I didn't see one so... March 1st 2009 show - S. Bassett.

[dragon376]

Oh... wow....
Just finish listening to the show. Bassett just blew a couple of wires in his brain right there... "Credibility doesn't matter???"... In a disclosure movement, credibility is the main thing that will matter. Our entire justice system is based on credibility!!! Our entire social system is based on credibility. People don't take people with no credibility seriously even if they are speaking the truth.
He is either really really stupid, or he is employed by the government. In any case, he is doing exactly the opposite of what he pretending to do.

 

[CoachMcGuirk]

"Credibility doesn't matter"

That low groan you heard was Kal Korff launching one in his pants....

He was on the phone with Bassett as soon as he cleaned up.

 

[jhh]

Well, I will chime in here with my own personal 'close encounter' with SB as we seem to be doing a bit of SB bashing.

This occurred on the Monday after last years x-con, 2008, at about 10:10 AM in the National Press Club . The x-con press conference was scheduled for 10:00 AM. I was in the lobby of the National Press Club and entered the elevator. As the elevator door was about to close, SB came, literally running, up to the elevator and reopened the closing doors. I forget whether it was via a 'hand insertion' or a 'button push'. Never matter.

SB entered the elevator, as well as the 'banner guy'. As the elevator doors were closing the second time, a third person on the elevator pushed the button to again reopen the elevator doors. He did this because another person, from FL, was attempting to enter the elevator.

The doors open and as the guy from FL began to enter the elevator, SB steps forward and begins to push the FL guy out of and away from the elevator saying NO ! NO ! NO !.
The FL guys arms are out-stretched with hands on the doorway of the elevator holding himself from being pushed out.

I guess SB didn't want to want to wait for the extra time for the elevator door process. After about three times of pushing him, he, SB must have realized that whether the FL guy got on or not, it would not change the time dynamic, so he relented and allowed the FL guy to enter.

He then 'commanded' the unknown third person on the elevator to NOT allow anyone else onto the elevator.

I have always been a rather good judge of character and the flashy, outspoken nature of SB, to me, seemed to be that which may be necessary, to achieve what SB is attempting to do, in the manner in which he is doing it.

No real problem there.

However this incident added a bit more to my perspective.

A review of my notes at that time, to another:
"I will say that If I had a lot of close friends, SB probably would not be among them. He has his agenda and we USE him for it."

 

[Nethawk]

Bassett made his points brilliantly, IMO.

And it is a real pity that post show remarks tend to cut the guests down behind their backs rather than present balanced views/opinions. I'm particularly amused by the host's predictable tendency to interrupt the guest whenever he/she gets a point across and to employ conveniently placed breaks to cut momentum. NLP at its finest.

 

[Gareth]

@ jhh

wowsers!

 

[Stillborn]

Bassett made his points brilliantly, IMO.

And it is a real pity that post show remarks tend to cut the guests down behind their backs rather than present balanced views/opinions. I'm particularly amused by the host's predictable tendency to interrupt the guest whenever he/she gets a point across and to employ conveniently placed breaks to cut momentum. NLP at its finest.

To not speak their mind and be phony is what you are asking for. That isn't to be mistaken for balance. The fact they have dolts on in the first place and give them a chance is balance. If anything, they hold back imo. There are things I would do different at times. But I don't. Neither do you. Or if you do do better, what is your show? I'll give it a listen.

Breaks? They need to pay for this shit they give to you freely. Timed conspiracy because they couldn't form arguments? Only if you're a woo woo.

 

[CapnG]

I'm particularly amused by the host's predictable tendency to interrupt the guest whenever he/she gets a point across and to employ conveniently placed breaks to cut momentum.

Bassett suffers horribly from motormouth syndrome. If Gene and David didn't interrupt him, he'd probably asphyxiate.

 

[SR2]

This show reminded me of the Paola Harris interview. So many of the figures in this field are so used to the kid glove treatment by the Art Bell/George Noory types, that they become unhinged when confronted with any sort of rational, pointed questioning. They can't deal with it in a similar calm sensible manner. Bassett ended up sounding like a crazy man.

I also think that you guys have developed a reputation for confrontational interviews, and your guests come in ready for a fight. All you have to do is begin to ask a non-softball question, and they're off and running. They expect to get attacked and they lash out before you have a chance to make your point.

Man..., I never thought I'd miss having Stanton Friedman back on the Paracast.

 

[Gareth]

Bassett suffers horribly from motormouth syndrome. If Gene and David didn't interrupt him, he'd probably asphyxiate.

Exactly.

Nethawk the particular thing that Capn quoted is a bullshit argument. It really is.

TBH I got the impression that Gene let it run a little bit longer on occasion in this ep before doing an ad.

 

[Nethawk]

Neither do you. Or if you do do better, what is your show? I'll give it a listen.

I'm usually in front of the camera rather than behind it. Here's some interviews - on this subject. I have hundreds of hours logged on other topics.

Sorry - I just think David comes across as a professional antagonist and takes real joy when guests blow up - understandable considering his approach.

 

[Gareth]

I'm usually in front of the camera rather than behind it. Here's some interviews - on this subject. I have hundreds of hours logged on other topics.

can you be more specific? Which videos are you in?

 

[David Biedny]

Gee, I'm thrilled that we have an honest-to-goodness, actual adventurer here on our forums - NetHawk is Canada's own little Indiana Jones. Coolio! But, like so many other yutzes in this sandbox, your online bio seems to lack any significant details of a professional life. You fight bears for a living? They pay you overtime for that? Oh, wait, you're an author. Sold many books?

So Stephane, based on a cursory perusal of your site, I see you're a big fan of your fellow Canadian paranormal piehole Bobby McConnell, the host of the single worst shitbomb of the airwaves besides C2C. That's dandy! And you're a big supporter of Bassett, which explains your little stab at me on these forums. Nice! Meanwhile, your boy lost his cool on here at the mere drop of a pin, many folks noticed his coming unhinged and change of voice when pressed even a tiny bit by the evils of logic (if you didn't find it a little creepy, you've been spending too much time breathing stale pyramid air). You want to buy into his basket of baloney, go for it, but you might want to check the headband of that lovely hat glued to your head, it may be cutting off some of the oxygen going to that little spongy walnut between your ears.

Am I antagonizing you? Sorry, I'll go sit under my Bacon Pyramid™ and ask D O G for guidance.

dB

 

[BrandonD]

My answer to this particular question, though, is 'No.' It's just not a big enough war to worry about. It's a small war and a much-longer-than-anticipated insurgency.

I partially agree.

If the military people in charge were legitimately motivated by the stereotypical "war" concerns you mentioned (overthrowing a Muslim Caliphate, occupying strategic territory, etc), and they DID have access to these advanced technologies, I think that we would almost CERTAINLY see them being utilized on the battlefield.

I think it's obvious that people who are truly motivated by war concerns will do whatever they can to win a war. But it's pretty clear that they're not being used, and yet I do suspect that *someone* has access to them.

There is a way to reconcile the two dissonant parts, as I see it.

There are two groups in the military/industrial complex: military and private industry.

For those in private industry, overthrowing caliphates and occupying strategic territories ranks low on the priority list. The primary business interest in a war is to generate profits.

I think it would be reasonable to assume that those in the higher levels of the military have strong business ties to private industry. Therefore, their motivations are surely strongly aligned.

In other words, these advanced aircraft are not being used to win the war because the war doesn't need to be "won", just prolonged indefinitely as long as profits can be generated for those in command.

 

[Schuyler]

Bassett made his points brilliantly, IMO.

And what points were those?

 

[Stillborn]

I'm usually in front of the camera rather than behind it. Here's some interviews - on this subject. I have hundreds of hours logged on other topics.

Sorry - I just think David comes across as a professional antagonist and takes real joy when guests blow up - understandable considering his approach.

Thank you for the link. You're involved with which shows you have linked? If any, I stand corrected. You at least are doing something and please accept my apologies for assuming you weren't.

 

[Rocketsauce]

Well, I will chime in here with my own personal 'close encounter' with SB as we seem to be doing a bit of SB bashing.

This occurred on the Monday after last years x-con, 2008, at about 10:10 AM in the National Press Club . The x-con press conference was scheduled for 10:00 AM. I was in the lobby of the National Press Club and entered the elevator. As the elevator door was about to close, SB came, literally running, up to the elevator and reopened the closing doors. I forget whether it was via a 'hand insertion' or a 'button push'. Never matter.

SB entered the elevator, as well as the 'banner guy'. As the elevator doors were closing the second time, a third person on the elevator pushed the button to again reopen the elevator doors. He did this because another person, from FL, was attempting to enter the elevator............

I've had a couple of tiny interactions with him and he has seemed unnecessarily gruff in those interactions, so your story doesn't surprise me. I just took him with a grain of salt given his nature and temperment in other interviews I've heard.

His main strength IMO is his passion and energy. His biggest weaknesses are pretty obvious in his approach and I think David pointed those out quite well.

He is the type of person IMO that would really benefit from working with and under the direction of others who are more rational/critical and who understand how important credibility is.

It's like if you had a sales team, you might have a high energy sales guy who is smart and talented, but this same guy without proper direction and management might go off on completely inappropriate or ineffective tangents. Having energy and passion for the sake of energy and passion can only get you so far, particularly in a field that has HUGE problems in selling itself to those in power.

The reality he seems to 'project' just doesn't seem realistic in any way in terms of disclosure. Much of his analysis seems to be based on half-assed assumptions (the cold war signaled the start of the UFO era?????) yet he says it with such convication that it can take hearing him a few times to realize he's like a political talking head on cable tv who doesn't really know anything more than the person watching at home.

 

[marduk]

In other words, these advanced aircraft are not being used to win the war because the war doesn't need to be "won", just prolonged indefinitely as long as profits can be generated for those in command.

It's possible, but I differ in that opinion. The war/occupation of Iraq will probably cost more than $2 trillion dollars. That's almost two years of the GDP of Canada.

Think about it. They went in to "shock and awe" the Iraqis. If the US military had multiple-hundred foot long black triangles, they wouldn't have just shocked and awed the Iraqis. They'd be the voice of god themselves by hanging a few of these over Baghdad. Game over.

It is possible that we've got hardware. I'd even put high odds on that -- say something like 75%. I'd put far smaller odds that we've back engineered something significant -- something like 10% of that 75%. Possible but unlikely for many of the reasons discussed on the show as well as my own thoughts about the progression of technology.

If we've had stuff in our arsenal for multiple decades, I personally think we'd have seen it by now.

 

[Schuyler]

I partially agree.

If the military people in charge were legitimately motivated by the stereotypical "war" concerns you mentioned (overthrowing a Muslim Caliphate, occupying strategic territory, etc), and they DID have access to these advanced technologies, I think that we would almost CERTAINLY see them being utilized on the battlefield.

No, you wouldn't. Your ideas are motivated by how you see the military-industrial complex, 'legitimacy,' the profit motive, etc. You'll notice I clearly underlined the idea of avoiding political issues above and you're putting them back in. If you don't happen to believe what I have sketched out in terms of strategic motives, fine. I stand by what I said. I think it is clearly provable, but it is also beside the point and will take us astray.

The real issue, is what, if anything, so-called 'advanced technology' (if it exists) would bring to the table. From a military point of view, you do not use a weapons system just because you have it. There has to be a strategic or tactical advantage to using it weighed against the risks of doing so. In this case, the largest risk is displaying it, not to the Iraquis, but to China, India, Russia, and to the American people. For this particular conflict, giving away its existence is more costly than not using it.

My guess is that if such technology exists, it does not exist in deployable-enough quantity to make a difference. What can a triangular, gravity-powered stealth craft do that a B-1 can't? It's 2/3rds there already and it isn't secret. In terms of placing munitions accurately on a target, nothing. What can 'advanced technology' do during an insurgency when people are fighting with AK-47s and RPGs from house to house? Answer: Nothing. There is no advantage, either strategic or tactical, to do so. It doesn't fit the job description.

Weapons systems, people, vehicles, etc. are called 'assets' in the military. You don't call for an asset, particularly an expensive asset, unless you are damn sure it will provide an advantage. For example, if you become aware of a situaton on the ground that you think could use further scrutiny, you CAN call for a satellite, but you will encounter stiff resistence up the chain of command because moving a satellite into place is costly, and it is a limited resource. If you take a satellite away from its assigned mission and put it on a new one you'd damn well better be right. In the military you are taught to be very conservative in that regard.

The bottom line here is that it makes no sense from either a tactical, strategic, or intelligence perspective to expose a secret technology to view when you don't need to do it, especially when less expensive, non-secret assets everyone knows about can be effectively deployed to do the job.

 

[dad2059]

Hmmm...pretty much standard Bassett fare as far as my limited experience studying this stuff is concerned.

Credibility need not apply? Flood the faxes?

If the CIA didn't find this stuff so useful, I'd put this character in the out-bin faster than entangled photons.

But he does such a good job of making himself irrevelent, there's no need!

 

[Rocketsauce]

I've just breezed through these posts about the using tech in Iraq and while I"m not particularly well read on these issues, I do remember there being inadequate armor for the troops, particularly on their humvees, so there was certainly some very basic tech available to them that they didn't use even when they should of.

Also, in terms of aviation tech, the conventional aviation tech seemed to work quite well in terms of the initial attack that had to dismantle a conventional nationalist military. It's the more complicated tactics/politics/factions on the ground that have proved the real problem and I can't think of many futuristic aviation technology scenarios that would help that situation.