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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

And what is your reasoning for this?

[tommyball]

Originally Posted by valiens

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]

Originally Posted by tommyball

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]

Originally Posted by tommyball

...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.