In October 1999, Dr Bergrun agreed to be interviewed by MUFON´s Don Ecker regarding his conclusion that 'Huge Artificial Machines' are
operating in our solar system. Sis is what he had to say:
Don Ecker (DFE):
Your book, The Ringmakers of Saturn, was not an easy read, nor was it easy to find. But for someone like me, interested in the
the solar system in relation to UFOs, it's an invaluable tool.
Norman Bergrun (NB):
Correct. It's important to really take your time and go through it. If you're looking for entertainment, this is not the
book to have.
During World War II, you were working for the huge American defence firm McDonnell Douglas.
I started working there after college. Then I went up to Ames Lab at Moffitt Field, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA),
which was the precursor to NASA. From there I went to Lockheed. I was a research scientist at Ames, flying around in clouds, doing icing research
work. I've seen a lot of weather. I built an electromagnetic wind tunnel, which later led into the work I did on my book. At Lockheed I was
responsible for flight-test analysis of the Polaris missile system.
The military was doing a lot of testing with missile systems back then, incorporating what they'd learned from the captured German V-2
On the Polaris project, we had a fellow named Willy Fiedler, who was a key designer of the missile. He worked on the V-2 during the war.
Hitler visited Peenemunde on a Monday and wanted rockets hitting England by the following week, or else. Willy came up with a control system that had
to be manually operated, so he ended up flying in one of those things.
A manned flight. He had gauges on board and was able to see all the forces at work, and from that he was able to come up with an automated
You're obviously well grounded in scientific principle and theory.
I've had a pretty good workout.
Most mainstream scientists will not discuss the subject of UFOs in public, though privately they admit there's something to it. But
they're worried about their careers and reputations.
Correct. At Stanford, if you don't have tenure and you mention this subject, you're out.
Isn't that academic fascism?
It sure is.
Isn't science supposedly to study the unexplained, not explain the unstudied?
Philosophically, that's correct. But in real life, no. There's a party line out there, and they're not about to have it fractured.
Did you ever have an interest in the subject of UFOs, before you began researching the Voyager photographs?
When I was at Lockheed, we had classified work to do. Behind closed doors, we used to look at and discuss a lot of different things, one of
which was the possibility of UFOs. We kicked the subject around for quite a while and decided that it didn't seem possible, based on the physics we
knew then. My book says there's now some different physics at work out there, something that's capable of immense power. That
wasn't a consideration back then.
I was once vacationing near Monterey Bay, California, in September 1971. Every day a US Navy helicopter would fly along the same route nearby. One day
around noon, I saw a shimmering bright light in the same area. I thought it was another Navy helicopter travelling the usual route. But it seemed to
hover at a distance and it took on motions that made me realize it was no helicopter. I grabbed some binoculars and a camera and got a good look at
it. It was one of those cylindrical objects, and it performed for me.
I could see azure-blue flames at each end, which looked to me like an airplane's engine cowl; it was aerodynamically superb. Streamers came out
lengthwise from this thing and joined together like a wishbone. The streamers were light yellow-green and tapered. They looked like what physicists
call a 'pinched plasma'. There was a projection on one side that looked like a wing or a cross, with another streamer, something like a flame,
surrounding an interior black
bar, ending in a rectangular device.
DFE: What was the duration of your sighting?
NB: Not more than a minute.
DFE: And your reaction to the whole experience?
NB: Very straightforward. I had been around rockets and knew how you manipulated forces to get them to work. It was obvious to me that this thing was
a space ship. I was privy to everything the United States had, and this was not ours. There was a fellow over at Stanford who, at the time, collected
these various sightings reports and shared them with his colleagues. I told them what I had seen. I also told my congressman. I had worked on one of
his steering committees before, so he and I knew each other well. He wasn't a believer, but he believed what I reported because he knew I didn't
make things like that up.
That's where things stood until I saw the Voyager 1 and 2 encounter photos with Saturn. I spent a lot of time studying the returns from both
missions. The statements the Voyager scientists were making didn't correlate at all with what I was seeing. For instance, during Voyager 1, the
spokesman said that the space between the A and B rings - the Cassini Division - was pure space.
On the Voyager 2 photos, that space was filled up. It was obvious to me the spokesman was fumbling with his script, not knowing what to say about this
because it was against the party line. I've had enough experience in the business to know when somebody doesn't know what they're talking about. At
that point I decided that this was fair game for analysis. That's when I made up my mind to really get into it.
DFE: Do you believe the scientists are unaware of all this or that they've been ordered not to talk about it?
NB: I can tell you how things work at a government lab. During the icing experiments I conducted while at NACA (forerunner of NASA), officials from
the airplane companies would come in and want to know specific factors and numbers involved so they could design heating systems to overcome those
conditions. You'd have to be very careful in what you told them because you didn't want to give them the wrong numbers since it would cost a lot of
money to fix any mistakes. So you would put them off, saying "we're not talking about that yet". That was our policy. The same thing has happened
with this material. The scientists have chosen not to talk about it. I believe they're aware of these anomalies but are no closer to explaining them
now than they were back then.
DFE: What caused you to look at these Voyager photographs in the first place?
NB: Scientific curiosity based on my previous experiences. Around 1981, I bought all the
transparencies and slides that were publicly available and started going through them. I found this one plate - plate number three, NASA SP-451,
Voyager's Pictures of Saturn - and I looked at it under a microscope, along with comparison photos from Voyager 2. You couldn't trace the rings all
the way around Saturn. On plate five, for example, showing the Cassini Division, it's quite obvious there's nothing much to speak off between the
rings except some curious streamers and 'exhaust'. And the 'A' ring looks awfully narrow to me. It should measure out to be three to four times
the width of the Cassini Division, but it's barely more than one Cassini Division length. The 'A' ring is not all there, radially - why is that?
Because there's something [else] there - an artifact of some sort that's 'making' the ring. And that's how my book got its title, The Ringmakers
DFE: What was the original size of the photograph you studied?
NB: A 35mm transparency.
DFE: And there was no good NASA explanation for what you were seeing on the original plate, NASA SP-451?
NB: That's right. The only official comment on this plate and the comparison photos was that the Voyager 2 rings look brighter than the Voyager 1
DFE: Did you bring your analysis to your associates at NASA?
NB: Oh, yes. A former associate of mine at Lockheed had later gone to work at Ames and had become chief scientist there. I went to see him and showed
him what I had found. His explanation was that it looked like an "energy roll". Remembering my sighting experience - in which I had seen 'exhaust'
like this before I deferred my judgement out of respect to him. He certainly didn't try to talk me down, rather he referred me to a specialist.
The specialist did try to talk me down. He said that on plate five, the picture had been "cut off", and that's why I couldn't trace the ring. In
rebuttal, I pointed out
the light source - the blue dot - on the photo. The same back and forth happened on all the photographs I showed him. It was the kind of response I
expected. I showed him the last photo and by then he just gave up. He said this was something "we just don't talk about".
I told him that this was the first statement he had made all day that made any sense. Again, having worked at Ames before and being in a similar
position myself, I understood his position completely.
DFE: This, in effect, was an admission that certain individuals within NASA know that somebody is out there?
NB: That's true.
DFE: There are stories circulating now on the Internet that, from the mid-1970s to the present, the National Security Agency has been launching highly
secret deep space probes within our solar system. What do you know about this?
NB: I worked in government during that time, so it's a period I know something about. I had a high security clearance then and was on top of all that
stuff. To my knowledge, we did not have any deep space probes flying at that juncture.
DFE: How do you view NASA today?
NB: I understand that Dan Goldin (NASA Administrator) had the goal of taking this country to Mars. Everything else be damned, including the facts. He
seems to have squandered any other opportunity. That bugs me.
DFE: Goldin took over NASA during the Bush administration, coming over from TRW [ the American defence contractor Thompson, Ramo, Woolridge] . When
the Clinton administration took over, Goldin was the only appointee who was kept on. Regardless of all the failures that have occurred - especially
with regard to Mars - he's stayed on. If this had happened in private industry, would heads have rolled by now?
NB: That's not what people get fired for. They get fired for going against the party line.
DFE: You know the joke, that NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer?
NB: They're very good at coming up with stories, or attacking those asking the questions. I meet with NASA types regularly, and they're well
practiced in speaking 'Washington-ese'.
DFE: The objects you claim to see in the rings of Saturn are immense. Have you seen the photographs taken during the Russian's Phobos II mission to
Mars, of the huge object that was supposed to have destroyed the probe?
NB: Yes. The size of that thing was like 25 kilometres (15.5 miles) long. That's about the size of an object I found near Miranda (one of Saturn's
moons), and it fits perfectly with some other things I know. I've analyzed the Phobos picture and have come up with a different answer from the
DFE: This suggests that there are operational bases in our solar system.
NB: I think that's true, especially with regard to Saturn. I consider its rings to be a polluted parking lot. I can't tell you exactly what's going
on, but I do know that Saturn is harboring a number of 'units'. There's evidence in the rings of Jupiter, too.
DFE: When you discovered the Saturn photograph anomalies and became convinced there was intelligence behind them, it must have been a fearful
discovery. Did you approach anyone else with your findings?
NB: No. I made my decision early on how I was going to handle it. Instead of looking to convince government entities - which from experience I knew
wouldn't work - I decided first to try to get an American publisher for my book. Of course, no one would touch it. I had a contact in the United
Kingdom, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this would be the ideal way to deal with it. The UK is always bugging the US on
everything and I was sure they would take the book and they did. As a consequence, the information has been spread all over Europe. I've also talked
about the book quite a bit on radio programmes here in the States. It's been quite awhile since the book came out, and I've been doing other
DFE: Have you considered updating the book?
NB: I have a lot of new material. I've wanted to do a follow-up but have hesitated since people seem more interested in what's going on closer to
home. Saturn is so far away. That's why, instead, I wrote a book about the Moon called Earth's Moon: Why We Never Returned. I have a draft
DFE: That should be extremely interesting. Most people look up at the Moon and don't give it a second thought. They've been conditioned to think
it's an airless, lifeless body. Yet it seems apparent that the Moon is also an operational base.
NB: It's quite evident there's life there a lot of activity.
DFE: If it's true, as some suggest, that an alien intelligence has been here on Earth longer than recorded history, then the accounts of early humans
interacting with 'gods' may have a basis in reality.
NB: Yes. But even the best accounts and research can't prove it. I'm interested in data that's irrefutable and indisputable; this is where it takes
you, this is what it tells you, pay attention!
DFE: Do you ever think the admission that we are not
alone in the Universe will come through official channels, especially with the national security operation that's been in effect?
NB: Yes, if you push hard enough, if you can back these guys into a corner. You have to be relentless and keep pushing. You have to educate the
constituents of the elected officials so they can go in and beat on their desks. That's the way it's got to be done. I have faith in some government
people; some of them can help. But we need to provide them with the right material and we have to say it in the right way. We're not going to make
headway if we start by criticizing the heck out of them, which is the way some people like to play the game. You have to know the right words to
[edit on 28-6-2010 by Huginn]
[edit on 28-6-2010 by Huginn]