Hal Puthoff

Hal Puthoff Lecture (Q&A) Transcript – “Project Blue Book didn’t continue. It’s just that other [UFO] programs were set up, with different names, all over the place.”

25 Feb , 2020  

If you like what you see and hear on my blog, my Twitter and YouTube Channel and appreciate the time and effort, here’s my Patreon, Pay Pal and Venmo.


Patreon = https://www.patreon.com/ufojoe

PayPal – ufojoe11@aol.com

Venmo – www.venmo.com/u/ufojoe



“Project Blue Book, as a named Project Blue Book, didn’t continue. It’s just that other programs were set up, with different names, all over the place.”

Transcript of Q&A Session

February 8, 2020

Dr. Hal Puthoff

“DoD’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Program:

The Back Story

The Forward Story”

Berkley Springs, West Virginia

“Transitions Talk”

Alexandria Institute Presentation

Question and Answer portion of the lecture…

All transcribing was done by @RVA_UFO_UAP (Lynda) with assistance from @ufojoe11, Joe Murgia. Lynda did most of the heavy lifting and I can’t thank her enough.

Big thank you to @cosmicdahlia (Joyce) and @mikeb8637 (Mike) for recording and providing the audio. Not an easy task to hold up your phone for over two hours!

And I’m extremely grateful to John Petersen, of The Arlington Institute, for hosting Hal Puthoff and for making a professional recording of this lecture. None of this would have happened without him and his Transition Talks series.


Q: Do you have a perspective on some of the other parallel activities to your To The Stars Academy? For example, you’re probably familiar with this secret space program thing, Corey Goode and that whole big group that claimed that people went to…..(inaudible). And both Navy and Air Force…very, very classified…bases on Mars, etc….Maybe some comment on that. And also, Steven Greer is another one. There’s a bunch of other players out there. How does your thing kind of relate to the other major efforts that have been going on in this area of UFO/ET disclosure?

HP: Okay, this is a reasonable question. How does our organization, our viewpoint, my viewpoint, consider the other viewpoints out there. For example, there’s a whole group of people who are talking about…we have bases on Mars, there’s a secret UFO program, we’ve got spacecraft all over the place in the solar system, and many other organizations pushing certain viewpoints like that. From our standpoint, we’re just following, and I personally, am just following the data and what I can really get my hands around somehow. And so when I read many of these other…or hear many of these other claims that we have a secret space program already ongoing, I mean, I can’t absolutely refute it. I haven’t seen any evidence in my programs I’ve been involved with, or see any evidence that’s like that. So, I just put all that in a gray basket, on the shelf, and stick with what we can follow with data. And basically, my colleagues within TTSA are doing the same thing. We don’t even go so far as to say, “Well, we know they’re ET spaceships.” Some people may think that, but we don’t say anything along those lines. Because until we have hard evidence, that’s what we’ve committed ourselves to having in the public conversation. Things that can be verified, documented and so on, and we’ll leave the speculation to elsewhere. Other questions?

Q: How soon will warp drive be available for civilian use?

HP: Certainly, we have people working on the theoretical physics of it – as I say, space-time metric engineering and so on – that would say that, in principle, warp drive is possible, wormhole access out in the cosmos, is possible. We’ve all seen…many have seen, “Interstellar,” which is a terrific movie. The science advisor to that movie was Kip Thorne, one of the top, general relatively people from Princeton.

So, the science in that program is absolutely perfect. In fact, he expressed the fact that he’s really glad that that movie got made because there are a lot of solutions in general relatively that you would have to understand to make the concepts that were shown in the movie. But no academic budget was able to put up the money to run all those computer programs. But, in Hollywood, they did. And so, in fact, they learned a lot and were able to publish things based on what was done by the Hollywood industry, computer industry.

But in terms of, generally, thinking that we’re gonna get from here to there in our lifetime or maybe even within a century, right now we don’t see a path for it. So either, it’s as hard as the equations would now predict – and therefore, warp drive probably isn’t gonna happen for a century or maybe more – or, there’s some back door to the Alamo, so to speak, that we can do an end around run and find some lower-energy way of generating things like warp drive and wormholes and so on, that we just haven’t discovered, yet. So, of course, that’s a big issue behind government and aerospace corporation programs, is to try to figure out how these things work and see if there is some unknown shortcut that we could take. So at this point, all I can say, for sure, is…it’s gonna be a century or more. And if it pops up to be usable within our lifetimes, that’s because somebody has really found a magic key to the lock. So, at this point, we don’t see where it will come from.

Q: How about free energy technology, Dr. Puthoff? Do you have any access to free energy technology that would produce the electricity that we could make or refine without paying?

HP: This is a question about…well what about free energy technology? There are a lot of free energy buffs out there. In fact, for a long time, I was one myself, cause I spent a number of years investigating potential applications of zero point energy, so called. And one of the…you might say, attractive aspects as well, is [with] all that energy in the vacuum fluctuations…maybe we can tap some of it. And so, in fact, we even set up a maverick inventor program, in our lab.. And we said…okay, as smart as we think we are, we may not be able to find the answer. But maybe it’s some guy in a garage who doesn’t know enough physics and he does some stupid experiment that no physicist would ever think of doing. And he happens to stumble on…whoa here’s an energy source!

And so, in our maverick inventor program, we put out the word that if you think you’ve got, “a free energy device,” an over-unity, energy source, or whatever, bring it to us. We have this giant, million dollar calorimeter that’s excellent for measuring energy.  And we’ve had people show up from as far away as China to have their devices looked at. I looked at many cold fusion examples that were brought to us and so on, and I’m sorry to say, that even though our investor at the time said, “You know, just find one that works and, you know, we’re all going to be trillionaires here,” the truth of the matter is, our website is a graveyard of dashed and vintage dreams. So, at this point, I haven’t seen any evidence for workable, new “free energy, over-unity, energy device,” even though…

I mean, it’s interesting, for example…vacuum fluctuation energy, put a couple of plates up, electromagnetic energy fluctuating in the vacuum. As it turns out, the modes that can exist between the plates is restricted because after you max the boundary condition, there’s no restrictions on the modes outside the plates. It’ll push the plates together. The so-called Casimir effect. And hey, you got a puff of energy out of the vacuum fluctuations. Whoa! But then what do you do? If you pull the plates apart, you have to put in as much energy as you got. So that’s not the way to go.

I know of one way that I think should be explored and my colleagues and I have worked on it: Bernie Haish and Garret Moddel, and they actually got a patent on it. A very, very difficult experiment to do, circulating hydrogen gas through nano-pores and some possibility of doing something. It’s a very expensive experiment…way out there in terms of the technology you need to do it. So at this point, I have yet to see, even though I’ve had a lot of interest in it, any new energy devices to come out of these new concepts. Sorry to say.

Q: Richard Doty has stated publicly that he worked for you. Can you describe the kind of work he did for you?

HP: This is a question about…Richard Doty has stated on the internet – a very controversial figure as many of you would know – and he stated that he had worked for us for, I guess, over a decade or whatever. That was a period in which we were really investigating all kinds of aspects of the phenomena that I talked about today. And so we had all kinds of consultants. And Richard Doty was one of them. And so, he gathered up information that he could gather up and thought we’d be interested in. But he was like, one of many. And so, even though he’s a very controversial figure out there, we’re not sure if the data he provided…what was the percentage that we could really count on. But hey, we didn’t want to leave any stone unturned, anything that might be hiding under a rock.

So we had several people, and he was one, who consulted with us. And he told us about various sightings and certain aspects of government programs and so on. So, what he says is true and it would be too long to try to go into the data he provided us with. Some if it we evaluated and could verify and some of it we couldn’t verify. Some of it we were pretty sure it might not exactly be the case. But he was a counter-intelligence officer, so that would be okay. because that would be his job (audience laughs). So anyway, we interacted with all levels of people, in and out of the government. So, it’s not surprising that, you know, if we were doing all of this and trying to find out everything we could find out, why would we leave out of our tool kit, somebody who’s making these big claims and was clearly part of a program? So yeah, we worked with him. I happen to like him as an individual, actually. He’s a nice guy.

Q: Well, I want to thank you so much for coming here and giving this presentation. If I understood your methodology right, you took these thirty-five areas and were looking at current expected science in each of those categories. And you found a trajectory in many of them. So, my question would be, do you think human science is on a trajectory of being able to achieve these things, maybe having to integrate them without say…begging for crumbs from some other source? External or (inaudible).

HP: The question had to do with the thirty-eight papers that we commissioned, that gave us looks at all kinds of advanced technologies with our question of  “Where will your area of expertise be by the year 2050, that could make a contribution to aerospace engineering and flight and so on?” And so, a lot of the information that came out of those programs was pretty startling. Some of it was very…quite…originally, quite sensitive and we had to beat up on people and some aerospace corporations. Hal: “Come on, tell me something about plasma physics there for propulsion.” Aerospace individual: “Well I can’t, it’s classified!” Hal: “Well, you know, dig something out!”

So anyway, because these were unclassified papers. So, given the broad span, as you can see in the listing of the thirty-eight areas of new technologies coming along, I think it’s reasonable to think that at some point there will be a fusion that will really, really, really make a big difference. Of course, way back when early people investigating electromagnetic effects, did things, who could have predicted the cell phone? One of the great examples I have, actually was given to me by Steve Justice from Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, who is now a part of TTSA. He said that he found an article in nineteen something or other, years and years ago, saying, well, you know, some day, there will be an Army officer could carry a fifty-pound pack on his back and be able to tell exactly where he is on the surface of the Earth. And that’ll probably happen in ten or fifteen years.  Of course we now all have that in our cell phones. So it’s always the case, that predicting ahead, usually falls short rather than overestimating where you’re gonna get to. So, all I can say, is that given the level of technologies that are being pursued in every area, and that are being pursued with better and better instrumentation – so the product per unit time is actually going up exponentially – I’m certain that within ten, twenty years, or whatever, we’re going to have some amazing technologies that if I were trying to list them right now, any reasonable person would say, “Well, that’s ridiculous. We’re not ever going to get from here to there.” So that’s the point of TTSA and many of the aerospace corporations we work with is…well let’s just plum everything in sight, and see how far and fast we can get.

Q: So warp drive in thirty years?

HP: (laughter) He suggests, warp drive in thirty years. Since I’m living in the present, I would say…not a chance. But thirty years from now, you might look back and say, “What?! You should have known better. Of course we were gonna get it. Why didn’t you say something?”


Q: Are you gonna talk even a little bit about your work with Ingo Swann and remote viewing?

HP: He asked a question about another sordid part of my past (audience laughter). Working with ESP and remote viewing and Ingo Swann and so on. That was really, really quite a deal. There’s an interesting background about all that happened and I should tell you. At the time, I was a very straight-arrow physicist. And in fact, I had just co-authored a textbook while I was at Stanford on Fundamentals of Quantum Electronics, which was a graduate-level textbook published in English, French, Russian, and Chinese.  I was at the top of my game, but one of the things that bothered me and bothered many of my physics colleagues were…well, what about consciousness? What about sentience? Is it still atoms and molecules all the way down and it’s just too complicated for us to figure out? Or are there some additional fields beyond what we know of the four forces and so on?

And so that bugged me. Writing a textbook, didn’t know the answer. It bugs a lot of my colleagues. So I was always on the search for…was there any evidence that there’s other kinds of fields that we don’t know about? You know, we should find out. It was about that time that Cleve Baxter, who is a famous polygraph expert. He taught polygraph to FBI, CIA and law enforcement organizations. And one day, on a lark, he just connected his polygraph up to a plant.

And he saw signals coming out of the plant that looked pretty much like what he sees on people. And so he said, “Well, I think I’m going to threaten the plant like I would a person.” So he got out his matchbook and he saw a big response on the plant. He thought, “Oh my gosh, maybe this means plants are sentient at some level?” So then he started doing experiments where he had a plant here and a plant here. He’d do something to disturb this plant, and this plant would show a signal. And so that was published and I saw that, while I was ruminating over my idea about…are there extra fields or whatever.

So, I said, okay, I’m gonna set up a really cool experiment. One-hundred percent a physics experiment. Nothing to do with remote viewing, nothing to do with ESP, nothing to do psychokinesis. I was just gonna grow some algae culture together, separate the two cultures, zap this one with a laser, and see if that one responded, and measure the velocity of propagation between the two. So I bundled all that up into a proposal and send it off to Cleve Baxter in New York, and said, “Well, what do you think of my idea to try to kind of replicate your effect in a real, high-tech kind of way?” Well, it’s one of those things where your life takes an unbelievable turn based on pure, random coincidence.

It turned out that Cleve Baxter and Ingo Swann, the famous psychic and remote viewer, met at a cocktail party in New York City. And they were talking about what they do. And so Cleve invited him over to his lab to see if he could affect his plants, as the plants would respond to him. While he was there, he saw my proposal on Cleve’s desk. So he wrote me a letter saying, “Well, if you are interested in that sort of borderline between animate and inanimate physics, why do you want to deal with algae culture? They can’t tell you what’s happening. You should be dealing with somebody like me.”

Ordinarily, I mean, I was really, as I say, a straight-arrow physicist, I would have just thrown it out in the garbage. Except, attached to the letter was a big report on an experiment that had been done in City College in New York, where on command, working with Gertrude Schmeidler there, he was able to make the temperature of temperature-measuring devices, that were in thermos bottles on the other side of the lab, go up and down on command. And I said, “Oh my gosh, that’s, you know, that’s physics.” So I decided to invite him out to Stanford Research Institute, where I was at the time. And I told my physics colleagues, “Hey, I’ve got this ‘psychic’ coming.” [Puthoff impersonates his colleagues reacting to a psychic coming] “Oh God. They’re all frauds and charlatans. You know, you better really have a good experiment.”

Well as it turns out, I did have a good experiment.  It turned out that we had a million-dollar whatever, special magnetometer that was being built, that had been built to detect quarks, which are sub-nuclear particles. Anyway, there’s this little quantum chip down inside this device, surrounded by electrical shielding, surrounded by magnetic shielding, surrounded by superconductor shielding. No way that anything from the outside could affect that. So I grabbed him (Ingo Swann) by the arm and took him over there and said, “You know, I sort of have, a kind of a high-tech version of what you did in New York with those temperature measurement devices. I’d want you to see if you can affect this.” So, on command, he puts signals on there that were absolutely, undoubtably effects of what he was doing. And, of course, the graduate student whose life depending on this being imperturbable from the outside, went, “Wait a minute! There must be some bubbles in the liquid helium line. You know, I gotta get rid of that…let me check, let me check. I’m sure that was just some kind of glitch, some kind of coincidence and now it was running fine.”

So I said, “Okay, Ingo, wanna try that again?” He reproduced the same effect. And so, the graduate student again said, “You guys, go get a break, go to the restaurant or something and let’s me find out what’s wrong with my system.” It was running just fine. We came back in. And so, [the graduate student said] “I’m sure you can’t do that again.” [Ingo] did it again. And I’m not talking about a little signal peeking out of the noise. I’m talking about something that generally looks like that and then suddenly [makes a big motion up with his hand and make noises with his mouth]. So, of course, he kicked us out of the lab and said, “I never want you back here again (audience laughs).” The Navy, who had paid for the development of this thing, said, “Well, how did this happen?”

The result of that was that I wrote it up – I know this is a long answer to your question – circulated it around some physics friends, and somebody dropped it on a CIA desk. Suddenly, the CIA descends on my doorstep and they said, “Oh have we been looking for you (audience laughs).” I said, “Why? What did I do?” They said, “Look, Russia and the East Bloc Countries are spending millions of dollars, for years, on ESP research. No scientist in America believes there is such a thing. And yet you did this experiment. We looked into your background and saw that you had all these clearances because you’d been a naval intelligence officer, stationed at NSA, so we knew we could count on talking to you. You’re at SRI, we have lots of black projects here anyway. Why don’t you invite Ingo out here and look into this?

Of course their hope was that I’d invite him out, do some really tough experiments and it wouldn’t work and they could just take this off their plate and never have to worry about it. Well, that’s not what happened and it grew into a twenty-three year, multi-million dollar project, and we ended up…I mean it was a big deal. We trained Army Intelligence Officers to use remote viewing. I briefed all kinds of people, including Bill Casey when he was Reagan’s director of CIA. And directors of DIA. I appeared before Senate Congressional Intelligence Committees and so on. You know, it came out to be a big thing, but it was still all top secret, all wrapped up. But now, it’s all been declassified. You can buy a big book called “The Stargate Chronicles” on the internet and see all of the reports we wrote that I thought would never see the light of day.

All because Ingo Swann did what he did and then showed up at that cocktail party. The thing about Ingo Swann, since you’re interested in him, was he’s very inward looking. He could figure out what he was doing, and so he was able to lay out a procedure for how to accomplish the remote viewing tasks and then we were able to train those with other people. So, he was a real contributor, he was a very smart guy. And by the way, you might think that psychics, they try to take credit for anything? No, he was the hardest guy. If we said, “Well, that looks like that really worked,” if he could find a loophole, he’d say, “Well we’re not gonna count that. If you accept something that’s kind of borderline and that’s got a loophole, then it destroys the credibility of all the other research.” So he was one of the toughest people to accept that there had been an actual result. So I always had great respect for him.

Q: First of all, I just want to say thank you for your prior and continued service to our country. It’s much appreciated. I listen to and follow your colleague. Dr. Eric Davis, quite a bit. And he mentioned very recently that you have an interesting theory on ultraterrestrials, and that there possibly might have been some unpublished material that you have been working on. Can you comment on anything about ultraterrestrial or anything you might have been working on about it?

HP: The question is…you hear from a colleague of mine, Eric Davis, who worked for me. He’s now at the Aerospace Corporation. And he had mentioned that I had written a paper, that’s not been published, but it’s been somewhat circulated, on what I call, ultraterrestrials. As I said, we’re just following the data. And so, I’ve got my colleagues who say, “Oh my god, the aliens are here!” I have Jacques Vallee telling me, “No, these are inter-dimensional,” whatever, whatever. So I decided to write down all options and put it in a paper called “Ultraterrestrials” and circulated it among my colleagues, to say…we can’t overlook anything…we must not come to a conclusion before we looked at every possibility.

So, who knows? Maybe they’re ETs living here…they got stranded here millennia ago. Or maybe there’s some aerospace corporation who’s put all this stuff together and it’s being hidden? Or, maybe it’s aliens? Or maybe it’s…so I listed all possibilities. Maybe it’s time travelers from the future that happen to be showing up? So I put all of the aspects of what it might be, given that we can’t say for sure. And then, what are the elements you would look for to find out if this were true, or this were true, or this were true? So this whole idea of “ultraterrestrials” is something that kind of floats around in the community.  A great book by Mack Tonnies, I think is his name, has a title almost like that.

So anyway, it was just a circulated think piece, to realize…okay, we should quit being reporters and turn into intelligence officers, and go out and seek data instead of just being at the passive end, waiting for the government to tell us what, or waiting for the aliens to tell us what, or whatever.  No, we should turn into policemen, who are searching for clues, and trying to build a case for this possibility, or this possibility or this possibility. And fleshing out those possibilities, you know, if it’s this, well then maybe there are a lot of corporations involved, so we should be looking into their financial structure. Or maybe it’s this, well we should be… So any way, it was a circulated paper which I’m not ready to publish, yet. 


Q: One of the notable characteristics of UAP/AAV that some folks at TTSA talk about, is trans-medium travel. And that being one of the things that differentiates, perhaps, man-made craft from other craft. And I hear folks talking about trans-medium travel from the perspective of air, space, water, but not more solid matter. And I don’t know if I’ve seen or read of many cases of these craft being able to transverse more solid matter. Is that something that TTSA is looking at, and is this perhaps one of the reasons why discussion around UAP is still relatively taboo, in that trans-medium travel and more solid matter could perhaps be dangerous to earth structures, such as earthquake faults, lava pools etc. I don’t know if there’s any comment you can make around that, but it’s an area of curiosity.

HP: This question has to do with the fact that there have been people in general and people within TTSA specifically, who are talking about the apparent observation of craft that can move through any kind of medium. They can be, maybe coming from outer space, and then they’re in our atmosphere, and then they dive into the water. That’s a tough aerospace engineering to try to come to grips with. We do have craft that can kind of go in the water and come out, that are…but you know, not with the kind of characteristics that are being observed. And then she added under that, well what about going into matter? Well, it just turns out that one of the outcomes and the list of weird things, from space-time metric engineering, is that materials under those conditions are so hardened that they’re like made out of diamond or better, and the rest of the world looks like butter. So even going into matter, going high velocity into the water or whatever, is one of the predictions of the modeling.

So, haven’t talked about it specifically. I mean, there there have been some reported cases, but, you know, they came from the public, so you don’t know whether to believe it or not, of craft going (makes fast-moving noise with his mouth and moves his hand quickly from left to right) into mountains and stuff like that, with no explosion. So anyway, that’s all just debris, intellectual debris on the table that we’re trying to put together like a jigsaw puzzle. So there hasn’t been any particular reason not to talk about it, or to talk about it. I mean, the data we have, and if we’re going from the data, that’s where we want to concentrate We don’t have good data on that.  I happen to be personally interested because it’s one of the predictions of the modeling. So anyway, that’s where that stands.

Q: Yeah, I just had a question if whether remote viewing has provided any help in answering questions that you’re asking?

HP: Okay, this is a question that sort of implies, well…since you are involved in all of these sordid areas, have you thought about using remote viewing to try and answer questions about craft and so on? There have been attempts by some of the [participants?]. We started remote viewing programs, Army intelligence and so on. And those people have all now retired from Army intelligence and they’re now out in the public, giving courses on remote viewing. And a number of them have attempted to get answers to questions about UAP, using remote viewing. As far as coming up with something solid, I mean…a couple of times when we had some pretty good evidence of a craft caught under good, national means, sent remote viewers to try to figure out how it was operating, the descriptions were too, we would say, right-brained. I mean, it turns out, remote viewing is very much of a right-brain, artistic kind of thing as opposed to a left-brain, analytical thing. So, attempts to try to figure out technology about it by remote viewers has not been particularly useful. 

A lot of anomalies show up. I mean we had one of our best remote viewers was Pat Price. And in addition to doing all of the wonderful stuff he was doing for us, this will give you an idea of how good a good remote viewer can be. This was during the first four years of Nixon’s presidency. He (Pat Price) came in one morning and he said, “Well, you know, Nixon’s not gonna make it through the second term because there’s something in his office that’s gonna harm him.” Well, we had to report that to the CIA. So they went over there, and they looked for toxic substances, a hidden microwave generator. They couldn’t find anything. Of course we now know, by history, that it was a tape recorder that did him in. When he told us that, we said, “Oh my gosh, that means Spiro Agnew will be president (audience laughs)!” And he says, “No, he goes first.” Well, it turns out he did go first for some type of money laundering scheme or whatever.

And so, you got a guy with that kind of ability, and one day he comes in and says, “Well, I found four UFO bases on the planet. I’ll give you their locations.” Well, I didn’t really want to report that, but I had to. And so, it turns out one of my contract monitors…one of the locations was in Australia, near Mount Zeil. And so, I told my contract monitor, “I got this crazy list of places” and so on. He says, “Well, I know the station keeper in Australia. I’ll call him out there. I’ll won’t tell him why I’m calling but I’ll just see what I can find out.” So he called him up and said, “You know, I’m interested in that area around Mount Zeil.”  And the guy immediately says, “Oh you mean where the UFOs are always flying around?” So, does that mean it might be possible to collect data on UFOs, using remote viewing? Maybe. But I do not know of any actual effort, under good circumstances, with great follow-up, to take advantage of remote viewing in the UAP area. So that’s something left for the future. Any more questions?

Q: So, in regards to your experience with ESP and Project Stargate and all of that and acknowledgment of…this Universe not being just simply a nuts and bolts type of universe but more consciousness things at play…is To The Stars Academy pursuing anything to advance those sciences to utilize that for your development in space travel technology?

HP: So I guess the question really has to do with…specifically about TTSA, are we pursuing…let’s say, advanced physics that might include the more arcane.… 

Questioner interrupts HP

Q: …Since Nicola Tesla says you would advance faster in the next ten years if you focus on simply, that we focus our energy on consciousness rather than just nuts and bolts. Are you guys pursuing realms in that direction?

HP: Right now, we’re not pursuing elements of…he’s wants to know if we are pursuing elements of…well what about consciousness with regard to UAP phenomenon and so on. Are we pursuing anything like that within TTSA? Not particularly, at this point. I know people who are pursuing that kind of thing. In fact, in the absolutely, straight-arrow, quantum physics community – now that we’re digging into things like quantum entanglement and so on – there’s a lot of discussion of…well, is consciousness just an emergent, epiphenomena of our atoms and molecules? Or does consciousness have its own sub-platform on which the physical Universe is built? And so there are real physicists who have really good credentials…they’re actually doing experiments to try to answer questions like that. Because it’s built-in quantum physics that we have non-locality. And it’s built in quantum physics that there is entanglement, or time and space. So there’s a lot of, you might say, the philosophical elements of very straight, academic quantum physics, that are looking into exactly those kinds of issues, of the connection between consciousness and what otherwise we call the physical world. So, if anything comes out of that that looks useful, you can be sure that I and my colleagues at TTSA will try to see if we can take advantage of the knowledge that is being developed. But right now, I don’t know of any one particularly looking into that. Another question, yes?

Q: I know you don’t want to make a leap or anybody wants to make a leap that this is alien technology, but the data you are following, the that evidence you’ve been following, does it indicate more than one type of UAP out there or just the ones we’ve seen on the USS Nimitz?

HP: The question is…is there just sort of one type of UAV or UFO or whatever we see out there, or are there many different kinds? And have we made a connection whether these might be alien or not and so on?  The scattering of options that are absolutely picked up on the best of our military platforms, are all over the map. I don’t know if you have heard, for example, there’s a sphere with a cube inside, dashes between two of our F-18 pilots.  In fact, that’s the event that caused the aviation safety thing to then move to the element of requesting that pilots report their UFO sightings because an aviation safety issue. Not a woo woo issue. And then there’s a tic tac shape. And then there’s really good data on triangles and so on, so. There are a lot of different structures that are reported under good conditions. And so, it isn’t just one kind of thing, for sure. Any other questions?


Q: The bismuth magnesium, you looked at it a long time ago, and you showed a slide on where they are going now, that verified what it could have been produced for. Have you determined where it came from or what it was used for with the help of what the other people have done?

HP: This is a question about the bismuth magnesium sample which is unbelievably complicated and it’s all over the internet with every one from…this comes from a well-known process of…that’s known in…sucking bismuth out of magnesium with mercury. And so that kind of came just off of a factory floor. Versus claims that this definitely did come from an alien crash retrieval and so on.  So the answer is, we don’t, yet, really know where it came from. And it’s true that ten years ago Linda Howe provided us with a sample. And we did a lot of tests. Got electron microscope pictures and irradiated it with various gigahertz frequencies, megahertz frequencies and so on. We couldn’t make anything out of it. So it kind of went on the shelf. And it was only after this paper on meta-materials was published, we said, “Oh my gosh. The claim here, that this could have some real utility as microscopic waveguides, would  actually fit the structure, you know, that we see there.” Okay, well where do we go with that? 

Well, the truth of the matter is, that piece is actually pretty mangled and what you’d really like to do is say, “Okay, well let’s have a nice, clean piece of this, and let’s irradiate with terahertz frequencies, first of all, to see if it really does act as a microscopic waveguide for terahertz frequencies. And then, if that works, we’ll iradiate it with other kinds of fields and see if there are any unexpected responses and so on.” So it is still, despite the fact it gets unbelievable publicity out there, it’s still an absolutely unknown. It does range all the way from…this was a fraud of junk material sent to us, to…no, this came off the wedge of an ET craft.

We don’t know the answer to that, and the only way we are going to get something of value is to determine its properties or maybe reproduce it under nice conditions and determine its properties. So, it is still a giant question mark out there. So even though it’s, you know, it’s like…a few percent of our effort at TTSA, it’s like 99% of our criticisms (laughs). That’s just what you get in this field. That’s the way it goes. Some of us have developed very hard skins. Another question?

Q: Can you say anything about Ingo Swann’s experience EV (I believe he meant RV) on the dark side of the moon?

HP: A question about Ingo Swann and his reporting of being on the Moon. I don’t know if it was on the back side or not. 

Questioner……He’s taking about the book, “Penetration.”

HP: Yes, I know the book in great detail. I didn’t remember that it was on the dark…the back side or the front side or whatever. While we had… it’s exactly as he describes in the book, actually. While we were doing remote viewing, we were getting 20% hit rate, 30%, 40%, 50%. And one day, someone had somehow gotten into his crypto-locked office and left a note on his desk saying, “When you get to 70%, let us know.” And you let us know by some procedure, I forget what it was. And so when he finally got up to that point, he did let whoever said that, know. And so they showed up – and apparently part of some kind of black program – and said, “Now that your remote viewing is that good, we want to use your talents to do some exploration.” So, right out of a movie…meet him in New York City, put a black bag over his head, drive around, go to an underground facility with very military kinds of people.

And they just gave some coordinates because by then we were doing coordinate remote viewing. Realizing that, instead of sending somebody to a site, you could just use coordinates. Explaining that’s a whole nother thing. And so he was getting descriptions and so on that were really strange, because he didn’t realize that they were coordinates on the Moon. And it turned out, his descriptions were matching features of the Moon. And at some point he said, “Am I looking at the moon?” And they agreed that he was. And he was actually shocked by some of the stuff…you can read about it in the book, “Penetration.” So that was some kind of test of whether that could happen. And he had already shown that he had the ability to do remote viewing of remote locations because, before NASA’s flyby of Jupiter, he found thin rings around Jupiter. And we reported them in our book called “Mind-Reach” (Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Abilities (Studies in Consciousness) ahead of NASA getting there. Carl Sagan came by our lab and said, “This stuff he generated, it’s ridiculous. There’s only stuff you can get out of any encyclopedia. He’s got rings around Jupiter. That sounds like Saturn. There are no rings around Jupiter.”

Of course when the probe actually got there, there were rings around Jupiter, very thin. So he was ahead of everybody on that. So, anyway, these people knew about that. And so then, the second thing they did is…some time later they showed up and said, “We wanna to take you to a place up in the north.” He didn’t know where it was, Alaska, Canada or whatever. And they had him there and a UFO came over a lake that they knew was gonna come over at a certain time. How’d they know that? I don’t know. They didn’t want him to say anything about it. He was so scared, he couldn’t say anything about it. Anyway, the book goes with those kind of things.

He didn’t know how to come to grips with that. Even though we were [both] in Top Secret projects, he had to wait ten years before he could tell me that. He waited twelve years because he was really afraid I would really get mad at him for not sharing this. So anyway, I came to my own conclusions about, you know, that he was being tested by people who already knew the answers. They just wanted to see if they were vulnerable to remote viewers. And he insisted, no, no, they were trying to get answers that they didn’t know the answers to. So we never agreed on that. So anyway, that’s a bit of arcana, about a very long story. Do you have questions?

Q: You mentioned about the silo problem and part of your design (inaudible). Do you have any other thoughts about how the silo problem and the (inaudible) so there’s more common knowledge to work on these things?

HP: Okay, his question is about what I raised about how everything’s being sort of compartmentalized or, we say, stove-piped. Is there any way to cut through that? Well in the AATIP program, we were doing our best to cut through that. That’s why we got all those individual thirty-eight papers and then made them available to everyone. And so, behind the scenes, there are efforts to get people talking to each other, all of whom have their little fiefdoms. And so, whether that’s gonna work out, I don’t know the answer to, yet. So, we’re doing our best. Any more questions?

Q: You mentioned the Navy had been around and then you mentioned (inaudible) intel. But you didn’t mention the Air Force. I’m curious if there’s any back story or front story about whether the Air Force has gotten more involved with that because they are a big player…at least historically.

HP: So the question is, given that in my talk, I basically talk about Navy involvement. What about the Air Force? You’d expect the Air Force to be involved. I have my reasons for believing the Air Force is involved but I can’t go into any detail. And most of what’s come out for public consumption is the Navy’s involvement, so I’ll just have to stick with that. 

Q: As Project Blue Book did continue on… (Can’t hear the rest)

HP: I didn’t quite get the question. You said, since Project Blue Book continued. And actually, Project Blue Book, as a named Project Blue Book, didn’t continue. It’s just that other programs were set up, with different names, all over the place. What was the second part of the question? 

Q: Do you know in some capacity, Project Stargate, has continued on in some form, within the government?

HP: Has Project Stargate, the remote viewing program, continued on? Well, if it has, you wouldn’t hear of it. That’s all I can say. Questions?


Q: Going back to AATIP and the current stance that the Pentagon Public Affairs office has about whether or not they’ve studied UAP, there seems to be a lot of confusion going on. Do you see that getting clarified in the near future? Or, is TTSA actively trying to ply the Pentagon with clarifying their statements on what AATIP studied?

HP: The question is about the confusing messages that have come out from the Public Affairs Office in the Pentagon, who don’t have the clearances to know exactly what’s going on in AATIP or follow on programs. Is there going to be any clarification of that? For example, when Lue Elizondo described his position, at one point, the Pentagon said, “Well, we don’t know that he was involved in this program or that AATIP was involved with UFOs.” And so that caused a lot of problems for Lue Elizondo, who’s an absolute hero. If I could give you a list of stuff he’s has done in the intelligence world, you’d know what a hero he was.

And then they changed their mind and originally said that the videotapes of the F-18 didn’t really came out of the Pentagon or they weren’t officially approved for release. Then they changed their mind and said, “Okay, yeah. He was in the program.” The clarification is not coming forward very cleanly and so there’s a lot of work behind the scenes. As long as the story out there is so confused, that might be good for some people to get this off their radar. But you know, it’s not right and so, TTSA, and my colleagues. are doing a lot behind the scenes, speaking to people to try to clean it up, so they get a nice, clean statement.

They finally came out with a clean statement to say, “Yeah, these videos are official, and what’s in the videos, really is unidentified.”  So, we’re making progress, but there’s a lot more clarification that could, and I think, will come. Because now that the profile is so high, they’re drowning in FOIA requests. And they’re having to deal with them. And it sends them off into the bowels of the Pentagon and the intelligence community to try and get some answers. Good luck. So anyway, I think in a matter of time, things will get clarified, but it’s really a slow process and poor Lue Elizondo has really been suffering under it, so. Gotta say.

Q: Ben Rich, now deceased, who was the head of Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, right? I’m sure you know all about it. He’s on the record saying that we now have the technology to take ET home, and we now have the technology to travel to the stars and back. I’m just curious about your thoughts on those comments that he made. 

HP: He’s repeating a well known…actually it was from a presentation that Ben Rich, who was head of Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, gave shortly before his death to an engineering group at some university in Southern California. And he was talking about all the advances in aerospace and how he developed stealth and so on. And as he got toward the end of his set of slides, he ended up with a slide of what looks like an ET craft taking off into the stars. And so, Jan Harzan, who is actually director of MUFON, after the talk was over, cornered him and said, “Well, you know,…is this…what can you tell me? Do you guys really have all this going together?” And so, I guess, maybe it was even in his talk, he said, “You know, we now have the technology to take ET home.” And so on.

And so, a lot of questions, in fact by me and everybody in this field. Was he exaggerating? Was he really trying to tell us something? Or is he just generating interest in the future? And so, whether what he was saying, you know, we have the technology to take ET home and it’s not as hard as you would think it would be. Statements like that. Coming from a guy who’s head of the Skunk Works…really hard to discount it. 

On the other hand, as we go digging for evidence and, you know, people at Skunk Works. I mean, I’ve had contracts with Skunk Works, and we keep digging. Really can’t find out why he said that. So either it was somewhat of an exaggeration and just kind of a blueprint for the future. Or, it is so buried that even people who you think would know, don’t know. So I don’t know the answer to that question: “How should I take Ben Rich’s comments? Seriously or not?” I just keep digging on the off chance that he might have been telling it like it is. But until I find data, or my colleagues find data, it’s just, again…it’s one of those things in the gray box, on the shelf.

Q: Do we know of anything the Russians are doing, comparable to what you’re presenting?

HP: Oh, they are looking like mad at the whole subject area, just like we are. I think I showed one slide, which was the 1991 report that’s that thick (holds his hands apart and shows about five inches thick) of all the things they were trying to figure out. I mean, both the U.S. and the Russians have a similar problem. And that is that UFOs have come over our nuclear missile silos and turned them off so that we can’t launch. Well, it turns out, there’s a case in Russia which is even worse than that. A UFO came over and the missile silo got turned on and started the launch code sequence. And they couldn’t turn it off, they couldn’t control it. They thought they were about ready to start WWIII. And when it got up to sort of the last element of the launch, it stopped.

They took that thing apart, nut by bolt, to try to figure out how could this even happen in principle. Similarly, in our case, all the contractors who built all the control equipment, were called in to figure out how this could even happen in principle. So yes, the Russians are concerned, just like we’re concerned, cause they’re gathering data, just like we’re gathering data. They have evidence, just like we have evidence. They have their AATIP teams, just like we have our AATIP teams. So, they have less openness. I mean, TTSA has really kind of out in the front of being relatively open about what’s going on. I have not seen that in the Soviet Union. But you can be sure that they’re involved, just as we’re involved.

Q: Do you have any opinion or insight into what the Internet is talking about…Antarctica, that Secretary Kerry went there, that the Pope’s been there? That…I believe it was Buzz Aldrin, I’m not sure of the astronaut that went there. Do you have any opinions that?

HP: This is a question is about something that has been floating around on the Internet about something magical happening in Antarctica. And Senator Kerry went to investigate it and other things. Some astronauts and so on. I have not been able to tell… I don’t have any evidence, I don’t have any opinion, because I base my opinions only on what I can verify. And so, I have not seen any actual evidence of some strange ET or Nazi, or whatever thing going on in Antarctica.  So, to me, I have it in my file about conspiracy theories that I’m not accepting as worth spending any time thinking about. I don’t actually have any data. So I don’t have an opinion. I only follow the data.

John, is it okay if we keep going with this?

John Petersen: Yeah, if you want to. 

Q: Richard Dolan calls the Wilson Documents…the Wilson document leak, the leak of the century. Can I get a comment on the Wilson Documents?

HP: This is a question about the Wilson Documents that apparently got leaked on the internet. Admiral Wilson, who was one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff interviewed by my senior scientist colleague, Eric Davis. Since it discusses potentially, ongoing programs, I have no comment. 

Q: Back in early 2018, you had done an interview with George Knapp. And it was just an hour interview so I know time was really short. And in it, you really, briefly discussed – and I’m gonna have to paraphrase – that there was a document that was leaked that pertained to crashes or crash retrievals. And I think you’d said something like…you didn’t know or you would never know how this got released. For some of us that are like, keenly interested in that area, can you give us any hints that point to that document, or where to look, since it is leaked and it is out? I wouldn’t ask you to reveal anything that is still classified. 

HP: This is a question about a discussion, in fact, I guess I even mentioned it on an interview with George Knapp, about a document leaking…that verified that there were in fact crash retrievals. I know it’s out there on the Internet some place. I’m not sure where. And so, I don’t know where you could go look for it. 

Questioner: Fair enough. 

Q: On a follow up to my question about Richard Doty, you said that during that time you had hired or used a number of consultants. Was that part of the AATIP program? 

HP: The question was…when I had Richard Doty as a consultant some years ago, was that part of the AATIP program?  No, this was on another program before AATIP.

Q: I have a real quick question, real quick. Are you familiar with Dan Sherman and Project Preserve Destiny, and his book “Above Black“? Do you give any credence to that? And do you know anything about that? 

HP: This is a question about Dan Sherman’s book, what is it called, “Above Black,” or something like that? About his experiences being involved with ET communication as part of a super, secret program and so on. I don’t have any evidence for it. I don’t have any opinion of it. Some of what was described didn’t quite gel with things I knew about in the general “psychic” realm of government investigation. So I’ve been kind of skeptical. But, you know, can I say for sure, or not for sure, was there something to that? I have no way of judging.

Q: You said, ultraterrestrial…that you’re looking at all these different options. And then one was a private organization for some other space program that could have designed these objects. So theoretically, somebody out there could have reverse engineered the technology of UFOs and is using them. Theoretically.

HP: Her question has to do with the fact that I mentioned under the ultraterrestrial hypothesis, that I had formed, that maybe there’s some group out there that in fact has been successful in reverse engineering, or even inventing from scratch, those kinds of exotic craft. Well, that’s got to be on the table as an option, as a possibility. My point in bringing it up in that paper was to say, “Okay, well if that’s a possibility, what would be the clues that we could find out there?” You know? I mean, if somebody’s building really magical craft, they still have to order their nuts and bolts from Home Depot or something. It should be possible to follow some lines and so on. So that was an example, one example of…okay, if that’s an option, if that’s a possibility, how would we be able to find out? What investigatory tools should we use? What paths should we follow to see if we can find evidence for that?

We can’t rule out the possibility that some terrestrial organization, who knows, back in the Middle Ages, accidentally discovered antigravity or something, and now they’re off in some mountain hideout in the Himalayas or something, building these craft. So, you can’t…I’m not ready to rule out anything. Also, I want you to know that even though that sounds like my mind is so open, my brains are falling out, the truth of the matter is, I’m very skeptical. Because just knowing the physics, I can’t imagine that somebody has done that, purely…ground up. And I have yet to see evidence in the official literature that I’m exposed to, even at high levels, that successful reverse-engineering has occurred. So, all that just stays in my gray box at this point.

Q: The other question is I heard that Nixon left a time capsule or a letter hidden in the White House, that was to be opened in 2020, that has to do with alternative energy or a UFO energy, and has not been found. Have not remote viewers been used to find it?

HP: This is a question about one of the things that’s been floating out. In fact, I even know the program you’re talking about…that Nixon left some secret document, when he left, talking about UFOs or ETs or what he knew or whatever. And the document has not been found. And could remote viewers be used to find the document and so on? I don’t know what to make of that, whether there’s any validity to the story. Generally speaking, it’s difficult for remote viewers to find hidden things. You can give the coordinates and they can get there, but it’s like they are dropped in on a parachute and they have no idea where they are. But when you do it the other way, and that is…we’ll tell you exactly what we’re looking for…can you find it? That’s a much tougher avenue with remote viewing.

It has worked, in fact Jimmy Carter revealed a result that we thought…we were told, would never be revealed. And that is…a Soviet plane was being flown out of Libya to be turned over to us, and apparently, the pilot got cold feet, he said, “The KGB’s gonna hunt me down the rest of my life.” So he just bailed out. He just decided to change his mind and let it crash somewhere in Africa, when it ran out of fuel. And nobody could find it with the satellites because it crashed into jungle canopy, likely. And so the satellites couldn’t find it. So when things get really tough, Stan Turner, who was Carter’s head of CIA, came to us and said, “Can your “remote viewers” find this plane? We want to find it before the Russians do.” And so we put two of our best remote viewers on it. One from the Air Force, one from our own: SRI. And they described where it was and put an X on a map, which was within two miles. And this was over hundreds of thousands of square miles, on a map, within two miles of where the plane was in the jungle.

So the CIA folks run in and get the plane, which we got. And so that was a case of a successful finding something, that was hidden. We were told that that would never be revealed. But then after Carter was out of office, he was talking to a group at a university in Georgia, and somebody said, “What do you think was kind of weird and strange happened while you were president?” And he said, “Yeah! You know, a Soviet bomber went down in Africa and we had to turn to psychics to find it (audience laugs). There’s actually a videotaped interview of him actually describing that event. But any way, finding stuff, especially you wanna use your resource to find something that just comes out of a conspiracy theory that may not even be true, we just don’t go there.

Thanks. Alright. I’m sure I told you a lot more than I should have. I hope we can edit this (laughs).


John Peterson: I have one more final question for you. The last time I heard your name on the Internet, Steven Greer was pitching his movie that’s coming out and he said that you had told him that there were some anti-gravity or…

HP: Anti-energy.

Q: Anti-energy devices or something, and he had asked you why you didn’t make them public. And you said that they would murder your kids and your wife and probably you, if you said. Why did you say that (JP laughs as Puthoff smiles)?

HP: I didn’t say that (audience laughter). I didn’t say that! Most of…I mean, it really ruins my appreciation for the media in general, because most times when I find something in there about me, it’s not true. So, I’m wondering, is that the case with everything I’m reading here? Anyway, no, I did not tell Steve Greer that if anything were released, if I were to release anything, I and my family would be murdered. Never said it. Never even thought it. So, there you go.

Petersen: Thanks for clearing that up (both smiling and laughing).



, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *