Skip to comments.TRANSCRIPT OF DR STEVEN GREER'S INTERVIEW . . . W GEORGE NOORY [SOME RE MSM NEWS FRAUD]
Posted on 05/10/2005 8:46:19 AM PDT by Quix
Transcript of Dr. Steven Greer's Interview on Coast to Coast AM Radio with George Noory April 4/5, 2005
Note: This interview was requested by George Noory.
Coast to Coast AM Web site
George Noory (GN):From the City of Angels off the Pacific Ocean, good morning, good evening, wherever you may be, across the nation, around the world. I'm George Noory. Welcome to America's most listened to late night talk show, Coast to Coast A.M... Next hour - did you know that trillions of dollars are being siphoned off by government black ops groups? Guest Catherine Austin Fitts tracks them all down and tells us how they get the money...all kinds of things happen when you look, I guess, but let me tell you something. One man that I respect entirely, is a person who had devoted a pretty good deal of his career, now, to the search for unidentified flying objects for full disclosure. Dr. Steven Greer will be our guest this hour, in a moment, on Coast to Coast A.M....
GN: Dr. Steven Greer is the founder/CEO of Space Energy Access Systems and also the founder and director of the Disclosure Project. He is an emergency physician and former chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Caldwell Memorial Hospital. He has appeared on several national programs which include the Larry King Show, CBS, the BBC, NTV in Japan. Dr. Greer has been supervising a worldwide search for alternative energy sources, specifically those known as zero point or over unity devices with the plan to identify and develop systems which will eliminate the need for fossil fuels. Now, you might remember some time ago that Peter Jennings had special reports on UFOs. Dr. Greer was able to provide a lot of information to ABC about that, but he's not too happy with the outcome. He's our guest this hour. Steven, welcome back. How are you?
Steven Greer (SG): I'm doing very well. How are you doing?
GN: Good. Very well, indeed. Hey, I saw the letter that you wrote about the special and I concur with you wholeheartedly. What I did not know was the depth that your organization, the Disclosure Project provided, and it appears that they didn't use a lot of it, did they?
SG: Well, it's very interesting. If you go to our website, DisclosureProject.org, you'll see an analysis - about a five page analysis - of this. We were involved very early in this project with the Peter Jennings people and what we found was initially, they wanted to do "a historic event that would blow the lid off the secrecy" and when they found out that we had, in fact, over four hundred military and government insiders, including generals and colonels and senior government officials who were willing to go on the record on their program, they were very excited. What we found was that as summer became fall, that the show sort of morphed into this public interest, or human interest story, bringing in all kinds of spurious nonsense and what's important - I just want to correct you a little bit on this - not a single scrap of evidence provided to them, including all the hundred-plus hours of top secret military and government testimony, that we have was used. NOT ONE.
SG: Nothing! Nada! Zero! Now, what's interesting about that, is that this is prima fascia evidence that not only did they not want to do a serious piece, but they wanted to sanitize this of the strongest evidence. Keep in mind that Peter Jennings repeatedly said, "Well, the government isn't now looking into this subject since they closed Project Blue Book in 1969." We can prove that he knew that that is a lie! In fact, we gave him documents up into the 1990's even that were secret and top secret, that describe projects and even give the project code names and code numbers. These are in 'Disclosure,' the book we have of transcripts and government documents that people can get from us. They didn't have any of this in there. So I think that what's important - my main point and the reason I wrote this analysis and it's now making its way around the world - is that we're asking people to write the FCC and they can get on our website, DisclosureProject.org and link to that and file a complaint because, when a broadcast network that is using our airwaves under the permission of the United States People, commits a hoax and in this case, (the title of my paper is "Peter Jennings Defrauding") they defrauded the American people and they committed a hoax and we can prove it. We are now in discussions with some advisors who work with a very powerful attorney firm and we're looking for some pro bono attorneys to actually take this to the FCC and take ABC to court and show that they rigged the news. They can edit things and they can edit things for content but they cannot, if they're going to claim that they're doing it through their news division, rig the news, and we can prove that they rigged the news story and they sanitized the hard-hitting evidence from their program even though they had a full two hours to present it. So I think that the American people who are listening to your show need to know that these large, Big Media operations are committing fraud and we can prove it.
GN:Steven, you have spent several years now with this Disclosure Project and as you say, you have come up with now close to four hundred military and scientists who aren't hiding! They're willing to come forward. They have come forward with the program that you had at the National Press Club several years ago.
GN: To me this would be a no-brainer, to get these people on a major television show.
SG: Well, of course, and in fact when we had that press event, in fact, as recently as the last year or two, we've had discussions with these large news magazines such as Prime Time Live, and Twenty-Twenty where they wanted to do - in fact, the senior executive producer at the time of the Disclosure Project event who's now back with Sixty Minutes and Mike Wallace, but at the time, he was the senior producer for Twenty-Twenty and Prime Time Live, wanted to do a full hour expose of this and after a few weeks, I called him and said, "What are you doing with this now?" because I gave him something like an edited version of thirty-five continuous hours of about over a hundred of these top secret witnesses and he was here at my home and said, "I've never seen anything like this. It's amazing!" and he said, "THEY won't let me do it." and I said, "Who's THEY? What are you talking about?" and he says, "Dr. Greer, you know who THEY are." rather cryptically and what I point out to people - you know, I don't like to quote copiously from government documents, but we received recently a secret CIA document [PDF file] that was briefly declassified. It was written in 1991, and it says, "The Public Affairs Office (I'm quoting) now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some intelligence failure stories into intelligence success stories. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap (or kill) stories." Now, it's interesting in light of what ABC set out to do and then what they ended up doing. How did that happen? And how is ABC News in essence, by putting forward something that they say is a fair and impartial review of the evidence when we can prove that they did nothing of the sort. They basically defrauded the American public. How were they influenced to do this? There is this shadowy entity that is running these covert programs. I'm glad you're having Catherine Austin Fitts on next because she and I have spoken at great lengths about how this shadowy secret government transnational group works. But they have corrupted the government structures and they have corrupted the force of state and basically, people think we live in a democracy. We really live, I believe, in a kleptocracy and the democracy part of what we live in is dying very slowly and we need to resuscitate it.
GN: You're absolutely right, Steven. We have this perception that there's total freedom but there is not, and I think more and more interviews with people like Catherine Austin Fitts and things that you uncover as well, I want to talk with you, before you're off the air with me this hour, about alternative energy because that too is another scandal.
SG: Oh yes, and there's some exciting things happening on that front as well.
GN: I do have a sliver of some good, interesting use for you because, just today apparently a group realized that you were going to be on the program tonight and they called me about you and I met with them and you are most likely going to be approached in about six months for a different project for television which I will give you full endorsement of their sincerity. They're going to go the other way.
GN: They believe in the things you've done. They've listened to Coast to Coast. They've listened to Art, they know what's going on. I would guess it's going to take about six months, but you may see something that you will be very happy with providing information to these people. They want you involved in a very big way and like I've said...
SG: That's excellent. We have offered to all these major news networks and other people everything we have. You know, I'm not being paid to do this and we have been doing this for now fifteen years, collecting this kind of evidence and what I tell people is that "Hey! You know, it doesn't matter how many millions we put into getting this, I'll give it to you on a silver platter if you will only put the truth in front of the American public. ABC News wouldn't do it. They are a fraudulent news network.
GN: But, nobody's doing it, are they? Nobody's going out there.
SG: Yes, well, it's one thing if it's in their entertainment division and they do a funny, ha ha piece like ABC News did. It's another thing when ABC NEWS claims that they are going to do a historic and accurate news story on the subject and they take all this evidence and throw it in the trash bin and put all kinds of silly stuff showing a carnival atmosphere at Roswell and all the silly season of Ufology. It was a complete take-down of the subject under the ruse of appearing to be fair and in balance, but it wasn't.
GN:They called Stanton Friedman a promoter. He went nuts.
SG: Yeah. Oh yeah, of course. And anyone who has evidence is a "believer" whereas the scientists at Harvard are "scientists". Well, I'm a scientist. My CTO is a tenured professor of science at the University of New Hampshire and has been science advisor to public officials, you know, but they spin it this way and then say, "See, we did a fair and balanced piece." It was a cover-up piece and it was very slick. It's interesting that Disney, that owns ABC ...We have a document from the early fifties where Disney was named as a source for putting cartoonish portrayals of flying saucers out into the public in this CIA document we have which talks about psychological warfare operations. So, the public needs to know this kind of fraud is going on and hold Big Media accountable. They need to write ABC News and they need to write the FCC and we certainly encourage people to help support us in pursuing this through the FCC because certainly ABC News, in our opinion, rigged this particular show in a way that is not allowed under FCC broadcast rules.
GN: How did you, a doctor, years ago, get interested in the field of UFO study?
SG:Well, there are two things when I was a little child that really got me hooked. One, when I was about eight or nine years old, I saw one of these objects, broad daylight, with some boys in the neighborhood where I grew up...in North Carolina, in Charlotte...What's interesting is that was at the same time that my mom's oldest brother was designing the lunar module. He was a senior project engineer with Grumman that built that thing that took Neil Armstrong to the moon, so I sort of was in this aerospace family at the same time I saw one of these things, and of course from then on I was convinced that this was something to really take seriously and look into and I did. In fact, even as a young child, I collected everything I could on the matter.
GN: Steven - personally, how do you feel about this UFO craze in the investigations of what they may be? I mean, there's no question people are seeing *things*, no question we're being visited from somewhere. Have you made a decision personally whether you think that this is physical craft coming from other planets in the solar system, in the universe, or perhaps are they dimensional, coming from parallel universes? Have you come to any theories yourself?
SG: Well, they're both and this is the big debate I had with Jacques Vallee when we were doing something for Noetic Sciences a few years ago. People say, "Well, they're interdimensional" and I say, "Yes, and they're also extraterrestrial and physical. Those are not two mutually exclusive things if you understand the full spectrum of nature and reality and how there are folded within every dimension access points to every other dimension and in fact, when you go through interstellar space at multiples of the speed of light, you are dropping out of 3-D material form and moving into a form that the mystics would have called the astral, or the near-physical and this is what these are. They are extraterrestrial but they're also transdimensional. They're both. This is clearly the case and the evidence, but you have to have a comprehensive cosmology and physics understanding to get you mind around that. This is one of the things that we -- I'm going to be giving a talk at Arizona State University on April 22, in Phoenix, and one of the things we're going to go into on a whole daylong discussion is what the nature of these objects are and what it;s telling us about reality, what it's telling us about the human future in technologies and I think that the debate of whether or not they're interdimensional or extraterrestrial and physical is like saying is an orange round or is it the color orange? Well, it's both,and I think that you get into these sort of dialectics and this either/or discussion and the truth is somewhere between the two, and it's usually not either/or but it's and/and.
GN: All right. Stay with us, Dr. Steven Greer, our guest. We're going to talk a little bit about debunkers with him when we come back and also, he's involved very heavily in the search for alternative fuels, specifically zero point energy. We'll chat with him about that. Maybe Steven's got some ideas and maybe we can create our own X-Prize for alternative energy. We'll be back in a moment.
[continued after the long break]
George Noory (GN): A few months ago, Steven, I had former Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell on whom you know, and I've got to tell you, I was just thrilled with what he said when I asked him if he thought we were being visited and he says, "Evidence seems to prove that we have been."
Steven Greer (SG): Right.
GN: And, you know, when you hear things and again, you've talked to a lot of government whistleblowers and witnesses, but when you hear something from a person who walked on the moon that you have respect for, I mean, you've just got to stop and say "You know, there's got to be something to this!" And it's amazing that the skeptics are so convinced that there's nothing going on. I think one of their problems is that they're looking at our technology today and they can't figure out how they [the ETs] could go so many trillions and trillions of miles to get here and they're not thinking of it in terms of , like you are, you know, going through different kinds of use of physics.
SG:Well, I don't even think that they're than naive. Some of them are, many of them are simply corrupt. I will remind people of the famous Condon Report that closed Project Blue Book. We have documents from the CIA that were released to us after I briefed President Clinton's first CIA director, James Woolsey, that name Dr. Condon and the University of Colorado as a paid CIA operative and so what you find out if you look historically, the same thing is true of Dr. Donald Menzel. We also have it on very good source that Carl Sagan was such a paid disinformation debunker. Many of these people are not just naive and don't understand the physics, they are actively on the payroll of some shadowy operation to go out there and make like honest scientists when they are actually again defrauding the American people.
GN:You know, the FDA came out with a report finally, because they were pushed, about some of their own researchers and people who have conducted studies of pharmaceuticals and they found that a great many of them have been on the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies, or they have been consultants to the pharmaceutical companys, looking at, studying and making reports to the FDA on the very drugs that these same companies are producing.
GN: A tremendous conflict of interest and I would guess, then, that the same thing is true in the UFO field.
SG: Right, and I think it's true in spades and you have to wonder, I mean, can people like Seth Shostak of SETI really be so dense that they can't look at the evidence and they always say, "Well, where's the physical evidence?" Well, there's only like four thousand landing trace cases. You know, Admiral Lord Hill Norton and I talked about the physical evidence collected when one of these objects landed at Bentwaters up in England in the 1980's. There are thousands of cases like that. There's hard evidence. There's photographic evidence. There are radar tapes. They'll also say "Where are the radars? If these things are real objects, why aren't they on radar?" The third highest ranking person at the FAA during the Reagan years is one of our witnesses who took, when he retired, radar tapes that the CIA thought they had confiscated in a secret meeting with him that shows this UFO moving around this 747 over the skies of Alaska. I have this stuff. We tried to give it to Peter Jennings. We've given it to these other people and you have to say, "Look, are you really that unable to digest data and read the King's English? Or are you really on someone's payroll?" I mean, you know, these people can't be that dumb.
GN: A friend of mine who used to be a reporter for a local station in St. Louis years ago was called up to Elsbury, Missouri on a UFO situation where residents there saw all kinds of lights and possible landings. The next morning, Steven, there was a huge round circle burned out. Cows were walking around it and there was a dead cow right in the middle, and then he told me one thing that I'll never forget. He said, "George, I saw a tree near this what I thought was a landing spot. The whole side of it was scorched as if some flame had hit it, and etched in and burned into the tree must have been thousands and thousands of dead flies!" Now you know this just doesn't happen naturally.
SG: Right, right. You know, there are so many cases like this and this is one of the problems is that they'll state all their theories as "Can you give me a piece of a black hole?" They've never measured a black hole, you know. The fact that I can't flop a dead ET on the table for them, they'll say that "See? They don't exist!" I'm going, "This is ridiculous!" It's double standard, it's junk science. There's plenty of good science that supports this. But one point you make is important in terms of the paradigm. I think that we have to begin to look at this not so anthropocentrically. What I mean by that is that this is 21st Century Earth. If we're dealing with civilizations that are hundreds of thousands or millions of years technologically more developed than we are, every manifestation of their technology would look magical to us, just as if we went back five thousand years and showed primitive tribespeople cell phones and flashlights. I think that we have to understand that the technology isn't at its apex on Planet Earth as it is represented throughout the universe and that the ability to make the universe -physical universe - verysmall, through the ability of what I call this sort of phase transition from the three dimensional material object into these, what some people call, "interdimensional". I don't call them that, I call them a finer fabric of the structure of reality, that it can be accessed and I think that this is what we're observing and in fact, many of the military people I've dealt with have seen solid materialized objects that then morph into something that looks almost like an energetic plasma, almost like a ghost, and then it moves off slowly and then vanishes into space.
GN: Then it's gone.
SG: So you have these things that are obviously three dimensional material morphing over into these other forms of energy and stuff that we haven't quite quantified except in our covert programs. Now, it's also important to understand that we have witnesses who were, as far back as the 1950's, were in facilities run by U.S. and Canadian governments that had the ability (it sounds like Star Trek) where they were able to literally (quote) "dematerialize" a solid object and have it reappear in another room under controlled electronic systems in 1953. I was not a twinkle in my father's eye at that point. So, you know, you hear this sort of thing from more than one very credible military or ex-military guy and you know, you have to go, "There's a lot of stuff going on out there and that we have -" and this brings up this other question. If we have these sort of experiments that have been going on for over fifty or sixty years, why are we still burning oil and coal? And why are we destroying our biosphere? And why are we in Oil War number whatever in Iraq? I mean, the whole situation on this planet is an artificial contrivance by people who want to keep a centralized, transnational lock on the power system. It has nothing to do with what is extant within these classified projects and I think it's very important for your listeners to understand that even though what we're doing at SEAS (this sort of energy startup research group), what we're doing is primitive by comparison. We have to begin to say, "Look. Isn't it time for us to say, if these guys won't let this stuff out of a black box, don't we need to pull together, pool our resources together, find the scientists who are out there and begin to make our own versions of these things."
GN: I'm beginning...
SG: I think we can do it. I think we can, and we must!
GN: I'm beginning to see the picture of the dots connected by you, which it took me a long time to see, quite frankly, Steven.
GN: Because, I couldn't understand why there wasn't disclosure. I couldn't understand - What's the big deal? Just come and tell us we've been visited, we've been visited since the beginning of this planet.
GN:...and there's life out there, and everything's great, and let's go find them, and let's build spaceships, and then all of a sudden you start talking about alternative energy and it dawned on me that if they disclose that they know about these craft or these forms of energy that they've used in order to get here...
GN: then the American people and this world would start saying, "Well, why don't you create it for us?"
GN: And that's where the big oil companies and these other organizations that are just continuing to sap us, that's where they have the problem, so I think -
SG: That's right, and you know - and interestingly, Thomas Jefferson, who's buried right down the road from my home here (I live right near Monticello in Virginia) said, and warned that when the United States was first being founded, that the unchecked powers of large corporations could destroy our democracy, and I think that (I am NOT anti-corporate or anti-business at all, I am anti-corruption, however) and I think that's what Catherine Austin Fitts will talk about it if you ask her, and what we're really talking about is the world's largest RICO (Racketeering Influence Corrupt Organization) and it's in our government and it's in corporate and it's in financial sectors and it is, of course, damaging our society greatly, if not to mention our biosphere.
GN: Oh, sure, here we are with oil now at around $58 a barrel and they say because there's an increased demand. Come on! I mean, you know, we're using oil and we shouldn't, but the point is are we using, Steven, that much more to push it up to $58 a barrel where it was around thirty-something a year ago?
SGWell, think all of these markets are manipulated, although there are some fundamentals that are real and that is for example, China moving into the commodities markets whether it's oil or steel or copper or cement! I think you have pressures and I think this is why, all the way back in the early nineties when we first started having discussions with people like Laurence Rockefeller and President Clinton's people that we said, "Look, this is a freight train headed down our direction. We have got to anticipate it, make some changes and bring this stuff out. But no one had the courage to do it, and I think that what we have concluded over the last decade is that WE THE PEOPLE are going to have to form our own energy research effort and bring this out. We're going to have to do our own disclosure. The government is not going to do it for us, or if they do, it'll be too damn late. I think that we have to take responsibility for this. This is why I gave up my medical career to pursue these things and I think that we really have to take responsibility for our planet and our future and create the good future that is possible for us. It isn't going to be done by itself.
GN: Let's talk a little bit about why we can't have an energy X-Prize. I mean, already now, we're getting the privatization of space. It works ...
GN: Burt Rutan is doing his thing. Why can't we do the same thing for energy?
SG: Well, I think we probably could. The problem is that, A: Who's going to fund it, and B: Who's going to support and protect the inventors who work on this? I think that, for example, we have identified at SEAS at least a dozen solid, proof-of-principal technologies. One of them, for example, derives hydrogen very inexpensively from water and a few catalysts so that you could have free hydrogen out of water, and we're not talking electrolysis or anything expensive. But these are things that are in their early stages. They need to be developed further. There's really no funding for that. We have funded what we've done really out of the back pockets of a handful of our people, and the question is, you know, the billions of dollars going into - from the public coffers - into coal and oil and hydrogen research, why isn't any of it really going into this new energy field of advanced electromagnetic generators, electrogravitic systems? I know a man right now who has a very well-developed mathematical and physical proof-of-principal model for anti-gravity, but we're having a hard time finding anyone to put the funds up to bring it to the next stage of development. So, what I'm saying to people is that these things exist, but who's going to fund it? When you end up -- I've met with people for example, from Senator Byrd's office and other offices, even in the last year or so, and what they'll say is, "Well, you know, it would rock the boat too much. I'm not sure that the Senator would want to pursue that." Of course, it would replace the need for coal!
SG: Or if you're from an oil state, Oil! So I think that it's going to take people coming together realizing that we have to pool our resources and our research and I will still say, if there's someone sitting out there in their basement or garage with something that genuinely is creating a lot of zero point energy, and I don't mean milliwatts, but hundreds of watts to a kilowatt or two, and they want to see that get out to the public, our group can do it. But we're still searching for that one that is that far along. The ones that we have seen are not far enough along to, I think, win what you would call an X-Prize. Actually, for awhile, we had something called a Z-Prize for this same purpose. But none of the things we found met that criteria except things that had already been corrupted and suppressed. You know, Dr. Bearden and I talked extensively about this. There were things such as the Kawai motor and other things that existed in the eighties and the corrupt enterprises bought them up, shelved them, threatened the inventors, and took them out of public circulation. So, you know, we're going to need to pool our resources and also stand together in a united front to get these things out there.
GN: Toshiba last week announced that for a hybrid engine for a car they've now invented a new lithium battery that recharges in minutes instead of hours ...
GN: ...and they thing that's going to revolutionize things. At least, there are some companies out there going in the right direction, aren't there?
SG: Yes, there are and in fact, there are some inventors we're dealing with - I mentioned this hydrogen development and I think this gentleman who's the inventor who sent you an e-mail that he copied to me tonight. I don't know if you read it. But what's interesting is that there are significant potential breakthroughs that are on the horizon. The question is, what will happen to them? If there isn't large financial or government support, what we're going to have to do is put them on Coast to Coast, or put them out in front of five, or ten, or fifteen million people and say, "All right, now you guys need to support this." I don't know if we have to do an IPO or what we do, but we're going to have to say the people are going to have to support it. I'm very skeptical that large corporations like General Motors or Exxon or the U.S. Government are actually ever going to do anything meaningful on this issue.
GN: Well, one of the reasons...
SG: I think they'd have to step on too many of their own toes to do it.
GN: I also don't know what your take is on peak oil, Steven, but I don't believe it. I think it's contrived. I think the oil companies are trying to create fear that we're running out of oil, therefore they've got to do what they've go to do. I think this planet probably has an abundance of oil, unfortunately, in that it could last thousands of years!
SG: Yes, it could last thousands of years being used for something other than energy. The problem is and I'll tell you (I've never talked about this before), I have met with folks within that sector dealing with intelligence and what you said is true. There's a lot more oil than people think, but if we use it at the rate we're going to need to use it, to let our whole six billion people civilization advance, the damage to the biosphere will be ten times worse than what we're seeing now.
SG: There's an exponential decay.
GN: Of course, what's happening...
SG: It's happening already in China. We have huge dust clouds and smoke clouds in the Pacific Northwest because of the smokestacks and junk coming out of China. So, you know, the planet is a small place when push comes to shove and even if you could pump all this stuff out of the ground and burn it at the rate that we could, and keep it cheap and plentiful, what's going to happen to Antarctica? What's going to happen to our biosphere? I think that - and yet, they also don't want to bring out these alternatives because once they're out of the box, they're going to take off very quickly, just like the internet, computers, and PC's and cellphones did. These sort of technologies, once they get some legs, man, they're going to run and then it's goodbye iil, goodbye coal, goodbye centralized wconomics because, when you can generate free energy from the zero point field out of your own house for manufacturing clean water, electricity, transportation, it would be a whole new world, a completely different world.
GN: A little more than a week ago, I was in Hawaii for a show and then a speech, and then I was back home again. It all took about two and a half days...
GN: And I got there, Steven, and I went "That's it? That's the trip? And you know, it felt like, you know it does on a map, it looks like it's halfway around the world and you're right, it's a small planet! And so what if these six billion people are reduced to five hundred million? Then they have something.
SG: Right, and I think there are folks who have this sort of eschatological solution to the human problem, I'm sort of putting the Third Reich words - phraseology - here, but there's some really strange characters who are out there in this power structure that Catherine Austin Fitts and I and others have uncovered, but I think that what we also have to say is that there are some very good people. You know, I'm reminded of Monsignor Balducci when I was interviewing him overlooking St. Peter's Basilica, and after I interviewed him and he was talking very affirmatively about the fact that there is life in the universe and we're all children of God and had a very positive take on all of this, off-camera, he pulled me aside and he said, "You know, Dr. Greer, I could not be saying this to you unless Papa (referring to the Pope that just passed away) wanted me to tell you that."
GN: That is absolutely true, Steven, You're always...
SG: A very interesting story.
GN: You're always welcome on Coast to Coast, my friend.
SG: Thank you. It's great speaking with you.
GN: Two websites: DisclosureProject.org, and SEASpower.com. They're both linked up with Dr. Steven Greer's name under tonight's guest on Coast to Coast A.M. Now, when we come right back, Catherine Austin Fitts as we talk about black ops, trillions of dollars over the years. What do they use it for? We'll be back in a moment.
[commercial break which concludes Steven Greer's portion of the program]
Certainly the "THEY" powers that be are pulling lots of strings all over the place in our charade of an open society.
I increasingly feel like 99% of modern news programs--including probably 95% of Fox--are 'dancing bears' for the masses--noise to distract the masses from the truth, from reality . . . until it's way toooo late to more than whimper under the whip.
Especially in our era, but really in any era--GOD ALONE IS SAFETY, SECURITY AND ETERNAL LIFE. GOD ALONE IS HOPE, TRUTH AND LOVE.
UFO PING LIST PING
Please let me and Las Vegas Dave
know if you want on or off the ping list.
George Noory, eh? For some reason, I'm getting sleepy, like it's 3 AM all over again.
Similar to the conditioning the MSM has perpetrated on the population.
There are some new things in this doc. It's the first time I've read him point blank assert what I long suspected--that Sagan was in the employ of the CIA to debunk it all.
And, he's said more about the alternative energy options than I've read before. Also, big oil has been more bluntly implicated.
Seems like another iterative doc showing a bit more to the public.
Will see how it unfolds!
Aren't you cute.
Aren't you funny.
Aren't you creative.
Aren't you brilliant farting and pooping on threads you have little insight into.
Isn't your mother calling you?
When I heard Greer say he was against SDI, that about turned me off to anything else he had to say. He obviously is anti-American.
Awwwwwww, the conspiracy theorist is hypersensitive. That's a surprise.
Your responses are so reflexive as to be 100% predictable.
Sometimes one feels like a fitting response is long overdue.
But I don't want to stoop quite to your level.
when a lot of the major organizational actors amidst the puppet masters
have DOCUMENTED IN THEIR OWN ORGANIZATIONAL PUBLIC PUBLICATIONS FOR MORE THAN 35 YEARS--probably more than 50 in at least a few cases--their plans, goals and methods etc.
why call it any longer a "theory."
That's like calling the manual to your Honda a "theory."
He's seemingly either also a stooge of the puppet masters
he's bought into the hogwash that all ET's are benign, wonderful, savior like critters.
He honestly seems to passionately believe that they are wonderful. He knows SDI was concocted mostly to deal with ET's. So, he's against it fiercely.
Who's more anti-American--Greer or the puppet masters?
I'm annoyed with his idiocy on such scores. But it doesn't stop me from respecting his supposed goals and efforts. He has really sacrificed a lot to get into all this instead of just practice medicine.
The Honda was manufactured, too.
Right, we're all the brainwashed slaves of "THEM" and Big Oil.
The nutcases on coast-to-coast who effortlessly segue from Bigfoot to Alien Abduction to Area 51 to our Petroleum Corporation Puppetmasters? They're the ones with the clue.
Sure they are.
Feel free to cut lose with your "fitting response". It ought to be mildly amusing.
Not sure of your point.
The puppet masters 'manufactured' their globalist plans long ago. They created them with motivation and guidance from the pit of hell. Then they had the brazenness to publish them somewhat openly--though one had to dig through a lot of boring house organ documents to ferret out a lot of it.
Sometimes I can excuse your ignorance of the topic.
Sometimes I can excuse your attitude.
Sometimes I can excuse your lack of solid reasoning based on historical facts.
Go ahead and continue calling Astronaut Edgar Mitchell an idiot liar, if you wish. The reflection falls more on you than on him.
Sometimes I can excuse your cheekiness.
Sometimes I can excuse your harshness.
Sometimes I can excuse your arrogance.
Sometimes, I just choose to ignore you.
"Awwwwwww, the conspiracy theorist is hypersensitive. That's a surprise."
And his tagline is "Love never fails." His answer to you didn't sound too loving.
I have less than 0.000000% motivation to enlighten you on those
FACTS at all.
You come across as deserving everything they'll dish out to you. For all I know, you're already complicit with their goals.
I wonder if you'd be so quick to take such pot shots if you'd studied the topic--partly as part of your job--for more than 35 years.
The most loving thing you can do with some people
hit them upside the head with a 4 X 4.
Even then some will still not wake up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.