and we witnessed one of these saucer-shaped crafts hovering about 1,200 feet.
It was reported in the Washington Daily News.
There was a reporter also there at the same time.
I have the article.
And due to this sighting of this saucer-shaped craft, as you see on some of the pictures on the website, particularly that frame of one of the motion picture footage, My father went to the Library of Congress, saw Damski's book, saw the same picture, contacted him, and George was coming out to lecture to the Air Force Reserves.
We met him, we became very close friends, and for the last two years of his life on the East Coast, we helped to arrange international press conferences and television and radio shows, and we were also witnesses to some of the events that took place around him as well.
After George passed away, we inherited the mantleship of of the creation of the Georgia Damski Foundation, along with other co-workers, and we have carried that forth since that time.
That's quite a lot.
I can truly say that, to use no other words, I've been blessed to be involved in this for, you know, 40 of my 47 years.
I mean, it's not just theory to me.
I've seen it.
I've seen it as a child.
I've seen it as a professional adult.
I've seen photographs My father took photographs, so this is not theory for me.
Alright.
We appear to be, according to many people, myself being one of them, approaching some sort of ecological trigger point, some sort of I don't know.
We all see the weather changing, Glenn.
We see the poles shrinking.
We see a lot of things going on on Earth that sort of add up to real trouble rather immediately ahead for us with the weather and a lot of other things.
Does any of what you've looked at coincide with any of what's happening here in any way?
Can you connect the two?
Yes, yes.
The contacts that came to George during the 1950s were involved with several different levels of information.
One of them was the result of our atomic testing.
And the fact that it was creating an immense disturbance and imbalance, ringing the planet literally rings like a bell, as we recently discovered with the tsunami in Southeast Asia.
Oh, in fact it does.
That's correct.
And it also disturbs the magnetic rings of the planet itself, and it causes disturbances out in space.
So that was a concern.
The planet is going through a geological shift, and this is science that we even understand.
There are certain cycles, one of them is approximately a 26,000 year cycle, in which we have shifting polarity, we have Teutonic increased activity, and whatnot.
And the education of these particular cycles of our planet was also some of the information that was given to George, and he talked quite extensively to two scientists, two government officials, and to the general public as well.
And so we're going through a planetary change, and also we are exciting some of that through our little bit of wanton disregard.
Is there any way to compare the number of sightings prior to Roswell with the number of sightings after Roswell?
Or how about this?
The number of sightings prior to the detonation of the first atomic bomb versus the number of sightings since.
From historical records that go back as far, let's say, to the 1700s, they would say that there is a continuous amount in a much smaller scale than after we started atomic testing.
Then, as we mentioned before, we were looking at as much as 700 a day in the United States alone.
And so this increased activity They came to make us aware of certain things that we need to know, and we don't have to look at everything in the terms of cataclysm and Armageddon and things like this.
These are natural cycles, and if we work with these cycles and understand them, then it doesn't become so traumatic.
Well, there were a couple of instances very, very well documented, Glenn.
When UFOs hovered above our missile silos and disabled missiles, nuclear missiles, and then there are reports also in the Soviet Union of similar occurrences, even scarier, in which an actual countdown to launch began and couldn't be stopped.
They ripped apart control boards like crazy over there, never did find out why it happened, but put straight.
They scared the hell out of both sides.
Yeah, well, we certainly need a little bit of scaring every so often, at least not in the sense of terror is concerned, but we need a little wake-up call every so often because we're playing with forces and we're sitting on the potential to not only destroy all living things on the planet, but the planet itself.
I mean, we're like petulant children playing with guns that are way too big.
So, you think it was that?
You think it was a warning?
I believe that there are, from reports that I've read as well, there have been reports of these crafts hovering over military facilities, over nuclear power plants, over Rocky Mountain area as well, in which we produce a lot of plutonium, things like that, and over NORAD command and what have you.
We have the very well-documented incidents in the United Kingdom and Britain as well.
So, I think that as a wise precaution, of course, we talk about why observe us.
I think that's a primary reason right there, to keep an eye on exactly what we would do to ourselves and everybody else for the sheer sake of playing who's right and who's wrong.
Well, you have to wonder how an alien race would react to the knowledge that we have these weapons, and then are beginning to test, enlarge them, and now of course what we can do makes Hiroshima look like a, you know, a little firecracker going off.
Right.
And so you have to wonder, is it your view that if something awful started, they would stop it?
I have heard that they have intervened on three circumstances in the last 45 years.
Really?
Care to name them?
Well, I think that anybody who does a little research would find it for themselves there.
But there are several, there are three circumstances in which we were on the brink and that was de-escalated because of some extracurricular help.
That's pretty intriguing.
Can you actually back that up, or are you just repeating stories, or what?
On some of that, I can relate that information directly from Mr. Adamski, who was involved in one of those circumstances.
No kidding.
Alright, what I'd like to do when we get back, if we could, is to allow the audience to ask you questions.
And I imagine you're going to get both the people who think that there's some possibility that what you say is correct with regard to bases on the moon and all the rest of what we've discussed and talked about.
Now I'm going to inject a cautionary note here because we're about to open the lines for Glenn.
And as you all know, I've experienced a recent tragedy in my life, and I'm going to ask that you not give me condolence for that, and accept that you certainly have given me condolence for that.
Thousands, 11,000 emails, and all the rest of it, so thank you very much.
Again, this is sort of my escape from thinking of things like that.
And so if you would refrain from doing that on the air, you would be a very good person.
Now, Glenn, welcome back.
What do you expect from the audience?
You know, when you're going to get anything at all, what do you think you're going to get?
Do you think you're going to get a lot of negativity and skepticism or agreement?
Well, I've been doing this quite a long time.
Actually, the question and answer session is one of the highlights because it gives a chance to interact with people, and people have many different points of view and very different points of experiences, and so I don't take anything as a positive or as a negative.
I try to answer the best I can.
If I don't know, I don't invent answers.
There is no such thing as an expert in this field.
It's constantly evolving.
I can only relate to the information and the experiences and materials.
All right, well in a moment you'll have a chance to do exactly that.
I am not an astronomer, so I can't answer this question, but maybe Glenn can.
And Glenn, what I'm curious about is Earth-based telescopes.
Now, I understand that our government could conceivably control, for example, what man saw while he was on the moon.
Our government could conceivably, certainly control what our probes and satellites have shown.
Because that's their territory.
But, you know, there's a lot of telescopes, Earth-based telescopes, at universities and learning centers and observatories around the world.
And what I'm asking you is, some of them are very powerful.
Are they powerful enough to see things on the Moon, which is relatively close, that would give up the ballgame?
I believe absolutely so.
I mean on good seeing conditions with a 12.5 inch reflector or a machine that's even a little bit larger, depending on the model of refractor that you have.
Watching the moon and recording it.
I have a very good friend in Phoenix, a gentleman by the name of Alan.
He was a witness to one of these UFOs touching down on the Adamski property and he may be one of your callers.
But he has a very sophisticated telescope system that's hooked up through video, through the television, and he watches and photographs it quite diligently, and he has some extremely interesting photographs.
Well, if guys with 12-inch telescopes can do it, then what about the University of Hawaii, where they have a telescope that'll knock your socks right off?
I mean, it would eat that 12-incher and not even burp.
Actually, I was a guest in Maui, up there to the Air Force Observatory many years ago, and I had to obtain security and DOD clearance for that, and you would be amazed at the photographs they have.
Oh, would I now?
But see, this is a private institution, more or less, right?
So, what motive would they have for cooperating with our government in keeping this secret?
Who provides the funding, not only to maintain, to construct, and also the funding as far as who gets access All right, here they come.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Hello.
Hi, how you doing?
I'm hooked on the show already.
Where are you, sir?
Where are you?
Chicago, Illinois.
Chicago, okay, good.
Chicago.
You have a question for Glenn?
It's really a two-part question.
One is, What's the possibility of extraterrestrial creatures living amongst us, on Earth, going about our day-to-day lives, living amongst them, or them living amongst us?
And the second part of the question would be, if you've seen the footage of the flying humanoids, and your thoughts on that.
Flying humanoids?
Is that what you said?
Correct.
In South America, the flying humanoids.
Okay, alright.
Glenn?
Well, two parts to the question.
The first part being the possibility of them living amongst us.
It has been discussed that they are human beings that come from other planets.
They come and live and work amongst us for a period of time, sort of like a Peace Corps service.
And there's a number of them that help us in specific fields and give us directions in order to overcome certain obstacles.
And that's a very real concept.
In fact, one that the scientists at NASA at Goddard Question my father and mother exclusively on.
The second part of that is whether I've seen pictures or representations of flying humanoids.
No, I haven't.
Although there is technical devices which help towards what we consider to be levitation or what they consider to be pro-gravity.
So, technologically, a device in which allows you to float without wings or use of an airplane or whatever is certainly a possibility.
Let's go back to number one.
You believe, pinning you to the wall here, that there are extraterrestrials living among us.
Do you believe that?
I believe that they circulate amongst us, absolutely.
Is there a way to differentiate, to recognize an extraterrestrial in our population?
Yes, sir.
And that would be?
I would never divulge such an idea, and I would certainly not place them in jeopardy.
Oh, come on!
Well, let's think about it.
Think how nice people we are.
The first thing we would do is go grab them, dissect them, torture them, put them in jail.
I mean, I wouldn't do that.
And so you know the answer to this question.
You know how to recognize these I don't want to say people, but those among us who are not us.
You know how to recognize that?
I would say people, because they don't look any different than you and I. Well, then how do we differentiate?
There is a way.
Oh, there is a way to differentiate.
Oh, you're not telling?
No, I would never do that.
I think that that would be irresponsible.
Okay.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Hello?
Hello.
Yes, you're on.
This is it.
I'm on?
Yes.
Glenn, this is Al, Phoenix, Arizona.
Oh, Al, good to talk to you.
Just a comment for your listening audience.
I have a 10-inch telescope with an AstroVid video camera on the eyepiece.
Are you the guy that...
The signal goes to a 27-inch television screen.
I invite the neighbors over to watch the moon show.
Is this who you were expecting, Glenn?
That's correct.
Okay, all right, so you're the guy.
What do you see?
I also videotape what goes on up there.
Understood.
Well, I saw one craft that did a 180-degree turn without ever changing speed.
I have seen craft brightly lit with a very dark shadow going right up the terminator of the moon and then doing a 90 degree turn into the sunlit portion, again without changing speed.
If people have a scope like this and are patient and watch it on a video, You will see formation flying.
These are not Earth satellites.
Okay, so you have videotapes of all this, is that correct?
Yeah, I have some videotapes of a lot of that.
I do have a 180 degree and one small shooting across the moon.
What have you done with this video?
Well, I show it to my friends.
Can I be your friend?
In other words, I really would like to see what you've captured.
Would you prefer VHS or DVD?
I can send you a DVD.
What a nice choice.
DVD, I think.
Okay.
I can do that.
Can you really?
Yeah.
Does Glenn have your address?
Well, you can get it out directly from online.
I'd like to remind our listeners that Al He's an extremely competent person.
He was one of the people in Korea during the military service who witnessed these UFOs in 1950.
It's recorded in Captain Ruble's book on the Report of Unidentified Flying Saucers.
He also witnessed one of them along with several dozen other people landing on the Adamski property momentarily before taking off again.
He's a retired aerospace worker with a DOD clearance who has worked on such things as resonance fields, And many other different things.
So this gentleman knows what he's talking about.
You guys are really buddies, aren't you?
Yeah, you're really buddies, aren't you?
You know each other quite well, apparently.
We met several years ago.
I met several years ago.
I'm 75 years old, and I'm an acoustic and vibration engineer specialist.
And I've seen so many flying saucers that I was moved to.
Visit George Adamski and all I can say is, wow, what a nice guy.
What a personable person and honest.
He had a 15-inch dome for his 15-inch telescope in his backyard and I was using his 6-inch telescope that he took the pictures of the flying saucers with.
He also offered me his camera, which I didn't use.
But one night I saw a blue flash go over behind the dome where the 15-inch scope was, lit up, and there was a flying saucer sitting on the ground, so I headed for it.
People from the restaurant, two men and two women, started screaming, there's a flying saucer on the ground.
And one guy came up and almost knocked me down, and he said, is there a UFO on the ground?
I said, yes, if you'll please get out of the way, I'll go over and say hello to these folks.
So, he kind of disappeared.
The ship got bright.
You could hear it hum.
Then the hum disappeared to a higher frequency.
It rose straight up until it looked like a star and then shoved due west right over San Diego at a very rapid speed.
You know, flicker fusion of the eyes took place.
I went inside and I talked to George Adamski about what had happened and he just looked at me and smiled.
It almost left.
He said, well, I was just wondering what all that commotion was outside.
And he just kept smiling at me.
I see.
Well, alright, I bite.
I want a copy of your video.
Okay.
I'll see to it that you get an address.
Alright?
Email me.
I'm Art Bell at MindSpring.com or Good enough.
Thank you very much for the call.
Take care.
I'll look forward to it and I'll share it.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Hello.
rock on from there, alright? And then, do you give permission for what you send to be
shared? As far as I'm concerned, you can share it with anyone you want. Good enough. Thank
you very much for the call. Take care. I'll look forward to it and I'll share it. East
of the Rockies, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Hello. Hello, Art, and hello, Glenn.
Hello. I got a question for you, Glenn.
Yes?
Your very first picture that you posted of that very clear shot of the moon, that crisp one with the two large craters on it, have you ever blown those craters up on that picture?
Yes, we have taken close-ups of a number of the high-quality shots, and those are depicted in the book as well, and I show them I go out on the road on invitation.
I did a lecture here for MUFON in San Diego, and I may be over in Laughlin at the UFO Convention Center at the end of next month as well.
So yes, we do increase the size of the image when we find things of interest because sometimes the pictures are big and they're hard to see.
Okay, I'm seeing mine blown up on structures built within those two large craters.
Now, is that what you've seen as well?
I don't know.
How far did you go in, ma'am?
You're not looking at pixelization, are you?
Yes, but I have a real fine quality.
You can tell because you can tell the shadow casting and everything is still there.
I can't tell you off that picture off hand.
If you go ahead and examine the pictures, and I've encouraged everyone and my father encouraged everyone to do the same.
That's why he supplied everyone with the serial numbers, so that they could order the pictures themselves and go about the investigative process and show their friends.
And that way, we continue to keep this ball rolling.
So, if you see that, I have no doubt that there's a lot more information on these pictures to be seen.
Well, I looked at the two large craters, and then I went to a smaller crater.
I do have good photo equipment on the computer.
Maybe nothing else, but that photo equipment is there.
And in the smaller craters, it looks like 17 years in the Air Force tells me it's almost like a silo on a couple of them.
Now that I don't know, there have been reports of constructions in Greater Cassandra Crater with the Mount Wilson Observatory.
They reported over a period of years that they saw construction tubes leading from the bottom of the crater going through the rim out the other side.
They would appear and then the next year they would see them It's taken apart again.
And that was documented.
And then there's an area where a group of scientists say that they see an increased accumulation of domes.
And so I think that the moon has a great deal of activity.
I also feel that a certain amount of it has moved to the backside of the moon because in recent years we have experimented with high-tech lasers and resonant field weapons and shot it at the moon.
uh... you know that uh... discourages them a little bit and move the other side where it's a little thing.
Speaking of uh... discouraging them Glenn uh... there are a number of people uh... Stephen Greer being one of them uh... who would tell you that we have shot at UFOs.
Absolutely.
and advising that he thinks it's poor form on the part of uh... earth to be shooting at these people who can go great distances I wonder how you feel about that.
Well, that's just the case, and if you look at both Major Kehoe's book, Aliens from Space, and Frank Edwards' book, Flying Saucer, Serious Business, there are several circumstances where we have scrambled jets and fired at them, also from naval vessels and fired at them, and through this entire sequence and time of many years of, shall we say, unwarranted aggression, they have never returned the aggression, and certainly they have Both the power and the ability to completely flatten whatever they wish.
So this once again brings into question how aggressive are they versus aggressive we are.
I don't know, when you shoot at something you're sending a strong message.
Absolutely.
A very strong message.
So you would discourage any further such behavior on our part?
Well I think that we have enough information and we have enough knowledge that That we have no reason not to wish to interact in a more reasonable manner.
I take it you've seen some of the STS footage of apparently UFOs being shot at and evading?
Yes.
Absolutely.
All right.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Hello.
Hello.
If I sound negative, it's not because I'm negative about the UFO question.
Will you be any way you want?
Yeah, sure.
Uh, the point I'd like to raise is, uh, you have no doubt at all that the, uh, NASA's story about our missions to the moon are accurate.
Ah!
In other words, that we even ever went to the moon, right?
Ah, yes.
I'm a photographer.
I had to stake my life at A lot of those pictures were taken in a studio under artificial light.
All right, what about that?
I mean, that's a pretty good topic, Glenn.
There's a big group of people out there, a big group, who think we never went to the moon, and they've got all kinds of evidence, they'll cite.
Well, absolutely, I'm familiar with that as well.
And then I'm going to have to say, let's look at the other side of the equation.
When we look at photographs and motion picture footage of the lunar orbiter, Uh, flying over the lunar surface.
Yeah.
With the LEM down on the ground.
In fact, you could... You were able, with a telescope, to watch the LEM land on the moon, and also when it came back out.
So, obviously, if you point at the moon and you see the LEM take off, that rather takes it out of the realm of studio.
Well, well, maybe.
When you're watching on a three-year-old telescope?
Well, let's take it a step further, then.
Let's take it a step further, and when you see Earth rise, Over the lunar surface, and you see the Earth come up over the lunar surface.
Very impressive.
You have to have some basis and foundation in order to have that picture.
if you had never gone there you would have never any idea what that
perspective of earth right look
once again when stacking uh...
Glenn, your book is Alien Bases on the Moon 2, correct?
That's correct.
Continuing the work of your father.
That's correct.
Is that book now available on Amazon, for example, dot com?
Absolutely, or they can order it directly from us on the website on the materials page, which the link is available that you've already put on there.
And, uh, you ever autograph any copies?
Absolutely.
If people like to have that, certainly.
I'm more than happy to do that.
Just include your name and what you want in there, and I would love to do that.
Ooh.
People love that.
Yes.
Uh, they absolutely love that.
So they can get autographed copies.
So to do that, where do they have to go?
Uh, they'd have to order directly from us because I don't think Amazon would forward it, so they could go to the website and order it from GAF International here in Vista, California.
Cool.
Alright.
Wanted to get that in.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Hello.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
Yeah, I had a question.
Do you think that the Earth is like a quarantined planet?
Ha ha!
And a good question it is.
Yes, Glenn, what about it?
Are we like Australia was?
Australia is a pretty nice place.
I visited many times.
Well, it's okay now, but I mean, you know, crude beginnings.
I think that plenty of UFO activity comes and continues to come all the time.
In fact, last year, over Mexico, the Interceptors photographed a whole lot of them as they were chasing them.
His question was, are we quarantined?
That's right.
So, if we're quarantined, they can come here, and obviously we send out our probes into space.
I think that as long as we don't go out into space with aggression and the desire to conquer, Then I don't see any reason why we wouldn't be allowed to go, continue to go to space, and we seem to be doing so with our probes.
Well, we do.
We had a disproportionate number of Martian probes that met with bad endings.
That's true.
Recently, we've had some more success, but, you know, there were some instances, as you're aware, and his question concerned quarantine, so you don't think we're quarantined?
I don't believe we're quarantined.
I believe that If there's any restriction going on, it's self-inflicted.
All right.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
Rich from Phoenix.
Hey, Rich.
Fantastic show tonight.
Oh, thank you.
Hey, Glenn, I got a couple questions for you.
The first one about Mars, especially about what you think about life on Mars, the fakes, and the knockouts of some of our probes on Mars, like you just mentioned a moment ago.
And also about any special UFO sightings maybe over Peoria, Arizona.
All right, well, let's hold it right there.
That's a tall order already.
Glenn, you've concentrated on the moon.
Yeah.
On your father's work.
But there are, of course, as you're well aware, many questions about Mars, the phase on Mars, and a whole lot more on Mars.
Some photographs that are just absolutely rock your back, startling.
From Mars.
So, stretch out a little and comment on Mars.
All righty.
Well, that's not difficult.
As we know, over a period of time, we are peeling away the old thought and concept about Mars as we did with the Moon.
Before we said, well, it didn't have an atmosphere.
Obviously, it does.
It has dust storms.
It had a war just two weeks ago.
Scientists were baffled about Aurora Borealis because supposedly that's not supposed to be able to happen.
We're talking about water.
We're talking about warmer temperatures.
And so, consequently, little by little, the picture grows into a much more representable place.
Of course, the pictures, when we're talking about the Plains of Sedona, Sedonia, and the work of Polter and Molinari and Richard Hoagland and things like that, these pictures are quite dynamic.
And I believe, personally, that it shows This is Calvin calling from Georgia.
of construction on Mars and whether or not the probes have been knocked out or whether
they have been failures or they may have been neither or both and the probes are working
just fine.
We're just not told about it.
There's a number of possibilities.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Good morning.
Hello.
Hello.
Extinguish your radio, please.
This is Calvin calling from Georgia.
I have a question for about the moon.
Yes.
question for about the moon yes Everybody says I'm crazy, but they say the dark side of the moon doesn't exist.
I always thought that it doesn't rotate around Earth, and you never see the other side.
Is that true?
As far as I understand, the moon rotates, but not in relationship to the Earth.
It's in a fixed position, and it turns as we turn around the Sun, but in itself it doesn't spin.
So there are certain times, of course, when When this entire unit of both the Earth and the Moon are pointed at the Sun, so the back side is lit, and then as it continues the Earth orbit around the Sun, then it shifts around.
And so, but the Moon itself is a relative sphere, and both sides have been photographed.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Good morning.
Hello.
Yeah, I was wondering exactly, you know, when they're taking these pictures of the moon and whatnot, are they doing polar orbiting shots or like equatorial?
I can't tell you exactly on that.
From the photos that I've seen, I've seen, if I believe correctly here, any type of orbit is like a sine wave.
It is not a straight line.
And a sine wave, if you look from the orbit of the Earth as well, goes from equatorial up and then back down.
Over both hemispheres, so I believe it's the same for the Moon as well, based on its gravitational field.
So, like, I mean, approximately about how much of a swath would they have, you know, in order to... Well, they can vary the, you know, like with the Clementine that they set up there, they have taken it and put it in different sections, so as they radar map it, photograph it, photomap the topography, then they do that in sweeps.
And with each adjustment of orbit, they are able to cover the entire circumference.
By the way, Glenn, just so there's no mistake about it, I too believe quite firmly that we went to the moon.
However, there's a large body of people out there that don't believe we went to the moon, and they can make, if you listen to them, a fairly compelling case.
In other words, they can cite quite a bit of evidence that worries you.
The only reason I mention that is because you are presenting some fairly compelling evidence regarding anomalies on the moon.
Yes.
So you can make the same kind of case that they can, really, but not go any further.
Well, I like to think that the body of evidence, when you look at the photographs, and you look at the 20x15's, and you look at the microfilm and the microfish, And you also look at the motion picture footage of, you know, the lunar orbiter and the LM and the topography and the changes that happen.
When you look at that body of evidence, it moves it from the point of supposition or argumentative to a different level entirely.
Everybody has to stand responsibly for what they represent, and I would hope that the people who wish to further that concept can produce the body of evidence that would help them do that.
I'm inclined differently in that particular matter.
I understand.
International Line, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Good morning.
Good morning, Art.
Hi, Glenn.
This is Carl from Ontario.
Yes, sir.
I'm just curious about the possibility that soon this question may be answered simply by the private, and this is just one question, and I have a quick one following if I could, but soon we're going to have, as we do now, privateers that are sending satellites up.
They may not be orbiting the moon yet or doing this type of investigation, but soon they might.
Private organizations that are sending up their satellites that might be able to kind of answer this question a little more definitively.
Is that correct?
Well, we have multi-level corporations that are sending their satellites into space.
To what I understand at this point, the construction of these particular vehicles is still done by the corporations such as TRW and the other ones for the Defense Department.
And so they construct it, and then the corporations are buying space on the vehicles, whether it happens to be Arianes rockets or anything else, in order to launch it into orbit.
I'm really talking about the guys that are shooting up satellites and taking pictures of Area 51 and the DOD wouldn't be really happy about that or backing that move.
Well, no, I agree with that.
They wouldn't be too pleased with that.
So it depends on what type of equipment is being launched and what type of equipment is being carried on those launches to see what they can take pictures of and what they can see.
Alright, Glenn, do you believe that We have alien technology at Area 51 or some Area 51 somewhere that we have captured and possess alien technology.
I think that the Roswell incident is a reality no matter how much it wished to be spinned.
There's a certain amount of wreckage and technology that has been obtained over a period of time and how we have deciphered it and developed it Has also produced, I would say, a large percentage of our own research and development craft that are flying about and being witnessed as well.
And I've heard of numbers as high as about 50% of sightings these days can be attributed to these type of crafts.
All right.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Good morning.
Is that me?
That's you.
Yeah, I'm the same person I called earlier.
No, no, no.
You're only allowed to call once.
That's a hard and fast rule.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Hi.
Hello?
Hello.
Hi, this is Ed from Lansing, Michigan.
I have a question for Glenn.
Hi, Ed.
Earlier you commented that you would know how to tell the difference between a visitor to this planet and us.
No, he said he would know how to tell.
He just wouldn't tell us.
Right.
I'm wondering if he's ever contemplating or has ever had an intellectual conversation with a visitor to our planet.
Very good question.
Len?
Let's put it this way.
I've had personal experiences.
My family has.
We did so with Mr. Adamski, and since that time, certain contacts he introduced us to that we have had the privilege of seeing occasionally.
This is nothing that we control or anyone else but them.
And these individuals I've had an opportunity to see on several occasions.
So that was a yes?
Yeah.
You can take that as you wish.
But I believe personal experiences are just that, personal.
Sure.
I get that.
Alright, thank you very much.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I just had a quick question as far as There in fact are governments that have claimed that they are opening up and giving everything they have.
A lot of that lately, in fact, Glenn.
How would someone here on the United States side get a hold of some of that governmental
information from other countries?
There in fact are governments that have claimed that they are opening up and giving everything
they have.
A lot of that lately in fact, Glenn.
Yes, that's true.
And whether it's full disclosure, well, that depends on who you talk to because there's
always a certain amount of information that is kept and released at intervals.
There have been some times where the Russia and the former Soviet Union has released a great deal of information, some in South America.
I don't believe that full disclosure is going to happen, because sometimes there is a lot of influence exerted.
Sometimes based on, shall we say, monies that are given from one country to the next for foreign aid and purchase of military hardware and things like that.
So some countries have talked more and some that are less influenced by the powers that be, so to speak, which is usually this country, and some of them who don't speak too much at all because we're very closely aligned on many issues.
There you are.
Okay, but my question was how would we get a hold of that type of information here in the United States?
The best thing to do then is to contact a person in that particular country.
Sometimes you can go online and you can find representatives of certain groups or associations in those countries and then you can ask them directly because they know the Means and procedures of obtaining that information very much like when we apply through the Freedoms of Information Act as well.
So each country is specifically different.
But isn't all of this really rather easily dealt with by those who aren't ready for all of this to come out yet?
Well, if they don't want to give it to you, they won't give it to you.
Or for instance... No, but I'm saying even if you get it from some country, it doesn't necessarily...
That doesn't mean that it's the holy grail that suddenly everybody buys it all.
We don't get anything that hard.
We have countries that open up.
France did some interesting things.
South American countries are doing some interesting things.
Mexico is.
Quite a few countries are opening up.
But isn't that rather easily handled by those who don't want it believed?
It can be, yes, because it's easily twisted.
I'll give you a brief example here.
There was a report that came out of Russia in 1989.
In fact, my father sat with the scientists that were involved, and this had to do with one of these craft landing, and the people, and I stress this in this circumstance, they were humanoid people like you and I that came out.
And TASS released an article on it, and TASS was the official agency at that particular time.
Everything was heavily screened and looked at.
Oh, yes.
They talked very expressly and very specifically what happened.
Two days later, 48 hours later, the same report came out in Western European press and now they were no longer humanoid looking.
They were 10 feet tall with three arms.
By the time the same report got to this country, also the report had been fabricated around again, so it made the whole story look Not believable.
Well, there you have it.
You've exactly answered my question.
Isn't it easily handled?
And you just showed us how easily handled it really is.
That's how easily it's handled.
All right.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Hello.
Good morning, gentlemen.
Good morning.
Morning.
It's an honor to speak with you both.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Concerning the possibility of alien beings actually existing, Do you not suppose that if they are indeed intelligent enough to travel to this planet from wherever they come, and having observed us for several decades at least, that in their wisdom, realizing that we are unable to cohabitate with one another
Simply because we have wars all the time over just trivial things.
Or running out of time.
Are you suggesting that they might conclude they should crush us like a bug?
Actually, my conclusion is that they probably realized that they would do more harm than good.
Let's address this quickly here.
Just because they look at the situation and they see a bit of mayhem, a bit of confusion and misunderstanding, they are extremely cognizant of the many forms of our expression.
And it's not any different than if we go to a different country and we see different customs and different ways of thinking.
And if things are not looking too good there, do we just cut and run and abandon?
No, we don't, and we have not done so historically as well.
And so, I would venture to say that they consider us to be their brothers and sisters, just a little bit in need of a bit of enlightenment and a bit of education, and then how could you turn away from that type of need if you have that humanity within you?
You're certainly looking at us very optimistically, aren't you?
Well, I would say that we deserve that optimism if we wish to participate in it.
It's very simple.
We don't need to kill each other.
We don't need to blow each other up.
We don't need to so easily subscribe to this Finalistic, defeatist kind of attitude.
Well, right.
But, I mean, you get there by looking at our actions forever.
I mean, we've been at war forever.
Likely will be at war forever.
Listen, we could have a blast here.
We could keep going, but we can't.
We're out of time.
Glenn Steckling, your book is Alien Bases on the Moon 2, and I recommend people, if they want to know more, Go get your book!
So, buddy, thank you for being here.
Alright, a pleasure to be with you.
I look forward to doing it again sometime.
▲
Export Selection