May 5, 2013 Citizen Hearing On Disclosure

[wwkirk]

I didn't listen to the webcast, but after hearing Chris, it sounded like a worthwhile endeavor. That being said, the $600,000 (is that the right number?) could probably have been put to better use. But its not my money. The donor evidently wanted to spend his or her money in this manner. I must say, I'm impressed that Steven Basset has that kind of influence.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I mentioned during the show that Robert Hastings, author of "UFOs and Nukes," was nowhere in evidence, even though some of the witnesses he interviewed for the book were present.

Here's Hastings' take on the conference:

UFOs Disabling Nuclear Missiles: Former Senator Says Veterans' Testimony is the "Smoking Gun" Confirming a U.S. Government Cover-up - WSJ.com

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In addition, Robert has given me permission to quote an email he sent to his friends on the subject, as follows:

All,

As I told a friend, when he asked me to assess the Citizen Hearing before it happened, "Nothing is black or white. Some good will come from it, however, I suspect that the negatives will outweigh the positives and I am concerned that the ex-USAF missileers who've decided to participate will end up being unfairly associated with the less-than-credible witnesses."

Well, given that former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel took the Air Force veterans seriously and went so far as to say that their statements were the "smoking gun" that confirmed that there was/is a government cover-up on UFOs, I would say that I was correct about the good part.

Also, serious researchers were in evidence, including Peter Davenport and Kevin Randle, to name two. And credible whistleblowers, such as retired FAA administrator John Callahan.

But as I watched the hearings, all five days, it became clear that I was also correct about the bad part. Bassett has never vetted his witnesses, refuses to do so, probably doesn't even know how, and it frequently showed. So, it's not surprising that there was more than a little BS, wishful thinking, and unwitting participation in hoaxes and disinformation ops.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Ufology.

However, given how rare it is for a high-level government type to say something affirming about UFOs and the cover-up of same--even though Sen. Gravel left Washington in 1981--I decided to issue the following press release:

UFOs Disabling Nuclear Missiles: Former Senator Says Veterans' Testimony is the 'Smoking Gun'... -- WASHINGTON, May 7, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

It has already received some useful attention. The debunkers will say that I am posting it just to sell books. That's what they always fall back on, since the information I have collected over the years from military veterans is credible, documented, and hard to refute.

Robert

 

[Wade]

well both you and chris both mentioned steven's not up-to-snuff methodology of vetting his attendees but having not yet listened to this week's show i have less issue with these guys "... with questionable claims made by some of the other witnesses at the hearing..." than i do with those committee members who heard the testimony. at least the less credible wittnesses are a known factor and are somewhat to be expected.

this is not something i would usually comment on because this whole disclosure thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth and by all accounts i'm not the most informed person on this issue ( i joined this forum to become more informed) but did gravel and company ever express an interest or even opinion in the ufo phenomenon before this hearing? Don't get me wrong, to publically speak on such a thing while in office would be political suicide, i'm aware of that, but once their term was done it would be nice if the committee members had already established an interest or opinion on the ufo phenomenon. hell, i would have come and said the same thing gravel did and i would have charged only half the price they did. and for $20,000 i would express my love for charlie manson. when all is said and done are the "disclosure 6" going to be accesible in the future for any follow ups or were they just paying lip service to the check writer? If you guys have shown an interest in the dark side and even appeared on c2c then you have my apologies.

speaking of half, i did a half assed search on mike gravel + ufo AND!!! almost took heart in that there was a hit that was older than just a few days ago but it was a red herring. i included it below but don't bother clicking unless you're extraordinarily bored, there's no there "there"

Sen. Mike Gravel: Russert's UFO and other Debate Mysteries

well just the same thanks for attending chris and did you pick up any new books at the pentagon's barnes & noble occult section i'll listen to the show tonight before dmr and mr. bosley and maybe i'll be less snarky after listening to it

 

[Wade]

Just finished listening to the episode and to parrot Don's and Chris's feelings my initial of cynicism was lessened somewhat after hearing Chris"s wrap up.

Again, my main concern was more about the enthusiasm of the committee members more so than the Greers....excuse me the Gre'rs....and the Linda Molten bleeeeeeeeep.

I guess, despite the fact that on top of their appearance fee and the (likely) fact that their travel and accommodations were paid for, the fact tbey showed up at all probably indicates some interest in the field i just hope they don't become all dilettante-ish about the matter and stick with it instead. (Scratch an ex-senator find a ufologist ) and to be honest that whole scenario of them paying rapt attention at first and then fading as the day goes on really rings true. Let that be a lesson to Bassett and company.

Maybe six months from now you guys can get one of the committee membets to appear on the show that Must be named.

Having said all that perhaps the field is taking the wrong approach on this. As we've seen time and time again if you want to get congress 's attention on something it takes a celebrity. I hear Angelina Jolie-Pitt is looking for a new cause.
(one last smiley )

 

[Atticus11]

And now to leverage this for a sustained income stream ... Citizen Hearing asking everyone to send money for their new foundation to lobby the UN ... LOL ...

"we the undersigned request the Citizen Hearing Foundation use its offices to organize interested parties and raise the funds necessary to pursue a global campaign to convince one or more nations to propose a resolution within the General Assembly"

CHD Foundation

 

[Atticus11]

In addition, Robert has given me permission to quote an email he sent to his friends on the subject, as follows:

All,

As I told a friend, when he asked me to assess the Citizen Hearing before it happened, "Nothing is black or white. Some good will come from it, however, I suspect that the negatives will outweigh the positives and I am concerned that the ex-USAF missileers who've decided to participate will end up being unfairly associated with the less-than-credible witnesses."

Well, given that former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel took the Air Force veterans seriously and went so far as to say that their statements were the "smoking gun" that confirmed that there was/is a government cover-up on UFOs, I would say that I was correct about the good part.

Also, serious researchers were in evidence, including Peter Davenport and Kevin Randle, to name two. And credible whistleblowers, such as retired FAA administrator John Callahan.

But as I watched the hearings, all five days, it became clear that I was also correct about the bad part. Bassett has never vetted his witnesses, refuses to do so, probably doesn't even know how, and it frequently showed. So, it's not surprising that there was more than a little BS, wishful thinking, and unwitting participation in hoaxes and disinformation ops.

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Ufology.

However, given how rare it is for a high-level government type to say something affirming about UFOs and the cover-up of same--even though Sen. Gravel left Washington in 1981--I decided to issue the following press release:

UFOs Disabling Nuclear Missiles: Former Senator Says Veterans' Testimony is the 'Smoking Gun'... -- WASHINGTON, May 7, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

It has already received some useful attention. The debunkers will say that I am posting it just to sell books. That's what they always fall back on, since the information I have collected over the years from military veterans is credible, documented, and hard to refute.

Robert

I'm curious, more than anything else, as to why Hastings would drop $800 to send a release over PRNewswire ... I know he's done it before and I suspect he believes that, when he gets the insertion report after it crosses the wire, those are media outlets who have "run" it (as opposed to what is really happening - it's being auto-filed into analyst archives where no one sees it). I've always felt it was irresponsible for the three major newswires (MarketWire and BW are just as guilty) to not make an attempt to explain how the wires work on the occasion a member of the general public stumbles across them. It would be like my mom wanting to buy a new computer, wandering into Cisco's corporate office, and them going ahead and selling her a rack server instead of pointing her down the street to BestBuy.

He really needs to find some professional PR counsel so he stops flushing thousands of dollars down the toilet on newswires. It's sad and ghastly no one has spent five minutes explaining to him these are designed for SEC regulatory disclosures, not publicity.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Robert Hastings has asked me to post the following:

Hi Atticus 11,

In answer to your question/comment about my occasionally using wire services to help spread the word about my research into nukes-related UFO activity, I have to disagree that it is wasted money.

First, a 400-word release at PRNewswire is $560, not $800.

Second, when Bob Salas and I issued one in conjunction with our September 27, 2010 "UFOs and Nukes" press conference at the National Press Club, it went viral. A media-watcher contact of mine said it was the most-viewed, most-shared news story at the prestigious Reuters website for four straight days in September of that year. And, just after the event, if one googled the title of the release in quotes, one got 2.4 million results. That release is at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/15/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915

So, given that I view my 40-year research career as involving 1) gathering info from vetted ex-USAF personnel who were involved in nuclear weapons-related UFO incidents and 2) disseminating that info as widely as possible worldwide, I think I have gotten my money's worth over the past two-and-a-half years.

Robert

 

[Atticus11]

Robert Hastings has asked me to post the following:

Hi Atticus 11,

In answer to your question/comment about my occasionally using wire services to help spread the word about my research into nukes-related UFO activity, I have to disagree that it is wasted money.

First, a 400-word release at PRNewswire is $560, not $800.

Second, when Bob Salas and I issued one in conjunction with our September 27, 2010 "UFOs and Nukes" press conference at the National Press Club, it went viral. A media-watcher contact of mine said it was the most-viewed, most-shared news story at the prestigious Reuters website for four straight days in September of that year. And, just after the event, if one googled the title of the release in quotes, one got 2.4 million results. That release is at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/15/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915

So, given that I view my 40-year research career as involving 1) gathering info from vetted ex-USAF personnel who were involved in nuclear weapons-related UFO incidents and 2) disseminating that info as widely as possible worldwide, I think I have gotten my money's worth over the past two-and-a-half years.

Robert

Robert -

Several thousand releases go out across PRNewswire every day and they all get dumped into the disclosure archives of countless sites. One can google the title of any release in quotes and get lots of hits because PRNewswire, BW and Marketwire have contracted to archive their releases to hundreds of sites (including Reuters, CNBC, etc). That's why those three services are approved by the SEC for Reg-FD disclosures. But the general public doesn't comb through the regulatory disclosure archives of Reuters or CNBC. Most people don't even know how to dive down into the catacombs of reuters.com to find that stuff. The only people who see those releases are industry analysts who have set their alerts to track specific ticker symbols or keywords. The site traffic numbers PRNewswire sends you in their post-release report are front door numbers as records verification if the SEC does a disclosure audit, it doesn't represent actual eyeballs on your release. So, unfortunately, your UFO release never appeared in a publicly accessible section of Reuters. Essentially, the only way any member of the public could have ever seen it is if you sent them the direct link or they were registered as a securities analyst with WestMonitor and they had set their alert preferences to "UFOs" (which is probably between 0-1 stock analysts).

I'm a SAS at a major PR firm. One of the accounts I work on, whose annual budget is in the upper six figures, hasn't sent a single wire release in the last 24 months (it's not a publicly traded company so there's no use for us to even waste a few hundred bucks on it).

I regret to tell you that your "media-watcher contact" has probably misled you. However, I know this is a common tactic by many fly-by-night publicists.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news -
A11

 

[Wade]

"...The site traffic numbers PRNewswire sends you in their post-release report are front door numbers as records verification if the SEC does a disclosure audit, it doesn't represent actual eyeballs on your release..."

i"m having a little trouble interpeting that Atticus11. is this analogous to a magazine promising a potential advertiser a certain number of potential buyers because of the magazine's prescence in doctor's offices and the like ?

 

[Atticus11]

"...The site traffic numbers PRNewswire sends you in their post-release report are front door numbers as records verification if the SEC does a disclosure audit, it doesn't represent actual eyeballs on your release..."

i"m having a little trouble interpeting that Atticus11. is this analogous to a magazine promising a potential advertiser a certain number of potential buyers because of the magazine's prescence in doctor's offices and the like ?

Not exactly ... certain events in a company's life cycle are required to be "widely publicized" and made simultaneously available to all investors. This includes Q4s, 8-Ks, 10-Ks, departure of C-level officers, etc. Similar rules in other countries also mandate a process of wide publicity. In Europe, this is the "Transparency Obligations Directive." Wire services like MarketWire, BusinessWire and PRNewswire meet the minimum publicity requirements. Each of these outlets charge between $500-$2000 to post a press release to their own website and then simultaneously archive it to several hundred other websites with whom they've contracted.

For example, today, Alere Corporation had a corporate life event occur, and distributed a press release titled "Alere Inc. Announces Pricing of Senior Subordinated Notes Offering" via PRNewswire. It, along with hundreds of similar releases, was archived into the regulatory disclosure archives of Reuters (and hundreds of other sites, including wsj.com, CNBC, etc.), here -

Alere Inc. Announces Pricing of Senior Subordinated Notes Offering<ALR.N>| Reuters

To be clear, however, this never appeared on the front page of Reuters or in any section of Reuters to which one could navigate. It's basically at an unconnected/unlinked page at reuters.com (you might be able to navigate to it through a few steps if you really tried, I'm not sure frankly, because no one does that). It meets the wide publicity requirements because market analysts (or anyone, really - though I'm not sure who other than an analyst or funds manager would) are able to track these releases by NYSE/NASDAQ ticker symbol or industry keyword through tracking services like WestMonitor. The total site traffic is provided by PRNewswire to the release purchaser to demonstrate they have archived it on enough sites of wide reputability that the minimum disclosure requirements were met.

Occasionally, non-corporate life events or marketing-focused press releases are released by companies or PR agencies via the wire services. This is done because, when you pitch media, it's easier to direct them to a specific URL to view your press release rather than attaching a word document to an email. But, the release doesn't draw attention in the absence of you calling attention to it and, of course, media don't "run" or "print" press releases - press releases simply serve as a means of putting your written communication in a single place so a reporter doing a story on XYZ could, perhaps, incorporate a quote from your release (easier than scheduling an interview), or lift a couple stats from it.

Many fly-by-night publicists operating outside the ethical guidelines established by the PRSA use this system to scam people. "For $X I'll get you into Reuters!" Well, technically, I suppose they are but not in any manner that anyone will ever see. A legitimate hit on AP or Reuters is a big deal and will generate attention of millions of people - we've scored a few for our clients in the last year. I'll just say that if all it involved was spending $800 to upload something to a website, real estate on Madison Avenue would be known for its used car dealerships and Quiznos.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Another response from Robert:

Atticus 11 wrote: So, unfortunately, your UFO release never appeared in a publicly accessible section of Reuters.

You are missing the point. Hundreds of news organizations accessed the press release and either carried it in toto in their own publications or on their webpages, or quoted extensively from it. That is the manner by which the public gets to read what I have written. After every release, I get hundreds of emails from persons worldwide who allude to it and either thank me for my work, offer me info on one thing or another, argue with me, or order my book.

Following the issuing of the press release in conjunction with my press conference, Bob Salas and I got hundreds of calls from reporters worldwide, who read the release at Reuters or from PRNewswire directly and contacted us for interviews, which ended up in their own publications/website stories, which their readers/viewers accessed.

To cite another case, following my January 30, 2013 release, asking military vets to come forward with their nukes-related UFO experiences, large numbers of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates carried it on their own websties, in a clearly assessible manner for their readers, again generating emails to me from some of them. That release is at:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/researcher-urges-us-military-veterans-to-divulge-their-ufo-sightings-at-nuclear-weapons-sites-188990431.html

So, despite your claim, the public--at least some sizeable number of people--do indeed have access to a given release. I find it odd that you need to have the final word in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. So be it. I'm done here.

ufohastings@aol.com

 

[Atticus11]

You are missing the point. Hundreds of news organizations accessed the press release and either carried it in toto in their own publications or on their webpages, or quoted extensively from it.

Again, I regret to be the one to tell you this, but, no, no news organizations carried it in toto, other than in their Reg-FD disclosure archives, along with hundreds of other releases that the wire services distributed that day.

A rather easy way to resolve this is for you to provide a few links to the news organizations that "carried it in toto." Aside from UFO enthusiast blogs, I'm confident those links will be to the regulatory archives I previously described.

To cite another case, following my January 30, 2013 release, asking military vets to come forward with their nukes-related UFO experiences, large numbers of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates carried it on their own websties,

Once again, PRNewswire has contracted with hundreds of websites to feed their releases into their Reg-FD archives. Here's one example of a release for a Lithium Battery manufacturer carried in the Reg-FD archive on Lubbock, TX NBC affiliate KCBD-TV just today, which is what you're thinking of, I believe:

Lithium Market Becoming More Reliant on Batteries for Continued Strong Demand Growth - KCBD NewsChannel 11 Lubbock

Here is the slush-feed of all the Reg-FD releases being fed to KCBD today, in which you can see the Lithium release along with an updating list of many others (the only place it will ever be linked on kcbd.com):

Economic News and Analysis - KCBD NewsChannel 11 Lubbock

Here is the KCBD website news section. None of those releases appear on it, because news organizations don't "print" releases or carry them "in toto" -

kcbd.com Home - KCBD NewsChannel 11 Lubbock

I find it odd that you need to have the final word in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. So be it.

I don't think the word "evidence" means what you think it means. This is a pretty straightforward question and isn't really very nuanced or even debatable - it would be like telling a CPA that the 1040EZ form doesn't exist. I'm not arguing, just informing - you can ask any reputable PR practitioner this question and you'll get the same answer I'm giving you.

I did think we were having a pleasant conversation, though. I'm sorry I misconstrued it and regret that you were very upset. I'm also sorry I was, apparently, the bearer of bad news. However, I have a professional ethical obligation to point-out this time-tested scam where I see it so people, like yourself, do not get bilked out of large amounts of cash by unscrupulous Craigslist publicists.

I'm done here.

Warmest Regards,
A

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

well both you and chris both mentioned steven's not up-to-snuff methodology ...........

Spooky, your avatar is the stuff of my nightmares.

(lol - love it bro)

=)

 

[Wade]

i

Spooky, your avatar is the stuff of my nightmares.

(lol - love it bro)

=)

Thanks !!

for the life of me i can't remember how i came across that image , i was doing a google image search for something...probably ufo or paranormal related...and saw the main image (posted) and just knew it would come in handy one day. it's actually cropped a little bit as the image shows the man with his arms folded aross his chest. i was originally going to alter it so it looked like he was in a straightjacket as the look on his face was either pure rapture or pure bonkers or both. My next thought was that it was the face of a man who thought his space brothers arrived to rescue him, so then i prowled around for a ufo image that could be "blended in" that is it was more camoflauged than visible and called it salvation. the main image can probably be used in so many ways.mad props to whoever painted the original and i do see a reproduction of it hanging on my wall someday

 

[Atticus11]

A rather easy way to resolve this is for you to provide a few links to the news organizations that "carried it in toto." Aside from UFO enthusiast blogs, I'm confident those links will be to the regulatory archives I previously described.

*crickets*

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Just listened to a C2C episode hosted by George Knapp, interviewing Steven Basset, post citizens hearing. Knapp picked up Basset over his insistence that the ETH is the explanation for UFO's.

Basset was almost rabid in his self-defence on this point. George asked him what all the evidence was that proves UFOs are ET in origin and unsurprisingly, Basset launches into an explanation of how, when you add up all the sightings of UFOs and their occupants blah blah, you can only basically say ETH.
I've never seen a single good photo of a UFO occupant, I suppose Kumburgaz is the closest, if it was indeed real. A bit like abduction, labelling the UFO occupants anything relies on usually the testimony of a single witness. Whilst I do think there are 'true' UFOs and that it must follow that some beings must have created these craft, so therefore I do think there are 'aliens' of some kind. So in that way, I kind of agree with Basset but I am certainly not certain of anything and Basset's huge mistake is that he is totally certain, but without the evidence to back it all up. He does not seem to get the fact that his belief's are meaningless, he should be concentrating on what he can reasonably show and prove to people who know nothing of the UFO topic. It's a shame that someone with the drive and intelligence of Basset, is shooting himself in the foot and is not even aware of it.

I watched a little bit of a Steven Greer presentation last night to see what he is spouting these days and it made me cringe and made me mad. He basically worded his speech so that it sounds like he is to be presented to President Obama in order that he, Greer, should brief the President on ET's. He speaks like it's a done deal etc and surely it must be total B.S?

Greer also had footage from one of his contact CE3 outings, which did seem to include some interesting lights in the sky from a night vision camera - all of that was well and good but he also would say things like 'and there were lots of alien beings surrounding us, phasing in and out of our reality etc' and he also spoke of a female alien and what a cheeky little thing she was etc. He is always on about getting disclosure yet if he is telling the truth, he should be able to get undeniable proof of ET's anytime he wants - isn't it funny that he doesn't? I can't believe that people in the audience applaud this guy, he is standing there just lying through his teeth, soliciting donations and making promises he knows full well will not come true. He is mentally ill at best, a Walter Mitty with severe delusions of grandeur.

 

[Wade]

is the episode uploaded on YouTube? I wanted to listen to this show again. a couple of times I joined the coast insider membership but in the end I never felt there was enough episodes I wanted to hear to justify the cost.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

is the episode uploaded on YouTube? I wanted to listen to this show again. a couple of times I joined the coast insider membership but in the end I never felt there was enough episodes I wanted to hear to justify the cost.

For you Mulder: