Dan Burisch:
Stargate Secrets – Part 1
Interview Transcript

Stargate Secrets : Dan Burisch revisited - Part 1
A video interview with Dan Burisch
Las Vegas, June 2007
Project Camelot

Shot, edited and directed by Kerry Lynn Cassidy

Dan Burisch: ... because people will then target toward a date. And I ...Yeah, there are people out there that are now saying, ‘Yep, it's right around the corner at any moment now. Why won't the aliens save us?' We need to save ourselves.

...This was a quid pro quo for them to get certain information from ... that Chi'el'ah showed me. I demanded certain information back. It actually was information concerning the time travel issue. Because they were still trying to be ... You know, they were still reticent about informing me as to what the real nature of the situation was as late as 2001.

...The Looking Glass shows probabilities, or has shown probabilities. The Cube would react with the people present, so there was an alteration, if you will, over what you were seeing from it. It would actually spin out as a yellow disc out of the top of it ... where the word “Yellow Book” originally came from. Actually I used that to our advantage at the T-9 because that in fact was present at the T-9 and I projected certain information which caused a little upset during the meeting.

...But I was also allowed to show them probable outcomes, so in fact the Yellow Book, the Cube, was used for that purpose. Shockingly, they happened to see themselves standing on the bones of their own families and things like that in the vision, and they ultimately decided to remove Lotus as well as certain abductions from the Tau 9 treaty.

...They were handing this Cube around from country to country, to the elitists in the countries, who looked into their own futures so that they could pick the best path for themselves.

...I'm happy to pass along the information - I'm honored to pass along the information - that I understand that the Yellow Book is no longer accessible.

...I will say this to everybody: Whoever took it, it's in safe hands and it won't be used to harm humanity.

Start of interview

Kerry: How would you like to start? What's the best place to start as far as Stargates go? 

Dan: Well, I've got a list of questions here in front of me, submitted by you two, all 30 of them.

K: [laughs]

D: Oh, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have mentioned the number.

K: No, no ...

D: They are decommissioned. They are separated into their three components: there's a projection component, a ring component, and also a barrel component to both the Stargate devices as well as the Looking Glass device. The Stargates also have field posts, and again I'm not a physicist so I wouldn't be the appropriate one to make comment as to how they work.

But there were field posts that were positioned around the actual “gates” and they have been stored, I guess. I'm not certain what happened to the field components. But the three components have actually been decommissioned and liasioned to the European Union, the United Nations, and NATO, who are actually in possession of them. And there is no one group which has the other one of the other two components. 

K: OK, so ...

D: So everybody is staring at everybody and they're not ... They can't put the equipment together because everybody is mutually dependent and looking questioningly at everybody else. So everybody is literally protecting everybody else. Of the actual base operating equipment, there are three components to it, which is a projection device of some sort, a barrel, and a set of rings, electromagnetic rings.

K: Are we able to know how many man-made Stargates there were on the planet?

D: No. I'm not going to comment as to the total. I will say that there was over 50.

K: Really! 

D: Yep.

K: Wow. In different countries of the world.

D: Yes.

K: OK. And these are man-made?

D: Yes.

K: OK. So, and now these Stargates ...

D: Well, see, it's not a Stargate. It's a device which accesses a portal, a wormhole.

K: Does it access a natural ... In other words, the manmade device accesses a natural Stargate.

D: Yes. It draws off from a natural ERB, an Einstein-Rosen Bridge.

K: OK.

D: It accesses it and somehow works, from what I understand, not in parallel, but almost like piggybacks, on the energy of the natural Stargate, yeah.

K: OK. So, in other words, if there were only ... If there were 50 man-made devices accessing, they would be accessing a corresponding 50 natural energy vortexes.

D: That I don't know.

K: OK.

D: There is a possibility that ... In fact when the Looking Glass was operated, they were usually worked in tandem. It required a second Looking Glass to be turned on at the same time to get acoustics through. So unless a second one was turned on ...which operated at one other place, where Will Uhouse had been. He saw the second node location, as opposed to the first node being over at the Papoose facility.

Two pieces of equipment, two Looking Glasses, were required to be turned on at the same time to be able to hear acoustics or sound, if you will, from whatever the people were watching, to piggyback in tandem with the visual response of the equipment. That it required two to be turned on to hear anything.

K: Uh huh. 

D: And then both sides could hear the same thing. So I suppose, both of the Looking Glasses being tuned to the same thing was accessing the same “tunnel,” if you will, to the information.

K: OK, that's what I was wondering. So the Looking Glass has an ability to show one the future but a Stargate, or, you know, equipment that accesses a Stargate, or a wormhole, is for time travel? Right? We're talking about two different things?

D: Yes.

K: Are they using the same technology? 

D: Essentially, yes. The original device was the Stargate device. That was then increased in power, if you will, with the use of these field posts. How it bumped up the power, how it stabilized it, I don't know. You'd need to speak with a physicist about that.

K: OK.

D: However ...

K: It increased it enough to where that it became a Looking Glass?

D: Well, no. No. No. It would be pumped up in power to stabilize the “doorway,” if you will, to step through into another location, which in essence, because distance and time are relative, the same thing - step through into another time. The Looking Glass device is a back-engineered Stargate.

K: OK.

D: So it was actually back-engineered from the original cylinder-seal data which allowed us to produce the Stargate access devices, if you will, what we call the Stargates.

K: Uh huh. 

D: It's a back-engineered device, the Looking Glass is. So the Looking Glass is a secondary device and it was coming into its fore in the 60s and 70s and Will saw one of the first generations of it, from what I understand, a very large piece of equipment. They always get smaller, no matter what. Look at what's happened to the computer.

K: Who? Will saw? 

D: Oh yeah. 

K: Will ...

D: Will Uhouse.

K: ... Uhouse saw the original Looking Glass.

D: He saw one of the original Looking Glasses demonstrated. And in fact it's going to be in the DVD that we're getting ready to put out, the actual interview, where he was indicating the firing of a bullet, I believe it was, through an object, and there was a time delay where the bullet actually passed through the object where you saw the bullet past the object, or the projectile if you will, a rail gun, I believe. What was the ... [Marci McDowell, off screen, confirms this]. Yeah, it was a rail gun being used. And then afterward they saw the impact of the device. So they were already playing with it in the early 70s, early to mid 70s, dealing with time sequences.

K: Wasn't the original Looking Glass back-engineered from alien technology?

D: [long pause] Yes.

K: OK. But there was also information around the cylinder-seals ...

D: Um hmm....

K: ...that they used also and that those cylinder-seals also came from an off world race.

D: From ... Well, no, the cylinder seals didn't. The information on them did.

K: Which was maybe the Anunnaki? Is that ...

D: I wouldn't feel comfortable in characterizing it with that name.

K: OK.

D: I really shouldn't. No.

K: But it was off world technology. Originally.

D: Yes ma'am.

K: OK. And at this point, like ... OK. Say that was in the 60s? the 50s?

D: Well ... Yes. That's when they started actually showing a lot of interest in actually building the equipment to be able to see over the curvature of time-space so that they could see into the future and somewhat into the past, but basically the future.

K: OK. So there's also our Henry Deacon contacts that deal with the “black box” that came on one of the craft.

D: Uh huh. 

K: And I don't know if you're familiar with that black box.

D: Uh huh.

K: Did you have exposure to that as well?

D: Yeah. It was something that we called the Cube or the Yellow Disc. Yeah. 

K: OK. But that was not ... Was that a Looking Glass?

D: That is a variant of the technology.

K: OK.

D: However, while the Looking Glass shows probabilities, or has shown probabilities, the Cube would react with the people present, so there was an alteration, if you will, over what you were seeing from it. It would actually spin out as a yellow disc out of the top of it ... where the word “Yellow Book” originally came from.

K: Yeah. OK. Yeah.

D: And, depending upon what predisposition ... Kind of like little Yoda telling young Luke, “Bring in there what you have with you.” You know, whatever's there is what you bring. You could then change the perspective, the “tilt,” if you will, the orientation or angle, of the information being presented back to you. So, unless you were well prepared to deal with such a thing, human interaction and human emotions bring instability of the provenance of the information. 

K: OK. That's what went on with the black boxes, then.

D: Yes.

K: OK. But with the Looking Glass...

D: And actually I used that to our advantage at the T-9, because that in fact was present at the T-9 and I projected certain information which caused a little upset during the meeting, and they got certain abductions removed and Lotus removed off the calendar, and things like that. I caused some real trouble, in other words.

K: Can you elaborate? Are you willing to elaborate?

D: Well. The...the... Let me sit here and consider what I should and should not ...

During the negotiations for the Tau 9-6, I was asked to supply a model for the Lotus. In fact, Marcia and I were both asked because they knew tangentially she was involved. I agreed to do so, which is what you respond when you are a sworn operative. It's “Yes,” unless there are great, great objections. I was then taken to the location where the treaty was actually being negotiated. 

To give a short recitation as to the nature of Lotus: What was happening is the P-45ks used Lotus. They wanted to use Lotus for the back-engineering of their own neurological problem. I was objecting to its use, but still to provide .... was under orders to provide a model. I was prepared to do so but I was also allowed to show them probable outcomes. 

So in fact the Yellow Book, the Cube, was used for that purpose. Shockingly, they happened to see themselves standing on the bones of their own families and things like that in the vision and they ultimately decided to remove Lotus as well as certain abductions from the Tau 9 treaty. So we were successful in getting certain things removed I think I can safely mention at this time, because we're only one OF 9 and one Tau 9 treaty away from the passage through the... the completion of the passage through the galactic plane. So I think I'm pretty well safe to go ahead and mention it now. They're not going to be able to get it back and put on the treaties and all of that in the time we have left. In other words, they got out-foxed, and ... that's what happens when you're negotiating treaties.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:
OF-9: Dan is referring to the "Omicron Phi 9" Treaty System, the Treaty System not involving the P-45ks, and the "Tau 9" or "T9" Treaty System involving all parties including the P-45ks.  He is precisely speaking about the "Omicron Phi 9-8" Treaty gathering scheduled for 2009, and the "Tau 9-7" FINAL Treaty gathering scheduled for 2012.
K: So you used the capacity of the Yellow Book or little black box to show them the future implications ...

D: Exactly.

K: ... of what using the Lotus to amplify, or to rectify, their own biological problem?

D: This is true. And that was skewed by ... It takes a great deal of emotion to skew the imagery and the audio that comes with it. But I'll just say that I am extremely vehement with regard to my objection for Lotus being used, and apparently that vehemence was sufficient to skew the image enough to get them to jump back aghast in horror. 

K: Wow. So... OK. And this, kind of like just for the sake of the audience to some degree ... You have seen in, I guess the Yellow Book or in the Looking Glass (and you can correct me on which one it is), the future of Lotus, in effect, how Lotus becomes ...You know, once it's brought to the fore by you ...

D: Well, actually, no. No, no, I haven't. I haven't. The reports to me which came concerning the future of Lotus, which we're not going to get into in depth this evening, ah.... was given to me as information.

K: OK. So you didn't see it.

D: Personally see it? No. I was told. 

K: I see.

D: I was told. That was during the early years. I say the “early years” of Lotus. It's only been going on for 6 years now.

K: OK.

D: But this was the latter half of 2001 and this was a quid pro quo for them to get certain information from ... that Chi'el'ah showed me. I demanded certain information back, and it actually was information concerning the time travel issue, because they were still trying to be ... You know, they were still reticent about informing me as to what the real nature of the situation was as late as 2001. 

K: Meaning, the real situation was ... Meaning how much access to Stargates, to time travel that they actually had?

D: Right. The whole treaty system, the situations involving the treaties, their outcomes, the actual potential for both Timeline #1 and Timeline #2 outcomes. In the case that we're in right now, we seem to be on a variant of Timeline #1, and that's good. For everything that I've seen and have read and have had reported to me concerning Timeline #1, it's not happening exactly the way that they figured that it would. But then again, it couldn't because we've made changes along the way which diverted us away from Timeline #2 and in so doing, our future ...

Again, I regard our future as something which is pretty much a blank slate. We're writing it for ourselves. And so we are now seeing something coming to pass which is slightly different than the prognostication in the probabilities that we were seeing. And I'm good with what we're seeing so far but, you know, we are still faced with the challenges, the environmental degradation, etc. But hopefully we will rise to the challenge.

K: OK. So this is interesting because it sounds like Chi'el'ah was instrumental in getting you to have greater access to intelligence about what the Looking Glass and MJ12 ...

D: Well, it was information that he was providing me which provoked the questions.

K: Yeah.

D: And the fact that they didn't even want to get into longwinded discussions with me in the late 90s concerning what he even was. After we had argued for years to find out even where the material was coming from, then we were finally given access to the material. I mean, this went on for a few years. 

K: OK. But your interaction with Chi'el'ah was leading you one way and giving you one set of information and MJ-12 then had another set. Isn't that right?

D: Well, they weren't ... They weren't really ... It wasn't that they had another set of information. He was telling me ... He did tell me basically what was going on.

K: OK.

D: And they were simply not providing that information as what they considered a need-to-know situation.

K: I see. So ...

D: They just weren't going to tell me what they didn't feel I needed to know.

K: But little did they ... Well, this is my paraphrase, but little did they know that Chi'el'ah was basically clueing you in.

D: He was clueing me in and he was informing me his perspectives concerning the treaties. I knew something was going on and that is ultimately what they wanted to know about and I said, “Well, for you to know about that kind of thing, then I need to know about certain other things.” You know, it was truly a quid pro quo situation and they said, “Well OK. We'll tell you if you tell us.” So I told them and they told me a little more.

And it was right around that same time that Lotus was actually kicking into fore, the May 31st, 2001 event that took my prosaic project and basically threw it in the garbage can and it turned into what it is now, this project that it is now. And as a result I also found out from them where they said Lotus was ultimately destined. And that is, like I said, we'll discuss that at a slightly future date.

K: OK. But it isn't it true to some extent that Lotus could help Chi'el'ah now?

D: That was the perspective of the P-45 J-Rods, and that is not my perspective.

K: I see. So ... because I make a distinction between Chi'el'ah, who is, from what I understand, a P-52, and the P-45s. So, but they're on the same ...

D: They're on the same timeline, the same track, but just separated by 7,000 years.

K: OK. So, even so ...

D: Which is quite a big separation.

K: So what we get ...what you're saying is that, in a sense, Chi'el'ah couldn't get the benefit of Lotus because ...

D: Nor did he ask for it.

K: OK.

D: Nor did he ask for it. And I will say this. This is something that David ... I spoke with David on the phone not that long ago. I'll leave the last name off. I think you know who I'm ....

K: Sure, but we can use his name if it's OK with you.

D: Well sure. David Wilcock. 

K: OK. Yeah, because we taped an interview with him.

D: Oh, OK. Wonderful. And he was talking. We were discussing the same thing, which was the Box, the Cube. And I said, “Yeah, but a strange thing happened.” I was pro temp or made MJ-9 for the 12 as the result of a bet that went on within MJ-12. And I got a chance to tap who ended up being the last MJ-9 prior to the adjournment.

Before tapping her, who was the first female to ever set in the 12, I got a chance to look at certain documents and look through certain archives in Washington, DC prior to going across to the continent and meeting with some folks and telling them basically I wasn't interested in their offers. I'm talking about a trip to Brussels.

K: To see the lluminati?

D: Yeah. And during the same time, the Cube disappeared. And it hasn't been seen since. And it disappeared out of the archives. Of course I have no idea ... I have no idea where the item may be, but I do know this: I'm happy that they can't find it. Because what they were doing is they were handing this Cube around ...

And this was a question that Bill had asked, whether there was only one Cube. They were handing this Cube around from country to country, to the elitists in the countries, to look into their own futures so that they could pick the best paths for themselves. Why don't they just live their lives? And try to be good people?  Why do they need a little black box to tell them when to jump and how to jump? That's not being fully human, at least from my perspective and those of our associates. That's not being fully human. 

So, as I understand, it disappeared. Now, there have been certain, you know, allegations, that have been made that during the time when I had... Is it almost a year ago now? When I had the bad seizure? It was near the end of last year, was it? No. [Marcia, off screen, confirming date] It was about a year ago and I had a very severe seizure and was actually put out of commission, seriously, for a while, and there was a big hullabaloo to get over to my apartment to get something out of my apartment. What that object was, I won't comment. But I will say this to everybody: Whoever took it, it's in safe hands and it won't be used to harm humanity.

K: All right.

D: In fact, the fact that it's in safe hands will prevent it from being used to harm humanity. It has been thus far only used ... Aside from ... Well, I mean, I've got to try to justify my own behavior in Bandelier in using it for the purposes of skewing to get Lotus off and the abductions off. But I think that was for a beneficial cause.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:
Bandelier: Dan was referring to the "Bandelier" National Monument, where the Tau 9-6 Treaty gathering was held. See:  The P-52k delegates were trucked in from the nearby LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory], and the P-45ks used the Tyuonyi ruins as the drop off point because they looked like a 9 and the pueblo ruins themselves looked like Inca City, Mars.
K: Right.

D: But it has been used since, actually, the 50s, by the potentates, by the leaders of the various countries to skew the history of the human race.

K: Wow. That's amazing.

D: And the common folk, the average people, all of us, have a right to a future which is our own, and not being skewed and designated and promulgated and promoted and provoked by bluebloods who feel that they are above everyone else.

K: Well, thank you, Dan. 

D: You're welcome.

K: I think that we probably all owe you a great thanks for that.

D: Well, I'm just ... I'm happy to pass along the information. I'm honored to pass along the information that I understand that the Yellow Book is no longer accessible.

K: Yes.

D: That's all I know about it, though.

K: I understand. I totally understand. And, thanks for that information.

D: That may be the reason, too, why the Illuminati hasn't done something to us and it also may be the reason, on the other end, why the old Magi haven't and it may be why they're all so quiet and... Hmmm.

K: Right.

D: I don't know.

K: They don't have the upper hand any more.

D: The people should have the upper hand and they should have the upper hand for their own destiny and that's why we two, have gone as far as what we have to expose the NSSM200 report which was put in during the Ford administration, which I believe was written by Dr. Henry Kissinger, wherein he suggested the possible use of food as a weapon and its use against, in fact, as a tool against, the third world.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:
April 24, 1974; National Security Study Memorandum 200
Now, at the same time we notice that is a correlation going with findings from the IPCC report concerning global warming that if the world average temperature rises, I believe between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius, that the Northern hemisphere, the higher latitude, growth will increase. However, if it goes over that it will decrease. Yet the lower latitudes ... by the way that's where you find most of the third world countries ... the 2 to 3 degree Celsius increase will cause starvation and crop loss.

K: OK.

D: Now isn't this funny, how they're just allowing the global warming to increase through the provoking ... with the use of fossil fuels? Now I'm not saying that's the total cause. It's not. There are cycles involved, short as well as long term cycles. But isn't that funny? And it's my best guess that they'll probably order just enough ameliorative steps to be taken where it levels off where the higher latitudes probably don't lose their crops, where you find the majority of the rich countries. 

K: Interesting. Well, that's actually a fascinating critical observation. I think that it is also interesting that most of the crops are being grown, though, in the lower latitudes. They're not being grown in North America anymore.

D: Right. But you have sustainability, though.

K: Sure.

D: Whereas when you have the loss of the crops in the lower latitudes you're also losing a lot of the population from the third world, which, unfortunately, according to the way that the documents read, some people find them expendable.

K: Right.

D: We don't feel that way.

K: That's the Iron Mountain report ... also talks about things of that nature. And you're familiar with that.

D: I've heard of it.

K: OK. It's actually ... It's freely available on the net to be read and it talks about something very similar to that.

D: You know,  I'm not one that likes to interject myself in politics at all.

K: I know that. I ...

D: I like to stay to the research.

K: But at the same time ...

D: At the same time, I mean, you know, when we start hearing that the Codex is being placed in place which actually delimits food value. Oh, you can have all the food you want and starve to death while you're eating it if there's no nutrients.

K: Right. Absolutely.

D: When I start hearing that food is being used as a weapon and it's being used concerning the use of fossil fuels, I start getting personally angry. There's not one person in the lower latitudes that's worth any less than me.

K: Right. Right.

D: You know, everybody is worth exactly the same thing on this Earth and unfortunately there are individuals who feel otherwise.

K: I understand. OK. So Bill, the question you're asking: First of all, you mentioned Will Uhouse.

D: The son of Bill Uhouse.

K: The son of Bill Uhouse.

D: Right, right.

K: He's very well known. We didn't realize that it was actually ... that it was the son you were saying who had access to that technology.

D: Yes. Yes. Bill was the builder of the avionics and the testing equipment who back-engineered ARV testing equipment and avionics. I actually saw some of the equipment (and this is in the tape that Marcia and I did) ... in a room.  I actually saw some of the equipment, some of the diagnostic equipment, in the B-bay, underneath the Galileo bay, that he actually built. And so when I started describing it, Will looked at me and said, “Oh, that's what my Dad built.” So we had a very nice little connection there.

K: So are you saying ...

D: But it's Will who had experience around the Looking Glass equipment in the 70s. His son, Bill Uhouse's son.

K: And Will Uhouse IS alive now?

D: Yes. Of course.

K: OK. Because that's very interesting ...

D: And his wife, Teri. They, in fact, from what I understand, they met during the course of conversations concerning our information coming to the public. Teri and Will met one another, fell in love, and were married. That makes me feel kind of personally really good.

K: [smiles and laughs] OK. Well, so it sounds like Will knows quite a bit about what makes the ARV run, then ...

D: Uh huh. 

K: If his father had something to do with the back-engineering.

D: Uh huh. Yes.

K: OK. So in 1947, when the Cube was discovered, it must have really screwed up the idea of the two timelines by bringing in the ability to ... I mean, I don't know what the two can and can't do ...

D: Well, first of all, the Cube actually was not discovered in 1947. There's a mixture of the stories involved. The Cube was actually ... The information about the Cube and its existence was known as of 1946. It was further discussed in 1947 after a certain crash in a Midwestern, lower, Southwestern state, New Mexico, and following which, during the first brokering for treaties by the Orions with Eisenhower, the Cube was handed to Eisenhower. It was in fact expected to go to the United Nations authorities and it was in fact spirited away by the United States military.

K: OK.

D: They didn't hand it over.

K: But the way you're talking about the Cube is that it sounds like it connects emotionally with the viewer, in a sense.

D: It does. And in fact it was handed ... It was actually Orion technology.

K: OK.

D: And it was handed over by them in a spirit of goodwill but a mis-assessment as to our evolutionary state, our ability to handle the issue. And handle the equipment. They felt us more balanced than what we actually were.

K: OK. Well this opens almost Pandora's Box in the sense of United States history.

D: That is Pandora's Box. Yes. I'm not exactly certain what was seen relative to Cube for 911. However, the analysis which I was asked to do ... (of course I paid the price of having actually done it. Again, people don't want to hear the answers that I came up with.) But ... the analysis that I did indicated that certainly there is, at minimum, a great suspicion concerning the delay of response. And information that I have directly from one of the formerly seated members was in fact that we were aware (but this was Looking Glass technology, not the Cube) ...

K: I understand.

D: That we were aware as of the middle 1990s that there would be a coming Islamic extremist war with the United States. We were also aware of certain alternative situations that they used the statistics from the Looking Glass for the variability between the different pictures to show that would be occurring at the same time, the other probability at the same time. And, from their perspective, that the least of the two consequences was 9/11. I am aware of what the other possible consequence was. I'm not willing to come out and start mentioning it because I don't know what the consequences are of speaking of things that have not thus far happened, yet the probabilities existed that they could.

K: Yeah.

D: So, you know, I'm feeling a little bit ... There's a little weight when it comes to that, but ...

K: OK. You're saying though, that the Looking Glasses have been, as you called it, decommissioned.

D: Yes, ma'am.

K: And that means across the board.

D: Across the board.

K: OK.

D: They are shut down.

K: And you said there was 50 man-made devices. And I'm assuming ...

D: I said at least 50.

K: ... that would access, or create, Stargates out of natural vortexes.

D: Yes. They would suck them in and make them available.

K: And a Looking Glass is not the same as a Stargate.

D: No. A Looking Glass is a back-engineered form from the original cylinder-seal descriptions on how to build the units that made Stargates, so that ... in essence y ou could take a Looking Glass unit and make a couple changes to the equipment, l ift it up on an angle, put field posts around it and open up a hole to step through.

K: Sure. OK, but the Looking Glass can show you the future. So are we saying ...

D: Future probabilities. Not the future.

K: OK. So are we saying there were 50 Looking Glasses in operation as well as ...?

D: Oh no. There were much less. We had a basic monopoly over the Looking Glass. That and India. India brokered early on with Indira when Indira Gandhi was brokering the Committee of the Majority between the United States and the Soviet Union because the Soviets were threatening to start their own treaty system up with the extra terrestrials, which would have become untenable.

We agreed then to expand MJ-12 from a wholly operated and owned American operation to an international operation. Thus was born the Committee of the Majority between 1963 and 1967. And when that information was brokered, that happened in parallel with, kind of under the table but in parallel with the United Nations treaties involving things like the test ban treaty and the outer space treaty. 

And so it was being done at the same time under cover of UN support. The diplomats were going back and forth and brokering the opening up, so that the treaty system would be a single treaty system and thus tenable and manageable, to, hopefully, a good outcome. And we'll be knowing within the next few years whether that was successful.

K: OK. So this is really fascinating. You're saying that some other countries, India for one, had access to Looking Glass technology.

D: Yes, ma'am. They had that written in as far back as the 1960s and 1970s when it was actually being back-engineered from the Stargate material. And so at the same time that Will Uhouse, for instance, was looking at the early generation Looking Glass, India had the same.

K: OK. And are you at liberty to say what other countries had access to that?

D: To the information? Or to the equipment?

K: To the Looking Glass, to a Looking Glass, or the ability ...

D: No.

K: ... to create a Looking Glass and look back ... look at time, look forward into their own history ...

D: No. No. 

K: Was that not acceptable?

D: No. No. And I'll tell you why the answer is no. Within the treaties, the Looking Glass as well as the Stargates, as well as the Cube, and the “information movement pods,” are all contained within the treaty system. Within that treaty system it also prohibits and allows certain passage of information amongst delegates on where the Looking Glass material is and where the information flow is, what the access is. Being that I stood in Bandelier and considered a delegate, therefore I cannot tell you.

K: OK. So you can't tell me who has ...

D: No.

K: ... access to that technology.

D: Aside from India and the United States. No.

K: OK. Right. But we can assume that some countries perhaps, that is, the leadership of some countries, may have had access to this technology at some point.

D: I think that it's fair to say that we can assume that they had access to the information from it. But I wouldn't place any characterization over any assumption of who may or may not have had it.

K: OK. All right, well, I think ...

D: I thank you for the question, though.

K: OK. But it also gives you a whole different way of looking at history. I mean, certainly ...

D: Indeed it does.

K: I mean... You know, this stuff has got to be kind of as natural to you as, you know, getting up in the morning, you know, and having a cup of coffee. This is all part of your world view.

D: Nah ...There is nothing as natural to me as getting up and having my cup of coffee! [big laugh]

K: OK.

D: And we should have never built... The Stargate, yes, OK, for the purpose of speaking with the visitors from the other timelines. Yes, absolutely. But Looking Glass, no. That was done because of our own shortcomings as people who aspire to things that we maybe shouldn't try to grab ahold of.

K: Well ...

D: It should never have been built.

K: It gives you power, right? We're talking about power, and the misuse of power here.

D: Yes.

K: I mean, bottom line, right?

D: Yes.

K: So ...

D: And I am an advocate against that misuse. In fact ... Well, I could say against the misuse ... I am against its use. Period.

K: OK. So let's say one has the Looking Glass, and you're saying it shows probabilities, and one of the things we were wondering is: How does it do that?

D: Well, from the best I understand (and I was speaking with Bill just a little while about it, a little while ago), the rings and the amount of information via energy which is passed into it. And I've got to be very careful with this ...The position of the rings, their orientation, the energy running through them, the position of the barrel, etc - because you can raise the barrel up on an armature inside the center of it – all come into play as if you have an onion with the various layers of the onion.

As you move through the different energy levels you also move through the different layers so you get different bits of information. Now, imagine an almost infinite number of layers overlaying in comparison to the positions of the rings and an almost infinite amount of energy that you can add or subtract, tuning it up, tuning it down.

K: Well, it sounds sort of like ...

D: Instead of going up by 1 hertz or 2 hertz, maybe by a thousandth of a hertz up and down.

K: OK. But it sounds like you're working with ... almost like a kaleidoscope effect. You know, like a kaleidoscope, a real kaleidoscope, the way you would turn and twist and focus and each time you get a different design. Right?

D: Right, except ...

K: The design and the colors change.

D: You get a different design and the colors change but it's like working with multiple kaleidoscopes where, when you find two different probabilities that you would run into, you have two kaleidoscopes and you make a change on one kaleidoscope that may factor or function to a different angular change on another kaleidoscope. So you get two separate pictures that you then have that are flashing back and forth.

K: OK.

D: But yes.

K: OK. So, is ...

D: That's the best analogy I can ...

K: Is there an interface with a computer to get these read-outs ...

D: Yes.

K: ... of the probabilities?

D: Yes. In fact there's a de-interlacing system which they used to actually de-interlace the flashing back and forth of the two probabilities or the multiples that they had at certain times when it starts skipping ...

K: You could freeze them, right? So you could look at them closer?

D: What they did is that they de-interlaced the video and then reintegrated the video and watched the individual videos and then determined statistically how much time was spent on each video to determine the amount of probability of each event occurring. And they tested that against probabilities in the field and probabilities of future occurrence to get a system which functioned scientifically. And that's ...

K: OK. And so, well, I'm going to go with that and I'm going to actually say that what they might have been doing is then looking back to see ... In other words, if they saw an event in the Looking Glass, all they had to do was calibrate, or look at the different possibilities to see which one happened and then ...

D: That's what they did.

K: ... as time went on ...

D: Absolutely. That's right on it. That's right on. That's right on the beam. And you know, some people like to say ... Some people say it's blue smoke and mirrors, but, then again, I was told something in 2001 that I'm living in right now. OK?

K: OK.

D: OK? Without going to what it is. And, like I said, we'll talk about that in the future. But it's the best scientific equipment that I can imagine for the determining of such a thing. But it goes to the old question: Just because we have the power to do something, should we?

K: Sure.

D: And I am a 100% advocate. She and I [gesturing toward Marcia] had a more than a small dustup out at Frenchman Mountain over this very same thing, which actually resulted in me walking alone down Lake Mead back toward Las Vegas, with she and I yelling and screaming at each other along the roadside.

They were doing tests out at Frenchman Mountain during the time that the Rosen Bridge was being accessed there - the Einstein-Rosen Bridge - with the equipment. They had the curtains up and all of that business, enough where Metro couldn't see it from the top of the mountain and all that. And they were accessing there and there was a mistake and a small explosion out there on the east side of this little ... what we call the Conquistador Helmet.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:
"Metro", referring to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
And she wanted me to go out there with her to help clean some the evidence up of it. And she and I got into more than a little dustup because I didn't want anything to do with it. Because I don't believe ... I'm no Luddite. I'm all for grand technology. But I don't believe in playing with things which actually deal with looking into the future.

There's another issue that was going on at the time, in fact, the variety of communication which was going on via this equipment ...from elsewhere ... I presume ... she won't, still hasn't, won't admit to me, but I presume that it was from Orion and it was information, defense related information, on how this type of equipment, how an Einstein-Rosen Bridge at a distance, could be used to pull information out of a defense computer system.

K: Ah ha.

D: And I don't mean a U.S. defense computer system. I said, “You know what? NO.” Look, we've got the technology here. We've got the talent. We've got the willpower and we've got the willingness to defend our own country without the use of something involving time technology. I wouldn't want to go up against, for instance, god help us, the Chinese, on the ground. But at the same time, I don't fear their country either. I believe that we should be diplomatic with them and have a firm understanding and a respect for one another. But I also don't fear them. And so, the use of the technology like that is not honorable, to me.

K: Right. Well, it's like knowing how the game plays out means you can play to your advantage ahead of time in making sure that that eventuality will occur.

D: That's why I as so interested in... When I was doing my time ... During my time with the jobs involving safety and security training and all that here in Las Vegas, when I was interacting with Marcia and the Eye because we were literally on a daily basis talking about that same thing. And about the psychology of individuals who come to a table to play a game and who cheat to alter the outcome of the game. And that whole psychology is something which I'm not ... you know, is not foreign to me and so that helped, if you will, prime the wick of the explosion between myself and that variety of technology, which actually primed my disagreement with them.

Note to the transcript from Marci McDowell:
The "Eye" is a reference to the 'Eye in the Sky' or 'Casino Surveillance'.
K: OK. Well, I understand what you're saying and there's a million questions that all of this ..

D: I know, I know.

K: ... raises and I know don't have all night, but I would like to ask ... 

D: There's 30 of them here. [laughs]

K: Now that I know what I know and what you've at least communicated, you're saying you don't want to use the Looking Glass for advantage over country to country, but what about country to off-world ...

D: No no no no. It shouldn't be used at all.

K: OK. I understand, but ...

D: All right? 

K: But, is there something there? I mean, in other words, is the technology something that they are using now to look at our relationships with, because ...

D: [shakes head no] The technology is not being used at all right now. 

K: OK. But the reason it's not used now is because of where we're going into the galactic ... the plane of the ...

D: [nods head yes] As of about 2017 I would expect that probably that all of these little pieces of equipment will probably all get reassembled, yeah.

K: Turned back on.

D: Oh sure.

K: 2017? That's quite a while ...

D: 2016, 2017.

K: Not until then?

D: Probably not. 

K: Do you mean ...

D: I'm figuring that they're probably going to act conservatively on this. That's what all the people of wisdom have suggested to them.

K: Oh, wow.

D: Is to act conservatively. That yes, the so-called cycle of catastrophe, or season of catastrophe of Fulcanelli, the time period from, oh, right around 1992 to right around 2012, right around that area. While we will have passed it, passed 2012, we really ought to get through the entire cycle which is about 1980 to about 2016, to feel confident that the interpretation from the timeline from the future about their own catastrophe is not off by a few years. We're talking about 45,000 years or 52,000 years respectively. We have difficulty understanding what happened 2,000 years ago and we're talking about 50,000 years here. So, it's very wise for them to wait.

K: OK. You mean turn ... The Looking Glasses are now decommissioned, but also the Stargate technology.

D: Yeah. Yeah, they're decommissioned and the Stargates and the Looking Glasses, I'm sure they're all in their little mothball containers and all of that and they have been separated ... The three components of each have been separated and moved to different power structures, diplomatic and military authorities around the world. And we're talking about the EU specifically, the UN, and NATO. Those are in specific control of one of the three components each. And I cannot comment as to which component is contained by whom.

K: OK. But you're saying there's no doubt whatsoever that all this technology has been decommissioned.

D: There is no doubt whatsoever when it comes to the Looking Glasses and when it comes to the Stargate technology that it has been decommissioned. And ... However, there are a few threats going on, ongoing threats, from present countries stating that they will put it together at their will, through their own self determination. And those countries, if push comes to shove, will be shoved. 

K: OK. Meaning ... Put it together now?

D: As in build one themselves now.

K: Yes. That's what I meant.

D: Yes. What was extant has been collected. I'm under very good assurance that what was setting there has now been collected and decommissioned.

K: OK. And we're assuming Iraq is one of those.

D: Oh, absolutely.

K: They were able to pinpoint in the Looking Glass the very highest probability for those things to occur ...

D: That's true. That's true. And Bill was asking about a future date involving another thing and a year was given to me. And he was saying, well, if a year can be provided for that, why wouldn't a year be provided for the other?

K: Right.

D: Well, there was a highest-probability year for it. However, telling me about something that might happen in the future involving a project which we're currently involved is one matter.

K: Sure.

D: Willy-nilly throwing a date out which is a probability involving the lives and the destiny of all of us here on the Earth, specifically to a predicted four-and a half, or four billion peoples' deaths, is another matter that carries an entirely different weight with it.

K: But are we to assume that we past that year yet? Or ...

D: You're not to ... No. You're not to assume.

K: No. OK. So that's still in the offing. What we're looking at is a very low probability of the event or the set of events occurring ... at this point.

D: Yes. Yes. We're looking at a low probability of the higher catastrophic portion of the events occurring. I expect that the events which would kick it off are still gonna happen. For instance, the solar max which is coming at around 2012 and the expected loss of GPS equipment and things like that, which is out there as part of ... on the web you can find that. Engadget, I think, was one of the groups that spoke about the loss of GPS and satellite communications.

K: You mean the electromagnetic grid is gonna go down.

D: Yes. Yes. And that would be the time that I would expect the highest probability of the T2 event, having correlated to the history of the J-Rods and the Orions. But that's as far as I can ...

K: Wow. OK. Well, that's pretty close.

D: I can't give a date though.

K: Yeah. I understand. 

D: I can but I shouldn't because people will then target toward a date, and I ... Yeah, there are people out there now that are saying, “Yep, it's right around the corner at any moment now. Why won't the aliens save us? 

K: Yes.

D: We need to save ourselves.


D: And that's why the steps have been taken that have been taken in the world and are still under way, so that we will save ourselves.

(continued in Part 2 - please click here)

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Pegasus Research Consortium distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
~ MENU ~


Webpages  © 2001-2015
Blue Knight Productions