Art Bell hosts Glenn Steckling, who argues NASA photos reveal a living moon with artificial structures—glowing domes, terraced craters, and even a 5,000-foot-tall Van de Graaff-like object—contradicting its "dead" classification. Steckling cites Apollo 12’s dark-side luminescent anomaly and Lunar Orbiter 4’s shifting mist, while dismissing government secrecy as policy-driven rather than fear-based. Dr. Nick Begich warns of HAARP’s potential to destabilize Earth’s magnetic fields, triggering 300 mph winds, and links extreme weather—like Alaska’s 5–15° ocean spikes—to accelerating pole shifts. Steckling also speculates on ET intervention in nuclear crises and Roswell’s influence on modern aircraft, but Bell remains skeptical of claims without verifiable evidence. The episode urges independent scrutiny of space anomalies and climate shifts, suggesting hidden truths may demand bold curiosity over blind skepticism. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm one of those people who turns it all the way up until I can feel it in my gut.
And Abby Dos had earmites when we got him.
Took him right away to the vet and had them removed, but it's it it damaged his hearing.
And tonight, as I was playing music before the program, Abby 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 Abydoza 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 damn improvised explosive devices.
And 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.
Depend on it.
Dr. Nick Begich and Harp.
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's 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. Begich is editor of Earth Pulse Flashpoints, a new science book series.
Begich 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 going to get an update on HAARP.
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 been close.
Anyway, where was I?
Yes, the program we had scheduled, Dr. Begich and Bernard Eastland and Bernard Eastland canceled, had to cancel for one reason or another.
Now it is being rescheduled.
That's going to be a hell of a program because Eastland is the brains, pretty much, behind HARP, the ever-suspicious, mysterious HARP project in Alaska.
And so we'll get an update on HARP.
I have my own suspicions about what it's doing to our shortwave bands, which I will not keep to myself.
And we will discuss HAARP and then, of course, the weather and climate control and that sort of thing in a moment.
Well, 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 Begich is, of course, in Alaska.
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.
And some of those include things like weather modification, which is sort of the narrow subject of tonight tonight.
But this whole concept of weather modification is something that since the very beginning of the HARP program has been looked at again.
I know it's something that Dr. Reason will, I'm sure, talk about when we're on 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.
And then 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 tornado mission.
He hired the original team, put together the team that became later Arco Power Technologies Inc.
He was actually running all of that, put together the original patents, all of the critical patents with HARP.
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.
It's much different now, and I would definitely agree with that.
And, you know, he's been out of the project now 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 going back to the Atomic Energy Commission in the 50s.
So there's lots of projects that he can't talk about.
And that's just part of it.
But there's a change that says, in my view, and I've gotten to know Dr. Rieslin over the last decade fairly well.
And he's gone through some changes in terms of how he views his science.
And quite frankly, at this stage in his life, including the weather modification issues, he knows that if these issues are going to be pursued in a safe and responsible way, if pursued at all, it can't be done in the darkness of military planners.
I think there's a lot that he will, you know, 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 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.
Now, 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 there's huge, you know, huge, huge risks involved.
I mean, when you think about, and again, why, you know, what's happening with this science is really important because 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.
You know, I think the biggest concerns were triggering whatever runaway effects might be triggered in the upper atmosphere and 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.
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's 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 think we're being very careful.
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.
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.
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, believe me.
In fact, the articles that ran on the story, it baffled scientists here because it was the opposite cycle of the El Niño cycle.
It was back in the latter part of the 90s.
And when you look at that situation, then 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.
You look at the vegetation footprint across the north slope of Alaska.
It's increasing over the last 40 years dramatically when you look, compare aerial photographs.
And what that does, as snow cover is 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.
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 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 and the way the currents hit south central Alaska, which is where most of the glaciers have formed.
As I said, when you get the heating effect in the northern part of the state, it starts to melt the permafrost under the tundra, which acts as a cap for really the methane gas that then is produced by the decaying material, some of which has been there 100,000 years.
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 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 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, they're 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.
They're actually, if you look 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.
It depends on whose theory you ascribe To, you know, because there's really two theories, and I think there's probably a little of each to be considered.
Doctor, last night I had a guest on in the first hour who talked very extensively about a pole shift.
And it appears by the list of questions that I've been supplied here that you feel that perhaps everything that we see going on is leading toward or part of the pole shift process.
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.
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.
And there's been a number of those.
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 and 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.
Right, at a really fast rate, accelerating beyond what has been like a very sharp, steep curve.
And this is what 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, 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.
Doctor, 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?
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...
Yeah, that kind of 300 mile an hour winds, I think, would be expected.
What else happens when you lose, 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 basically.
So you've got navigation issues, and you already see it.
You know, where you already have pole shift and 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 and 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.
The thing about all of this, too, is this, 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 at an accelerating rate, and there's no disputing it.
The science proves it.
The implications of that, everyone wants to argue about.
It's like arguing climate change.
Is it man or is it nature?
Well, at this point, it's not relevant, 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.
And, you know, we've said it, and you've said it, you know, in the 80s where the 90s doubled 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, then we stopped.
All the experts say if we stopped everything dealing with fossil fuels and the contribution, it'd take 100 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 issue is to not dispute so much the cause as to say, how do we deal with agricultural changes?
And we've lost our spruce forest by the overinfestation 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 the spruce.
Now the birch in our part of the state are infested with mite that's killing them off.
And, you know, historically, you know, when we start to look at, you know, 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 or actually control environmental effects, you know, maybe there's a lot more known than meets the eye.
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.
So when you start throwing things into the mix when it's already unstable, that's where the danger lies.
And again, where 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, international terrorism.
Back in 97 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.
And he said that at the University of Georgia, and I think he was lecturing with actually Senators Luger and Nunn at the time.
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 not the less.
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 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.
And so it's not a time to get all panicky and uptight.
It's a time to say, okay, 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 then secondly, if there's technological applications that can be applied, let's see if there's a way to do that.
No, you'd be able to modulate gravitational waves in a way, or perhaps modulate and heat the ionosphere in such a way as to divert or control the flow of jet streams, and from there control then 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 moisture flows that are in different parts of the upper atmosphere, if you can control those factors, then you've got it made.
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 in discussing that specifically with Dr. Eason, that's probably not in the picture at this point, at least not with HAARP 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.
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 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.
Only a very small amount is absorbed into the sea and it stays at the surface because it gets colder the deeper you get.
And heat rises, and that's the basic physics of it.
But heat energy released under sea 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.
It's from the freshwater 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.
And so it's true.
When you say global warming, you can't apply that everywhere because it changes in ocean currents then, as I said earlier, with snowfall.
Some glaciers are melting, others are getting thicker.
But it's the same true 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.
So it's climate change is the better word than even global warming, although that does apply.
When you start to think of Europe changing, you know, there's again a major implication in terms of food production, distribution, all of those important things to modern culture.
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 has not been privately briefed on how dire it really is.
And I personally think it's very dire indeed.
And so what could they do but look to people who are 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, you know, so you've got to look at sort of what's happening and then how weather patterns and water patterns are going to change.
The other big consideration is coastal cities.
I mean, over the next 50 to 60 years, this is going to be, you know, do we rebuild in places like New Orleans?
And the answer is probably, and disappointingly to many, the answer is probably no.
You know, it's 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 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.
You know, it's our stubbornness, you know, 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, and having a government that addresses what's obvious to everyone is what everyone sort of expects.
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. Steckling'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 going to 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 kind of doesn't remember the details of what happened when he was there.
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 white 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 listings of lunar events.
This was put out in 1966 at Goddard Space Flight Center.
And it lists, going back as far as 1870, lunar volcanoes, purple haze, part of the Plato 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.
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.
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.
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?
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 Frank Edwards, we look at Waverly Gervin.
I mean, there is really such an immense list of people.
Professor McDonald, who went before the Subspace Committee in 68.
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 to this subject.
And we have gone off in some very convoluted tangents.
Well, it would be if we wanted to remain close-minded.
It depends on the type of expression that we wanted to foster as far as ourselves as individual 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 believed 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, well, of course, brings 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 as 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.
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 real is happening.
People are being taken.
I'm not sure that I can agree with your skepticism about their intent.
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 had things done that they were not happy with.
There are an awful lot of those stories for you to be in doubt of them.
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.
So 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.
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 on 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 clearly hypocritical and, shall we say, non-consistent with 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.
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 was 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.
All 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.
Well, NASA says Don Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at NASA, denied to the Times that there was any effort to silence Hansen whatsoever.
So that's one you should digest, think real hard about, real hard about.
We'll be right back with Glenn Speckling.
The End You know, skeptic is probably the wrong word.
The wrong word.
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, might, 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.
Well, I'm not going to say that any 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 are talking a type of advancement and scientific capability that is a great deal past where we are today.
Now, why would we assume that any civilization could advance 1,000, 2,000, 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 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 I'm not suggesting that they would 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 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 as 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.
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 is 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.
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 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 Vandegraaff type structure that stands, and based upon the measurements of its shadow, they're talking about it perhaps 5,000 feet high.
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 serve together flying airplanes, so we have talked about this subject.
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 22 scientists at Goddard Space Flight Center at 67, actually with an invitation along with the Pentagon as well thereafter.
And I've seen the microfish and the volumes of photographs where you go through and then you order the photographs and they come in 8 by 10s or 20 by 15s 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.
Glenn has put some photographs up on the CoastTocoastAM.com website.
Now, Glenn, what I want you to do is knock my socks off.
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?
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.
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 if this photograph would be taken on the dark side with nothing luminescent on the surface, then of course you'd have a black photo and barely be able to see any of the topography or geology involved.
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.
I will 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.
And that, I think, is definitive of this entire subject.
If you ask people if somebody takes a picture of a UFO or has 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.
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 they're literally, when you look at these catalogs, tens of not hundreds of thousands of pictures, this are 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 kind of 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.
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 minings.
They're terraced down.
You see areas where material is moved, where rims work.
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.
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.
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.
Well, here, when we looked at this chronology of listings here, we're talking about mist moving over the floor of Crater Shicard, obscuration of Crater Plateau, 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.
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?
That's an Apollo 12 photograph, another Hasselbald, high-quality photograph as well.
And it shows an elliptical object staying within the frame, as you can see, 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.
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.
I recall, I believe that was from Apollo 15, where they were talking about they were seeing some type of object or what have you, and Mission Control was asking them to switch to a different ultra-high frequency so that it wasn't on the broadcast channel.
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, 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 and in configuration as well, cylindrical, and casting 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.
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 come up to that high a bar.
So there are 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.
At 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.
I mean, we're talking about a body 250,000 miles away, and you're going there in orbit, and so 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 here.
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.
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 an alien race would put something like that on the moon.
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 1975, when the space program terminated, it terminated from lack of funds, it terminated from lack of interest, political will, et cetera, et cetera.
But there's more to it than 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.
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.
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, despite sightings, despite all of that, officially, it's being held secret, right?
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 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 do.
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 are 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.
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.
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.
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, you know, kind of a shocking commercial to see in a lot of ways.
So, you know, I can buy what you're saying about oil, but it seems to me U.S. interest 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, you know, 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.
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 interests.
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 a profit to anybody willing to pony up with enough money.
And so we are 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.
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 it seems to me, particularly in their situation, they would have nothing but an interest in 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.
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?
Well, 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 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.
Right now, this field is a sea of confusion.
It is a menagerie.
It's like the three stooges, everybody pointing fingers at each other.
It tends to attract the fringe element, and that's enough for the rest of the people to just sort of, you know, 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.
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.
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 FOR Soviet Union, Russia, and they talked about the number of these craft landing and the openness that's involved in the interaction.
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.
And, you know, Professor McDonald and Major Kehoe and Dr. Alan Hynek and all went before the Senate in 1968 and 69 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 that 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 at 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 contacts and I can't even count them, at least 100 countries during a particular amount of 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.
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 democratic ideals, we go to the people and hope that it works in through the back door.
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.
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 Damsky'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 a witness to some of the events that were around him as well.
After George passed away, we inherited the mantleship of the creation of the Georgia Damsky Foundation along with other co-workers, and we have carried that forth since that time.
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?
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.
And it also disturbs the magnetic rings of the planet itself, and it causes disturbances out in space.
So that was a concern.
Also, 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 scientists, to 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.
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.
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 are like petulant children playing with guns that are way too big.
I believe that they 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 the plutonium and things like that, and over NORAD Command and what have you.
And so 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.
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, and 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 views 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.
So that's constantly evolving.
I can only relate to the information and the experiences and materials.
I mean, on good seeing conditions with a 12.5-inch reflector or a machine that's even a little bit larger, or 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.
Well, if guys with 12-inch telescopes that 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.
Who provides the funding not only to maintain, to construct, and also the funding as far as who gets access to the use of the equipment and for how long?
This is usually the controlling agencies that take care of these instruments.
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?
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 that 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 questioned 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 which allows you to float without wings or use of an airplane or whatever is certainly a possibility.
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 patients and watch it on a video, you will see formation flying.
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?
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.
unidentified
Well, I looked at the two large craters, so 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 crater, it looks like 17 years in the Air Force tells me it's almost like a silo on a couple of them.
In Greater Kassandi 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 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 back side of the moon because in recent years we have experimented with high-tech lasers and resonant field weapons and shot it at the moon.
And so, you know, that discourages them a little bit.
They move to the other side where it's a little bit better.
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 flying over the lunar surface, the lamb down on the ground, in fact, you were able with a telescope to watch the lamb land on the moon and also when it came back out.
So obviously, if you're pointed to the moon and you see the lem take off, that's rather takes it out of the realm of studio.
When you're watching on through your own 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, 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 the perspective of earthrise looks like the Once again, Glenn Steckling.
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 continue to go to space, and we seem to be doing so with our probes.
The first one about Mars, especially about what do you think about life on Mars, the Phoenix, 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 the Peria, Arizona.
As we know, over a period of time, we are peeling away the old thoughts and concepts 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 has aurora.
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 Sidonia and the work of Poltram Malinari and Richard Hoagland and things like that, these pictures are quite dynamic.
And I believe personally that it shows conclusive evidence 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 either or both and the probes are working just fine, we're just not told about it.
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?
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, as you look from an orbit of Earth as well, goes from equatorial up and then back down over both hemispheres.
So I believe that it's the same for the Moon as well, based on its gravitational field.
So like, I mean, but 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 and photo map 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.
and the only reason I mention that is because you are presenting some fairly compelling evidence regarding anomalies on the moon and and 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 20 by 15s and you look at the microfilm and the microfish, and you also look at the motion picture footage of the lunar orbiter and the lamb 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.
So 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.
International Line, you're on the air with Glenn Steckling.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning, Art, and hi, Glenn.
This was called 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, then 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.
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 Arianis rockets or anything else, in order to launch it into orbit.
unidentified
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.
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.
All right, 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 as numbers as high as about 50% of sightings these days can be attributed to these type of crafts.
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 with the Russia, and so 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.
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.
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 stressed 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.
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.
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 had that humanity within you?