Colin Andrews talks about crop circles and his life

Colin was a special guest with Dr. Lynne Kitei at Steven Greer’s Rio Rico, Arizona CE-5 event. His lecture was informative, as well as inspiring, and I wanted to deepen the discussion of a phenomenon that I long to better understand. His contribution to the field is immense. He is one of the most spiritual people I have met. I came to find out that he had an ET experience as a child, which affected his life and his work forever. It all fits. It is slowly all coming together. These are truly transformational experiences.

November 2009

PH: Would you consider this a hobby? You were doing this other job, in management.

CA: I had already reached a senior level of management in a department of 200 people under me. In 1983, that’s over three decades ago now, I was on my way to a meeting. As I was driving, I was thinking about the agenda of the meeting, and I looked to my left and down, and I saw a set of five circles. I’d never heard of anything like it, nor anybody else, pretty well. So I looked again, into this virgin field of golden wheat, blowing around in the wind, on the high ground, very advantageous position. I couldn’t imagine why anybody would do that. I can’t say this in general terms, because it sets people off on the wrong path, I think. But I looked at that and thought, “What beauty!” There were no tracks, no marks whatsoever, no marks in, no marks out. I was late for my meeting because I parked and walked out into the field. Once you’re on level ground, you kind of get a jolt to see, what you’ve just seen clearly, where it is. I had to go across the virgin standing plants to get in the first circle, and there were no marks. Nothing there, no tracks in or out. I made inquiries. I had an advantageous position, I had access to government departments, and I phoned the local police in our area to ask what they knew about it. I spoke with that farmer, and he said that that had been there for many years. Interesting. I eventually got one from a farmer who had been there at Chapel, who said in their diary in 1923-24, there were circles then. So I got immediately that this wasn’t something that just happened, this was history. I saw Pat Delgado, who at that time had just resigned from the Mariner project at NASA, where he had been a design engineer.

PH: Okay, this was in America though.

CA: I know. Pat was based at the Mariner tracking station in Australia. He just passed away short while ago.

PH: This base that you just named is right near Stonehenge, isn’t it?

CA: Yes. That’s how it all began. So I mixed these two. It captivated me immediately, because I’m an engineer. I looked at this, I stood there myself, and the very first formation that I saw, and I couldn’t decipher it. It was clearly cut, like a cookie cutter from above.

PH: Did you look at it as, I’ve got to do my regular job, and this is going to be my hobby?

CA: Yes, that’s how it started.

PH: But then when you became an authority and a researcher, how could you combine both of them?

CA: I had no home life, hence my divorce. It stretched every way; I was fully committed. I had an office. I had a database set up there, with an alarm system put in. Media were coming and going all the time. It was craziness. At work, this is the problem, how this thing kind of evolved, and then in some sense my professional fear disintegrated. I’d got to a point where I had two hundred people under me, the switchboard was taking more calls for me on this subject…

PH: Oh, I know, you have to make a decision. I was told I couldn’t talk about it in the classroom, because the kids that I was teaching in Rome were going on my website. I was supposed to be teaching ancient history. They’d come in and ask me about UFOs, and I could not talk to them about it because I was told not to. It’s a conflict of interest, isn’t it?

CA: Yes. My boss came to me one day and said, we need to have a discussion, and it was within days of discussion of how it would be then. And it was, you have to choose between there and here. It’s that or it’s me. Then the boss said, we’ve got staff tied up here, this is a functioning job. You can’t continue like this. I think you have to decide what it is you want to do.

PH: He was very nice about it.

CA: He was very nice, he actually had some interest in it. He would ask, how do you know this, how can you define this? His family came to my lectures. But he was under pressure from his bosses. So I thought about it. I had an internationally best-selling book, The Search for Evidence. I had money that was coming in to the bank.

PH: You had television, and you were being invited to conferences.

CA: Oh yeah, it just came at me.

PH: You had to take time off.

CA: Absolutely. So I decided, okay, I’m going to resign my job. I’m going to take this on. This is important. We had enough documentation. We were looking into military areas from high-flying aircraft. I had some very good contacts, because I started inside the government system, and it wasn’t hard to find people to cooperate. You know Nick. He’s a nice guy. When I first met him in his job, when I introduced Stephen Greer to him, I recognized Nick. He’s had experiences himself.

PH: Right, that’s wonderful.

CA: But here we go, he’s got a job to do, he’s sworn to official secrecy. So it was important that we establish that the British government had attempted to rewrite history. They’d set themselves out on a platform with a series of lies related to UFOs and crop circles, and what I needed to do was to have them acknowledge that they got it wrong. I don’t want to use the word lied, I just want to say they got it wrong and to issue a statement acknowledging my documentation that has proven that there was a level of involvement that he was not aware of. That’s all I wanted. Because if we’re really truly moving to a new power level, and we are, we need to be so alert that Phase 2, this new phase, is not a rerun of the old.

PH: You’re absolutely right. Your energy is so into this. I don’t want to call it an obsession, because this has been also said about me. I’m like a machine; I keep going, no matter what. What will you call it? If you don’t want to use the word obsession…can we use the word commitment? What would be use for how important this is?

CA: It’s a desire for a certain truth…it’s like each of us is programmed in a particular area. For me, I saw something that tweaked every part of me.

PH: It was an awakening?

CA: Definitely, it was an awakening. It challenged me. It didn’t just require an answer. It demanded an answer. I’ve gone year by year by year, getting pieces of it, but it still didn’t complete the picture. It’s taken this number of years, and some of my own stops have not been the right ones. I guess it’s really true, I have to say this and you’re a good person to say it to, because I know that you and I share mutual contacts. Obviously to me personally, it’s been very upsetting even though I’ve tried not to show it…we all, I think, suffer to some degree by wanting things to turn out in the way that we perceive them to be. So whether it’s a scientific theory, we look at the data and to some degree, manipulate – now this isn’t a deliberate manipulation, but there comes in a blinding of this data because it doesn’t fit the theory, and a pulling in of that that does. I think we all do it to some degree. So what’s happened to me is that I want to be big enough to say in being the person that invented the terms, I know that when people say I’ve been looking into this for three years, I know that’s not true. Because I was in those fields with three people, and the farmers working with us, and we were the only ones there.

PH: Name the dates, when did this begin?

CA: In 1983. I went with Pat and with Terence. I came in 1983, Rusty Taylor 1985.

PH: You’re disappointed with a certain group of researchers, who may not be researchers?

CA: There is that, that they have kind of come aboard what becomes to form as everything must be real. It becomes religion. A belief system. This is the bit that I want to say, and I don’t mind if you put it out, because I want to reconnect with friends whom I respect, like Jaimie Maussan. I like Jaimie. He’s pulled away from me, I understand it, because of his 20/80 thing. I said 80 percent are man-made

PH: The Crop Circle Phenomena does this to me also as a researcher because I have spoken to other people who were actually making them. I didn’t understand at the time how we could mix all this. I thought it was a copycat phenomenon, the mixing of information and disinformation. I had a very bad feeling toward the people who were creating them, because as a journalist. They made a mess for me. I’m trying to get to the truth. I know what their reason is – the consciousness and the vibration- and even the electro-magnetics of the false ones are the same as the real ones. But they created a problem for me because then I can’t talk about the ones that weren’t made by them; like the one that was made by the mist or the Julia set. These were not made by a group of cosmic kids, or whoever is out there making them. I can’t highlight that because the general public thinks that they’re all false so I can’t even talk about the magnificence of the different ways they were created.

CA: I understand, and if it helps, I can only offer to you that this is the way that I see it. It’s the only reason that I’m still standing in front of you today. Having established that there is a phenomenon, that is what I’ve done, I have not given my attention to people that were making them because I was furious at them. When I made the first contact, there was hostility between us. With Doug and Dave, I’ve made those guys look so stupid.

PH: I’m thinking, okay, this is a spiritual exercise and that’s very nice, but you’re making a mess for me. Because the ones that have the consciousness that comes from somewhere else, not in your brain, are giving us a message. Then you guys have a message and when we both got messages and the phenomenon is the same, and we know that the grain is folded in a certain way. The question is what is really happening here? Is it an ego thing, where people have to bring tours over every year, and then people have to make money to live so that even though they think they’re being spiritual while they’re becoming the gurus of the world of fake crop circles. It’s driven me bananas.

CA: Those people who continue to make crop circles — there is a responsibility. They place the responsibility on those that research them, to tell the truth. They continue to do that. They make the crop circles, than making them, have the responsibility to inform the public and ourselves — which they aren’t — why they do it.

PH: Absolutely! That would be very nice.

CA: Right. Well, here’s the danger. I’ve told the public that I’ve got data, I’ve got information that could put a number of people in prison. I have it. Through money I received from Lawrence Rockefeller, I was able to do some things I couldn’t have done alone. I have categoric data that could be handed to the police, that if the farmers were also to support that they really, truly want these people out of their fields, that they could join the National Farmers’ Union. Researchers have got the data that I have got. They could give it to the police, and all the people who are involved in making these crop circles will have to have their day in court. That’s the law.

PH: In other words, they’re breaking the law.

CA: They’re breaking the law. They have committed damage. Once circle isn’t going to break the bank for anybody. Ten, if they’re all hoaxes — and this is their story, not mine — then they have committed quite a large-scale crime.

PH: That’s vandalism.

CA: Vandalism, yes. But this is where it becomes dangerous.

PH: This is a drastic change for you. What made you make that statement?

CA: The data. I couldn’t sleep. I thought, now I know this information. Here’s all the information, the aerial photographs.

PH: And you knew who made them, too?

CA: I knew who made a lot of them. We knew too many pieces of this to put it all together. We knew from those that were people with low-light cameras. These were undercover detective agencies. Professional, retired police detectives. Two agencies that went in to get the names from these agencies, of people you suspect. Some of them we did strongly suspect, the circle-makers in London, and all the rest.

PH: They’re artists. The ones that are making them, say they are artists.

CA: Yes, there’s a large group who are artists; that like to maintain the mysticism, because that’s part of it. So they went running with that data. They came back with photographs, with the tool they were making them with, matched up the tapes, so we said okay — we have a hundred percent evidence of these people, and this is what they show. We measured the contours so you can put the structure there at work in the field, very impressive, some of it, from the aerial photographs. And we compare that to those that we don’t have low-light imagery for, we don’t have the traces on these people. Okay, this scene is carried over to here, with the same width tool used there. Then we look for the primary starting point of the geometry, which is where people have to gain access to the fulcrum point of the actual geometry itself. All the traces except the photographic evidence, all goes in and builds up to about 79%. No study is going to fit that. So here’s the evidence.

PH: But the bottom line, Colin, is that you said most of them are. Eighty percent is most.

CA: Yes.

PH: I’m not surprised.

CA: Yeah, but for southern England. This was for in a two-year period. That’s what else I said. I said this study, England, 1999, year 2000. Not worldwide, that’s a difference. It is mostly European, but it is also elsewhere in the world.

PH: People were so disappointed, because they got eighty percent and they didn’t know which ones they were, they just completely canceled it out of their minds and thought all of them were.

CA: That’s true, one of the things that I’ll acknowledge that I did do wrong, I think I could have done myself a favor and everybody else, by saying twenty percent are proven. It’s the same stuff, and I wish I had said it. I do now say it. I wish I had, but I didn’t, and there’s no going back on it now. It’s the same data.

PH: It’s the same data, yes. Were you disappointed when you found out?

CA: Yes, very. I thought, now I enter the path of deceiving people if I continue to do — how do I spend twenty years putting out —

PH: Yes, right, right.

CA: I traveled with Giorgio Bongiovanni, he did a great job on it and I felt terrible. That if he had just completed the documentary, which he did a brilliant job , and here I am doing what I thought my soul required me to do, which is to say, this is what my data is. I need to share this.

PH: You were honest! You made a decision. You came to a point.

CA: I personally sold nothing on my next book, which was full of data. Everyone thought it was lies.

PH: It’s really difficult when people do that, because they’re not in the field. And what they’re doing is making a decision without having done the homework themselves, and that’s really difficult for everybody. So you’ve gone through a lot with that statement. However, it’s like moral courage, which Steven Greer is talking about right now. You either have moral courage and you tell the truth, or you can go ahead and run a business, and try to — but in the end, it’s going to come out so you’re going to look bad either way. It’s a Catch-22.

CA: Yes, it is. There is a portion of our own community that is as bad as the very governments we appear to be trying to sort out. Because you can go as you have, to central southern England, to Avebury, Stonehenge; all the books are there, the crop circle stuff, jewelry, the t-shirts…I know that if I had maintained a blinkered approach to this, I too would have had my stuff there selling. I would have made a lot of money on my first book. That was when I was coming from my heart, I was not engaged with hoaxers, I hated them; those that deceived me, I told them so. Everything was fine for me. But the moment I did engage them, it was Matthew Williams who said to me, “Colin, listen — I actually do respect what you’re doing, but you’re getting a lot of stuff wrong. You need to listen to some of these things we’re trying to tell you.” For the first time, I opened my door. And then he started to open some doors with other people in London, telling me stuff and not as forthcoming as Matthew Williams and even less so than Sorensen. But I started to learn some things. We then were approached by Galbraith and Rockefeller; saying, put down whatever projects you would like to see funded that would accelerate our understanding of this phenomenon. And that will separate us clearly, what is it on the ground that’s different about the real, from those that they cannot make? What we needed to do was to be courageous enough, and it didn’t need to be me, these agencies were working on my information. They came back and said, these people left their homes at so-and-so they went to these fields. That’s what was in there before. The assessment CD that I put together came down to saying that this is a phenomenon. I’ve seen circles in Japan; I’ve been there. I’ve gone to Brazil. I’ve been into Taiwan, into Canada, Australia…

PH: So the phenomenon is real. I know you were very kind at the X-Conference by saying, “let’s not all bad-mouth the fake ones, because there’s a phenomenon within a phenomenon there.” So you’re very kind to do that. However, I don’t want to spend my time on the ones that are created for artistic reasons. Though I hope you do write a book about it.

CA: That’s my next book.

PH: So that’s where I’ll put it, in that box called consciousness. That’s the bottom line. For me, your talk was the most interesting I’ve heard. Because you’re “connecting the dots.” My job is connecting the dots, but you have connected them in such a way that you are now linking with consciousness in all its forms. So I have some very specific things to ask you. Who else is interested in consciousness? You were talking about the involvement and proof. I don’t think they go to capture Tibetan monks and put them in a Faraday box to see how they do what they do, but is there — is the intelligence community also interested, and why? Do they want to manipulate the consciousness? Is it about that?

CA: Oh, yes. I think there will always be two factions. The factions that we’ve been talking about in the crop circle community – is the same as: political factions and religious factions. They exist in all subjects, in all families, in all places. You have the positive and the negative. There’s always this driving force, the two opposing forces. I think when it comes to consciousness; it’s the central science, that through humanity and all other life forms connect together with. It’s part of the drive that some people have for a better understanding of spirituality. Some people feel comfortable giving themselves over to a religion. The driving force is to ultimately allow us, with all our differences, to arrive on the same page with respect. If we can respect that we each are looking at the same information but perceiving it and deciphering it slightly differently, sometimes radically differently, this is where we might differ a little bit. Because you’re looking for clarity and consciousness – over there – in real crop circles. The reason I’ve gone further and embraced the consciousness, is that suddenly when you do, it’ll make sense. This is where if I get this right, today, I’m going to go a step further than at the X-Conference. I’ve minimized the “Me vs. the British Government.” I’m going to speak about something I’ve never spoken about, some of my personal experiences.

PH: So you do have some personal contact experience?

CA: Yes. I’ve never spoken about it in public. Something happened to me when I was five years old, twice actually. Something that I’ve kind of locked inside and I’ve never spoken about it. Because for the last three years, I’ve tried, I don’t know whether I’ve succeeded, but I’ve tried to use my scientific background as the base of my research. Please acknowledge and respect the fact that I’m not coming at this with a desire for an outcome; I’m coming at this from a position of a person who is intrigued by what I’m looking at, enough that I now feel I have to have an answer. That’s what is driving me. I’m coming from the sciences. All my family and my background is scientific. I’ve always tried to approach it that way. Test it, look at it, be prepared to keep lateral thinking. Don’t close down if it doesn’t fit a particular scientific protocol or criteria. There’s something else here that won’t fit, so keep it wide, and that’s what I’ve tried to do.

PH: You said you were going to say some things that no one has ever heard, because you have tried not to make it personal. You’ve tried to make it objective. But you know, John Mack once told me, “Why don’t you come in and I’m going to do a session?” and I said, oh no, because then I won’t be objective. I have to go out there, and — He said, “You will not be a good reporter until you know yourself first.” You will not be any good unless you know yourself first. He was right. We, as researchers try to keep it separate, and it’s all one. What you’re doing, in your later years, you realize that you have to put that element in. So you’re talking about that.

CA: That’s what’s happened. And when I see the hoaxing that’s happening. It’s a mirror image of what’s happening over here. So therefore, I have to look at this, and talk to these people. And even Doug and Dave, you know them? Doug said to Dave, in the presence of John McNish on BBC Television, he’d gone out on a limb and spent his own money to get the BBC to put forward this documentary, which he sold privately. When he felt that he had heard from Doug and Dave that this was the answer to the crop circle phenomenon, these two elderly men, and then it came as no surprise to me. It did to him. He actually wrote in the last two paragraphs of his book, which was his documentary, because they were the same thing – Doug, in his presence, he said to John, “Look, Dave is here.” (This is when Dave was alive.) “Dave and I used to talk about this, and it’s like the one thing that was strange – we’d talk about this. It’s like we were being told to make them.” And then John said, and this is where I picked it up, the last few years, and I said that it troubled those two guys. It troubled them. It was a little unnatural to them. I will say to you now, Paola, I have told people this, but it’s not in print. My family knows this. They know, and it’s hard for me to say because I’m saying it honestly, and I know I am. I don’t mean to pump myself up.

PH: No, I know you. So don’t worry about it.

CA: I just really have to hit some hard spots sometimes in what I see as the truth. This is all happening. You know that something happened to me when I was five years old, but I don’t talk about it. You asked about 2000, some stuff was sent back to Galbraith and Rockefeller, and I have had probably half a dozen experiences, which fell into the realm of “what the hell just happened?” You know? Other than that, I’m a very regular person. I was in England, at my daughter’s house, where I stay when I visit England because I don’t have a home there any more. I was very tired. I’d been out in the field since that’s what I was there for.

PH: You know what happened to me in England once, something was said to me and it was a clear voice. I could have taped it.

CA: That’s what I had. And it said, it said something that I understood, and that people said, “well how?” And I just did. It said, “You have to go with this. It’s a matter of timing. You have to go with this NOW.” And I knew immediately what it meant. It meant that the 28th event – we have to go through this. And go through it now, because of what’s coming later. You have this clear. I sat up in the bed, and thought, “What the hell was that?” I knew immediately, and I thought, are we ready to do this? Anyway, I lay down again and I pondered over this, and where we had gotten with the percentages and how sure were we of this situation, and how to deal with it. I woke up the next morning. I wasn’t even out of bed. The telephone’s going in my room where I’ve got my own line. My daughter was downstairs. It was BBC television. “Colin, I had a feeling last night that you might have something for us.”

PH: Oh wow! (Laughs)

CA: What’s happening in the crop circle world? I’ve got a feeling there’s something you can give us.

PH: Oh, Lord. And they don’t want what you’re going to give them.

CA: I think, this is the cue. And I went with it. Less than thirty hours later, history. That’s what triggered this whole thing. Anyway, I don’t even know how this came up.

PH: Because that’s one of the experiences you had, when you knew what direction to go in. Because these are crossroads in one’s life, where people have to choose. That was one of the questions I was going to ask you. What are maybe the three events in your life that you remember as the most significant? This is one, obviously, because this is a crossroads.

CA: It is, yeah.

PH: What are two others that you remember that are important to you?

CA: Okay. Well, I think what happened to me when I was five years old, before any of the crop circles, it’s probably something that has been left like a feeling inside of me that has left me biased in a sense of in later life I would see things and have experiences that it would influence the direction in which I have leaned, because of what was already troubling me. It was troubling me, because I always spoke them until I was regressed. I talked to John Mack and David Jacobs about this, too, and they were all prepared to help me with it. But in the end, what happened was that Jim Harter from Berkeley came to my house. Within moments, I did not think I could be regressed. I’ve got to be in control of my mind. I don’t want to be stuck in anything, you know, I find it a bit scary. So what came out of the regression is clearly one of the big influences in my life. The second one was Doug and Dave. That clearly was, for me, now you’ve really got to get your act together because these guys have challenged everything in your future. I had just resigned my position in senior government job, I’ve committed my life now, and the money that came into my bank account from Circular Evidence, so I’ve really got to target myself. So that was number two. Number three was that experience that I told you about, and losing so many friends. I mean, the fact that I lost my first marriage and my family – and my country.

PH: Yes, I wanted to ask about your country. How about that? Is that a conscious choice, to live here in the United States?

CA: I live here because I met my second wife here, and she lives in America. I’m not saying America has been good to me, but my family have been extraordinarily good to me. Most people, I think, don’t give credit to what family have to go through. I consider myself to have been fortunate to be the one that was doing what was the passion that was already inside of me.

PH: And being supported now.

CA: And being supported now, yes.

PH: How do you see yourself in light of the UFO community?

CA: I think I’m still – I think there are too many tendrils between the UFO experience and the whole series of phenomena, and the crop circle phenomena, for the whole thing to be disconnected. So for me, I find myself very much connected.

PH: So you find yourself re-integrated in the community, or do you find yourself reintegrated in the subject matter?

CA: Oh, definitely in the subject matter.

PH: Not so much in the community? Because they’ve gone their own way, doing their own thing. But in the subject matter, you’re able now to have a wider picture.

CA: Definitely. I am very confidant, more confident, Paola, than I have ever been. I definitely feel like I have pegged it. I’ve pegged it in the right slot. This is where I need to be where I am and I think you need to be where you are too, I do understand it. Once you pull in everything these guys that are making them, into the equation – after all, if it is true that eighty percent is still fairly reasonably representative of the whole, if it is, I don’t have the figures to support that. But if it is, then this bit here is very important. And so I pull this in and I see that we’re getting the same information here as there. So what is it that we’re learning? What is there to be learned by the real? Forget them for a minute, just the real ones. It’s interaction. Engagement. That’s what these guys are doing. What’s different between shining lights up in the sky and calling them into this position from your head – what’s the difference between the crop circle people that are asking for circles to be made, people that are deceiving us, people that make UFOs, all of that stuff.

PH: It’s the same stuff, but maybe the intent is different. The idea that this is the negative part. I love the positive part. And that’s a mystical experience, it’s very positive. The negative is that it has become a tourist attraction in England. As we always contaminate anything that’s spiritual, we have contaminated it to have it be that people are coming to have the experience, and they may have it, but I’m not sure it’s directly due to the false ones to which they’re brought. Because they have to have a few real ones, otherwise they can’t do the trips.

CA: No, see, this is where it becomes very, very difficult, unless we respect them simply as having different perspectives. Unless we can do that, I don’t know where we go, because –

PH: In other words, if you had a list of the ones they made and the ones they didn’t make, and people had a choice, they could go to the ones they made and see how beautiful they are and experience them. And then the ones that wanted to do the research on the real ones – would be able to do that.

CA: The information relating to 1999-2000 was in the data CD and DVD that I made available to researchers, and I think eight people obtained them from me. So what I’m saying here, is that there are people. So all I’m saying is that you don’t know which it is. So when Andrews, let’s say Andrews first .

PH: Yes, because he’s adamant – it’s almost religious, not religious, but it’s almost doctrine with some. And what you’ve done is to become a heretic. If you look at it that way, it’s doctrine with some researchers.

CA: It is. It’s like, look at any religion. Everything in that Bible is true. That’s what I’m being asked to do. I’m being asked to – “don’t mention that, don’t engage in that.” They have deceived us. But for us to have a Bible that is going to take us somewhere – that we’re going to learn by and grow with, truly – we’ve got to look at both. Because the day will come to pass when we look at our lives and just think, that we could have spent both you and I, thirty or forty years, looking into something that first of all we’ve been deceived, it’s possible. I don’t want to be in that position. I want to be able to say in my heart that I learned I’m not going to hate anybody for anything, but I learned that half of that can be placed over there, and here’s what I’m left with. And it’s pure magic.

PH: How beautiful. It’s pure magic.

CA: But at the moment, all I’m doing is to embrace it. Late in the day it came for me, in 1999, but embrace it all, because the bottom line is that interaction has taken place. We are engaged in the process. In the fields, in the sky, it all comes back to the same thing. And you are absolutely right; the one that really nails it is the scientific understanding of human consciousness.

PH: But either way, Colin, consciousness is the thing that will make us transcend. Consciousness could be the thing that keeps us here if you use it into mind control. It’s a two-sided coin. So people who say they’re studying consciousness, or meditation, or accessing dimensions, if they want to control or use it for power, it could go either way.

CA: That’s very scary.

PH: Well, it does. You think you’re being with the light and the dark, as in Star Wars, and you’re so confused. I agree because what we’re doing here is pure consciousness, and this conference is a transformational situation. If you’re going to look at the other, the Jim Jones and what happened with him, you could have that go the other way. So it’s very important to be discerning. The only way you can be discerning is to have both sides on the table, like you have said. You have to have both sides.

CA: You do.

PH: I just have one more question for you, since I know you’re in a hurry. Talk to me about Colonel Philip Corso. Did you speak to him personally?

CA: Oh yes.

PH: Do you believe that he’s credible?

CA: I personally do.

PH: And what do you base that on?

CA: I base that on a conversation when you and I were – you may not even remember it, but this particular evening we went out to dinner, I can’t remember where. You and I were there, and Colonel Corso, and his daughter-in-law and the little boy. What impressed me a lot was that he’s here, telling us about a personal experience, his story, and one story that he had shared with his daughter-in-law about a UFO that he had seen, made me think that he’s pushing a line here. If he’s lying to us, he’s lying to his own family. I know there are many people who don’t believe him, but I personally do.

PH: Here it is again – the thing that makes us corrupt is the want of money to make movies, and all these gimmicks, and that caused Corso tremendous distress, and may have led to his heart attack. How did you feel about being the crop circle researcher who was asked to sign the document for the United Nations to open this up? The San Marino Document in 1998?

CA: I felt it was an important step to really get it mobilized, or activated, at the UN. Giving us a muscle to get closer to speaking publicly about what governments knew about the UFO phenomenon. I thought it was a very important initiative and I was proud to be part of it. I signed the paper, and as I recollect there were something like twenty or thirty others.

PH: Do you feel that going to the United Nations is a viable option for disclosure?

CA: I certainly like to think it is. I know that there is such a mixed story of the UN in general, that it may be terribly ineffective. With any kind of democratic process there are many inputs and people don’t agree on anything. So I think it’s a difficult path. I think, wherever you can get it, you get it. The UN had already that clause set up in 1978, and you have a multinational approach. There are many ways in, to voice an opinion, where if you’re tackling any specific government it’s a very limited kind of approach. You have to go through the appropriate channels.

PH: Colonel Corso signed that document, too, and represented the military. But they had a change in the political structure in the country that initiated that resolution, and the new government did not want to make the resolution.

CA: You were very central in that whole thing, weren’t you?

PH: With Colonel Corso, yes. I was the journalist who brought him to Italy, and I also protected him because I felt that he was in danger all the time.

CA: I sensed that. We were up on the platform with Corso, and you were alongside him, and there was a fracas that went on off the stage, somebody was protesting. What was that all about?

PH: There’s always a group of young people who want attention. They want the truth, and unfortunately they connect it with conspiracy theory, and they wanted to know about 9/11. And this is the problem with disclosure, that before you start talking about the truth, you’ve got to talk about all the lies you told beforehand. That’s the problem, as you know. And so there’s a group that wants all the truth. At that time in Italy, there was a group that wanted to discuss all the corruption, not just the UFO situation.

CA: There was definitely an atmosphere of tension, but because of the language I
didn’t know what was going on. I did think there may be some danger for him. He was taking a risk, at the end of his life; he’s out there revealing something that was secret. I admired the man.

PH: It’s not a time to sit on the fence, according to the title of this article.

CA: And you will see that I say many times throughout this, that we the people draw a line. This is the line.

PH: We have it in our power to make a reality that’s much more plausible than what’s going to happen created by somebody else.

CA: Exactly. If we say that we have no direct control over the budget or over the people, they’re soulless people – most of us have met them, and we know when we’re meeting them, these are not people of heart, they’re people of power. They’re evil. If they’re not with the people, with heart and sincerity and with love and compassion and understanding, all of those words that we can use, then they’re not people we need aboard. And now is the time. This is it. The line is drawn. Be yourself, now. Be yourself.

http://www.colinandrews.net/