Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 27, 2020 - Project Camelot

01:40:28

Project Camelot interviews Brian O'Leary

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music playing.
	Hi, I'm Carrie Cassidy from Project Hamelot and we're here with Dr.
	Brian O'Leary.
	He's a lecturer, scientist, ex-astronaut, and we're very pleased to be with him today.
	What we want to do is kind of get into your background, and we're here in beautiful Ecuador at Montesueño, which is your retreat, I think you want to call it.
	Yeah, I'm afraid that at my ripe old age of 69 that my background has been pretty eclectic and it's kind of hard to pin me down, you know, who is this guy?
	But it all started back when I was a little kid and I wanted to go into space, I wanted to go to the moon, I wanted to go to Mars.
	And there was no space program then.
	And then, somewhat ironically, I got involved in the Apollo program 12 years after I wanted to go into space, and nobody thought there would ever be a space program.
	This was back in the late 40s, early 50s.
	But when Sputnik went up, then the whole world changed.
	And it was also around then that there was more awareness of the UFO phenomenon, paranormal phenomena, and so what happened with me was that I went on one track Which was a very ambitious career, which was actually quite fulfilled because I became an astronaut after getting my PhD in astronomy at Berkeley.
	And then I got involved in planetary exploration, some of the Mariner programs.
	I taught with Carl Sagan at Cornell University and did research on planetary science.
	And then I went to Washington, became an advisor to various political leaders, various presidential candidates.
	And I was kind of like an academic drifter in many ways.
	Even though on paper I was successful, I would be kind of hopping from university to university.
	And this, I think, helped prepare the way for the later half of my life, which was really quite different from the first half.
	The first half was more traditional, more being a physicist who was very familiar with, for example, energy and environment issues, having advised Congress and having taught courses on it.
	I was also aware of atmospheric science and what some of the things that were ahead for the Earth which are now very familiar such as global warming, global climate change and a number of other human related catastrophes that are happening on the Earth now.
	So, in a sense, my own straight academic background was a good one, good preparation for studying energy policy, what kind of choices do we really have in the energy crisis, but also to what degree are humans interfering with the Earth.
	And so the second half of my life, if you will, after I was in the Physics Department at Princeton, When I, in 1979, and I started to have some unusual experiences, remote viewing experiences, a near-death experience, various healing experiences, and then that opened Pandora's box up.
	And I was at that time in the Physics Department at Princeton.
	None of my colleagues, many of them Nobel laureates, all men, thought I was crazy to embrace paranormal phenomena.
	And then later I got into the UFO phenomenon.
	I led a number of scientific groups to get together to try to disclose the research that was going on.
	And it was around that time I began to get in touch with all the black projects, not from the inside, but from the outside, kind of peering in and seeing what was happening, that there's been this massive cover-up.
	Well, one thing led to another.
	I spent a number of years now, after I left Princeton, and now we're getting into the 80s, of exploring various things like the face on Mars, NASA's cover-up of that, and looking further at the UFO phenomena.
	I published a number of books, a trilogy basically, in which I I kind of review the state of the art of new science, or science outside the box of Western thinking.
	So we have, for example, in this book I talk about the state of the art of UFO research, but I also talk about consciousness, the mind over matter interaction, the fact that exploring outer space and exploring inner space can lead to all sorts of new paradigms of reality Then the second coming of science,
	this book here, I did some very careful studies that replicated the work of many pioneers of new science, people such as Marcel Vogel.
	I would go and visit various miracle makers like Sai Baba and saw him materialize things.
	I went all over the world.
	I went to I went to Brazil to visit Tomas Green Morton, a very gifted psychic.
	And then I began to get more interested in the environment and at that point I published Miracle in the Void which was a book, a photo journalistic look at some of the best and brightest free energy researchers all over the world, India, Japan and so forth.
	And I began to realize that we could solve our energy problem Really quite quickly if we only embrace these technologies.
	However, they've been suppressed and sometimes violently suppressed.
	And so in this book, Miracle in the Void, which was really a collaboration with my wife Meredith, an artist, she was painting her masterpiece, The Last Supper of Gaia, while I was writing this book.
	And what I discovered was that Paradigm shifts are more a social political phenomenon than a technological question.
	It goes way beyond the drama of outside researchers coming up with breakthroughs which then are suppressed.
	It has to do with creating whole new structures which are unsupported by the larger culture.
	In fact, what's happening now on the planet is that we are grieving the loss of Mother Earth.
	And even though this is a subconscious thing, what happens is that, according to the work of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, we go through various phases of grieving.
	Grieving the loss of our mother planet and so Meredith and I became avid environmentalists and what I attempted to do then and now we're talking the middle 90s, 1990s, was to examine what psychological effects come through each of us as we begin to embrace the new paradigm.
	Meredith and I collaborated on this project and what we were able to identify and this is based on the work of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross on death and dying is that we're all grieving the loss of Mother Earth and by all I mean those of us that are sensitive and aware of the problems that are unfolding on the planet And what Meredith and I figured out was that many of us are in denial,
	most of us, about the severity of the problems, such as global climate change, such as the possibility of nuclear war, the war in Iraq and so forth and so on, that these things fly in the face of what we really need to be doing, which is developing clean energy, making sure we have clean water, having an international system of justice, Depending more and more on local resources, local rule.
	But anyway, most people are in denial about everything, including the UFO phenomenon and free energy, which are two of my favorite topics, both of which I've found for myself are very free.
	So, then we go from denial onto anger.
	The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.
	Then we go into bargaining.
	How can we fit the new within the context of the old?
	A lot of people were stimulated by Barack Obama's comments about how we need change.
	Well, the kind of change that would be implemented there is what I call incremental change, tiny little things.
	And then meanwhile, the progressives that are trying to nip on his heels are saying, well, we need structural change.
	We need to go back to the Constitution.
	We need to have a kind of Rooseveltian New Deal and Keynesian economy.
	We need something that is like going back to a point of reference like the Roosevelt or Clinton administration.
	And that's not going to work.
	So when none of these things work, then according to the work of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, then we go into depression.
	And a lot of people are depressed.
	I've noticed this.
	A lot of people, especially in the U.S., they're just not very happy with what's going on.
	And that happens also when people lose their loved ones.
	They get depressed after Denial, anger and bargaining.
	And then finally people get into acceptance.
	The point here is that the earth is getting ruined by human intervention.
	I mean, it's so obvious.
	And that we need to seek the truth.
	And so, part of what I did was publish a book called Reinheriting the Earth, which was awakening to sustainable solutions.
	And many of them lie far outside the box of conventional thinking.
	And that's why I'm so interested in the free energy question.
	Very interested in some of the questions of ways of purifying water in ways that have not been acknowledged before.
	I'm very interested in the phenomena of consciousness, how combined positive human intention can really and truly change the material world.
	These are ideas now that are proven by quantum physics and paranormal phenomena.
	And so this whole array of solutions, in principle, could work if only we could change the system, only if we could change our governance, our public awareness and education.
	And so that's what I've been all about in the last few years.
	My most recent book is called The Energy Solution Revolution.
	Where, which is based on my 20 years of experience at examining the proofs of concept of free energy devices and by free energy I mean, free energy is sometimes a funny word, maybe we could use the word solution energy.
	These represent quantum leap breakthroughs from what we now know.
	It's going way beyond solar and wind in terms of cleanliness.
	It's actually, it's sort of analogous to the information age.
	Who would have ever imagined that computers and internet would have existed even twenty years ago?
	It was only a small number of people who foresaw that.
	And what I foresee along with many colleagues who have been suppressed is that we can have a free energy or a solution energy culture in the world.
	And by solution energy I mean vacuum energy, energy from the vacuum of space which is well known to the yogis.
	That everywhere has enormous amounts of potential energy if we can only tap into it.
	And there are ways of tapping into it.
	And so some of my world travels and the work of my colleagues and various professional organizations It has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these forms of energy are unprecedented.
	They do exist.
	The Wright brothers have already flown on this one.
	We're just not making practical use.
	And the reason why we're not making practical use of these energy sources It's because they are suppressed actively.
	The people that work on these things are threatened, assassinated, and manipulated, bought off.
	When somebody gets near realization, that's when the big boys go in.
	And this has happened again and again and again.
	So that's a very important part of the awareness training of the general public, and it's also part of the very important work that Project Camelot is doing, which is to interview many people formally in the inside, maybe still in the inside.
	I've never been on the inside, but I sure know how the inside works and what their agenda is and their motivations.
	Which flies in the face of developments, potential developments as free energy.
	And we all know also, and many people don't quite understand it as well, if it's real then we'd have it by now.
	Just go down to Kmart and get my little solid-state power pack and we can go off the grid system, everything is clean, everybody's happy.
	But it doesn't quite work out that way.
	It takes money and time to develop it, so we need an Apollo program for new energy.
	New energy meaning vacuum energy, cold fusion, advanced hydrogen and water technologies.
	There's quite a long list of technologies, any one of which would do it.
	But it's going to take effort to develop these energy sources.
	So, the energy solution revolution, I address less the technical issues because the internet and the general literature is just full of information on the technologies themselves, but instead I've looked at the political and social questions and the educational questions.
	You know, why is it that otherwise intelligent people Would not embrace this possibility if it's going to solve the energy problem.
	And, of course, people don't do it for a number of reasons.
	There have been a number of studies done.
	It's really a social science question as to why there's such resistance to this change.
	Bertrand Russell one time said, the resistance to a new idea increases as the square of its importance.
	And if we're talking about supplanting a four billion dollar energy industry, highly polluting with a clean energy that's cheap and decentralized, then we're talking about a paradigm shift.
	And the powers that be don't want that to happen.
	Okay, Brian, that's a wonderful summary of everything you've been involved in over the past few years.
	What I'd like to do is actually go back in time and get something about kind of the things that triggered you to become the man you are today because clearly you've had a huge sort of arc, learning curve,
	whatever you want to call it, in which you've really traversed, I mean, quite a gamut of Of things and concepts and actually as a scientist you've moved quite a distance from being sort of a hands-on scientist, I guess, that is conventionally thought of as a scientist.
	You've actually become something of an innovative thinker and even maybe loosely a philosopher.
	But you've never lost sight of the science.
	At this point, you're really an interesting combination of these things.
	What I'd like to do is talk about your background as an astronaut.
	You were preparing to go to Mars.
	I understand.
	Yes.
	And yet you never went.
	And if you could tell me a little bit about what was going on in your head back then when you were, what do you say, in the astronaut program.
	Where were you at, you know, psychologically, so that we can kind of get the arc of change, because I think that would be fascinating for people.
	Yes, Kerry.
	Yeah, that's a good question and a complex one, but I think from a very early age, I've always been a visionary.
	I've thought outside the box.
	When I was a little kid, I was drawing rockets and wanted to go to the moon.
	Even my high school yearbook says under my name, he wants to go to the moon, and people were laughing.
	This is before Sputnik.
	Everybody thought I was crazy.
	And then I majored in physics.
	I didn't enjoy it.
	It was kind of dry, but I realized that I'd better know some of that stuff if I wanted to go to the moon.
	And then, as luck would have it, of course, John F. Kennedy in 1961 set the lunar landing goal.
	And I got very enthused.
	I was in graduate school at the time.
	A few years later, I got my PhD at Berkeley in astronomy and planetary science.
	So I had really prepped myself to go to Mars because my PhD thesis was about Mars.
	And indeed, I was selected to go to Mars.
	I was even asked by the selection committee in my interview, would you be willing to submit to a hazardous two-year journey to Mars?
	And I said, fine.
	I don't know whether my wife would like it, but I want to go.
	I was gung-ho.
	I had a crew cut.
	It was very different from the way things are for me now.
	It was later I became a hippie, sort of, you know, an alternative thinker, shall we say.
	But I think all of this was inbred in me.
	And I always had problems with authority.
	I always had problems with rules.
	And that's one reason why I'd go from university to university.
	I was recognized more for mediocrity and doing research on tiny little specialties.
	I was well rewarded when that happened.
	But when I had some visionary idea, such as space colonies or Mining the asteroids for the raw materials, people would scratch their heads and say, well, this guy isn't quite with it.
	One colleague said, Brian, don't have such an open mind that your brains will spill out.
	And it was only later, though, that, you see, I was still in the materialistic paradigm.
	I was still assuming that anything and everything could be explained in terms of matter.
	And in terms of reductionism and everything made up of little atoms.
	Right, the normal scientific paradigm.
	Yeah.
	So what happened to take you from the astronaut program to actually being a professor?
	I understand you were tapped, but you also sort of left the astronaut program.
	So how did that happen?
	Well, I left the astronaut program because they cancelled the Mars program and we knew that the space shuttle was coming along but the wait for that would have to be at least 15 years and we also had to fly high-performance jets and I calculated that I'd have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed in a jet accident, which is both Air Force and astronaut statistics.
	Even before I got to see a space flight, and it would just be into Earth orbit in the space shuttle.
	So I decided right then and there to quit.
	But there was an additional reason, and that is that the reason why NASA canceled the Mars mission was because we were getting involved in Vietnam.
	So I really got pretty angry about the Vietnam War for me personally as well as for the whole country, the whole world.
	And so I became a leading war protester.
	And Carl Sagan called me from Cornell and asked me to join the faculty.
	I accepted the offer and spent many years at Cornell in the astronomy department, planetary science department.
	And then I became very creative in research then.
	But still within the bounds of Western science, but in the planetary exploration program.
	That was for a period of about a decade.
	And then after that, I got more politically involved, and I advised a number of presidential candidates, George McGovern, Morris Udall.
	I worked for Udall.
	I was his energy advisor when he ran for president.
	He was a very environmental congressman.
	I advised Jesse Jackson on converting the huge aerospace capability we have to peaceful purposes like developing solution energy and other programs that would be of use to the public and not just to this hungry elite.
	And it was around then that I really became rebellious.
	I went from university to university and I never was satisfied.
	Isn't there a time in which you and Carl Sagan sort of had a falling out or a distancing?
	Can you describe what happened there?
	Yes.
	Well, for one thing, Carl was very angry.
	I left Cornell when I did.
	It was one very cold, snowy day in May.
	I landed in Syracuse and there was a horizontal blizzard in May and I said, that's it for upstate New York.
	And Carl thought that was very frivolous because, of course, he was kind of an empire builder kind of guy.
	And he also had a huge ego, and it was only later when I began to embrace the UFO phenomenon, the cover-up, studying all these organizations that were covering up and having some direct experience, myself as a researcher,
	no longer beholden to funding from NASA or the university environment, That I began to double check some of Karl's work and I saw for example the famous face in Cydonia on Mars, photographed by Viking in 1975, which shows this gigantic human mesa that resembles a human face about a mile across.
	Karl and I debated this and it was very disappointing to me because not only was Karl wrong, he also fudged data.
	He published a picture of the face in Parade magazine, a popular article saying that the face is just a natural formation.
	But he doctored the picture to make it not look like a face.
	And I began to realize just directly From a scientific point of view, not only hearsay, that this man was colluding with NASA, that there might be more to this than before.
	And then when I started studying things like MJ-12 and other organizations that were covering up the UFO phenomenon, Carl was on a committee with a number of notable people.
	There was a report issued by the Brookings Institution in 1961 And that's about when I knew Carl, during those years, the 60s mostly, is when I worked closely with him, that he and this other group said, well, if any ETs ever showed up on the earth, it has to be covered up.
	That's the only way we're going to be able to manage this, because if we can't, then we're going to, it would be too much of a culture shock.
	So their recommendation to the government in 1961 was to cover up the UFO phenomenon.
	And I think in a way that provided it a justification for the ongoing cover-up.
	Way back in 61 was to keep things secret.
	And of course they still are.
	So at what point were you, where did Hoagland come into this mix?
	Because once you were talking about the face on Mars, I have to assume that you had some interaction with Hoagland.
	Yes, he's a great catalyst.
	He's very articulate.
	He's very bright.
	He had some very good ideas.
	He came to me in about, I think it was around 1980.
	It was a few years after the Viking mission and I was still involved with the mainstream then so Dick Hoagland wanted me still being a somewhat mainstream planetary scientist.
	To listen to him, listen to his presentation about the Cydonia face.
	And he made a presentation which I thought was very good.
	He asked me to check his work.
	I thought a great deal of the work was extremely well done and which I vindicated enough to say that, yeah, I too would like to get into this research.
	And then the research started to snowball.
	So that was the good news.
	The not so good news is that he also made a lot of claims that were certainly not correct.
	They were scientifically not well grounded.
	He was arbitrary in picking some of the points in the region as control points for various geometric alignments, which were simply not true.
	So I also had somewhat of a falling out with him because You see, most scientists, people train the science as a scientist, and in a way I still defend mainstream science in terms of methodology, that you have to have your work subject to peer review in order to get it published, and I think that's very good.
	It's really good to preserve the scientific method.
	So I found myself in this odd middle ground between people that were outside the system making claims such as Dick Hoagland did, some of which are very, very substantial and good, and then on the one hand and on the other hand using strict scientific methods to approach these questions.
	And eventually, some colleagues joined me, and a number of us now have worked together, such as Dr.
	Mark Carlotto, an imaging scientist, Professor Stan McDaniel, Chairman of the Philosophy Department of Sonoma State, Dr.
	Horace Crater, Professor of Physics, University of Tennessee, the late Dr.
	Tom Van Flandern, These are all mainstream scientists trained in the mainstream, just like I was, and also open to the questions such as the face on Mars.
	So, in a way, it was kind of a roundabout way, because now that I was out of the mainstream, because all I have to do is stick my neck out a little to be totally ostracized by the mainstream scientific community, and that happened around 1980.
	Was that when you were at Princeton?
	Yes.
	I know there are some parallels between you and John Mack, the late John Mack, and I know you know him, or knew him, and how he was treated by Harvard.
	Can you talk a little bit about what happened to you at Princeton?
	Well yes, actually I think I left before they threw me out because I saw the handwriting on the wall.
	I was in the physics department, all men, Nobel laureates, about five or six Nobel laureates and every other Tuesday at the Joseph Henry luncheons we would swill a thimble full of sherry and the most common topic of discussion Was how ridiculous claims of the paranormal were.
	And meanwhile I was sneaking off to workshops on the weekends.
	I did a life spring training.
	I did a number of other healing seminars and so forth.
	And I started to step outside of the box and I found that they were very wrong.
	But my colleagues were also, they had more power than I did at that time.
	So I felt the most prudent thing to do was to simply leave and that's what I did.
	But how did their antagonism towards you manifest in that setting?
	Well, for one thing, when I left there were no regrets because the word got around that I was going off half-cocked here and embracing paranormal phenomena.
	They were looking askance anyway because at that time I was working with Professor Gerard O'Neill on space colonies and even those concepts were a bit far out for the other physicists there.
	It was like a double whammy.
	And so in my case, I left before they could have caused problems.
	And where did you go when you say you left?
	Where were you headed?
	Did you know where you were headed or were you just leaving?
	No, I just left.
	I just left.
	Fascinating.
	Because that's huge.
	At that point, I mean, wouldn't you say that that's your major break with academia?
	From then on, you kind of took a trajectory that actually went like that, in a sense?
	Yes, yes.
	I did in the interim.
	I had a near-death experience in an auto accident, which prompted me to go to California, go west, young man.
	So I took all my worldly possessions and bought a beat-up old Ford van and threw it in there and drove to California in 1982.
	And this was just after a near-death experience I had in an auto accident, which was yet another paranormal indicator that where I was and what I was doing was not working for me.
	When you say you had a near-death experience, I'm not sure how you feel about that, but is it possible to convey to us what connected that experience with the paranormal?
	Did you actually, meaning did you die and see certain things?
	My near-death experience was during an auto accident on slick ice that suddenly appeared, and fortunately I was by myself.
	I did several flips.
	I was going 65 miles an hour.
	I ended up in a ditch, accordion style.
	But my experience of the accident was none of the violence, but instead a brilliant light, first of all bobbing spheres, and then a brilliant light that I wanted to become at one with.
	I did become at one with it.
	And then the next thing I knew, I was sitting in the driver's seat, dazed, shocked, and a man was at the window of the car.
	He was a professional auto insurance adjuster who had witnessed the accident and said, I'm amazed you're alive, let alone uninjured.
	And that to me was a profound experience because at that point I hadn't studied the paranormal very much.
	I was still at Princeton.
	I was just getting my appetite whetted about some of these things, about human potential and about...
	My own experiences.
	I had remote viewing experiences.
	I had the near-death experience.
	I had healing experiences.
	And that was kind of my signpost to leave Princeton and to just go on my own.
	And that was a risky thing.
	I ended up in California and L.A. Looking for a job in the aerospace industry so I could get my kids through college, but to do civilian work, I did find a position with Science Applications, which turned out to be a, you know, it's one of the black budget beltway bandit groups, but I didn't, I wasn't involved in...
	Is that SAIC? S-A-I-C, yeah.
	They're notorious, actually, for being part of the black budget.
	Yeah, and I had nothing to do with it.
	I refused to do any work for the military, even peaceful work like satellites to just sense threats to defend themselves.
	I was even offered to do that, and I refused to do it.
	And after four and a half years, just before I got invested in my retirement plan, they laid me off.
	And they had good reason to, too.
	I didn't pull in any money.
	And so it was then, and now we're talking 1987, that I made a clean break with the mainstream.
	And I got my kids halfway through college.
	And then I got on the metaphysical church circuit, Unity and Religious Science Churches.
	And that's how I kind of made a living for about a decade.
	Well, I was just...
	Metaphysically exploring, just going to so many modalities of alternative thinking.
	And what I discovered during that decade of the 80s into the 90s, and that's what created my books, was that you could use the methods of science itself to verify and to further develop metaphysical realities.
	And that's what really fascinated me.
	You actually can use the scientific method to investigate the occult as well.
	That's right.
	Absolutely.
	You know, it's a great method regardless of where it's applied in some ways.
	While you were at Princeton, before you left, didn't you find a kindred spirit in Robert John, whose name that many viewers of this video will probably recognize as being a pioneer and one of the trail-breaking Yes, absolutely, Bill.
	I got along with him very well.
	But the odd thing about it was that at the time, when he was starting to do his experiments at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory, Pair Labs, He was doing a lot of the research while I was there, but I didn't know what he was doing.
	He didn't know what I was doing either because I didn't want to share with my colleagues the fact that I was sneaking off to workshops on weekends or that I was having paranormal experiences.
	So we were both in the closet at that point.
	He didn't know what I was doing, I didn't know what he was doing, although we were colleagues on various mainstream projects, such as developing propulsion systems to go to Mars.
	His specialty was various advanced propulsion systems for rockets.
	He was the chairman, well actually the dean of the School of Engineering at Princeton.
	And I would put on a number of conferences with Jerry O'Neill on space colonies, space settlements, and Bob John took part in those, so I knew him pretty well, but not in this role of paranormal research.
	That only happened later when I visited his laboratory and did an interview with him for one of my books, Second Coming of Science.
	That our whole relationship was redefined and it was around then that I also developed a relationship with John Mack as I was learning more and more about the UFO phenomenon and some of the more verifiable aspects of its reality and so in a way I've had a ball in my life because I was able to be very independent I didn't have to depend on anybody for career purposes.
	I didn't get paid very much.
	I was, you know, living very simply for a period of 20 or 30 years.
	I still do in a sense because, you know, we just do things a little differently.
	But the point is that for now, I would say now almost 30 years, I haven't had to be beholden to anybody to approve what I'm doing.
	Yeah, that's incredible.
	But on the other hand, that can create problems too, and it did.
	Sure.
	Because when black ops tried to recruit me once and I refused, there were consequences and they were very serious.
	But without sharing exactly what they were, suffice it to say that I began to realize that at that time, and I'm talking 20 or so years ago, I was pretty naive.
	I was wanting to do all kinds of things, like organize conferences, get researchers together to speak in a unified way about various issues.
	But that was not well appreciated by the powers that be.
	And I want to get into that, because that's a really interesting part of your history.
	But before we do that, you did say you got to know John Mack, and I think he was a friend of yours.
	And I was curious, did he ever, I don't know, regress you?
	Did you have what he would consider a contact experience?
	Not to my knowledge.
	I didn't have that kind of relationship with him.
	The relationship was more like when I was really heavy into UFO research during the 1990s.
	I was attempting to piece together the best information that was the scientifically most grounded and also find out, well, what is the contact experience telling us?
	And this led on his part and my part to have A profound sense of colleagueship and deep concern about the fate of the Earth, the fate of our culture, because the environmental problems are so severe.
	And that's because the contactees were coming back with this message, basically, kind of almost across the board, is that right?
	That's correct.
	His book, Passport to the Cosmos, which is his latest book before his untimely Death was really an account of that, that the most common denominator of the contact experience is that the visitors are telling us and doing graphic, emotionally charged images of what the Earth would look like if we keep doing things the way we're doing them.
	And so John came to this issue from the point of view of abduction research.
	I came to it from the point of view of just looking at the numbers, at just how the state of the world is just miserable, that we've got not that much longer before tipping points will destabilize climate and all sorts of catastrophes.
	And that's even setting aside the possibility of nuclear war, of bankrupt, well, everything is getting bankrupt now anyway.
	I mean, it's disaster ahead unless we change our ways.
	And John kind of saw the light.
	Robert John at Princeton saw the light.
	And little by little, you see, as scientists, we as colleagues came together.
	But it took a long time.
	We've been divided and ruled.
	Would you say that in some ways you kind of became a figure or a central person around which a lot of these people could come together?
	From the one hand the UFO researchers, I know that you started setting up conferences, you would bring them in, but on the other hand you were actually bringing scientists to the table, such as John Mack and Robert John.
	That's correct.
	I co-founded an organization called the International Association for New Science, And we had annual conferences between about 1989 and 99 and the other co-founder, God rest his soul, Maury Albertson, he was a professor of civil engineering at Colorado State.
	He and I and one other fellow basically founded it and we had conferences and we We'd convene people in various disciplines in what we would call new science, which would include free energy, UFO research,
	paranormal research, reincarnation research, and we'd bring in some of the best scientists in those fields and we'd We'd create a collegiality and also do a public program of lectures that would then pay for the travel of the people.
	We kind of worked on a shoestring budget.
	I'm sure you're familiar with that one.
	But there was a lot of ambition and motivation.
	Maury just passed over, but at the ripe age of about 90.
	He's one of my heroes.
	A lot of my heroes have passed over, and some of them more recently than others, so it's kind of like a lonely business sometimes.
	So it was during the time when you were putting these conferences together that you actually felt there was a hit on you from the secret government, if you will.
	Is that correct?
	I mean, I'm not sure how you would term it.
	Yeah, let's say that I've had a situation that was threatening to me and it was as a result of some of my work and also it's happened to many of my colleagues as well so that my efforts to unify organized scientists to express freely was like a lot of other researchers was considered not so good.
	But at that point, I understand that was sort of one more brick in the wall at that point, but you didn't actually stop doing that, stop doing the conferences because of that, did you?
	No.
	No, I kept going.
	I kept going.
	And so, all those years...
	And I lived to tell the story, and I'm very grateful for that.
	That was through the 90s.
	Okay, and at some point, you also got involved with Malov, is that right?
	That's right.
	Eugene Maloff was, just to kind of tell you the story briefly, was the chief science writer for MIT. He had a doctor in education and was a brilliant writer.
	And in 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleshman, two chemists from the University of Utah, claimed that they made a breakthrough called cold fusion, in which when they put a palladium cathode into a solution of heavy in which when they put a palladium cathode into a solution of heavy water, that strangely enough nuclear reactions would occur in the cathode to create helium and the release of thermal energy,
	It was basically room temperature fusion which is quite different from the traditional definition of fusion which is to simulate the hydrogen bomb and build these enormous reactors called tokamaks that cost tens of billions of dollars and would attempt to confine a plasma of hot hydrogen so that they can fuse together to release that thermal energy for generating electricity
	sort of like nuclear power fission power except it's fusion and it's even more powerful and so What went on was this kind of philosophical falling out.
	It was this typical scientific heresy type of thing where the hot fusion physicists, which pretty much controlled the Department of Energy and MIT and Caltech and places like that, immediately banded together and they tried to discredit this discovery.
	And so Gene Malov took an interest in this issue and he, at first, had the prejudice, just like we all do, I think, on the side of caution, felt that, yes, these guys from the University of Utah are probably crazy and he would join the physicists at MIT and write a story about just how What bunk and poppycock this cold fusion breakthrough was.
	And what Malov found out, much to his surprise, was that the hot fusion scientist at MIT, who tried to replicate the experiment, first of all they didn't know the science, they weren't chemists, they were nuclear physicists, very different field.
	But also the point is that Malov found that the MIT hot fusion physicists were fudging their data to make it look like it wasn't there, whereas in fact the data showed it was there.
	The discovery was vindicated.
	So this led Malov to write an article that was like exposé on this and whereupon he was fired from MIT and then he started Infinite Energy magazine and became a leading Organizer of scientists and advocate of, at first it was cold fusion, then he expanded his repertoire to vacuum energy and various forms of hydrogen, advanced hydrogen.
	And you used to write articles for his publication, is that right?
	Yes, he started a magazine called Infinite Energy, an excellent magazine.
	And I think it will go into history as one of the seminal breakthrough publications of all time.
	And he would write scathing editorials about how the scientific community is stuck in the mud about questions like free energy.
	He, I'm sure, rattled a lot of cages in his work.
	And then of course the rest is history.
	In 2004, some thieves broke into his house and brutally murdered him.
	We don't know the exact cause, but I think we know the motive.
	It's just too much of a coincidence because he rattled a lot of cages.
	His loss was a great loss for me.
	He was one of my heroes.
	So when you see heroes living in your time and people with whom you have a close connection and they're suddenly dead, it does cause concern.
	And it was at that point, because we're in Ecuador right now, that I understand that you decided to actually leave the states.
	Is that right?
	Well, it was one of the reasons, yeah.
	One of the reasons was to just, quote, retire.
	Just to...
	You know, live out our lives in peace and harmony but still do my work, you know, write books and give lectures and organize conferences and that I intend to continue doing.
	But I'm really glad to be here.
	It's so very peaceful and, you know, I just hope that together we can create a bright new future that has an opportunity to move ahead.
	And I think that's one of my bottom line messages now is that people need to become more aware because logic alone, common sense alone, says we should leave no stone unturned in seeking clean energy sources for our future.
	And we should leave no stone unturned in our investigation of the ET phenomenon.
	Because there's a lot we can learn from this and there's a lot we can do in the future to redirect us instead of having this to be the sole territory of black budgets and people who want to cover up things.
	But the general public is not aware of this.
	They're not aware that free energy or solution energy could be the holy grail of our time.
	And of course that's where the Camelot theme comes in.
	It's the search for the holy grail.
	Well, the holy grail has been found.
	It's just that most people don't realize that.
	Okay, well, so you seem to be like such an enigma in a sense because you were trained in the astronaut program and then you went through academia and you had to be highly rewarded during that time.
	And yet you still thought outside the box and you still made all these adventurous changes in your life and then here you are in Ecuador.
	Even that takes a great deal of courage to leave everything you know and start a new life.
	And this has got to be like a slap in the face to the Military-industrial complex, okay?
	That here you are, you've become this incredible rebel, okay?
	And yet you have all these degrees and so on.
	And I know there was an issue where they tried to actually bury your background as an ex-astronaut, which is unbelievable.
	I know that there actually has been some attempt to change the definition of what an ex-astronaut or an astronaut candidate is.
	So that they could actually wipe your record clean.
	And I think you've had more than one experience in this way.
	And there are certainly many people out there that have had similar things happen to them, especially when there are rebels, free thinkers, people that are going outside the box of the old paradigm.
	So if you could talk a little bit about what happened to you.
	Yes, Kerry.
	Well, I was appointed to the astronaut program in 1967, and my title then was astronaut.
	I even have a hanging on the wall here.
	I don't have the accurate date, but I'd say roughly around 1990.
	It came to my attention.
	Well, I'll backtrack a little bit.
	A reporter from the San Diego Union-Tribune interviewed me after I gave a talk in San Diego and part of my credentials said, ex-astronaut.
	And one of the people on the board of the San Diego Union-Tribune was Wally Schirra, the former, one of the original seven Mercury astronauts.
	Who unbeknownst to me formed what was called the Society for Space Explorers in which the term astronaut was redefined to anybody that went 50 miles above the Earth's surface.
	So in a way I was defrocked when Shara hit the ceiling and apparently the reporter lost his position.
	Just like the first reporter that covered the first Wright Brothers flight was fired from his position by his editor for not believing that heavier than air flight was possible.
	So in this instance, once again, the reporter was fired for using the quote wrong credential.
	Well, I found that out, and then shortly after that, an organization with whom I worked some, MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network, in the U.S., also it came to their attention that maybe, in fact, I was not an astronaut.
	And so they wrote to NASA. NASA said, well, in fact, he wasn't.
	They said you were not.
	They actually wrote to NASA. Well, I think so.
	I'm not absolutely sure of the details, but I can tell you who would know is Bob Bletchman, who was the lawyer for MUFON at the time.
	Anyway, Bob Bletchman wrote me, and it was kind of a challenging letter that basically said, many of us feel that you've misrepresented your credentials.
	And so I presented my credentials to Bob Bletchman and he became convinced that indeed that was my title at the time and that indeed it's appropriate to use that in my credentials.
	And not that I used it all the time, because actually quite often I wouldn't, because I was trying to get away from that controversy, and there's much more about me besides being an ex-astronaut that's kind of interesting.
	Anyway, so it didn't matter to me too much one way or the other but once I got vindicated because MUFON challenged me in public and then later vindicated me that indeed I was an astronaut.
	So that was cleared up.
	Now on another occasion For a year I had a visiting faculty appointment at Caltech during the Mariner 10 mission, in which I was deputy team leader of the television or imaging science team for Mariner 10 that went by Venus and Mercury during the 1970s.
	And Professor Bruce Murray, who later became the director of JPL, He appointed me a deputy team leader during that time and I was at Caltech and worked on the mission with him and some of the other scientists.
	And so fast forward to the year 2000 and a very bright senior honors physics student who knew that I was researching solution energies such as cold fusion and so forth.
	I said, gee, you ought to come to Caltech.
	Would you like to speak at our commencement as a speaker for alternative future science such as cold fusion?
	And I said I'd be happy to.
	So they scheduled it, they started posting things and advertising the event.
	And then this one professor that I had worked for, who later became director of JPL, apparently actively tried to suppress the entire gig.
	And then it turned out that there was no record that I was even a Caltech, denied that I was deputy team leader, denied that I was even a Caltech.
	But it was so simple because I had published papers, well, in science and other journals, and Caltech was the affiliation that was under my name.
	And not only that, you had to have colleagues who remember you, you know, who are still there even.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So it's an amazing thing.
	Amazing thing.
	They tried to erase it and I thought, gee, maybe I could find some paycheck stubs or something like that because apparently I was wiped off the Caltech records that I was even there, even in their administration because I tried to follow that one up.
	So if somebody was doing an article on you and wanted to investigate and called Caltech today, they will say that you never worked there.
	Exactly.
	Amazing.
	It just shows you how the machine works.
	And I think that this is very instructive to many people who challenge a lot of whistleblowers on the fact that their credentials have disappeared.
	So this is very instructive.
	Here you are working in free energy.
	You're an ex-astronaut.
	I know there's a video on Google in which you are actually Speaking before the White House during the Bush administration not so long ago, and very fiery, very impressive, very courageous, basically saying that Bush should not be in office and talking to some degree about the cover-up.
	That's tremendously courageous, and yet I didn't know anything about it until we started to investigate, you know, coming to see you and all.
	Can you talk a little bit about that?
	And then I know that you also did the same thing back in the Nixon administration, but the number of people around you was...
	Strikingly reduced.
	And I want to do that because I want to talk about how times are changing and what may be coming down the line.
	Yeah, it's very sad for me to see this develop.
	And yes, you're right, Kerry, that in 1970, I was an anti-Vietnam War protester.
	And along with other people from Cornell and many places, there were about 100,000 of us, When Cambodia was invaded, we marched on Washington towards the White House and a number of us locked arms.
	There were leaders of this protest and tried to walk between a line of buses that was blocking the White House from us.
	And we were fully expecting to be handcuffed and arrested, which was fine.
	It was an act of civil disobedience.
	And instead we were invited into the White House to express our outrage with some of Nixon's advisers.
	And then just after that, some of us, I think the interview with me was a lead story on CBS Evening News.
	That would have been, and you could probably even look it up, I think it was April 30th, 1970.
	And there was also a certain number of people that attended that.
	100,000.
	100,000, which is amazing.
	And by contrast, I joined a protest march onto the White House in 2007, no, 06.
	It was the fifth anniversary of 9-11.
	And there were a few, it was a motley crew of about 30 of us.
	It was a beautiful day.
	It was September 11th, 06, and we marched to the White House, and some of my 9-11 truther friends and I gave little speeches in front of the White House.
	And what I felt there was that Washington had changed, that it was no longer a place where there'd be any democratic discourse.
	Instead, it was a locked It was like people were robotically walking around business as usual.
	And to me, 9-11 truth is sort of like a metaphor for what's going on now.
	There are other truths too, of course, like solution energy truth.
	Truths that are being covered up, but it's being covered up also by people who are otherwise intelligent and free-thinking and progressive.
	Those people aren't there either.
	They're buying into the system.
	The system itself has become kind of locked up.
	And this is so sad to me.
	And the reason why I guess I have what you might call some degree of courage, other people might call it naivety or foolishness, is that I sometimes think it's either the Earth or me or anybody else that wants to try to make a difference and bring in the new paradigm.
	Because I happen to think we can have a new paradigm, but we need to stand and be counted.
	We need to go to the White House, bang pots.
	I mean, we had a change in the presidency of Ecuador, a very positive change as a result.
	Of about a million people getting out there in front of the presidential palace and banging pots until the president left.
	That's non-violent.
	It's a method of changing.
	And what's happening now in the US is very scary because the people in charge, they're obviously pulling the strings of the politicians.
	Bribing them, and it's so obvious, especially seen from here, to see the decline of the culture in just about every respect, whether it's economic, ecological, peace versus war.
	It's locked up.
	It's a closed shop.
	There are a few courageous people around that I know, friends like Dennis Kucinich and You know, some of the other, Cynthia McKinney, I've done some work with Ralph Nader, although I couldn't convince him that Solution Energy was possible.
	But there are a lot of people that do stand on the good side of the forest, but they're very few and far between now.
	And I want to be joined by people.
	I need support.
	I need to team up with more and more people who feel as I do and are willing to stand and be counted.
	Well, can you talk, just name a few names, if you don't mind, of the people that are actually in more or less the alternative world, but they're not willing to actually embrace, you know, the ideas of free energy, even UFOs, you know, the idea that there might be black projects out there.
	I mean, because we had talked briefly, and I know that you talked about some of these people are very actually good friends of yours.
	Yes, there are many people in the progressive community.
	I would say Kucinich himself is in this category.
	He's been on the fence.
	I was able to script for him an interview he had with NPR when he was running for president in 2004.
	I was advising him on solution energy and trying to come up with the right words so that he could become all-inclusive about, you know, Leaving no stone unturned in our quest for new energy sources.
	And so Kucinich did a little of that, but then he kind of retrenched some.
	There were a number of glitches that came up, but he wanted to create some legislation that would provide funding for new energy research and development, which is what we really need.
	We need an Apollo program for this.
	We need to bring people under one roof to research it or to somehow in other ways support the work, which is not happening, of course.
	But there are other thinkers that are very movers and shakers in many ways, criticizing the current paradigm.
	They're very courageous in that way, and yet they actually won't go outside the box.
	Exactly.
	They're what Wade Frazier, a good friend, and I call structuralists.
	These are people like Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and they're also the kinds of people that won't look at 9-11 Truth.
	So there's a pattern here.
	There's a pattern of various things that become what David Ray Griffin calls sacred myths.
	One sacred myth is that the official story of 9-11 is true.
	It's obviously true and there's no disputing it.
	Another sacred myth is that there is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy.
	So you have all of these environmentalists that are just naysaying even the possibility of free energy.
	And this would be a number of notable people, people on the cutting edge of environmental policy.
	I've broached this to many Famous, well-known people.
	I'll list a few.
	Okay.
	Please do.
	Amory Lovins, Lester Brown, formerly of the World Watch Institute.
	Amory just walked away from me when I broached it, and I've known him for years.
	Are they afraid?
	Can you actually drill down a little and tell us, are they afraid?
	Or is it something else?
	Is it the matrix that they've actually bought into the matrix and that was it?
	They couldn't get beyond that?
	They're certainly critics of the society, but they don't...
	Well, I mean, that's an excellent question, Kerry, and I can't second guess their negative reaction because I'm not in their skin, but it might be a blend of the two.
	I know that it was politically correct and sort of de rigueur when I was in the mainstream of science to nay-say and deny anything that fell outside the box, and then I was accepted.
	So some of it's cultural, for sure.
	Somebody like Emery Lovins or Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein, and there are many other names too, I could probably pop for several more, whose bias or critique of the culture is narrowly confined to certain areas.
	Now, on the other hand, I have to grant them that That maybe they just didn't have time to look at these other things like Free Energy or 9-11 Truth.
	But on the other hand, maybe they are in the matrix.
	Maybe fear has so captivated them that they're in the box.
	Well, don't you have a story about the carrot and the stick?
	I think that this would be a great opportunity to talk about it, because it may not also be just fear, but also the reward system that they get through normal society, if you will.
	Well, yes, and I think that many people, and I've broken free of it, but it took me a long time, and it took a lot of truth-seeking, but yeah, a lot of people just, yeah, they basically realize that their careers could be ruined by this.
	I don't think most of them get to the point where there are threats, but Yes, some people are offered very lucrative opportunities to, quote, join the team, the powers that be, to come over to their side.
	And when that doesn't happen, then often they're whacked by the stick.
	John Perkins talks about this in his books, the first one of which is Confessions of Economic Hitman.
	The carrots are tangled, like it could come in the form of a World Bank loan or it could come in the form to buy you out, not to do the free energy invention.
	Or it could be being recruited to be part of their team and becoming privy to some information that you otherwise couldn't get.
	Well, certainly funding for experimentation from the point of view of a scientist, that's always the most seductive thing, one would assume.
	That's right.
	And a lot of free energy inventors now, for example, the patent office, As a policy to naysay anything that smacked of free energy.
	Or the Department of Defense has the secrecy law which says that if this device has any defense application, offense application, then you're going to have your device confiscated and you can never work on it again.
	Well, along those lines, let's actually move along to free energy, and I know you've done a tremendous amount of investigation here, but you've also investigated the cover-up of free energy and the people that have, you know, maybe gotten to a certain point and then been, I don't know, hit in one way or another, the device stolen.
	Do you have some anecdotes along those lines and some people that you can talk about who've done investigations?
	I know you traveled the world doing some, in one of your books, talking about that.
	Well, yes.
	I mean, first of all, there are many inventors who have been assassinated, threatened, had their funding removed.
	And I can go through the list, or obviously you'll be able to post the list and their stories.
	And I've been able to authenticate many of these stories myself, personally.
	And they're pretty much right on.
	But there are people like Tom Bearden.
	There's a man called Gary Vesperman who's accumulated many, many suppression stories of all kinds for free energy.
	There's Wade Frazier and his excellent website, ahealedplanet.net, in which he explores many hundreds of pages Many suppression stories like in some of his own experience with the inventor and promoter Dennis Lee.
	And there are just so many others.
	You know, that's one of the things I've said in my carrot and the stick story is that there are a thousand ways to suppress an inventor or a researcher.
	And there are also a thousand ways to eliminate them or threaten them.
	And we're all so vulnerable To forces because we have these bodies and these bodies are very vulnerable to any kind of attack or threat and those of our loved ones.
	So in a sense the powers that be hold all the cards right now and most people are afraid to even venture into this territory And that in part is also a psychological phenomenon.
	There have been some really good research done on this that the pain center of the brain is hit as soon as you start to talk about anything that smacks of conspiracy theory, which of course is a dismissal, it's really truth-seeking.
	That any painful new truth is going to reach the pain center of the brain first.
	Whereas if you join the lynch mob, if you join the powers that be, then everything is pretty comfortable.
	Pleasure center, you can have fun with life.
	So, in a way, it's me or the Earth.
	That's the way it seems to be in this dark agenda, which is really not so hidden now, if people only take the time out and look at that, but also look at the great promise and potential.
	Of solution energy.
	It's really a one-two punch in education that's necessary.
	But at the same time, I have many wonderful dear friends, progressive people, otherwise progressive, who still can't get their hands around the free energy question because they say, well, you know, if you show it to me, then I'll believe it.
	But until then, it's not worth looking at as a question.
	Well, isn't, I mean, George Green is a friend of yours and certainly he's been working with John Bedini and, you know, George is one of those people who feels, you know, is certainly on the side of free energy and is certainly aware of it.
	Have you seen a device or has, you know, have you seen John Bedini's work and, you know, what might you think of that and so on?
	Oh yes, I've visited many laboratories and visited a lot of people, and I took photographs of them, but I've also investigated in great detail the concepts, like for example, this man is Sparky Sweet, or Floyd Sweet.
	I visited him in the 90s, he's passed over now, and this is a specially conditioned magnet that he was showing that produces free energy.
	And he was, his laboratory was in an undisclosed location in the Mojave Desert.
	He had before been in L.A. and was broken into.
	His laboratory was broken into.
	He was threatened.
	They were spying on him with infrared cameras.
	You know, all of this is well documented.
	This is Bruce De Palma, who invented the N machine while he was at MIT, and he was so suppressed by the Securities and Exchange Commission when he tried to start his own company, he emigrated to Australia.
	They didn't like it there either, so he emigrated to New Zealand and died young of a heart attack.
	about a decade ago this is some of Bruce's apparatus it's an end machine it's basically a magnetic motor magnets that go up on a wheel that are spun up and then they interact with the hypothesized zero point or vacuum energy field and you get free energy you get over unity power this is Paramahamsa Tawari in India Who had
	demonstrated a version of the end machine, which is magnets on a motor and a wheel.
	Now, Tiwari is a very prestigious physicist.
	He works for the government of India.
	He was chief project engineer of their largest nuclear power plant.
	But they also, the government of India, gave him laboratory space and funding to develop this machine, which he demonstrated to me, and which was lighting light bulbs with the machine being unplugged.
	And it just was free running for, oh, 20-30 minutes.
	And the basic principles are very, very well presented to me, photographed.
	It's there for anybody to see.
	This is Chiuji Inamata.
	He also passed over at a relatively young age.
	He worked for the Tsukuba Space Facility in Japan, also a PhD physicist and president of the Japan Psychotronics Institute.
	And he had also one of these magnetic motors, which was spinning up and producing excess energy.
	And again, he died young.
	Most of all these people die young.
	This is John Hutchison from Canada.
	Right.
	Well, we have had interactions with John, and actually we'd love to interview him at some point.
	Can you tell us, you know, your take on his...
	Yes.
	John has personal psychic powers, but he's also brilliant with machines.
	So this is John, and he actually was taking Meredith's Camelot sword...
	And then he took this bar of what he would call aluminium which was thoroughly thrashed by one of his Tesla coils and of course the US Department of Defense immediately took an interest in this for reasons other than John.
	John is a loving gentle soul and he basically has demonstrated many times over how he can produce free energy just from specially conditioned magnets Yes.
	He'd be a good one to interview.
	He's a wonderful guy and he's also done many experiments levitating objects and producing free energy.
	Yes, some of his videos are on Google and we've seen some of them.
	This is Yul Brown who was doing a demonstration of Brown's gas for me which was again anomalous amounts of energy just brilliant light in his welding system And Tom Bearden, Maury King, these are leading theorists.
	So these are people that I visited over the course of about 10 years and have reported on.
	This was a meeting of free energy researchers that was convened by a software billionaire in Estes Park, Colorado in 1993 and 94.
	And there are a lot of...
	And the software billionaire was, could we name him?
	Well, I think I'd rather not, because my comments weren't always positive, but he convened these people with the intention of trying to find out the best and brightest researchers and the best concepts to fund.
	And then he suddenly did a reversal and said, no, I'm not going to fund any of this, because my marketing people told me that we were not dipping into the river of optimized profits.
	In other words, when you're in the toe of the profit curve, you know, we're still at the research phase of a research and development cycle.
	So that's what the government is supposed to be doing.
	The Department of Energy is supposed to be funding these things.
	And, my God, they're hardly even funding solar and wind.
	They're totally steeped in nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and fossil fuel power.
	But in this picture, there's some people with really sad cases.
	This was Stefan Marinov, who was Europe's leading free energy inventor and researcher.
	He was a professor of physics at the University of Graz in Austria.
	Jolly fellow.
	Wonderful man.
	Just positive and Upbeat.
	And a few years ago, a few years after this conference, he was seen jumping off the tenth story of the library building to his death.
	Incredible.
	Some people saw him going backwards, so it looked like he was pushed off.
	And again, it's just another one of these cases.
	There are many other people in this picture who are no longer alive, but these are the leading free energy researchers from all over the world.
	And Jim Carrey, who's filming Dumb and Dumber while we were trying to get smarter and smarter.
	Yeah, interesting.
	So, okay, let's go from here to what kind of solutions you're advocating or kind of where you think we can go from the future just to sort of inspire all the people that are listening to this because truly you are a very inspiring man and,
	you know, your courage, your willingness to think out of sight of the box and then in the face of all odds to persist in this I mean, you just released this new book, right?
	Right.
	The Energy Solution Revolution.
	Exactly.
	So what is it that your book is about and what are you advocating and how can you encourage or give us an encouraging word about the future if you have one?
	Well, I think the bottom line of this, this is the book, and I've been working on it for about six years, and I've got different, it's kind of different essays, but they all come together, because they first talk about Well, just looking at the table of contents, that it's being covered up at every turn.
	There's hardly anybody alive that's not covering it up, either by commission or omission.
	Orwell one time said, the greatest lies are lies of omission.
	And so a lot of people who are otherwise progressive and enlightened and very bright just suppress it.
	And so this book is a study of the breakthroughs and the suppressions, also the ecological mandate, the fact that the problems with the earth are far greater than you would be led to believe in the media.
	And then I talk about, well, what is this tyranny and how can we overcome it?
	Well, we can certainly overcome it by education and by revamping our political systems.
	And right now, I think people are beginning to wake up to the fact that even Obama doesn't really represent change.
	He's great rhetorically, but all these people And I would include in there a lot of people that are otherwise progressive, we have already talked about, plus many others, leaders of the environmental movement, for example, that the cover-up is fairly complete.
	And in a sense, it's very similar to the UFO ET phenomenon, to 9-11, anything else, where conventional wisdom denies it.
	And so I kind of pick this apart.
	I try to ask, well, who's doing the denying?
	The scientists, certainly.
	They're the guardians of the gate.
	People that call themselves scientists are the number one suppressors.
	And so they're an unwitting alliance with the black ops people.
	Because, you know, if the scientists won't give it the possibility, the S-nod, then it probably won't get anywhere.
	It's sort of like Galileo's colleagues refused to look through his telescope.
	And then you have the environmentalists, and I've talked with many leading environmentalists, Here's another example, Hazel Henderson, a leading progressive economist, doesn't want free energy because she doesn't want millions of helicopters in the sky and bigger power saws, and I don't blame her.
	So that then forces the question, well, this has to be managed.
	We don't want Dick Cheney running this one again.
	Exactly.
	So the environmentalists are suppressing it.
	I don't know of a mainstream environmentalist that's even willing to give it a moment of thought.
	Al Gore, there's another example of somebody who I've written letters to him.
	He doesn't answer.
	So my battle is very lonely.
	And then, what else?
	Well, there's the corporations.
	The CEO of General Electric wrote this editorial for the Washington Post, saying that we need the courage to change to new energy solutions.
	And then he mentions the conditions under which this has to happen.
	One is the creative mind.
	He thinks, yeah, we have that.
	And then the second one was it must turn over a profit.
	And then the third one was the American will.
	And he sees the third ingredient lacking.
	I see the second ingredient as interfering because General Electric's profits and their shareholders depend on their making nuclear power plants and gas turbine plants.
	If you were to have a free energy gizmo that could fit in the palm of your hand, just like your dictaphone there, that could produce 10 kilowatts of power, which I fully believe can happen someday, General Electric is not going to want to develop it because it would take away from their business.
	With gas turbine plants and nuclear power plants.
	And so the condition to turn over a profit, I kind of argue, well, how much profit is enough?
	And clearly General Electric is not at all interested in this.
	And, you know, the multinational corporations and the government have been suppressing these things anyway.
	That's obvious.
	So this book is all about documenting the efforts not only to break through but to suppress it and even in light of what so many people say.
	When is there a day when you don't pick up a newspaper or hear some sort of thing on the media that Al Gore says We need to do something about this soon.
	We need to develop alternative energy.
	And then, when it comes to the question of what, the question is evaded.
	Or at the very least, it's lip service given to solar and wind, which is very capital intensive, materials intensive, it's not truly renewable, it's intermittent, it's diffuse.
	Isn't Obama also talking about going back into coal?
	Yes.
	I mean, we're actually going backwards.
	Now the black ops, of course, we document here in Camelot, are, you know, thousands of years ahead and they've got free energy and they're using it as we speak now.
	I think that you told us you wrote to Obama Is this correct?
	Yes, I recently, and it's on my website, brianoleary.com, it's right there in the homepage.
	It's an open appeal to Obama to really represent the change we need and not just in rhetorical means.
	And for that, you're going to have to bite the hand that fed you.
	You're going to have to go against these very wealthy, elite people that are holding the puppet strings, including his strings, and we have to become educated about what the possibilities are.
	And what's happened is, as you say, he's gone backwards.
	He's talking about Clean coal, there's no such thing, that's an oxymoron.
	Or about advanced nuclear, or sequestration at coal power plants, which is not even feasible and it's a gross technology.
	And so he's just far behind in the curve.
	And so I'm just making an appeal to him to say that, you know, please, for heaven's sake, our planet is being destroyed.
	Will you please serve the public interest?
	Because the public interest is not being served with what's happening.
	And even solar and wind, I hate to say, are half measures because the capital cost of solar and wind economy is on the order of twenty to forty trillion dollars.
	We don't have that kind of money.
	Free energy It's basically free once we're able to develop the hardware to the point where it becomes available.
	And then, of course, all hell will break loose.
	But, you know, the suppression effort, there's two great quotes here.
	Let's see if I can find it.
	This is one.
	In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
	George Orwell.
	And that's what's going on right now.
	We're being deceived.
	Big time.
	Here's another one.
	When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent.
	That's Isaac Asimov.
	Yeah, and there you go.
	That's Dumb and Dumber, and the big rush to have movies, emphasizing how funny, how lovely it is to be stupid.
	So, okay, this has been really amazing, Brian, and...
	I have to say that if ex-astronaut Brian O'Leary was writing to me and I was a president, certainly it almost seems like you need to write back to Al Gore, right?
	And isn't it surprising that with your stature that these men would actually ignore you?
	There's something to be said there as well.
	Well, yes, and there is something to be said there, and it suggests to me that they're part of the overall dark agenda, and it's just their wrinkle on it is a little different.
	It's a little more benign sounding.
	One could just even be so risque as to say that they advocate genocide by other means.
	I'm not really sure what's going on in their minds.
	All I know is that their lack of answers, and the lack of answers from the people they surround themselves with, and people that espouse the conventional wisdom.
	I mean, even James Lovelock in England, he thinks outside the box, but he's unbudgeable.
	Amory Lovins, that's another one who thinks outside the box, but not enough.
	Now what's happening?
	Now these are also the kinds of people that show up at the so-called green salons in Washington, D.C. It's like the whole beltway of Washington is a fortress and that it's almost a sign of prestige to interact with some of the folks at the DOD and CIA, you know, because it might be your passport to something.
	And meanwhile, outside the box, there are all these wonderful concepts waiting in the wings that could really create a sustainable future for humankind.
	And these people don't listen.
	I mean, I've had some access to Al Gore through intermediaries that know him, and they won't budge.
	And I could name names there too.
	It's just that the conventional wisdom pervades the entire progressive community.
	It's like a big disease that's affected everybody.
	And then most people...
	are simply apathetic or they don't know.
	Wade Frazier says you have to peel the onion of free energy and what that means is a combination of a certain degree of open-mindedness, intelligence, sentience, spiritual development and on and on.
	Right.
	In other words, it's such a powerful theoretical technology or reality, for those that are using it, that its possibilities are so grand that you actually have to be on a certain level spiritually To deal with that as a planet.
	And I think that that's also where we're going and where we're going to have to come to terms.
	Because as long as war and weapons is our god, so to speak, on this planet, free energy just is not appropriate.
	You're totally right.
	To be used by those people.
	You're totally right, Carrie.
	So we need a different set of leaders, a different set of thinking, right?
	Absolutely.
	And in many ways, you're right on the avant-garde of that effort, and I do believe you have many people behind you.
	Well, that's good, Carrie, and they're now kind of divided and ruled, and of course part of your effort and your search for the Holy Grail, which this is a part of, a significant part of, could create more strength in numbers of people willing to stand and be counted for proposing these alternatives.
	Because I too would be actually opposed to the development of free energy if the powers that be continue to be in power because they would abuse it.
	They would misuse it.
	They would, just like in the ET phenomenon and back engineering and so forth, they'd keep it in the black and use it for their own purposes.
	So, the people of the earth need to know about this more.
	There are some hopeful signs here, and one of them is the country of Ecuador, whose president is a great deal more enlightened than prior presidents, and whose government just passed a new constitution which provides for the rights of nature,
	and whose president has offered that if the world community were to attract matching funding, That oil under the ground in a very pristine, biodiverse national park would stay in the ground if the funds could be raised enough.
	And so, you see, the whole thing is systemic.
	The whole world system is decadent and disgustingly You name the negative word, evil, I guess is the right word for it.
	And more and more people are realizing that, but maybe what they don't realize is that we can make a difference.
	We can create another agenda together.
	I don't talk much about alternative agenda to the Black Ops or Illuminati agenda, but believe me, it's a lot more pleasant.
	And I don't even want to prejudice the question, well, what is that agenda?
	Well, I can see a world that's truly sustainable, a world in which our knowledge expands to embrace the ET phenomenon, a world where magic, what we now consider as magic, can now really happen.
	A world where combined positive intention can heal ourselves and the environment.
	Absolutely.
	And where consciousness, which is really the science of the 21st century, can burst forward in very dramatic counterpoint to what now is happening.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you, Brian.
	That's wonderful.
	And, you know, more power to you.
	It's been really educational for Bill and I to be here.
	We want to thank you for being our host and Meredith, a lovely hostess, and for opening your home to us.
	We just completed a conference here that you organized, and it was very inspiring.
	I think a lot of people really enjoyed it.
	We hope to do more of them.
	And certainly, again, here you are on the avant-garde of actually getting the word out, not only about free energy, but about what's been going on, the cover-up, and the potential for the future that is there for all of us if we just take hold.
	Yes, we're starting here, Carrie, an alternative educational and conference center.
	It's called Mota Sueños.
	It's in the Andes of Ecuador.
	My wife Meredith and I have been spending the last five years creating it and now blessed by your presence and the conference that we just had.
	We expect to have many more.
	And we invite kindred spirits and whistleblowers.
	Absolutely.
	The more truth-tellers, the better.
	Yes, and that's such an important thing that your work is very important.
	Somebody had to do the work.
	Steve Greer has done a piece of it and is doing a piece of it and together we can then enlighten ourselves and the public about, first of all, the nasty truth and then the potential truth of what could be in a better world And then to together create that world.
	There's no reason why we can't do that.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you very much, Brian.
	Yeah, I think we covered it all.
	The one thing is that though I've never been in black ops and I've never been privy to it, even as an astronaut.
	Yeah.
	And so it's funny because I know most of the people you interview have been there and that's a whole different order of things.
	I kind of come on naively.
	You've been affected by them.
	They see you as a threat.
	And in some ways, that's just as good from Camelot's point of view.
	You definitely qualify, if you will.
	For better or for worse.
	I think that the wonderful thing about your life is that you've actually lived Through all these experiences as an astronaut, right?
	So as a person of respect that garners respect and a person who people could rally around, at the same time, you're willing to have such an open mind and consider everything.
	And that's such a rare thing to get in a person of respect nowadays.
	Sorry to say.
	Yeah, and in my case, I guess I just had to check it out as I went along, and my gestation of many of these things took a long time.
	And so now I'm hoping for others in the lay public and just people, curious people, the kind of people that came to the conference who were just fine people that want to get educated more about these things and who may not,
	we may not have as much luxury of time as I had when I was Going through my process of decompression from the mainstream, it's been 30 years so far, and that process continues to this very moment.
	I guess we could say that you are in green ops.
	Green ops, yes.
	Hooray green ops.
	Yeah, and you know, I mean, we ought to have an earth core.
	We ought to have...
	A new deal Obama could lead that would be people out to clean up the earth and have solution energy research and development and consciousness research and make it okay to do those things.
	Why not?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Why not?
	Yeah, but it has to have public support.
	You can't do it without the public.
	History has shown that throughout Well, that's what doing this video is going to do.
	I mean, that's the whole point of doing things like this.
	I mean, your book coming out, and hopefully the video coming out very shortly, it's the kind of thing that's going to start the movement, you know, and gather the people.
	And that's what you need.
	We're going to have the power of numbers.
	That's what we want.
	And I believe we're going to have it, and it's already out there.
	It's a matter of focusing.
	And also then the personal...
	It's both.
	It's the Earth and then some of us in the pioneering work personally.
	We're safer because then our work outlives us and there's no reason to...
	And safety in numbers, right?
	Safety in numbers, yeah.
	So I'm optimistic that this can happen, that we can really do have a positive future.
	And that's why I'm on this planet.
	That's why I'm alive.

▲