Steve Bassett Interview

[The Pair of Cats]

auntiegrav
Paranormal Poker


Auntie. Do you actually "play" poker, paranormally or otherwise???

[auntiegrav]

Originally Posted by The Pair of Cats

auntiegrav
Paranormal Poker


Auntie. Do you actually "play" poker???

Hi Phil. The game? Not for a long time. Poking at people? Most of the time, but I've been trying not to start flame wars lately. Getting better at the internet thing, I guess. Still, someone usually gets offended or nitpicky when I put in my psychotic 2 cents at times....
So I 'poke' when I can.

[The Pair of Cats]

Lol!!! Good onya mate! Keep on poking. it's always fun

[pininmefin]

In atlantic city this year he perdictied that 2009 (in spring) we would have some disclosure.However I think he wsa refrencing the bogus united nations story that recently surficed.

[dorkbot]

Finally got around to listening to this one. I'd agree that disclosure by either party would sort of be a masterful way of making the rest of the planet immediately forget about, um, the past 8 years, but this all strikes me as absurd. The idea that the Democratic Party leaders would somehow be read into the program as it were would seem to fly in the face of everything that is known about the history of when/where/who/how/why the issue has been handled in the US for the past sixty years.

I am interested to see Hillary get publicly pinned with a properly phrased question on the Rockefeller Initiative and hear what response has been crafted in advance but it appears to me that Bassett is reading way too much into all of that. I am also quite curious as to why the Republican Party machinery/Fox pundits have not yet run with this as a woo-woo hit piece. Perhaps they won't bother unless she actually gets the nomination.

To be frank, my honest guess would be that there are some demographers working for Hillary that have identified "the ufo vote" along w/ a thousand other micro-interest groups and have circulated some vague and misleading rumors that appear to support whatever (X) interest group supports.

I suppose I could be completely wrong on this but I'm not holding my breath.

[auntiegrav]

Originally Posted by dorkbot

Finally got around to listening to this one. I'd agree that disclosure by either party would sort of be a masterful way of making the rest of the planet immediately forget about, um, the past 8 years, but this all strikes me as absurd. The idea that the Democratic Party leaders would somehow be read into the program as it were would seem to fly in the face of everything that is known about the history of when/where/who/how/why the issue has been handled in the US for the past sixty years.

I think the most difficult concept to get over is that there is some major difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to any specific issue that isn't one of the common media circus issues (abortion, gun control, spending, pork). These are politicians. Most don't WANT to know what their civil servants are doing in secret because if they know, they have to come up with a plausible reason in their own mind why they let them keep doing it. As long as they can remain in denial about an issue, they don't have to risk any election day surprises. Whether it's UFOs, CIA drug money, secret deals with Iran, young boys or blow jobs in the white house; the representatives we 'elect' are not working for anyone but themselves and the money that puts them in office. If that money comes from big golden corporate pots, then that's where you'll find your friendly Congressman or Presidential candidate. The rest is just marketing and CGI .

To be frank, my honest guess would be that there are some demographers working for Hillary that have identified "the ufo vote" along w/ a thousand other micro-interest groups and have circulated some vague and misleading rumors that appear to support whatever (X) interest group supports.

I suppose I could be completely wrong on this but I'm not holding my breath.

I think you are probably closer to correct than thinking Billary is going to do anything that doesn't keep the status quo. The status quo is some multimillion dollars per year in speaking fees for ex-presidents and her name in the history books as the first woman president.
I don't think there is any of them that is honest, intelligent, and not crazy at the same time, but you have to vote for a lizard or the wrong lizard might get in.

[dorkbot]

Originally Posted by auntiegrav

I think the most difficult concept to get over is that there is some major difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to any specific issue that isn't one of the common media circus issues

I would agree w/ this somewhat but I suppose what I should have said is that the idea that the keepers of the keys would hand over anything of substance to political party leadership of either party seems naive to me.

If all they have is a bunch of data w/ no answers then I hardly see them holding a big press conference for that. If they have crashed saucers and alien bodies I can't ever see them releasing that kind of thing unless their hand was forced by something out of their control. Grant Cameron makes a good argument that you can't have just a "little bit of disclosure". If they have secret alien zero-point energy technology that will save us from a peak oil/global warming scenario they wouldn't release it unless they themselves understood what exactly it was they were releasing, how it worked and how to reproduce it. If they did understand it all then there is no need to associate the technology w/ an "alien" source.

I also suspect that if there was some sort of planned disclosure coming you would begin to see an obvious, methodical program of advance preparation involving university professors, high level clergy, politicians, law enforcement, press etc. Rumors would start flying around the mainstream and net news sources in a way that was markedly different from the usual ufo flap news cycles. You would begin to see highly strange news articles from respected mainstream scientific authorities that would be setting the intellectual stage for how they want to frame the issue. The Washington gossip circuit would be talking about nothing else. I have absolutely no sense that anything like this is occurring.

If there is bit of a lessening in the laughter curtain lately my suspicion is that traditional media outlets saw the numbers the Chicago Tribune site got on the O'Hare story and in this age of plummeting newspaper profitability they are looking for any advantage whatsoever.

[UBERDOINK]

just listened to the Steve Bassett interview, and was amazed at how delusional he was. He is a true believer in something that is SO completely, WITHOUT definitive answers, that it has just become another version of a belief system.

Putting percentages on the possibilities? What definitive data does he have to do that with? I mean, if we are honest there is NO definite proof of UFO's being flying saucers from other planets.

But hey, crazy guests are fun to listen too. :-)

[dorkbot]

Somewhat apropos to the topic is this link from the Keyhoe Report.

Clinton draws UFO endorsement

"JW is apoplectic over the idea that Cameron (a Canadian!) managed to file Freedom of Information Act requests with the library before it did. Which means JW is having to wait in line behind him. Which is galling because Cameron is digging around for UFO material, not pantyhose skank."

[auntiegrav]

Originally Posted by UBERDOINK

just listened to the Steve Bassett interview, and was amazed at how delusional he was. He is a true believer in something that is SO completely, WITHOUT definitive answers, that it has just become another version of a belief system.

Putting percentages on the possibilities? What definitive data does he have to do that with? I mean, if we are honest there is NO definite proof of UFO's being flying saucers from other planets.

But hey, crazy guests are fun to listen too. :-)

I wouldn't say he is delusional. I agree mostly that there isn't definitive 'proof' that UFO's are flying saucers from other planets. But then, I haven't seen one, either. I do, however, know people who have seen strange things, both in the military and outside of it, and I believe the stories of cogent people like David Biedny who have seen things that don't fit with the common perceptions.
What Bassett is doing is somewhat like the philosophy of some modern progressive ecochange proponents:
It goes like this: "If some miracle happened, and the world could be brought to peaceful existence, with clean air and water, and cooperating individuals living carefully and thoughtfully together, how would you choose to live?
Why don't you live that way now?"

Bassett is simply saying that there are enough people out there trying to prove one thing or another, and there are plenty of people burying information in the government (no matter what that information says about UFOs), so he has chosen to work AS THOUGH the UFO phenomenon is a real set of events and that the government should treat it openly and forthright so that the stigma of UFO research doesn't stop credible people from investigating it and other areas. He is simply defining a work area that, no matter what the outcome, needs to be addressed professionally. (The UFO field isn't the only one that needs this kind of approach. Food systems, agriculture policy, intelligence policy, patents and medical systems are examples where reform should also be considered from a new perspective of peak resources and corporate/government conspiracies.)

We make odds on things every day without complete data. That's called 'risk management' now, but it's just gambling anyway.

Regardless of whether Bassett is right or wrong, at least he's trying to do something by plowing through all the rubbish and picking a hilltop to stand on and look toward the future, rather than crawling around in the junk looking for an unopened stick of gum.