November 2000

…[Regarding UFOs] Of course, we see claims, and not just among the public, but among military pilots and good observers, typically the military, that there appear to be something like craft flying around with anomalous behavior.

October 2000

We have designed a world that feeds on oil and those oil supplies are becoming more and more limited. Now if we look at what the supply of oil is, never before in our history have we been in a position where supply and demand would intersect. But in about 10 years we will see the intersection between supply and demand and that means that we will be seriously supply limited…

In working with the Russian universities, they did what I consider one of the best gravitational experiments ever done. It was at the High Temperature Materials Laboratory in Russia. They had done their experiment off-site and demonstrated that this device could develop a 35 percent reduction in the gravitational field.

October 2000

… We have the giant industrial economic cartels in energy. And it is not one cartel. It is many, many groups in energy. And each of those has become very powerful in its own area. And each one does not wish to see simple little electrical taps pulling out enormous energy from the vacuum. They would much rather see you burning a lot more oil and so forth…

October 2000

… We know for a fact, today, that the cold fusion low energy nuclear reactions are real. It’s a class of nuclear non-dangerous reactions producing dominantly heat, but also nuclear changes — a very beneficial type of powerful reaction. It is a commercially emerging technology in the hands of a number of companies…

October 2000

… Let’s say there was a Roswell crash, and the National Security Agency was formed to keep this all classified. Now, something like that is a very emotional experience [with] some of your Government officials. You realize there is extraterrestrial life, and they have this advanced technology. When you become very emotional about something, one reaction is to hide it and then see how we can use this for ourselves — we’ve got to keep one step ahead of the other countries. At that time we had a Cold War with the Soviet Union, so the rationale was to use it for military purposes.

September 2000

…While in Toronto stationed at an air station as an instructor in 1953, I observed an unusual experiment. I had just finished an experiment and I was on my way back to my classroom. There’s this one experiment that was going on and it was in an approximately four-by-four enclosed glass enclosure inside this room. On a cabinet there was a large glass ashtray. I said, what’s going on. Oh, we’ve got an experiment underway and we have a similar device in the other room with no ashtray. So we’re talking away and one of the scientists said go ahead. Next thing, that ashtray wasn’t sitting there. Everyone went into the next room and was excited as can be, because the ashtray was sitting there. So it dematerialized and materialized…

October 2000

The role of the press in this disclosure effort is critical to its success and the acceptance of the facts by the American public and academic institutions in a non-threatening, but intelligent and interested manner. It usually becomes obvious to anyone studying this field that the American press has played an important role over the last half century in helping spread disinformation and shaping the public’s views on UFO/ET issues. The press has often been an unknowing partner in the distribution of misinformation/disinformation or a knowing partner in the refusal to report real events. It is exceedingly rare that major sightings are reported at the national level. When reports are made, they often done in a condescending, slanted, "add the giggle factor" manner that leaves the audience confused and turned off. Two recent exceptions were the report of the Phoenix Lights story in USA Today by Richard Price and the Boston Globe report on the French COMETA report by Leslie Kean. Both articles were well researched and presented in a balanced, non-judgmental manner.

Considering the incredible importance and implications of this subject, Congress has played an almost negligible role over the past four to five decades. In fact only two formal hearings have been held during that time period. The first was held by the House Armed Services Committee on April 5, 1966 because of strong editorial and public criticism of the Air Force Project Blue Book UFO program. Then Representative Gerald Ford of Michigan was a strong supporter of the hearings, in part as a result of major sightings that had occurred during March of that year in his state and seen by hundreds of people and reported widely in the press. The result of the hearings was the recommendation for an independent scientific investigation of UFOs, which became the University of Colorado "Scientific Study of UFOs" directed by Dr. Edward Condon.

Then in 1968, the House Science and Astronautics Committee held a "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects" to review the scientific evidence for UFOs. Of the six scientists who testified, five opinioned that there was a valid scientific anomaly that should be studied further. In fact, one of the scientists, Dr. James McDonald, a senior physicist and professor at the University of Arizona, concluded that, "My own study of the UFO problem has convinced me that we must rapidly escalate serious scientific attention to this extra-ordinarily intriguing puzzle." A year later the Condon Committee concluded that there was no convincing scientific evidence for UFOs and recommended that Project Blue Book be terminated, which happened later that year on December 17. This surprising conclusion was reached in spite of the fact that about 30% of the cases investigated by the committee had remained unexplained. In the 1990s, the refusal of the Air Force to even comment on the growing evidence of a crash near Roswell, NM lead then Representative Steven Schriff (R-NM) to request that the General Accounting Office conduct a search for related documents. In 1995 the GAO released a report stating that they could not find documents related to the crash as documents from Roswell Army Base from that time period had been improperly destroyed.

1. Make directed inquiries to contacts and chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees;

2. Inquire directly to the various facilities, agencies and entities listed (section 5.1.3);

3. Pursue other contacts known to the Congress, which may be able to assist in identifying points of control for these operations.

4. Purse this matter further by convening Congressional Hearings whereby direct witnesses to these projects may testify. We believe more than one member of Congress should be located to co-sponsor such an inquiry.

5. Pass a Congressional ban on weapons in space and encourage our allies and the UN to do the same.

Since the early 1990s, the Director and members of the Disclosure Project have briefed various high level military officials including the Head of Intelligence Joint Staff (J-2), the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Director of Central Intelligence, Wright Patterson Director of National Air Intelligence Center and others. It has become obvious to us during these briefings that senior officers have not been informed on this subject. This constitutes a serious threat to the national security and to military readiness.

To quote Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, "I urge immediate congressional action to reduce the dangers from secrecy about Unidentified Flying Objects." Note that here he is emphasizing the dangers from secrecy, not danger arising from UFOs.

1. Receive a thorough briefing on the subject by the Disclosure Project leadership and military/civilian witnesses;

2. Fully brief CINCS (Commander in Chiefs), and develop special ROEs (Rules of Engagement) for ETI/UFO encounters;

3. Independently investigate the subject and penetrate USAP (Unacknowledged Special Access Projects, see section 3.4) operations related to the subject;

4. Become fully involved in covert projects related to the subject to ensure that such projects are adequately supervised and are under the direct and continuous control of the constitutional chain of command;

5. Correct and/or restrain any USAP’s covert misuse of advanced technologies or weapon systems related to UFOs;

6. Attempt peaceful, cooperative engagement of these life forms and assiduously avoid violent military engagement;

7. Carefully reconsider the deployment of space-based military assets in light of the above information and avoid actions that might be viewed as bellicose or hostile by extraterrestrial life forms.

As observations of the UFO phenomena reported by many thousands of witnesses worldwide (see sections 3.8 and 7.0 for some documented examples) are validated, a new set of scientific paradigms will need to be researched to explain what is being observed. Twentieth century scientific theories have barely touched the surface in explaining what numerous scientific, military and civilian witnesses have observed and reported. However, in some cases, covert military research programs appear to have advanced much further in understanding the observed phenomena and technologies (based on witness testimonies, section 3.8) than have our academic and public scientists. Recent findings, such as the demonstration of possible faster than speed of light phenomenon, suggest that indeed there will be a whole new class of scientific phenomena that 21^st scientists will investigate to explain what has been declared as "impossible" by scientists of the last century.

There is still a major acceptance problem about UFO/ET issues with most scientists. Dr. Peter Sturrock, a highly respected solar physicist and now an emeritus professor at Stanford University, summarized the problem as follows:

A further view by Dr. Sturrock on the role of scientists and scientific journals is quoted in section 3.2.1. Surprising though it may seem to the lay person, scientists often have trouble changing their understanding of processes and natural phenomena when faced with evidence that their theories may not be correct. The history of science is replete with examples of scientists proclaiming such and such is impossible, only to be shown later that their assumptions were incorrect. This normal human tendency is certainly not limited to scientists. (For example, for a number of years after the Wright brother’s planes had been observed flying by thousands of people, there were still popular articles proclaiming that flying is impossible.) Furthermore, most scientific research in the United States, especially in colleges and universities, is colleague-driven through the peer review process for promotion and tenure as well as for grants and journal publications. Stepping outside the bounds of peer accepted research often spells difficulty for the scientist, even if they are well established in more conventionally accepted scientific areas. Consequently, the vast majority of academics are not willing to take such a risk, since it is safer to remain with the accepted views of the day.

Over the last century, scientists have played both an active and passive role, often unknowingly, in shaping the attitudes of the "trusting" public on the UFO issue through promulgation of misinformation and disinformation. Since the 1950s, scientists have been used to persuade the public that there is "no scientific evidence" of UFO phenomena. High profile scientists are still playing that role today, as did one of the leaders in the SETI program who stated in a recent public guest lecture at Harvard University that "there is no scientific evidence of the existence of UFOs." There are several possible explanations for this statement. Either she was unaware of the depth of evidence on the subject, in which case she could have qualified her authoritative pronouncement, or she knew that the subject was real but there were motivations which inadvertently mislead the public in order to gain more support to expand SETI research. Either way, scientists need to be more honest with the public, who for the most part still trust them and their pronouncements.

In summary, without investigation and research, there can be no intelligent informed statement on the phenomena. This need was also recommended by a panel of scientists in the Sturrock/Rockefeller report and by scientists and military personnel in the French COMETA report summarized in section 8.0.

Back to Contents

Although Presidents since World War II have known about the reality of the UFO/ET issues, in recent decades their knowledge and ability to affect the issues have become limited. It is time for the president to take a proactive role in the disclosure process, because should significant disclosures occur without any presidential role, the president would be viewed by the American public and the world in one of two perhaps equally damaging ways.

One of the major stumbling blocks to disclosure is that those involved with the cover up are afraid of retribution once the government and the people realize the depth and extent of deceit that has occurred over the last half century. We citizens should not condone what those have done, but nor should we punish them. We citizens must be prepared to forgive. There is nothing to be gained by calling for severe retribution for those involved with either current or past secrecy. Although some individuals have acted to end this secrecy, such as the witnesses who have contributed testimony in sections 3.6 and 3.8, many others may have felt they were doing the right thing at the time, which often continues until today. Our world does not need a cosmic Watergate, and we must collectively renounce it.

We must be willing to look to the moment and to the future, and forgive the past. Even though our culture wants to blame and hold someone accountable, we need to offer complete amnesty to all those involved in suppressing the truth. There is international precedent for this approach, such as shown by South Africa in recent years. There is precedent in the US as well. For example, in the early days of the Clinton Administration, there were sweeping disclosures about past excesses and crazy experiments within the Department of Energy, and the former Atomic Energy Commission. We learned of plutonium being put on the oatmeal of kids in orphanages, of deliberate radiation releases in populated areas to see ‘what would happen’, and so forth. This truth came out, and the world did not end. Nobody had to go to jail. The government did not collapse, and the sky did not fall. Let us move forward, with some real compassion and forgiveness, and begin this century anew.

copyright Steven M. Greer M.D., 21 October 1996

A number of first hand military, intelligence and government-associated witnesses to covert projects dealing with UFOs and Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI) have been identified by the Disclosure Project’s effort. Over the past three years, we have located several dozen such potential witnesses as part of a comprehensive strategy to collect adequate evidence for a global, definitive disclosure on this subject. The story which these important government witnesses can tell will make a credible, undeniable case for the reality of UFOs and the existence of extraterrestrial life forms in proximity to the Earth.

One of the persistent obstacles to this testimony coming out into the public arena has been the issue of so-called national security oaths and restrictions placed on these witnesses. Some feel that they are not free to speak unless ‘released’ from these national security oaths and restrictions, and so we have been working to encourage Congress and the White House to take actions that would remove these restrictions.

In the summer of 1995, a number of these witnesses gathered at a witnesses’ summit and signed a letter to President Clinton asking him to take actions leading to the release of these restrictions. While receipt of this letter was acknowledged by a special assistant to the President, we still await specific action from the executive branch of the US government (Note that we still are waiting in 2001).

With this said, it is important to visit the question of whether or not such national security oaths and restrictions are themselves legally valid.

We have compelling witness testimony that the operations dealing with this subject currently exist, and have existed for several decades, outside of normal governmental projects. Members of the Disclosure Project team have met with very senior members of the Administration, Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and other relevant government agency operatives. The picture which emerges from these discussions is that of an operation dealing with UFOs which is functioning outside of the normal channels of government, as it is usually considered. Indeed, we have found that the most senior levels of the executive branch, Congress, the military, etc. are totally out of the loop on this extraordinary matter.

This then brings up the sobering question of who is in the loop, and under what authorization are such projects operating? It is our assessment that for the large part, these operations do not fall under any constitutionally sanctioned avenues of authorization, and as such are, perforce, illegal.

Aside from the lack of oversight and authorization from the executive branch and Congress, these operations have, from time to time, engaged in deceptive practices, which have frustrated the organs of constitutionally legal inquiries and democratic processes. Any such operation which behaves in this fashion unilaterally removes itself from the inherent legality and protection which exists for projects which are consonant with constitutional law.

This being the case (we are eager — nay, desperate — for someone to prove otherwise) all of the so-called "national security oaths" and other "restrictions" placed on military, intelligence and government contract workers are null and void. That is, they appear to have no legal validity since the operations for which they were obtained are themselves illegal. In a constitutional democracy, it is a basic requirement of law that such operations be constitutionally legal, and if they are not, then all that flows from them — including such "oaths" — are illegal and therefore non-binding. IF these operations are legal, nobody in the Congress, executive branch or senior military with whom we have spoken knows of it. The production of a single current executive order or congressional directive authorizing these projects, which can be independently verified, would convince us otherwise.

More than one covert contact has told us that, indeed, any such witnesses can and should speak out at the right time and place since no legal entity would — or legally could — do anything about it. We agree.

Beyond this, it is the legal, moral and patriotic duty of such witnesses to come together, and at the highest, best and most credible venue possible, speak out in unison regarding the truth on this matter. Granted, if only one or two such persons come forward, the case will be weak, and the risk will be unacceptable. But if ten, twenty or more such witnesses come together, and united, resolve to share their information and experiences on this subject, then a definitive case will be made , and a great service to the world and their country will be fulfilled.

The return of this matter to the legal channels of government and the deliberation of the people is one of the great unfulfilled tasks of the post cold war era. Over half a decade has elapsed since the end of the cold war, and there can no longer be a justification (if there ever was) for this type of extraordinary secrecy and covert agenda. Both national and world security requires that this matter be returned to the world community as soon as possible.

We recommend that men and women of vision, courage and dedication join with us in fulfilling this task. Far from being a legal violation of ‘security oaths’, the public testimony by such witnesses is a highly moral and legal act. Further, is it not true that the continuation of this secrecy itself is illegal and immoral, given the inherent unconstitutionality of such programs? Credible witnesses, joining together and providing their testimony in a united strategy can return this subject to legal oversight and control, and thereby enable the people of our country and of the world to begin the public deliberations which should have occurred 50 years ago.

Back to Contents