I want to hear more from Stephen Bassett

[rangeroo]

I really enjoyed this last interview with Stephen Bassett on the Paracast. I was really hoping that they would have him on for both hours especially when he says he has special knowledge that leads him to believe that we are getting very close to disclosure. That was my big question, why is he so sure that we are close to disclosure, like David said, its been said before and never happens. He gave the "internet" as an excuse, but I think that it helps but that is still no reason for those in the know to just want to show their cards to the world.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I really enjoyed this last interview with Stephen Bassett on the Paracast. I was really hoping that they would have him on for both hours especially when he says he has special knowledge that leads him to believe that we are getting very close to disclosure. That was my big question, why is he so sure that we are close to disclosure, like David said, its been said before and never happens. He gave the "internet" as an excuse, but I think that it helps but that is still no reason for those in the know to just want to show their cards to the world.

David and I both agree that certainties of that sort have, in the past, usually been doomed to failure.

As to the second hour, Bassett wasn't available. But we hope to have him on again real soon. As you suggest, there are lots and lots of questions that remain.

 

[CapnG]

Basset talks a fine talk but I won't hold my breath waiting for him to deliver. Frankly if he does, I'll be stunned. I'll also be mentally ticking off points if he mentions any of the following names as resources:

David Sereda
John Lear
Clifford Stone
Paul Hellyer
Dan Burisch

That's all I can think of right now... I know he also mentioned Greer on the show but then did a nice little two-step to distance himself from the man.

 

[fitzbew88]

Parts of the discussion really upset me; I sensed a lot of hostility in Stephen. (Arrogance?) I can't imagine that his style is suitable for convincing un-initiated Congressmen (or their staffs) that ET is absolutely real.

I found myself committing to never support him in any shape, form, or fashion.

 

[valiens]

Stephen's an odd duck. He considers himself a left-brain totally logical thinker and sometimes does come across as hostile when what I think he means to be is matter-of-fact. Yet at the Culture of Contact festival, he gave a presentation introducing the movie "Contact" that was as poetic and right-brain as anything else. I told him he's wrong in his self-analysis but he just sort of shrugged it off.

But he is wrong.

There's more to him than the straight-forward "rational" disclosure rap he gives. And if you've ever met his girlfri--I mean, "business associate," you'd know he's far more open to esoteric views than he lets on. So it is possible (although I don't know this for a fact) that he has latched onto a point of view that he believes will attract the attention of flatland materialists and/or government officials.

 

[BrandonD]

Parts of the discussion really upset me; I sensed a lot of hostility in Stephen. (Arrogance?) I can't imagine that his style is suitable for convincing un-initiated Congressmen (or their staffs) that ET is absolutely real.

I found myself committing to never support him in any shape, form, or fashion.

And what is your reasoning for this?

 

[tommyball]

There's more to him than the straight-forward "rational" disclosure rap he gives. And if you've ever met his girlfri--I mean, "business associate," you'd know he's far more open to esoteric views than he lets on. So it is possible (although I don't know this for a fact) that he has latched onto a point of view that he believes will attract the attention of flatland materialists and/or government officials.

Well if this is the case then I'd have to congratulate him for assuming a stance that could attract more of a mainstream audience.

It should be interesting to see if he goes into any detail at the X-Conference about why he believes disclosure is imminent. And I hope that doesn't entail him rolling out a giant model of his Paradigm Clock.

-todd.

 

[valiens]

And I hope that doesn't entail him rolling out a giant model of his Paradigm Clock.

-todd.

I think you mean DOES because...come on.

 

[tommyball]

Well, as long as it's really huge, that could be cool.

-todd.

 

[devan]

...attract more of a mainstream audience.

Disclosure deserves a separate thread, but "mainstream audience" is the key phrase. Besides the perception that UFOlogy is the domain of those who subscribe to far-left politics and see a sinister conspiracy behind everything (just read any ufo-related message board), the field has other problems, just as serious.

Far too many of the more prominent personalities have suspect credibility. We have those claiming the Queen of England is a reptile, ufo flashlight tours, wedding-cake ufos with a bad glue job, etc. The list is exhaustive. The problem is that sincere, credible witnesses and researchers are tainted by those personalities and "researchers" who are delusional, off their medication, are snake-oil salesmen only trying to peddle books (often science fiction) or those who are just plain lying and who want attention.

This is the key issue with ufo research and why it will never be taken seriously by the mainstream media. No prominent journalist would dare do a serious and honest, public investigation. There was hope before Peter Jennings' "mockumentary" was aired, but he made it clear that belief in ufos is foolishness and preserved his reputation as a serious journalist.

This is also why "there will never be a FULL disclosure" by the US or any other government that may have incontrovertible photos, videos or artifacts. Is anyone naive enough to believe that the stated disclosures by other governments is truly "everything" they have?

Although most people are open to the possibility of an et presence, why would the government yield to pressure from disclosure groups when they can be discounted as a bunch of nuts? Many witnesses have impeccable credentials, but are tainted by those they associate with.

The phenomena has been reported in every country on the planet, so the US government doesn't hold all the cards. And if there really were anything to disclose, who would do it? A number of congressmen, senators, Goldwater, Ford, Hoover, Carter, Clinton and even J. Edgar Hoover seemed to have been stonewalled. "IF" there was any recovered technology, that country's defense contractors would likely be involved and private companies don't have to and won't tell the public anything. Sensitive data is also so compartmentalized in government and industry that few people are in a position to know the whole picture.

So, in my opinion, forget about disclosure. The field needs an honest and sincere multidisciplinary group, funded by a credible benefactor, to look into this -- just as we have with Paul Allen and Nathan Myhrvold with SETI. It will also need to get prominent members of the media, with the tenacity of Beth Holloway, on its side so any positive conclusions are not ignored (ie., COMETA).

Although I have the greatest respect for the work of Friedman and Maccabee, the group cannot include "ufo researchers" or the group's conclusions will be suspect. There's enough evidence out there to come up with independent analysis. If some ufo incidents were presented as a court case, there are enough credible witnesses for an affirmative judgment. A credible eyewitness testimony is enough to put someone in jail for life.

In the absence of an independent group, we need another mass sighting and have it reported on the ABC evening news as a headline story. With LightZone and PhotoShop around, a photo taken by an individual just won't cut it.

A final note, but maybe most important... If there is an et presence, then why the parade over Phoenix in the dark? Why blink out even in the absence of any threats? I wouldn't recommend they land in DC or New York, but there are plenty of other places they could publicly reveal themselves. If et, actually does exist, clearly he "doesn't want disclosure". And if there is more than one et group, then they are all on the same page??? Anyone who comes on the show to talk about disclosure needs to address a lot of questions beyond focusing on government disclosure. It's far more complicated than that. Even Corso said that he wouldn't know where to go or who to ask to get answers.

 

[RedFist]

Maybe it's just me - but Stephen Bassett came across as yet another grade-A bullshit artist (like Greer in many respects); somebody who infers that he has undeniable evidence of an ET presence - yet fails to actually produce anything to back up his words.

I would love to hear Gene and David grill this guy and try to find out what it is that he actually claims to know.

My bets are that the following phrases would come up in the conversation:
- spiritual development
- global warming
- environmental catastrophe
- galactic brotherhood
- underground bases
- change of global consciousness
- etc... etc...

He was a really entertaining guy, but I sadly doubt that he has any substantial to add to the debate.

 

[courtlizzard]

in his last round of interviews on the paranormal ufo radio circuit ive noticed basset is speaking in an angered tone......sounds like he may go postal soon......hehe.....in my book hes gone from top shelf ufo guest to quack over the past year or so but.....i do still enjoy listening to his arguements for the sack of intellectual stimulation........

now heres the question id like posed to him...alfred webre and all those disclosure exopolitic guru's........

how come if your so sure and have so much proof ET is here.....why dont ET and his little buddies land at your conference or home....and let you dudes be the ones to show the world they exist...

i hope the answer isnt...... the klingons voted for bush!

great show guys...keep it up!

court

 

[The Hawk]

I like Steven Bassett because he's angry and not going to take it..
In fact he's one of my favorite people in the UFO field because of his attitude.

I think anyone who believes for certain there is a government cover up should be mad. I'm so tired of people who think we the people are servants to the government. Governments are servants to the people and any that aren't should be whipped. Even if corporations have taken over the ET issue I'd be just as mad at them to; no doubt they are corporatist tax siphoning shills.

Though I'll admit perhaps the angry way is the worse way to get to Disclosure.. If someone (who is already selfish) knows we are getting ready to grill them the minute they talk, why would they talk?
"amnesty" man Jim Sparks is probably the person with the idea to get it done. People like me wouldn't be giving amnesty, I'd have these punks put under a fine tooth comb and hung for so much as giving me a bad look..

 

[Brian Now]

Maybe it's just me - but Stephen Bassett came across as yet another grade-A bullshit artist (like Greer in many respects); somebody who infers that he has undeniable evidence of an ET presence - yet fails to actually produce anything to back up his words.

My bets are that the following phrases would come up in the conversation:
- spiritual development
- global warming
- environmental catastrophe
- galactic brotherhood
- underground bases
- change of global consciousness
- etc... etc...

I agree. I wrote somewhere else in these forums that I didn't like the way he presented as fact that the government is reverse-engineering alien technology. He was so matter-of-fact about it with no evidence so far. This is dogma to me.

Oh and Red Fist, you forgot the word "quantum" on your list...you know we can't go anywhere without hearing that one these days!

 

[CapnG]

"Hyper-dimensional" should probably be on that list too.

 

[devan]

Another thought on disclosure...

"If" the government (however you choose to define it) does have something fantastic to disclose regarding visitation, keep in mind that any such info would be highly compartmentalized and likely sprinkled with deliberate and speculative disinformation so as to make any leaks non-credible. And remember that Carter, Clinton, Ford, many senators, congressmen and local politicians - all part of the "government" - have indicated that they wanted to provide the public with answers, but ended up having nothing to report. So, Bassett shouldn't hold his breath waiting for a particular group or individual to tie the pieces together and present it with credibility.

The question I have is... If the leaders of any country have incontrovertible evidence of et visitations, wouldn't they want disclosure? To avoid panic and, more importantly to maintain control, wouldn't it would be best if they informed the population, in a gradual manner and on their terms, where they could put their own spin on the situation? Otherwise, it could be unsettling to New Yorkers if they woke up to a fleet of 2 mile-wide mother ships parked over Manhattan. (Make that London. I don't know of too many things that would intimidate a New Yorker. ET would probably be hauled into traffic court.) If there is an actual et presence, then deliberate non-disclosure makes little sense. The population will find out eventually, so why risking letting someone else determine the when and where. (I know some here will say that the "illuminati" could want world chaos, but all bets are off if chaos begins to snowball.)

To put it another way... If someone had embarassing information about you, and was in a position to tell your friends or family at any time, wouldn't you want to get the information out first so as to put your spin on it? Or, would you rather risk walking in the door one day and have your wife hit you in the head with a cast-iron skillet?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Yeah i want to hear from Stephen Bassett again, too.....I want to hear him tell us when He and Tim are going to get Uncle Martin to wheel the spaceship out at his next press conference!!!

 

[CapnG]

To avoid panic and, more importantly to maintain control, wouldn't it would be best if they informed the population, in a gradual manner and on their terms, where they could put their own spin on the situation?

Just curious, how does one "gradually" destroy humanity's self-assured beliefs? I can see it on CNN now...

"And that ladies and gentlemen of the press, is why I demand the molestation charges be dropped.

Oh and by the way, aliens are real. Good night."

 

[devan]

Just curious, how does one "gradually" destroy humanity's self-assured beliefs? I can see it on CNN now...

Simple. After a credible sighting, such as we had with O'Hare and Guernsey, the authorities could admit that something unusual did occur and that they were looking into it. What they do now is deny that it happened or, if pressed, make up a stupid explanation that the major media accepts.

When you think about it, disclosure has already occurred. Eyewitness testimony by impeccable military officers, pilots, doctors, police officers and engineers that could satisfy any judge or jury. But the mainstream media will not give it their blessing, so we go nowhere.

If there was an eyewitness to the murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson, OJ might be sitting on death row right now. If that same witness reported seeing a UFO, some would try to put him in a straightjacket.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

When a citizen other than from the military, government or the UFO community, for that matter, has a disk or craft smash into his house and is seen standing on the top of it with his mates, drinking beers with the creature(s) in full view of the worldwide news media and giving an interview to Oprah, then maybe we will have some kind of disclosure!!!

.....but even then the de-bunkers will say that it was staged and people were payed to stage it!!!
: