• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

23 Mar 2008 Show - Coalition for Freedom of Information

Rick Deckard

Paranormal Maven
I've just finished listening to the show and thought I'd just take the opportunity to thank Gene and David (and Leslie) for a truly excellent show.

You asked some very insightful questions and your guest did an excellent job of answering them. IMHO, you got the balance just right (whatever that means) and managed to keep my interest peaked for the whole two hours.

If you could use this one show as the 'blue-print' for all future shows, then that would suit me just fine. :D
 
Great interview.

On the possible new version of Out Of The Blue, James Fox did an audio interview at The Paranormal Cafe -
Part one
http://paranormalcafe.podomatic.com/entry/2007-09-27T05_23_27-07_00
Part two
http://paranormalcafe.podomatic.com/entry/2007-10-04T06_01_50-07_00

It dates from September '07, I don't know if he's said anything else more recently.
 
Excellent interview, yes. Fascinating for the whole two hours. That lady is very intelligent; she's damned aggressive, too, such as when Mr. D.Biedny complimented Bassett and then she delivered an excellent critique of the exopolitical people. I've never liked those people much. I usually just say that they support crackpots and crazies and themselves believe in crackpot cases and thus do not advance UFO studies. Rarely do I attempt to articulate just what in the hell is wrong with their methodology. When I do, it doesn't make as much sense as what she said. I may have to borrow her critique from now on.

One of my favorite interviews to date.
 
Amazing guest. Very very refreshing to finally hear someone who understands the appropriate way forward in this field. This is the voice of sane UFO politics.

I hope the hosts take Stephen Bassett to task in light of her comments. At least ask him how can they have a whole conference devoted to rallying the public in the cause of disclosure, and all they can produce is a mocking article in the Washington Post? I don't care how hostile the media is to the topic, if the purpose of the conference is to get the topic taken seriously, that's just a joke of a result.
 
Listen, I understand that the disclosure movement faces some serious uphill obstacles, but I'll tell you right now, I personally appreciate what Bassett is doing, and I'd find it difficult to give him a really hard time, in light of his goal: that the government tells us what it knows. Do I think it'll happen? No. Do I think Bassett has made some mistakes in giving folks like Greer a podium? Yes. Do I think that the mission of trying to get the government to spill the beans is a good one? Yes. Do I agree with everything Bassett is doing? No. Do I support the existence of the X-Conference? Yes. Do I agree with everything said at the conference? No. Do I think that the Democrats - if they win the presidency, which I feel will only happen if the powers that be know that the severe economic and military crash will happen on their watch, otherwise, here comes McCain - will make disclosure happen by next spring, as Bassett believes? Not a chance. Will The Paracast make an enemy out of Bassett? Nope. I have problems with some of his beliefs, but his primary goal of getting the government to 'fess up is one I personally support.

dB
 
David Biedny said:
Listen, I understand that the disclosure movement faces some serious uphill obstacles, but I'll tell you right now, I personally appreciate what Bassett is doing, and I'd find it difficult to give him a really hard time, in light of his goal: that the government tells us what it knows. Do I think it'll happen? No. Do I think Bassett has made some mistakes in giving folks like Greer a podium? Yes. Do I think that the mission of trying to get the government to spill the beans is a good one? Yes. Do I agree with everything Bassett is doing? No. Do I support the existence of the X-Conference? Yes. Do I agree with everything said at the conference? No. Do I think that the Democrats - if they win with presidency, which I feel will only happen if the powers that be know that the severe economic and military crash will happen on their watch, otherwise, here comes McCain - will make disclosure happen by next spring, as Bassett believes? Not a chance. Will The Paracast make an enemy out of Bassett? Nope. I have problems with some of his beliefs, but his primary goal of getting the government to 'fess up is one I personally support.

dB

What I'll add is short and sweet: David and I do not have a litmus test where we must agree 100% or even 80% with a guest before we support their goals. We have disagreements with Steve Bassett, Standon Freidman and others in various matters, but they are all willing to stick their necks out to get serious attention for UFOs.
 
David Biedny said:
I have problems with some of his beliefs, but his primary goal of getting the government to 'fess up is one I personally support.

dB

Very fair points. But couldn't it at least be said that his methods do more harm than good, especially if he isn't "filtering" very well? Isn't he, in effect, doing the same thing Greer did by putting his "real" witnesses (or speakers, in Bassett's case) up against obvious fruitcakes- even if his motives are more honest than Greer's?

Surely someone who is a lobbyist as Bassett claims to be must know that the nature of the beast- perhaps the number one obstacle for taking ufo issues seriously- is getting past the derisive media treatment. Wouldn't a good lobbyist know then that you have to purge the stage, get your ducks in a row, give the media as few avenues as possible for mockery or ignoring the issue? I would have thought this would have been the number one priority for something like X-Conference, and the kind of thing an effective lobbyist would be well aware of. Look at how quickly, for example, politicians will distance themselves from campaigners or supporters who go off-message to even the slightest degree. This is politics 101- supporting a common goal alone is not enough for a lobbyist.

I suppose this is all easy for me to say, you might ask "well, what are you doing for the field?" And I appreciate that Bassett is at least making a huge effort. Not attending the X-Conference or being very well acquainted with the players in this field I ask the questions honestly, from a distant perspective. When I read about something like the X-Conference, in for example the Washington Post article, I can only think to myself "burn the whole thing down and start again, it's not working, it's doing more harm than good." Maybe I am wrong. This "public image" seems so crucial though- I wonder if it's something people like Bassett might miss, because they are too involved with the situation, missing the forest for the trees, etc.

I've definitely heard Bassett on the show before and think he sounded like a man whose heart was in the right place. His determination was clearly honest, and his "keep your eye on the prize" point of view of the situation was very much in line with Leslie Kean's expression of the need to effect a very small, initial, first-level change (i.e., public acknowledgement), from which the rest might follow.
 
Yeah, Steve Basset is a nice man who works hard and I can sympathize with the hosts' desire not to make any enemy out of him. Still, what is it with this guy? Doesn't he friggin realize that he undermines his goals by allowing Michael Salla and Steven Greer to make him look like a non-discerning asshole? He sounds like a fairly intelligent man; surely he must realize that these people damage his credibility. What's his justification for overlooking it?
 
I couldn't completely disagree with critics of Steven Bassett, he has his weak points. Problem is your talking ideal world scenarios, if he didn't have these types at his conferences he wouldn't come close to making ends meet. Maybe if he was wealthy it would be one thing but he's not. Until someone is willing to give him a huge grant to organize a legitimate conference i don't think we can complain. He does manage to include the richard dolans and nick pope's at his conference, and guess where the crowd goes. Until more of us moderate people come out to support the Dolan and Pope lectures we'll see more of the same kooks who the trekkie types come to see. I like Leslie Keanes ideas in general, and don't completely disagree with her take against Bassett, but she seems to have a little too much venom for a guy I think is doing the best he can.

I enjoyed the last show guys. I've never heard anyone get Leslie Keane out of her box quite as much as you guys did, great interview. I definately agree with Deckard on his comment!
 
I enjoyed this show. The guest seemed intelligent and very grounded.

David's line of questioning about the high level would-be whistle blowers in the military that would like to come clean but can't didn't fly so well. I'm not sure if he was intimating that they are under telepathic influence, or programmed, or something, but she didn't seem to be the guest to pursue on this one.

But, that was a minor detour in an otherwise very informative episode.
 
Scott Story said:
I enjoyed this show. The guest seemed intelligent and very grounded.

David's line of questioning about the high level would-be whistle blowers in the military that would like to come clean but can't didn't fly so well. I'm not sure if he was intimating that they are under telepathic influence, or programmed, or something, but she didn't seem to be the guest to pursue on this one.

But, that was a minor detour in an otherwise very informative episode.

I disagree. That was one of the most interesting parts and I would very much like to hear more about this.
 
Well, I was intrigued with David's question too, and would have liked to hear more on his thoughts on what's happening. My point is that guest wasn't biting--she didn't seem big on speculation or speaking off the record.
 
Great show, once again. It's exciting to listen to 3 well informed people discussing the matter of UFO's in an intelligent way. This is what C2C should be like, ... every night.
 
I thought it was going really well... right up until the point when she mentioned the Sci Fi Channel and Landsman, at which point it was laughable. Landsman is notorious. There's something else going on here... And it feels a little cheesy.
 
Great guest. I look forward to seeing what comes out of the Kecksburg lawsuit.

The topic of why ufos aren't tracked on radar as much as they used to be is addressed here.
 
Great show gene and dave, you really got to some core issues in the field that are usually not elaborated on as directly.

Leslie's opinion on the 'exopolitics scene' was really interesting. Very cool to hear a relative newcomer who is a real mainstream journalist (unlike Paola Harris) point of view on this stuff. She would be a good filter to use for any major PR campaign to get public support on the issue, since she seems to have a good grasp on what type of evidence has the best chance to receive mainstream support, based on her observations.

For the most part I agree with David's opinion that people like Greer and Webre hurt the movement with their crazy talk with no quality evidence to back anything up, although I do try to keep up with their stuff in case they happen to one day stumble across some compelling evidence :) I try to look for the tiny consistent potential grains of truth within the non-credible ufo scene as well. I do think there is a place for these expolitic guys in the UFO scene just like Bill O'Reilly has a niche in the right wing fantasy world scene, but these guys should not be included in any serious efforts to get the word out to the mainstream world.

Regarding Steve Bassett? I think Steve is a great guy doing his best. It's easy to be a back seat driver of course, but I don't think you can argue with his passion and intentions. He is overly optimistic about disclosure and he does mix the fringe with the highly credible. I think he has to be optimistic or he would go crazy. Kind of like how a general manager of an NBA team like Isiah Thomas truly believes they have a good team and can really be successful :)

I once asked Steve via email why he had Greer and company at the x-conference and he wrote that it was because they draw attendence and since he finances this thing on a very limited budget, he needs to fill seats. He actually takes a big hit every year. I forgot what he emailed me but it was something like he lost $10,000 of his own money last year and multiply that times 4 years or whatever. Renting out a hotel conference room for 3 days is expensive!!!!! Kudos to Steve for his effort. I've suggested that Steve do more 'local' promotion in the DC area instead of putting all his efforts into the national UFO scene, but I don't think he has heeded my words. If a conference is down the street from you and you have a passing interest in UFO's, I think your much more likely to attend then if you live in Alaska and listen to Coast to Coast.... but that's just a marketing issue (I think he really needs a marketing consultant, his website is all over the place!!!)

When Steve is on the show I think it is entirely fair to bring the Greer/Webre subject up to him and I think he will be honest about it. I think unlike some people, Steve is open to ideas and suggestions, so I would feel free to email him if you have any strong opinions on how he can improve his efforts.

Steve's emphasis on the ET hypothesis is something that David questioned him on before, but next time I would like to hear David confront him on that a bit more since I think the dimensional/crypto stuff is probably just as likely, and actually I think all of the above are true - et/dimensional/crypto/mental etc.... but that's just my opinion.

IMO Leslie spending any time trying to engage the government in another project blue book is a waste of time. I know this is based on her interviews with foreign generals who said this would help get things going etc... but I think it's a waste given the 60 year history on this in the US. I got the feeling Leslie isn't as schooled in the coverup as she needs to be. She needs to see Rich Dolan give a talk.

I prefer Steve's more aggressive approach and think if UFO's continue to gain credible momentum in the public sphere to the point where 50,000 people march on Washington, then we are more likely to get answers.

Do I think this will happen any time in the next few years, probably not, but I think it's the most effective approach versus regurgitating blue book. I think a majority of public acceptance of this phenomena, not just privately, but to the point where people openly proclaim their belief in this could have a big influence on getting any type of disclosure.

I know how the UFO buffs always spout the fact that 'polls show over 50% of people believe....", well 50% don't openly believe and often the ones that do are more concerned with getting to work on time. So I think a major PR campaign/cultural movement, on par with Christinity, WMD's in Iraq, Michael Jackson's Thriller, etc... would be the thing that potentially really blows open the doors. How do you do this when press conferences, Larry King Live, etc... have no impact? I think you have to continue to plug away and get influential people in the media to take this matter seriously...... This is a simplistic view I know, but just a stream of consciousness...

Certainly if people like Webre and Greer get to promote themselves as a public face on this issue and get a stage like the X Conference which is supposed to be different then the new age events, then nothing's gonna happen!
 
I wasn't planning on listening to this show, not knowing Leslie, and not wanting to see another government "investigation." After the good reviews in this thread I think I'll give a listen tonight.

My trepidition is with someone who thinks the government is needed or even important in uncovering the truth about anything, especially something as subtle and complex as UFO phenomena. The federal government is better at obscurng the truth.

Well, here goes... I hope you guys are right...
 
Manu said:
My trepidition is with someone who thinks the government is needed or even important in uncovering the truth about anything, especially something as subtle and complex as UFO phenomena. The federal government is better at obscurng the truth.

Well, I think most of us are in the same boat as you - I liked the show because of the way it was conducted. I found Leslie's approach to be refreshing, even if I might also feel that it's doomed to failure.
 
Another great show. Leslie Kean is a very charming person and strikes a good chord for the UFO field. She's intelligent and conveys her ideas very clearly. The interview was very well-paced and covered a lot of good topics. It had good flow and was very entertaining. Thanks Gene and Dave. You guys are in the zone.

In regard to the whole Stephen Bassett/disclosure thing:

First of all, David is correct in his assessment of the mixed-bag that we've seen in past disclosure conferences. It's nasty stuff. Horrible stuff. It's simple. You cannot ask good people to share their really good stories alongside nonsensical kooks and expect to retain their allegiance and support over the long haul. You've immediately killed the message. In fact, it's as if the people who set up those conferences using that mixed blend of witnesses do so on purpose in a calculated attempt to debilitate the cause. They might be disinformation agents.

Look at it this way: You can pollute an entire lake with just a few gallons of poison, and it's not that hard to accomplish. And good luck getting those great witnesses back for another conference after they're been forced to share the stage with crackpots. Sure, it's beneficial to get a wide range of people in one place with a lot of different stories to tell, but there's a fine line, here. A very fine line.

So how it is done is very, very important.

Secondly, regardless of the possible outcome, or what they might or might not actually know of the phenomenon, it's essential to continue to put pressure on the government. It's not just about past cases. Who knows what the future might bring in terms of sightings? As long as the government knows that citizens are interested in the UFO phenomenon, they should -- and will -- have to keep their guard up.

Stop and think about this for a second... think of the FREAKY AS HELL "things" that are being seen out there, and where and when they're being seen...

A UFO, hovering over O'Hare airport (THE SECOND LARGEST AIRPORT IN THE WORLD) - in 2007... 6 years after "Rudy Giuliani Day", and the government shrugs its shoulders in apathy? This example alone is a good enough reason to support disclosure to the fullest, regardless of the chances of success. The government needs its ASS kicked over this subject. Anyone who wouldn't be incensed by the fact that the government wouldn't cough up every little bit of information that they had on the O'Hare case should have their head examined. That being said...

Do I think it will ever make any real difference? No.

Why? Because the government is capable of keeping secrets.

On that subject with Stanton I agree.
 
Well put Apocalypto, agreed on both points.

I don't think we will ever get "disclosure" the way Greer or Bassett would define it. That's a pipe dream, and it just won't happen so long as you get people like them doing it the way they're doing it. (Greer obviously we can discount for other reasons, not least being an apparent fraud and/or nut.)

People look at this too confrontationally, and it's sad. When someone like a Greer or a Bassett starts talking about giant coverups they're dooming themselves to failure from the beginning. You cannot fight the powers that be on this issue by starting with the premise that there's a massive coverup- at least not publicly. There may very well be one, there almost certainly is *to some scale*, but if you're choosing the black, evil heart of the matter to slay, as it were, you're not going to get anywhere and you're not going to get much serious support.

If the "established" UFO-politics community can't understand why this is so then frankly maybe they don't deserve to be taken seriously. As long as there are people like Kean there is some hope. Everyone else is just a slightly better spoken Gary MacKinnon as far as the public is concerned- that small segment that actually pays attention to this stuff, anyway. People need to look beyond the conspiracy theories (even if they're true, as some of them may certainly be) and work with what we are able.

This isn't playing dead, either- it's playing smart. If you need a conspiracy-theory narrative to put this all in, then consider that the powers that be aren't afraid of disclosure or X-Conference or exopolitics or whatever it will be called next season, but they will have some pause when we get one or two members of congress asking basic and serious questions about airline safety and radar blips. That doesn't make much sense for the people with grandiose ideas about slaying some government dragon maybe, but those people are living in a dreamworld if they think their plan is any better.
 
Back
Top