A video has been uploaded to YouTube that purports to show an alien under interview by an unidentified young man sometime in the 1960s. I am not going to essay an opinion about its authenticity, but I would like to comment in detail on the statements made. The reason that I am not interested in whether or not it is a puppet, an animation or a "real" alien is that the commentary is valid, no matter what the origin of the video. If you asked me to guess, I’d say it’s probably a hoax, just on the odds. But it is a "true hoax" in the sense that it accurately reflects the message of the visitors, and in some very subtle ways.

Just because something is manmade doesn’t mean that it’s worthless, or even inaccurate. Here, quite the opposite is true.

1. The interrogator asks, "State planet of origin." The answer is "Earth." This answer is consistent with my own impression of major aspects of this very complex experience mankind is having with the unknown. There are three levels:

1: Some of our visitors, most particularly the short, dark blue figures I call "kobolds" are, I believe, human beings in another form.  2. The "grays" are creatures that also live in this form, in which consciousness governs the degree of penetration into physicality, but are not originally from Earth. 3. Human beings from the distant future who have bodies that are interbred with the grays and appear somewhat similar to them. This being, if I am correct in my surmise, is such a person.

2. The young man then states, "OK, yesterday and I quote, you told us, and I quote, ‘thousands of light years to get here.’" The entity answers "Yes." The interrogator then demands that the entity tell the truth, and delivers a threat that has been sonically redacted. The entity answers, "It is truth. I am from Earth. From your future. To travel in time is to travel in space. Offset spatial divergence."

This is a correct description of movement through time, which also involves movement through space back to where an object was during the target time, or forward to where it will be. As an example, Earth is not circling a stationary star, but following it on its long orbit around the center of our galaxy. Our solar system moves at about 500,000 miles an hour and takes approximately 225 million years to circumnavigate the galaxy.

The interrogator then asks, "So aliens took over our future?" The response is "No" and the entity then explains that it evolved from us.  It is then asked what it is doing. It answers, "Observing. Since evidence was destroyed." The interrogator then asks "How" and the answer is "Nuclear war."

I am given to understand in my own experience that what is expected here over the next few years are the following:
    1. The planet will heat up rapidly, causing widespread social unrest.
        2. Extragovernmental religious entities and religious states will acquire nuclear weapons. This process is already far advanced.
    3. Widespread death due to overheating and starvation will occur from Morocco to India.
    4. At some point and for any number of different reasons, one or more of the disintegrating nuclear armed states will initiate a nuclear attack.
    5. This will escalate to a generalized nuclear exchange.
    6. The human population of the planet will become negligible.

It is too late to affect or plan for the changes in the planetary environment that will lead to the unrest described above. If there is some authoritative confirmation of this warning, it may result in a change of direction that will derail the nuclear conflict that, as matters now stand, is probable.

The interrogator then suggests, "How about we concentrate on your time?" The entity responds, "You are not capable of accepting or understanding the discoveries of my time." The interrogator responds, "Try me." The response is, "the nature of the universe, the origin of so-called life, it is known."

At this time, we are beginning to understand that the universe is, in its essence, data. When Anne Strieber, during her lifetime, would state "god is a mathematical formula," she was reflecting this knowledge. However, this does not mean that we are only a simulation. We are in a simulation, which is a very different matter.  Consciousness is not a nonphysical field or a state of matter consequent to its organization into a brain, but a reflection of the motion of essential reality, by which I mean something like electrons, but not as they may be conceived mechanistically as tiny, whirling states of energy, but rather as conditional presences, each with its own energetic potentiation, and existing in numbers too large to conceive or manipulate. This is both universe and consciousness. What we call "living beings" are a reflection of this reality, like a shadowy imaging looking back at us from a pond.

The interrogator asks, "So you know the meaning of life?" The answer is, "Not meaning, nature. " The interrogator asks, "What’s the difference?" The answer is, "Meaning is ascribed. Nature is the objective reality."

This reflects the entity’s view of the difference between "meaning" and "nature." Meaning is a cultural response to phenomena. Nature is phenomena—essentially, numbers. Meaning is a response to the conditions that emerge out of nature, and changes as cultures change. Nothing changes nature.

The question is then asked, "So you know how the universe was created?" The answer is "Yes." The questioner than asks, "So you’ve seen god?" The answer is "We have evolved past a need for superstitions, the need for a god and other myths."

The operative word here is "need." We need the protection of deities because we do not understand nature. A man of the past, seeing a great storm or feeling the shaking of an earthquake, experiencing illness or any sort of disaster, will by instinct call for help. When no visible channel of rescue exists, he will turn to his gods. As we come to understand fabric of reality more clearly, that need fades away, and is replaced by a more accurate response, one that reflects an understanding of the conditions that have brought about the challenge. We know that the tornado is a storm, not an evil being. We know that the earthquake is a natural event, not the result of an angry god shaking up the underworld. We know that our disease is a part of nature, and may or may not be cured by science, but that it is not a demon hiding in our flesh.

The question is then asked, "What is death?" The answer is, "Death is a human construct. It does not exist. You will experience—all have experienced—every instance of so-called life. You. Me. Him. All instances of the same life.  Separated by what you call death." The questioner then says, "Let me get this straight. There is no death and we all experience each other’s lives. Right?" The answer: "In essence, yes."

When a soul enters our level of reality, it is completely enveloped. The physical body’s profusion of cells causes it to completely lose sight of everything that is not coming directly at it down the river of time. It is like a horse with blinders, able to see only directly ahead.

As it is meant to, it forgets that it is using the physical as a tool. Its purpose here is to do two things: 1. Use its life experience to gain self-understanding; 2. Obtain energy. In order to gain self-understanding, it must suppress its true level of self-knowledge. This way it will act in each instance from its own deepest truth. Additionally, in order for its experiences to be as energetically potent as possible, it must not be able to anticipate future events and outcomes. Surprise is the essential ingredient, and that cannot happen unless we are deeply embedded in the time stream.

The body and personality are the tool we use to draw us into time. But we are not our names, Joe, Fred, Mary. That is personality, a construct that grew up around the name, that is used for social interaction. It is mortal and will die with the body. What is immortal, the soul, is not normally accessible to the physical part.

As we open ourselves, we find that the whole of life is there, ready to be tasted and used. We can look back across not only our past lives, but all past lives, and pick and choose which fragments are useful to us. We can also do this with the present, and into the future as it becomes fixed.

The interrogator then asks "Why was the universe created, and why is it so perfectly made for us?" (I will add parenthetically here that this question the only one that suggests a hoax. This is because the idea that the universe is "perfectly made for us," which is indeed true, was not a matter for certainty in the 1960s.) But even if this is a hoax, the answers offered here do reflect the actual responses that the visitors might be expected to make to such questions.)

The answer is, "There are an infinite number of physical universes. Virtually all do not support life such as you know it.  We exist in a universe that does support so-called life. That is all."

When I met with the Master of the Key in 1998, he said that there are many universes. I did not inquire about how many support life.  The greater interest here lies in the use of the phrase "so-called," the second time it appears in the text. Its use correctly implies that life is not as we imagine it., but rather a mathematical process out of which biology inevitably emerges.

The questioner then asks, "So why do we destroy ourselves with nuclear war?" The being responds, "Dogma. Political and religious dogma. It is the root of all major conflict of your species. In your next century, access to weapons of mass destruction by states ruled by dogma will destroy your species."

The phrase "weapons of mass destruction" did not enter general use until Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin used it in a speech establishing the Begin Doctrine in 1981. However, it was in used prior to that date, but only rarely.

However, the statement made here is consistent with what I learned back in the 1980s and 1990s, and have seen coming true. Nations such as Pakistan, North Korea and Iran are all ruled by dogma, and all possess, or are attempting to possess, nuclear weapons. At present, Pakistan is an Islamic state but not a radical one, and radical elements do not yet have possession of its nuclear arsenal. In a time of unrest, though, this may change. While Iran has apparently stopped its weapons program, when the coming difficulties cause an even more radical regime to emerge, that may happen. North Korea is already an unstable state entity in possession of nuclear weapons.

The interrogator asks, "What do you base your morality on?" The answer is "Compassion and evidence." This statement, once again, is consistent with what I have been taught. I have learned that there are three pillars of a strong soul: love, compassion and humility. But compassion is not in and of itself loving kindness. Compassion arises out of wisdom and insight. It is not simply a matter of giving a beggar some money or helping a sick friend in his or her suffering. When Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, he was acting out of compassion by giving them a chance to see their own greed.

The use of the word "evidence" here has a double meaning. Real morality is both a matter of observing the acts of oneself and others to determine their real intent, and understanding the evidence of such actions.

The material presented in this video is consistent with what I have learned in my close encounter experience over the past 30 years. Again, I take no position on the status of the video. Even if it is a hoax, as is likely, that does not change the fact that it accurately reflects the position of the visitors, insofar as I have understood it. You can watch the video here.

Dreamland Video podcast
To watch the FREE video version on YouTube, click here.

Subscribers, to watch the subscriber version of the video, first log in then click on Dreamland Subscriber-Only Video Podcast link.


  1. Delighted to have a new
    Delighted to have a new “Insight”. I didn’t see it coming. Gobsmacked!

  2. yikes Whitley. I love your
    yikes Whitley. I love your work and insight into this very real phenomena…but this vid…cmon, such obvious cgi…Is the only thing that is supposed to be real the audio? Or is the vid purported to be real, because it is obviously fake and the creation of cgi.

  3. If the video had been
    If the video had been presented as fiction it might reach a wider audience. And as Whitley said: the information is very indicative of the central message of these experiences.

  4. I get the distinct sense that
    I get the distinct sense that this video is a modern (very recent) production, intended for social manipulation, i.e., to gin up hatred against Islamic nations…..the ultimate purpose being, to further the aims of the “globalists”. It is too “convenient” to accept as reality.

  5. I have to agree: Whether or
    I have to agree: Whether or not this video is authentic or not is not near as important as its message. If this video is about social manipulation and to “gin up hatred against Islamic nations”, it missed its mark, especially if one has broad view of the world and its history. Religious conflict arose long before Islam was a gleam in Mohammed’s eye, and it even includes discord between different sects of Christianity that continue to this day. Politics and religion seem to go hand in hand, and have a co-dependant relationship. (The situation with Islam and Christianity began during The Crusades, so this feud has been simmering a very long time indeed.)

    As this video started, and the ‘alien’, puppet, animation, whatever, began speaking and looking towards the camera, I was surprised at the empathy and compassion I felt…It was almost to the point of tears. I pulled myself out of it as soon as I could and attempted to distance myself from the visual, and focused on the words and conversation. I also watched it multiple times.

    I have had many types of strange experiences, and I have seen UFOs, but I have had no direct contact with the Visitors one-on-one (that I recall), as Whitley has experienced. My experiences have mainly revolved around time, other lives, and ‘connectedness’. On this score, this video feels 100% authentic, and dove-tails with my own experiences and perceptions.

    I doubt that this video has a chance of getting any real traction in the world at large, and relatively few people in the entire world will watch it, let alone be influenced by it. Maybe its message will only resonate with a few people, and mainly as validation for a few us and our own perceptions of reality.

    The being mentions that we are being observed from the future, and the implication is that it may go beyond a simple study of history. We are being “observed”, since “evidence was destroyed” in the nuclear conflagration. If I had been conducting his interview, I would have asked about the specific evidence being referred to—-our history? How the war began? Life forms? Our DNA code? I zeroed in on this one for my own personal reasons, including my perception of being quietly observed my whole life, and the words, “This is why we watch you”, that I have heard in my head numerous times during various events and feelings experienced during those events.

    Thanks for this one, Whitley!

  6. If you are also a member of
    If you are also a member of Joseph P. Farrell’s website Gizadeathstar.com you can view a 7-part webinar on the islamofascists’ ideology. Dr. Farrell does an outstanding job as usual! By the way, he also questions if there actually was a “mohammad”. Listen to him, you will be educated in the truth. He doesn’t pull any punches and he is not afraid to tell it like it is.

  7. The video itself,
    The video itself, unfortunately, gives every indication that it is a special effect (albeit a very well done one). So, paging Dr. Killjoy, here’s my analysis of the video, as per the links in my last post:

    The title page offers some big clues: Aside from the case number not following Blue Book’s four-number format, there would also be no reason for Blue Book — the USAF’s PR (or anti-PR?) team, to be interviewing a UFOnaut. This would presumably be handled by a much deeper, less public entity, like Majic; and something like this would also not be classified as lightly as “Classified”, but rather as “Ultra”, or one of the fabled classifications that are too classified for us to know about.

    Bear in mind that that has nothing to do with the potential authenticity of the interview itself, but rather that the agency that is supposedly conducting the interview is being misrepresented.

    The entity itself is a bit too “Hollywood”: very nicely modeled, lit and animated, but it has a detailed musculature, and the green complexion betrays the LGM-cue meant for the viewer. Unless this is actually a Reptilian-type, in which case, if the film is real, he’s not giving the interviewer the whole truth about his ancestry. The voice modulation, unless it was meant to augment the creature’s voice, also appears to be for effect.

    The camerawork… well, unfortunately, there is camerawork, with convenient zooms and pans, once again, meant for effect. The pans are smooth, suggesting that the camera is meant to be tripod mounted, but for some reason the camera is manhandled when being turned on and off, as if it were a handheld recorder — once again, probably for effect. The audio also seems to lack the sound of the camera’s mechanism, hinting at a digital recording. It’s also odd that there is no microphone visible — most cameras of the day didn’t record audio, with that function being handled by a separate tape recorder, with the audio being integrated into the print later on. This isn’t to say that this camera mightn’t have had built-in, single-system recording, but it seems unlikely in this setting.

    The contents of the interview are also a cue: The problem is that we have a (presumably) USAF interviewer asking what are all the “right” questions, as per what Whitley and Cosmic Librarian have already discussed. One would expect a military officer of the period to be more concerned with what our community would consider to be the “wrong” questions, trying to glean military and possible technological information out of the subject, rather than probing the deeper issues and threats that they do talk about.

    I strongly suspect that the video itself is a fake, but that its creators are trying to put across a message, one that, again, Whit and Cosmic have addressed, and that message aligns very much with our own ideas here. Scripted, quite probably, but if so it was written by someone who knows what they’re talking about.

  8. While they appear
    While they appear unconnected, I find it fascinating that our concept of reality is being challenged right now by two different works of ‘art’ with a profound feel and energy around them. This video has surfaced with perfect timing as many of us are still pondering and engaging with the Mothership Glass formation in the U.K. Both appear to be hoaxes, but both also have a resonance of ‘truth’ around them and a type of energetic message that speak to some of us on a very deep level. While both may be hoaxes, they exhibit a sense of purpose beyond distraction or entertainment value.

  9. What better way to elucidate
    What better way to elucidate a truth than in a story.

  10. Though there are some
    Though there are some similarities between what this being said and what the Master of The Key said, in The Key, there are some significant differences as well. I wonder if these differences need to be high-lighted or explored.

  11. I thought it looked more like
    I thought it looked more like a well-done animatronic prop, basically “E.T” technology. The mouth movement certainly didn’t look complex enough for forming words, and overall facial expressions were not very convincing to bring it beyond the prop theory. There’s also a big mismatch between the audio quality and video quality. For the time, the audio seems too lousy, while the “film” quality seems too good. And finally, the Q/A seems very unlikely. “You wouldn’t understand.” “Try me.” Then he just spills the beans, and hardly anything that is beyond understanding.

    As to the “wisdom”, all of the same ideas are out there and not particularly original.

    Sure, we want to believe. But this one?

  12. I am trying to understand the
    I am trying to understand the statements about evolving beyond the need for “god and other myths” and the nature of consciousness. Are you saying that God isn’t a conscious entity with an agenda, but rather something like the soil from which consciousness blooms?

  13. I would like to point out
    I would like to point out something I observed. Taking Whitley’s suggestion to focus on the message and not the rat hole of authenticity of the video itself, I noticed what I take to be a significant bit of information. When asked why they are here, the reply is, as Whitley noted, “Observing. Since evidence was destroyed.” When asked about their idea of morality, the reply was “Compassion and evidence”.

    Given these two statements, I am led to consider that our world is being observed in order to gather evidence needed to resolve a moral question. Does the future need observations of the present in order to consider a moral issue of some sort?

  14. I would really like a better
    I would really like a better researcher than myself to trace the origin of this video. What I find a bit peculiar is that if this is of the 1960s, how is the technology available to translate the “alien’s” voice into English? Should we presume they speak English? The interviewer seems quiet calm and rather nonchalant. That seems very odd to me. I think I would be terrified at best but that means nothing much. Also, certain phrases seem out of place for the time. However, as Whitley pointed out, the subject matter is very interesting. I picked up on Whitley’s statement about the Kobolds and one witness encountering them stating that they were “ugly” and the response they gave was something to the effect of “you will be exactly like us!”

  15. Sounds amazing. The video is
    Sounds amazing. The video is no longer there. Is there another link?

Comments are closed.