Cosmic Disclosure: Viewer Questions Part 1

Season 2, Episode 13

admin    28 Dec 2015


DW: All right, welcome to "Cosmic Disclosure." I'm your host, David Wilcock. I'm here with Corey Goode, and we are discussing the Secret Space Program. And in this episode I have a printout of questions that you've submitted in the comment forums in the areas that we have at the bottom of each episode. We are reading them. We are interested in what you have to say, and we do want to try to keep this as a community discussion and not just as something that is relegated to whatever I can think of to ask him in any particular episode.
So this is kind of a grab bag. We're going to have a series of different things to discuss, and we'll see where it goes. So Corey, welcome to the show.

CG: Thank you.

DW: OK, so the first question we have is from banjoman1437. When they say that our local star cluster is emerging into a higher vibrational place, do they mean that physically our star cluster is emerging into a part of the galaxy where there are inherent higher vibrations? Or do they mean that we are ascending from third and fourth densities to fifth and sixth, which would be more of a holographic approach to the sense of place and location?

CG: That was quite a loaded question. But what I have discussed is yes, from the center of the galaxy there are constantly a whole array of rays, different types of energies that are constantly ebbing and flowing from the center of the galaxy that are buffeting the Earth and the solar system.

DW: The conventional science says the center of the galaxy is a black hole, but then you can't see it. They say, oh, it's hiding behind that giant star cluster in the middle.

CG: Right. But as we know, the galaxy is a giant torsion field. And it has pretty much an ecliptic plane with part of the field, like a north and south, different fields turning in different directions.

DW: Counter-rotating.

CG: Counter-rotating.

DW: Well now, I did document in "The Source Field" book that there are actually two types of stars in the galaxy, and that they do counter-rotate. There's one type that's going clockwise, and the other type's going counterclockwise. And science acknowledges that, but then they never explain why that's happening or what that is. So that validates what you're saying. It's not like this is something you can only hear about in the Space Program.

CG: Right. A lot of this information is out there on the internet. And we're rotating around, inside this giant torsion field, our solar system and local star cluster, as they mentioned. And we're entering in a different part of our galaxy, and we have been since at least the 1930s, that have clouds of high density, high energetic particles. And when we're getting deeper and deeper into these bands of giant nebula-type clouds of high energy particles and as our stars' field interacts with those energies, it's bringing those energies into the star through its torsion field energy field, and that energy feeds out through the planet's feedback through the cosmic web effect that we've discussed.

DW: Right.

CG: So I hope that somewhat answers the question.

DW: Now, you also said in the interview that you did with "In5D," Greg Prescott, that the people in the Space Program had gone out and sampled that cloud. So could you tell us that story because that has never been put on the show? And I was blown away when you said that.

CG: They for a long time had been flying interstellar vessels out to do telemetry on these clouds, the larger, more energetic ones that we're heading towards. And in doing so they learned a lot about the spectrums of them, the information about them, and they had some incidents of the craft people having bad things happening to the people. I'm not exactly sure what all happened to them.

DW: So they flew into the cloud?

CG: I think the field of the cloud, them just being close enough to the cloud. They weren't shielded like we would be on Earth and in our solar system with the protective fields we have around us.

DW: I do want to point out that NASA has openly acknowledged that we're moving into something they call "local fluff," which is cloudy. So they've acknowledged it, but they don't ever say that it's going to do anything.

CG: And we've been moving into small ribbons of it since at least the '30s.

DW: Right. So people get into the energy fields, and then they have behavioral problems?

CG: Behavioral and psychotic problems.

DW: Really?

CG: Right. And they were even testing these frequencies and energy fields that they were encountering, and these cloud ribbons that we're heading into on unsuspecting people on research vessels, and also certain stations that they had that they were doing testing. They would tell people they were doing one thing while secretly, unbeknownst to them, exposing them to the energy.

DW: Very unethical stuff.

CG: Oh yeah.

DW: You had said in the radio show that people would be zapped with this. They'd create a semblance of the energy, a simulacra of it, in the lab and zap people in the lab?

CG: Yeah.

DW: And what happened to those people?

CG: It would mostly depend on the-- it varied on the polarity of the person, what kind of a person they were. If they were one of those soldier psychotic types, they would have a psychotic breakdown. If they had underlying mental illness problems, they would become pronounced.

DW: To address the rest of banjoman's question here, why does everybody want to skip over fourth density and jump right to five? We're in third now. You don't get to hopscotch two at a time. Why do people say 5D all the time? What do you think is going on there?

CG: How do we know how it works, to be honest?

DW: So did you hear terms like the fourth, fifth density in the Space Program?

CG: Yes.

DW: You did?

CG: Yeah. We could be transitional right now. We could be third, fourth density right now. A lot of it depends on belief systems and that kind of a thing. When you start talking about what density we're going into, how it's going to happen-- when it comes down to it, we really don't know. We're just going to have to ride the ride and see what happens.

DW: So the core of the question was, is this sort of a holographic thing that doesn't matter where you're positioned, or is it position dependent? And you're saying that based on everything that you heard, it is position dependent. We are moving into a physical location of fluffy energy clouds.

CG: That is what is occurring locally with us right now.

DW: OK, cool. The next one that we have is from dumitru, D-U-M-I-T-R-U. How will we know when these high-energy waves are hitting the planet?

CG: Well, like I said, they've been hitting the solar system since at least the '30s. So they're hitting. They've been hitting. And they come in sort of waves or patches.

DW: Would there be an observable solar effect, like a solar coronal mass ejection or solar particle emissions-- that kind of stuff?

CG: I'm told that there are things that are observable from the sun that are energetic but are not something that you're going to see in SOHO data. But on the Earth, for us, I would suggest being a people watcher. You're going to feel it yourself. People around you, you can tell by the way they're acting. But as a synergy has come in, I mean, I've seen people that have become triggered in different ways and people that are showing their polarity, showing what they're made of, more than any other time.

DW: And remember, gravity was working just fine before the apple fell on Newton's head and he said, oh, there must be a force doing that. You don't see anything coming out of a magnet when it's going to go stick onto the refrigerator. So these are energetic waves. It's not like maybe in his mind he was wondering if there was some sort of starry-looking clouds of energy that just starts sprinkling into the atmosphere.

CG: Well, at some point it's expected to be so strong there will be like aurora borealis, the peak of it.

DW: The big surge could have a very detrimental effect on the electrical grid.

CG: Right.

DW: Were there plans within the Space Program? Were they expecting that electricity would not be functioning the way that it does now, that machines would have to be redone after this shift takes place?

CG: Yes. Some operational stuff they plan on taking an advantage of that time period for several things.

DW: Right on. We pretty much answered this. The diffusion thing, I think, is just a way of him saying, is it going to look like something or not? And it's mostly invisible up until the big moment. OK, now we have susan onbay. And this is controversial. When the astronauts actually landed on the moon in 1969, didn't they see any signs of other life on the moon if it was so inhabited at that time? Did Neil Armstrong know that something was going on, or did he go to his grave believing that he was the first man to step on the moon?
Now, there's a lot of stuff that she might not be aware of that others have done to help answer that question. But again, the focus here is on what you know personally, what you encountered personally, in your days in the Space Program and with the Alliance now.

CG: I don't know what these astronauts knew. It has always been from the beginning, and even now, common for astronauts to be blank slated.

DW: Really? Even NASA astronauts were getting blankslated?

CG: Yeah.

DW: Really?

CG: So there might be stuff that some of them have--

DW: And for those who don't know what blankslating is, could you just briefly explain?

CG: They used to do it through chemicals, but now they can do it electronically with fields-- affect your memory and give you a screen memory.


CG: I can't really speak for what they remember.

DW: Well, let's toss out a couple data points. Number one, Neil Armstrong totally shunned public appearances-- did not want to go talk to any crowds. There are quotes of him saying that he felt like they were all used, that they were duped. He became a severe alcoholic. He basically drank himself to death. And there are reports that he saw a domed or rounded craft on the edge of a crater when they had the first Apollo landing and he was the first one to walk out there, and that he was basically saying, somebody else has been here before us. So did you ever hear about that in your work on the inside, that event?

CG: Well, yeah. I heard that the astronauts did go up to the moon, that they didn't pick a good place to land.
It's a very diplomatically split up piece of real estate. They further angered people when they smashed a command module or something into the moon like a missile, and they were asked not to come back.

DW: Really?

CG: That's what I read and was told. I don't know if all of the landings really happened or if they did a landing, screwed it up so bad. But they continued to do fly arounds, and there definitely were quite a bit of photographs and reports of what they photographed on the surface of the moon.

DW: Well, there's a lot of data. And obviously, this is not really your bailiwick as much as others who have studied this, but the astronauts had a code apparently that was "Santa Claus" for extraterrestrial activity. And they come around the backside of the moon and they go back into radio range, and then they say, ladies and gentlemen of America, I am happy to announce that there is a Santa Claus. And that was live, and it really kind of freaked people out. Why did he say that? What's going on there?

CG: All astronauts have seen something flying around out in space.

DW: Our director, Jay Weidner, he is sort of the Grand Poobah of lunar landing hoax. And his evidence is absolutely compelling, that there was apparently a set also built in which it could appear that they were on the moon but they really weren't. And it appears that the director Stanley Kubrick was involved with that after his work in the movie "2001." Did you encounter any direct knowledge about that, that they had the opportunity to do a set as well as landing on the actual moon?

CG: I know they landed on the moon, but I wouldn't put it past them at all. They do that type of Hollywood deception kind of stuff, even up until present time. It wouldn't surprise me.

DW: Well, the insider Henry Deacon, who has incredible amounts of overlap with his Space Program background as yours, although you seem to have experienced aspects of it that he never came in contact with, he did tell me that they built a set on Earth as well as doing the actual moon missions because they were in a race with the Russians to get to the moon. They did not want it to fail. They had to fake that it succeeded, even if it did fail, so they wouldn't lose that publicity war.
And he also said that the radiation was spiking so much on the moon's surface that a lot of the footage that they tried to shoot out there was unusable because the radiation would overexpose the film. So by having a set that was local here on Earth, they could conveniently mock up what was happening out there. So we do have insider testimony that I've personally had-- I've vetted out these people's credentials-- confirming that the moon landings did happen, and that they were faked. And this is one of the things that skeptics have attacked Jay for, which is not fair. He's not saying that nobody landed on the moon. It was both. That appears to be what happened.

CG: I would buy that. I would at least look at it closely.

DW:: Well, it's the government, right? They always want to have a backup plan. They don't want to be embarrassed. They didn't know if this was going to work. They're sending these guys up there with crappy technology that was way behind what they were actually using. And let's not forget that NASA, in the 1957 charter-- this is the Richard C. Hoagland stuff now-- NASA was chartered as a defense agency in the United States government that could classify information deemed inimical to national security.

CG: All images go through the NSA before they hit us.

DW: That I did not know. All right, the next question is from a user named-- well, this is probably not his real name-- manticore. And here we go. Corey, you mentioned that the Lunar Operations Command, or LOC, may have been started by the Nazis during World War II. I think it was actually pre-World War II. I'm curious, if they developed the ability to travel to the moon during World War II, wouldn't they have had the technology to win the war? Putting it differently, how could they have developed the technology to travel to the moon, or were they helped by the Alliance or some other group?
Well, those are really two different questions, so let's come back to the second one. We'll start with the first one, which would be if the Nazis developed the ability to travel to the moon during World War II, wouldn't they have also had the technology to win World War II?

CG: Well, you can look at it two ways. Maybe they just changed tactics, and they did win World War II.

DW: Depending on how you look at it.

CG: They went to a high-tech, instead of a blunt force war of attrition that they were losing, and moving into a horrific technological war. They developed high technology, a breakaway civilization that was mostly made up of secret societies that predated the Nazis hundreds of years at least. And these societies later on infiltrated the West and took over the military-industrial complex-- later on took over the governments and the banking anyway. So I really don't see how they lost in the end.

DW: Wouldn't you also argue that if they used this advanced technology in the war too much, it would tip off to the world that they had it, which could then compromise their operational security?

CG: Yes. And they had developed a breakaway civilization that they were wanting to keep secret, and they also had an interest in keeping things status quo, keeping the Babylonian money magic system in place, being able to manipulate the world as it was while they had their own breakaway civilization that had advanced technology. And they had high plans on colonizing the solar system, and they needed the industrial might of the West. So they found a way of making their enemy their tool.

DW: Wouldn't you also say that it's almost like a magic trick, where the magician has his hand up here, but at the same time he's reached into his pocket for the next trick?

CG: Diversion.

DW: It appears that they lost, but hey, they've got this awesome base in Antarctica. They've got this awesome base on the moon. They're starting to build awesome bases on Mars. So did they really lose in their mind, if they have these platforms to work off of?

OK, so let's go to the second part of the question then. To put it differently, how could they have developed the technology to travel to the moon, or were they helped by the Alliance-- which didn't really exist at that point-- or some other group?

CG: The Germans were brilliant and already well ahead, and their scientists weren't doing what the Western scientists were. A lot of their scientists were from the Thule Society and these other groups, and they didn't rule out the supernatural and only stick to the quantifiable, like Western science does. And they were getting better results. Not only that, they were doing major expeditions because they believed in ancient aliens and ancient civilizations of Earth that were advanced and had advanced technology, and they were looking seriously into that past and were finding manuscripts that gave detailed information on how to reconstruct that technology. So they were getting pretty far on their own.

DW: Well, apparently they didn't just believe in inner Earth civilizations. They made contact with them, which we've discussed.

CG: Right. They were also doing quite a bit of, a lot of people call it channeling, but they were doing a lot of broadcasting out into the cosmos, trying to make contact with beings. And they did make contact with inner Earth beings and some of these negative non-terrestrial beings, and they received help from both.

DW: Let's take the next question. And this is from alisback. I would like to know where these people came from that are in these colonies. Are these all the people that were on the side of milk cartons?


CG: Most of these people have been on these colonies for generations now. There were, what we've talked about, the brain drain that occurred across the world, where they took scientists, engineers-- people from all everything that you would need to have a new society colony-- offered them positions, and in some cases, just took them. There were a couple waves.

DW: Well, Peterson's data was that it started in the 1950s and that in those early years, '50s and '60s, it amounted to 60 million people, and that they cherry-picked the best and the brightest scientific minds from all the different nations of the world, and these people were just told they were going abroad. And they also seemed to preferentially pick people who had very few friends or social interactions. You'd have to write a bunch of postcards before you went, and then they'd send them out over an interval of several years' time so that people got the sense that you were gradually fading out of contact with them.

CG: Right. And this brain drain happened in waves.

DW: Right.

CG: And not only that, there were people that in Common Era that were just being approached and told, hey, we've got this job. It's a great honor to be offered this. You can help save the world-- either that, or that something's about to happen to the planet. You can save your family by moving to one of these colonies. Here's kind of like a brochure kind of thing. It looks like "The Jetsons." It looks wonderful, utopic. But when they arrive there, it's a totally different reality.

DW: Well, if people have seen the Mars colony inspection episodes, remember where that guy asked you where you were from who was up at the colony. You said Texas, and why was that so shocking to them?

CG: Well, because that colony had been told that the world had suffered a cataclysm, and the surface was not survivable. And not only did I say I was from Texas, but I had a sunburn, and I smelled like aloe, and I didn't smell right. I didn't smell like someone that had lived on a colony or lived on a vessel or out in space. I smelled totally foreign to them.

DW: To get to the other part of the question then, he's kind of digging for, are these people that are going missing-- are they being abducted? Are they dying? But all these missing people each year that are showing up on the milk cartons, are there people being pulled into the Space Program that way, where it's involuntary conscription and abduction, and then they just get stuck up there?

CG: That is occurring. Also, we've discussed the more disturbing aspect of approximately a million people going missing on the Earth every year that are used in interstellar slave trade system that is pretty disturbing that our own people are taking part in.

DW: Somebody might want me to ask this, which we haven't quite gotten to-- are they also recruiting people now? Are they pulling people out of the military?

CG: They're still recruiting people from the military.

DW: But there are still people getting pulled in now, both on this sort of captive level as well as on an official invitation level?

CG: Right, a lot of people in the Air Force and Navy are being invited, even in some of these 20-and-back programs.

DW: Right. OK, cool. Now we've got sylviepollard. Is it possible to still see suns-- i.e., stars-- when you're out in space away from any atmospheres of a planet or a biosphere?

CG: Yes, just like our satellites that are telescopes are able to see stars. Yeah, you can see stars.

DW: I guess what she's referring to is that there was some speculation, maybe in the alternative community, that the atmosphere was actually causing stars to be visible, and that the visible light only activated when it hit atmosphere. So that's not actually the case?

CG: No.

DW: OK. OK, mikepatterson2, if the replicators can make gold, silver, or $100 bills, then what is the point of mining asteroids, mining the moon, et cetera? Well, they've got a replicator called the Federal Reserve, right? They can make as many $100 bills as they want.

CG: They've got different types of replicators. They've got the food replicators and material replicators.


CG: And the material replicators can replicate small amounts of minerals and different types of things like that. And even if you wanted to, a complex thing like a $100 bill, if you wanted to have a $100 bill in your pocket during a time when you don't need money. But it is not really feasible to replicate large amounts of cubic tons of these not just gold but of all these different minerals that they need to then take and put through the process of creating all these different technologies that they trade and sell to other secret space programs and societies.

DW: One of the insiders from Dr. Steven Greer's original disclosure project, "The 39 Witnesses," was a guy who talked about particalization. And that was the term that he was told that they used for this replicator technology. And the use of that term implies that you are essentially molecularly assembling. You're assembling at a quantum level. Is that why you're saying that, other than small amounts, it starts to become infeasible?

CG: It's not practical. I mean, if you need 3,000 metric tons of palladium for a certain part and it's in a meteor, with the technology they have, automated technology, they can go take it out and then just transport it to where it's needed. When the material replicators-- you're going to be producing very small amounts. It's just an industrial--

DW: Well, you seem to understand that. But I don't know if we do. Why are there only small amounts? Where is it drawing from to create matter, first of all? Do you have to put in some kind of base material similar to like in "Back to the Future," where they were dumping banana peels into the core of the car, that kind of thing?

CG: No. It's creating matter out of energy, just like our sun. Our sun is a giant replicator. It's taking energy that's coming at it from not only within the cosmic web but from the cosmos, and that energy is interacting with its field and it is creating base minerals and chemicals that are coming out of it.

DW: Like the expanding Earth hypothesis, where you can take away the oceans and shrink the continents down and they all fit together into a globe that's only 55% of its current size?

CG: The sun is producing steam, which is water.

DW: Right.

CG: How does it? The sun is producing steam, which becomes water? I mean, the sun is a giant replicator. And it's taking background energy of the cosmos, and it's converting it into matter. So it's converting energy into matter is all this is doing.

DW: Somebody would counter, well then, why couldn't you just build a bigger replicator? And if you make it large enough, then you should be able to generate large amounts of material quickly and easily.

CG: You can produce larger replicators, I'm sure, to produce larger amounts of materials. But it has just been more practical for them for the long-term to mine the asteroid belt. It's something they've been doing for a very long time. It's been very lucrative. It's paid for itself. It's done autonomously, remotely. Only a few people have to be at one of these mining stations to manage all of the remote equipment, and it's transported where it needs to go.

DW: Well, I want to bring up something that Jacob also said that was relevant to this question, the Space Program insider who I was in contact with for several years. He said that you can make gold in a replicator, but part of what the Draco really want with the gold is that there are actually some 200 properties of gold and how they can use it for all kinds of weird advanced technology, including healing stuff and other stuff, and that where the gold forms on the Earth has a tremendous effect on its energetic properties and what you can use it for, that it is literally impregnated with the energy of the Earth's grid. And you do not get that type of stuff if you make it in a replicator. Have you heard anything about energetic properties of materials where the natural stuff is better than the stuff you can make in the replicator?

CG: I've heard that the gold and minerals that were mined in the asteroid belt had the exact same energetic properties of that of Earth. But I had not heard that type of information.

DW: OK. So the next question we have is from camareneo. So if there are all these different types of human extraterrestrials, then are they all in a conference room with you? And if so, I wonder how they are all able to breathe the same air.

CG: All of these different groups, I'm sure, breathe different types of air of different environments. But these groups are not flying from another star system for these meetings. They have embassies on our planet and in our solar system. So they, I would imagine, are acclimated here or have some sort of high technological workaround for it.
At one meeting, when there were new beings that we didn't even know were here, there were aquatic-type beings that you would think breathe only underwater that were present. Is there anything further, or are we at the end?

DW: We're at the end, and that's your questions for Corey Goode here on "Cosmic Disclosure."

CG: I enjoyed answering the questions.

DW: Yeah. This has been fun. And as always, we thank you for watching.

Usage Policy: Please post 1/3 of this article and a link back to this page for the remainder of the article. Other portions can be quoted from. It would be appreciated if all those who re-post this information would follow this standard.