Bob Guccione reveals the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sabotaged hydrazine sulfate trials (1989–1993), killing 96% of participants by violating protocols, despite its 67% efficacy in terminal cancer patients—costing just $3/week. Guccione’s legal team, backed by Jeffrey Robbins’ October 15, 1997 letter, confirms collusion, while the Kathy Keaton Foundation pushes for access to suppressed data. Steve Bassett, UFO lobbyist, predicts government disclosure of alien evidence by April 1999 due to legal pressure from FOIA requests and public demand, warning secrecy risks societal distrust. Guccione’s fight and Bassett’s political strategy expose systemic corruption in medicine and government, demanding accountability before inevitable revelations. [Automatically generated summary]
I bid you all good evening or good morning, as the case may be in your time zone.
And welcome to another edition of the best in live, in fact the largest in live overnight talk radio in North America and beyond.
This is Coast to Coast AM emanating, radiating from the west toward the Tahitian and Hawaiian Island chains, racing eastward all the way to the Caribbean, the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Good morning in St. Thomas and elsewhere.
South into South America, north all the way to the Pole and worldwide on the internet.
Yes, coast to coast A.M. All right, we are going to begin the week, and I'll give you more of an update on the week as the night rolls on.
But we're going to begin the week with an update from Bob Guccione.
Bob Guccioni is the publisher of Penthouse Magazine.
His wife Kathy passed away a short time ago since the last interview.
And we're going to find out about that and where hydrazine sulfate.
And I guess I got about a million faxes and emails after that last program.
So please, if you are concerned with regard to hydrazine sulfate, it's a potential for treating cancer, stay tuned because Bob Guccioni certainly will have the latest for you and on his loss, of course.
Then following Bob in the next hour, we're going to have Steve Bassett on.
Steve is the only UFO registered lobbyist in Washington, D.C.
And I'm going to tell you right up front, he's going to be talking about some things that he probably shouldn't be talking about yet.
So you're going to have to listen very closely and, in a sense, read between the lines.
So in a moment, Bob Guccioni, and then Steve Bassett, next hour, beginning next hour.
We'll get to all of that.
unidentified
We'll begin all of that in a moment.
All right, now, Bob Guccione is the publisher of Penthouse Magazine.
Those of you who heard the previous show with Bob, oh, I don't know, that was two or three months ago at least, will recall what he had to say at that point.
Then we had Kathy on the show as well, his wife.
And it seems appropriate at this point to have Bob back on.
And she was unable to process food in her stomach, so she had to be fed intravenously.
And obviously, in those circumstances, an operation became necessary.
And it was the operation and the fact that her platelets were very, very low at the time, and they couldn't stop her bleeding.
She went into a coma and died as a result of the hemorrhage.
So it was indirectly related to the cancer, but it had little or nothing to do with the efficacy of hydrazine sulfate.
It was because of hydrazine and because of Kathy's choice of that therapy that she did live another two and a half years after she was given three to six weeks by her doctors.
So it did give us that time together, and it was a good time for her.
It wasn't like people on traditional therapies like chemotherapy, for example, where you lose your hair and you have terrible, terrible problems with digestion.
Around the time that our September issue came out with the story of Kathy's fight with cancer and the fact that she was taking hydrazine sulfate.
We complained in that article that the National Cancer Institute had deliberately sabotaged the human trials it had conducted on behalf of hydrazine sulfate when we knew that the National Cancer Institute did not want to see hydrazine sulfate on the market.
And when they conducted their trials, there was something like 600 people involved, and they took the trials over from UCLA that were begun by the university at UCLA.
And they did a number of things that were indifferent to the protocol with hydrazine, the protocol being simply that you cannot take alcohol or barbiturates or antidepressants, etc., with hydrazine sulfate because it tends to neutralize the drug and destroy its efficacy.
And for those members of the public that don't understand what the GAO is, it is an extension of Congress, and it is empowered to monitor and investigate the activities of other government agencies.
And they do conduct serious, in-depth investigations of wrongdoing on the part of other government departments.
Sure.
So we had to make a prima facie case to them demonstrating that the NCI deliberately sabotaged those trials or they would not have acted.
And they did act on it.
They accepted what we said.
They did an in-depth investigation, which lasted about nine months, and gathered together a whole lot of stuff supporting what we had said.
And I know this because from time to time we would speak to the point people at the GAO who were doing the investigation.
And then all of a sudden, the GAO suddenly recants its position and publishes something that says, publishes an article which says, or rather they report, which said in effect that despite suggestions to the contrary, the National Cancer Institute's hydrazine sulfate trials were not flawed.
Well, that was absolutely the opposite of what they were telling us they discovered when they were investigating the NCI and looking at their work papers and so on.
Meantime, so we did an article attacking both the GAO and the NCI, saying that they had colluded between them and so on.
And we took full-page ads in the Washington Post and the New York Times and other newspapers around the country telling people that the article that would support this contention was in that month's issue of Penthouse.
Well, the article was read by a fellow called Jeffrey Robbins.
Jeffrey Robbins, he saw the ad in the Washington Post, bought the magazine, read the article, and he is the chief counsel to the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations.
He has a higher investigative level and position in government than the GAO itself.
He has the power to subpoena anybody he wants in the United States, including the president.
In fact, he is the guy who is responsible for the present investigation of the Democratic fundraising problem.
That's the other thing he's doing.
And he took this case to heart.
He read it, read the article, called Kathy directly.
Kathy told him her story, put him on to Joe Gold, the doctor who created, the research scientist who created this therapeutic use of hydrazine sulfate.
And also we put him on to our investigative reporter and other investigators in the Washington area.
Jeffrey Robbins conducted his own investigation and recently wrote a seven-page letter to the GAO telling them that the report that they had done was absurd.
In fact, his own words were plainly absurd and extremely misleading.
He said that he totally vindicated the penthouse.
He said that we were absolutely right, that they did, in fact, collude with the NCI.
I mean, when you think about it, Bob, what you're saying here implies incredible collusion, incredible collusion from the National Cancer Institute to the GAO.
When you tell this to people, they say, you mean to tell me that our government would do something that would endanger the lives of millions of people?
And I said, absolutely, but it's not the government.
You know, the government is an amorphous structure run by individual people, many of whom have their own private agenda.
So what has happened here, it's not the government that's colluding with another government department.
It is individuals colluding with other individuals for their own purposes, their own end.
Well, if you look back, Bob, if you look back, for example, at the Tuskegee experiments, horrible as they were, there was at least an arguable motivation, scientific motivation, for why they did what they did.
Now, in the case of the hydrazine sulfate tests, the only conclusion, unless you can come up with some other, that I can imagine is that they don't want a cheap, easy cure for cancer, and so it's money.
You know, let me just give you a completely hypothetical scenario, but one that could apply.
Just imagine somebody, one of the individuals involved with these huge pharmaceutical companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get pills through the FDA.
To get a pill on the market could cost between $4 and $600 million.
Now, one of these guys could say to somebody, to a buddy of his at the NCI, look, we spent a lot of money getting this on a market, getting our chemotherapy on the market and so on.
And there are billions and billions of dollars involved in chemotherapy and the other traditional cancer cures.
We don't want to see a pill that costs $3 a week get on the market, which is going to cancel out or neutralize what we're trying to do.
So he'd say to his buddy of the NCI, look, you're going to retire in five years.
I've got a home in Palm Beach.
There's a car in a garage.
Why don't you get down here with your wife and spend the rest of your time there on me?
Now, this is very, very possible.
You're talking to a civil servant, a guy who may make $50,000, $60,000 a year at the top end.
And suddenly he's faced with the possibility of retirement with a beautiful home in Palm Beach, a car in his garage, a boat.
This is nothing to the pharmaceutical industrial establishment in this country.
Still, though, when you think about it, maybe I'm just overestimating the human soul, Bob, but when you think about it, that story, that same story, would have to be bought by at least several people.
And when you balance, you know, a nice house and a nice car and a few years in retirement before you die, and in an eternity in hell, if there happens to be one, that wouldn't be an easy choice to make.
Now, like I said, that's just a hypothetical scenario.
It may be something like that, or it may not be.
But nonetheless, there's individuals involved.
It isn't the government itself.
It's the guys who run the government.
It's key people, key civil servants that can make judgments like that, can make decisions like that, that literally will affect hundreds of thousands of lives in this country.
Now, since we've been publishing stories on hydrazine sulfate, we have had thousands upon thousands of doctors get in touch with us and get in touch with Joe Gold.
And they have put patients on hydrazine sulfate.
We've had results back, which were terrific.
A lot of lives have been saved directly as a result of this $3 a week pill.
And we're supplying it to supply Jeffrey Robbins and his people with a lot of this information.
He's been talking directly to doctors that have used this and are thrilled with it, with the way it works, thrilled with the success that their patients have had.
And, you know, when you think hydrazine sulfate will never make any money for anybody, I mean, Joe Gold, the guy behind has been working on it for years and years and years, will never make 10 cents on it.
Nor will anybody else.
Nor will the manufacturers, because it's a generic drug and it's made in vast quantities because its other use, as I mentioned in the past, is that it's a component in rocket fuel as well as being an industrial cleaner.
But it has been part of the pharmacology now for 55 years.
It has recognized medicinal uses.
And it was Gold who found out that it had great effect on cancer patients.
There are some cancers and some certain cancers at certain stages of development which are not.
And again, in certain people that are not affected by hydrazine.
Hydrazine works on about 67% of terminal patients.
It works on a far greater percentage of people if they catch it early enough.
But when cases are considered terminal, that is to say, when a doctor tells the patient there's nothing further we can do for you, there's nothing further in medicine.
It's at that point that the efficacy of hydrazine sulfate is rated at about 67%.
Those are the statistics found by Gold and other researchers in this country, and they are precisely the same as the statistics arrived at in the Russian trials, which were conducted over 17 years, I'm sorry, 14 years with human patients.
And I don't know the exact number, but the statistics are very high.
If you catch it early enough, what it does, let me explain a little point.
Actually, it was developed for cachaxia.
Cachaxia is that late stage of cancer when the tumors have begun to cannibalize the body itself.
When you can no longer eat, you no longer have any appetite, you start wasting away, and the tumors begin to feed themselves by actually cannibalizing the body, the host body.
It's at that stage that the cancer patient becomes very, very ill, has no longer any real control.
His immune system is zonked out completely, and anything that attacks him, any bug that attacks him will kill him.
And people don't actually die of cancer.
They die of other things that develop during the cachaxia stage.
Well, they can access our website, the Kathy Keaton Foundation.
And the address is www.kathykeaton, K-E-E-T-O-N, or one word, KathyKeaton-cancer.com.
Or they can write to us directly.
They can write to Kathy Keaton Foundation.
That's at General Media, the offices of Penthouse.
That's 277 Park Avenue, New York.
And we will send them all the information.
We've got a vast quantity of information.
And we send it to anybody Who gets in touch with us free, of course.
And it contains everything they need to know.
It tells them whom their doctors can call, where they can get this all the information, where they can actually get hydrazine sulfate because it is available.
It is being sold in this country.
It's not being sold for cancer, you know, because the government won't allow that.
But it can be bought, and it has other medicinal uses, so your doctor can prescribe it and you can get it.
And it is very important not just that you get it and that your doctor prescribe it for you, but that that doctor understand the regimen under which you're going to take it.
And we're going to continue in our class action suit.
We're going to bring that suit.
And one of the people who's going to join our team of lawyers, believe it or not, is the chief investigator, the chief counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, Mr. Jeffrey Robbins.
He's very much on our team.
He's being put together with the other lawyers now.
And as soon as we've got the names of people who actually participate, or rather, the families of people who participated in those NCI trials between 1989 and 1993, we will bring suit against not against the government because you can't sue the government, but you can sue individuals within the government.
And that, of course, drags the government in.
It opens up discovery for you.
And it's a very interesting aspect of this.
When we sent out a press release based on Jeffrey Robbins' letter to the GAO, we got a reply from someone who has been producing a medical newsletter for a number of years.
And that this particular individual specializes in looking for corruption in government with respect to the medical establishment.
And he said to us, he said, I've been following the hydrazine story for a number of years.
I know all about it.
I know what's going on.
I believe that the government, that the NCI did sabotage those trials because they've done it before, and they've done it on a number of separate occasions.
And I have personal documentation to prove that the NCI and other aspects, you know, other departments of the government have actually sabotaged trials dealing with drugs that would be used for AIDS patients as well and other things.
So there is a great, great deal of corruption in the medical establishment.
And when one understands how big it is, you know, anything that's that big in terms of money, hundreds of billions of dollars go through this, go through the medical establishment every year.
And realizing that, you can appreciate how corruption can grow.
It's political, it's greed, it's economic.
And don't forget, it's the giant pharmaceutical companies like the petrochemical industry that literally runs our country and runs probably the rest of the world.
It's just it's almost unimaginable for me to yeah, it is that somebody could consciously make these decisions.
There must be some way that the pill was softened for them because I could imagine one or two people caving in perhaps, but the number of people that would have had to have mentally caved in must have been a very large number indeed.
That's just unimaginable to me, but I guess it can be.
Well, it's the most difficult thing for us to believe in this country of ours, which is still the freest of the most democratic nation on earth and probably has the best form of government ever created by a society, to have such a disease within the government itself.
As I say, it isn't the government.
The government is ideal.
It's the individuals.
It's the people.
That's where the corruption lies.
You can never get that out.
There's always going to be someone who is tempted by something, who's in a position of power, in a position to make decisions that affect the lives of thousands and millions of other people.
And that's exactly what happened in this case.
By keeping hydrazine sulfate off the market, by trying to bury it, by telling people that it's no good, by conducting trials that are deliberately sabotaged to show that the product doesn't work, doing that sort of thing has hurt and killed God knows how many tens of thousands of people.
And we'll continue to do so if people like Kathy were not fighting for it.
Kathy and I and Joe Gold and Jeffrey Robbins and all the other people who are involved, if we weren't fighting to stop it, it would go on forever.
Well, we've just got to get, you see, it's very difficult to find the families of these patients because they don't know.
You have to sign a confidentiality agreement.
You have to sign a consent form, and so it's got to be lodged with your lawyer or your family doctor before you can get into one of these trials.
And they will never disclose, and they're not, by law, not required to disclose the identity of these people.
So to find, we've had lots of people get in touch with us because we're running ads in all of our magazines, you know, saying that if you were part of the UCLA NCI trials between 89 and 93 for hydrazine sulfate, get in touch with us.
We've had lots of people get in touch with us saying, well, my father was treated at that time or my mother was treated, but they died, and we don't know whether they were treated with hydrazine sulfate.
We don't know whether it was the NCI trials or not.
It's very difficult to ascertain that because most of the people that were actually involved are no longer here.
They're dead.
We will find that.
And one of the ways I think we're going to find them is through this Senate subcommittee on investigations.
If we can't get it in the ordinary way, they'll go in the back door and come up with names.
And as soon as we've got some people, we go to court.
Everyone who's been in touch with us and said we don't know whether we qualify, but this is what we remember and so on.
We wrote back to them and said, go to your family doctor, go to your family lawyer, and see if there isn't a consent form lodged with them because the patient, if it was your father or whoever it was, had to have signed a consent form.
So that exists somewhere, and these people are looking for it.
As soon as somebody finds something, we go to town.
Can you imagine there isn't a family in America, there isn't an individual in this country who doesn't have someone somewhere, either a member of his family or a spouse or someone very close to them who suffers from cancer or who has died from cancer.
Everybody has that.
It's something that touches every single man, woman, and child in America, and in the world for that matter.
One out of every four people are going to contract cancer.
He is the only UFO lobbyist in Washington, D.C. That makes him a very, very important guy for us, anybody who cares, about what's going on with the investigation into, well, it's going to go into areas that you're just simply not going to believe.
And we'll get into all of that in a moment.
UFOs, Steve Bassett knows about UFOs.
He knows about what might really be done to get to the bottom of this story.
So he's the guy to talk to, and talk to him we shall in a moment.
Stephen Bassett decided to bring a 15-year background in business development and consulting and a degree, get this, in physics into the field of extraterrestrial phenomena research.
He set up a consulting practice paradigm research group in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area to provide support to other UFO researchers and activists in the form of lobbying, media liaison, funding proposals, and secondary research.
In April of 96, he attended the press conference held in Washington, D.C. by Richard Hoagland and the Enterprise Mission on the Moon Mars Photographic Evidence.
In April of this year, he attended the press and congressional briefings conducted in Washington, D.C. by Stephen Greer and C. Seti.
In July, he assisted Robert and Cecilia Dean in launching Stargate International's 1997 petition for an open congressional hearing on modern UFO evidence.
As a matter of fact, we have a copy of that petition on my website right now, along with a number of other things I'll tell you about.
Currently, Mr. Bassett is working to bring the United States Congress formally into the process of disclosure and working with Operation Right to Know and other groups in that regard.
He also assisted Frances Barwood, the city council woman in Phoenix, Arizona, in dealing with a rather aggressive attempt by her political opponents to discredit and punish her for speaking publicly and in council session on the lack of a proper investigation of the Phoenix UFO signing in March of 97.
Another ongoing project publicizing the complex issues represented by the Area 51 environmental damage lawsuit currently working its way through the court system on behalf of former Area 51 employees.
This case is being pressed by Jonathan Turley of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center at George Washington University.
Sometime in 1997, Mr. Bassett anticipates assisting Stargate International's Coalition for Honesty in Government in presenting 1 million-plus petition signatures calling for an open congressional hearing to representatives of the House and the Senate.
And I have a late-breaking news story on Area 51 that I'm going to read to you in just one moment from the Associated Press.
Just before we go to Steve in Washington, I thought this appropriate to read from Darrell.
Darrell says, Art, Bob Guccione may have had several lessons to offer all of us, and of course, one of them concerns hydrazine sulfate, but the other is about his love for his wife, which is reflected in the pain in his voice with every word he utters.
If in fact there has been a suppression of information with regard to the effectiveness of this chemical, I would not want to be among those standing in the way of Bob Guccione's direction and dedication at this time.
I'll second that.
Good luck, Bob, and God bless Daryl.
And I'll sure second that.
I would not want to be anybody standing in his way on this issue myself.
In a kind of a strange way, Steve Bassett may have some comments on this as the evening wears on.
Before we get going, I want to read you a late-breaking Associated Press story.
It cleared the wire at 10.49 p.m.
That would have been, no doubt, Eastern time.
No, yeah, that would have been Eastern Time, I believe, for Associated Press dateline Las Vegas.
Let me read this.
The continuing saga involving Area 51, a top-secret base northwest of Las Vegas, moves to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday, where the ruling of a federal judge will be challenged.
The case involves former workers at the secret base who claim they were harmed by toxic substances that were disposed of at that site.
Area 51, about 125 miles north of Las Vegas, was established by the CIA in the 1950s.
Spy planes, stealth fighters, and other secret elements of America's military firepower reportedly have been tested at that location.
The plaintiffs allege hazardous and toxic waste was burned at that facility throughout the 1980s while workers were denied protective clothing.
They say the waste was placed in get this 55-gallon drums that were then dumped in open trenches covered with combustible material and set afire with the help of jet fuel.
The plaintiffs charge that the exposure killed former sheet metal worker Thomas Caza at age 73 and Robert Frost at age 57, both of whom left widows in Las Vegas.
Others say the exposure damaged their skin.
The plaintiffs are not asking for money, just that the truth come forth and the government be held accountable for criminal underlying that word activity.
And that is an Associated Press wire story that just cleared the wires.
I will have a great deal to say about the Area 51 case later in the show, and I hope your listeners can hang with us on that.
As a matter of fact, there is a tremendous amount to talk about this evening, and again, I hope your listeners can stay with us.
But before I begin, I'd like to take just a moment to add to your condolences, mine, to Bob Guccione.
Kathy Keaton was a wonderful positive force of nature.
And for some of your listeners who don't know this, imagine most of them do, in addition to publishing and editing the Longevity Magazine, she, of course, was the editor-publisher of Omni for many, many, many years.
And Omni magazine, during a very long, dry stretch, before the documentaries were available and all the cable channels that we see now, and before all the movies that were made that are very content-specific to the UFO research,
and really almost any other mainstream exposure, Omni was the lone mainstream media that was each month popping away at the UFO issue, that section of the magazine, as well as other articles, and essentially kept the issues in the general public's eye for many, many years.
And I hope the day will come when she will get the appropriate credit that she deserves for keeping hope alive during that period on this issue.
Let's let that can of worms sit on the shelf, if it's okay, because there's a lot to talk about.
Maybe we can revisit it a little bit later.
But I just wanted to let some people know who may not realize that she had a very significant impact on the UFO research and the awareness in this country.
Okay, it's a little ahead of things, but let me quickly jump in.
First, let me say that as far as the yanking of the Area 51, which I noted, right, and I, of course, am aware of the case going into court on Wednesday, and I'm aware of Discovery's position here in Washington.
I don't have much to say, though.
I'm sure that Dick Hoagland already has got at least two pages written up on her.
Very quickly, we're kind of jumping ahead, but very quickly.
The show on the Phoenix lights was impressive.
It was, on many fronts, very exceptional.
And it very much showed in a stark fashion just how far things have come.
I won't bore you with details of other situations where some of the mainstream channels or networks have done things on some of these issues and hacked it up pretty badly.
There are many, and we could recount them.
But this one, obviously, I was most interested to see how it would go.
And what I noted were several things.
First of all, Frances Barwood came out absolutely fantastic.
Yes.
As a beginning launch for her run for the Secretary of State, she could not have asked for a better exposure to the general public.
And let's keep in mind that there was a lot of basis for them to make fun of her or to attack her if they wanted.
They did not do that.
On the other hand, the esteemed governor of Arizona, recently indicted and convicted of some financial problems, they showed, which I had never seen, quite a bit from his joke press conference where he brought out one of his aides wearing a giant E.T. costume, and frankly, it was pretty amazing.
The contrast between the two was absolutely vivid, and the show clearly went out of the way to show this.
Now, that was point one.
Point two, they gave a lot of excellent exposure to Village Labs and Jim De Latoso, which I think is going to help them a great deal.
They were very fair in looking at the various approaches of analysis that were done on those lights, bringing in the National Guard information, the other lights that were used as a counterpoint, an actual film of some flares being done.
And when they were done, they really did not come to a final conclusion.
They clearly left it up in the air.
It was not resolved in the mind of the producer of that show.
That show is going to get excellent ratings, and they are going to run that one again.
The viewer was left with the same perception that Richard Price left in the article that he wrote, the very excellent article he wrote in USA Today, another example of a mainstream media that is taking a much more sophisticated and intelligent approach to this.
And that is that what have things come to in the 50 years since the end of World War II when massive lights can appear over a major city of our country, regardless of whether some National Guard planes drop them or not, and the government does absolutely nothing, and then one finally approached, says it doesn't investigate such things.
We don't do that.
You look into it.
And then when pressed even further months later, finally comes up with some statement about National Guard planes, stonewalls, and is evasive.
As I recall, though, now maybe the Discovery Channel got around this, but as I recall, there was a statement by the National Guard captain who said, yes, we dropped flares, but I recall she also said, I want to be very, very careful that you understand that the flares that we dropped do not explain the totality or anywhere near the totality of the lights that were seen on March 13th.
Well, they even posed in the video a theory, which they aired, they gave it some airing, that earlier sightings of people near the base of jets taking off and moving in the direction of the original lights, and it was taking off in a fashion that they were scrambling, seemed to imply a possible theory that the original sightings, the earlier sightings of the V-shaped craft had elicited substantial response from the military.
They had scrambled to intercept or investigate and possibly had dropped the flares as a decoy, as a way of creating a bit of plausible deniability as they cruise around trying to find these sightings.
One of the most telling things that came out in that video was the fact that the military base there, and the name escapes me right at the moment, was contacted by a couple of people, official types, wanting to know if anything was going on.
Had they received any calls, and they were told by an official at the base that they had not gotten any calls on that, and that's why they weren't looking into it.
Later on, they discovered that the base was swamped with calls.
So this video hit all the buttons.
It really covered it all, and yet it didn't completely cave into a UFO-based explanation per se.
And then the other thing that's important here is this was Discovery.
Now, most people may not know that Discovery as a subsidiary channel, the Learning Channel, it's kind of like the second-tier channel.
There's things that will run on that.
It will not run on Discovery, which is trying to maintain a certain, how would you say, level of acceptance and credentials and so forth.
It's on the learning channel that has become the all-alien cable channel, all aliens all the time.
They are running a series of documentaries over and over and over again, which is highly significant, but they don't run in Discovery.
This Phoenix show was run on Discovery itself.
And for them to run a show that clearly raises the UFO issue, does not resolve it, pokes holes in the standard government responses, which we are so used to, we know them all by heart,
is an indication that that very significant station is moving its editorial policy slowly around, and that is indicative we're going to see higher level expositions of this material, maybe at higher level channels and higher level media.
But it is going to be rerun, and don't be surprised if it's not rerun again and again and then shoved down to TLC to join the rest of their alien documentary and UFO documentary.
One, there are three new very good UFO photographs on my website to see right now.
Item one.
Item two, there is a new book signing photograph taken by somebody who happened to come late and sent to me.
Thank you very much.
I didn't take this one, obviously.
I'm in it, and Ramona is in it as well.
This was the book signing down in San Diego, actually Escondido for the quickening.
But in this particular photograph, and the reason I add it to the collection of book signing photographs is because arriving right at the very end of the book signing was, guess who?
Richard C. Hoagland and David John Oates.
And in this photograph, you will see I'll be there, of course, and Ramona, but then left to right behind us is David Oates.
And what a blowaway that was.
I know what everybody's talking about now.
David didn't look a bit like I thought he was going to look like.
Wait till you see David Oates.
And beside him, to the right of him, of course, the incredible Richard C. Hoagland.
So you're going to want to see that.
So we've got new UFO photographs.
We've got the new book signing photograph where you can get a look-see at David Oates.
And we've got a link.
Very importantly, folks, we've got a link to Steven's site, Stargate International, to take over to Stargate International.
Just go down to the guest section and you can get the petition that may break this whole damn thing open.
Now, this is where we return to Steve Bassett in Washington, D.C.
I guess we better begin at the beginning.
The whole UFO thing, Steve, has plagued all of us, fascinated all of us now for years and years and years and years.
And for all those years, everybody said, damn it, when are we really going to finally get some sort of honest information from the government, some sort of investigation, some sort of congressional hearings, something official.
And I guess in that area, you're the guy to tell us.
Nothing that has happened since that appearance, I think it's been about two months, has changed my mind on this.
If anything, some things have happened which have helped to convince me.
And so let's start off the show on a positive note.
The statement is this, that based upon my assessment of what I'm seeing going on, which is a personal assessment, that within the next 12 to 14 months, prior to,
I believe the deadline on this is prior to the beginning of the primary season in the 1999 election season, which is about 14, 15 months away, April, the government will be forced into a position where they will have to disclose their fundamental posture on the UFO evidence and will, in fact, acknowledge the validity of the alien hypothesis.
But because I'm talking about a lot of things and people don't know who I'm representing, I think some feel it's not appropriate to not know because that way they can better assess my remarks, and I think it's fair.
When you register as a lobbyist organization, this is public information.
It is formally put out.
It's published in political papers here in town.
So this is not secret stuff.
And because we're talking about political activism, it's not inappropriate.
So very quickly, I'm a consultant and registered lobbyist working with, one, the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, CSETI, which was founded by Stephen Greer.
The Enterprise Mission, which of course was founded by the inestimable Richard Hoagland.
Stargate International, which was founded by Robert Dean and his wife, Cecilia Vindiola Dean.
And Operation Right to Know, which was founded by Mike Jamieson and at Cormorak and is currently directed by Mary Kerfit.
They're not in a consortium with each other, but they represent essentially, they have some common interests, obviously.
And I'm talking with a couple of other groups, very likely we'll represent shortly.
Now, what this means is it makes it a little easier to get to line some vectors up and to focus some of the efforts and some of the interest that people have into political action.
Clearly, this has some value.
Most of the people in this field generally are looking for the same things.
Lord knows there's plenty of controversy.
But when you get down to the core, the people really are looking for primarily the same things.
And to the extent that people are operating totally independently, this is a diffusion of energy.
So to the extent that I can get as many groups, I can go in representing as many groups as possible, it provides a little bit more impact and a little more attention, both from political operatives as well as the media.
Along those lines, if I may, just for a moment, if there are any organizations, UFO researchers or activist groups out there that feel they would benefit from pro bono representation in Washington, D.C. of that type, they may contact me along those lines at my email, which is paradigmrg at aol.com.
Now, having said that, let's talk about what's happened since I was on the show last.
There are a number of things going on.
The way you need to think about this is think about the government's posture, right?
Which is kind of a, I guess that's really an ephemeral thing.
It doesn't have any substance.
It's just a posture.
Think of it as sitting in the middle of a circle, being encroached on from all sides.
One of these sides, on one side encroaching on this, are the activities of several groups involved primarily in getting meetings with any entities within the government which can be constructive.
Now, probably the foremost group along these lines is CSETI.
And I'd like to comment on it a little bit.
The UFO movement has always had some political activity going on since the very beginning, which we sort of pegged down in the very late 40s.
So the politics of UFOs is not new.
It has been going on.
But for a host of reasons, which by and large were not the fault of the people pursuing political issues, there wasn't enough oomph to get all the way home.
You had people that made a first base and some made it to second, but there was nobody around in third.
In the early 90s, I think a very significant dynamic changed.
And obviously there's a lot going on, and we could debate this.
From my point of view, this significant change in dynamic was the entrance into this political arena of Ceceti and Stephen Greer.
And the reason it was significant was this.
Stephen Greer is a very charismatic, a very thoughtful, very focused, and very intense person.
These are qualities often associated with strong leaders.
And furthermore, his commitment included his personal resources.
So when Ceceti made the decision to move into the political arena from some of the other things they were doing, and he threw his money into it, he was able to move forward very substantially in terms of making contacts, holding meetings, cross-briefings, and getting referred from one group to the other.
And this sort of broke the ice and I believe significantly changed the entire landscape for political action in a very meaningful way.
And the best way to describe what CSETI has done is a phrase I like to use called forward coalitioning.
If you take the entire UFO community, which is a fairly loose confederation, and you draw a circle around it, and then everything outside that circle we'll call the mainstream community, which is filled up with people that either don't know about it,
know a little and don't care, or know a little or a lot and don't believe a word of it, which is most of the rest of the world, then forward coalitioning is making contacts with people in that mainstream world who are in significant positions, who are in positions to take action or be helpful and constructive, but really have no involvement in any meaningful way in the, quote, established UFO community.
You know, it's funny art, but there is an advantage to not having to deal in money.
It has an advantage to working pro bono, which is something that Jonathan Turley is doing on the Area 51 case.
There is an advantage to not having to worry about money issues with respect to people you're going to be talking to or in any way having to give money to a party.
It frees you up.
And this issue is a moral, an ethical, and political issue of fundamental importance.
And once you get beyond the laugh curtain or beyond what we'll call the first line of defenses, nobody who is intelligent, reasonably ethical, fails to see that.
And so it would almost be improper.
Say we had a couple of million dollars.
Say we had $10 million handed to us on a silver platter.
It would almost be unethical, in my opinion, to take a bunch of that money and give it to a political party because you wanted them to help you pursue this issue in some formal way.
Because this issue affects every living person on this planet.
When Stephen Bassett wants to call Congressman X or knock on Congressman X's door, and you've got to get past the secretary to talk to the Congressman, Where would you say Stephen Bassett generally ends up on the list of access behind all the guys with the tobacco money and the blah, blah, blah, blah?
Stephen Bassett's probably got to be down there at the bottom of the list when Congressman X has nothing else to do for that day.
If you're a member of the House or Senate at this particular time, when the entire financing structure of American politics is being assaulted from all sides and people are holding hearings on TV and generally making complete fools of themselves, when the general public has clearly shown us disgust regarding the buying and selling of politics in America, we spend, if we took about 80% of the money we spend on the presidential election alone, we could probably feed half of India for a year.
Being able to deal on some issues and step forward on political and ethical and moral grounds is actually a pretty substantial plus.
I don't think any politician right now is going to gain any ground because he's able to raise some money from special interest and then act accordingly.
In fact, the politicians are running around Washington priding themselves, and they'll be the first ones to tell you that they took a whole bunch of money in some issue and then completely voted the other way.
So you would be surprised.
Let us not forget that we're not dealing with anything trivial here.
There are a lot of important issues in this country.
There's a lot of lobbyists in this town.
I think it's 14,000.
But there are very few issues that approach the magnitude of this one.
So you're telling us that there is a sort of advantage to being pro bono, and that might actually get your foot in the door when the $750,000 check wouldn't.
And hop running around town and I'm talking to media and press and political individuals.
I'm not getting derision.
I'm not getting ridicule.
I feel very positive about 90% of the conversations I have.
It's easy to forget that the only reason that I'm able to do this is that a whole host of researchers slaved for decades, year after year after year, under the worst possible situation, against impregnable barriers, tremendous ridicule, losing income, having their profession hurt, some people perhaps even in the 50s losing their life.
Only because all of those people did that for 30 or 40 years am I suddenly able to come up at this particular time and maneuver in this fashion.
I'm just lucky.
It's nothing special.
I don't have any particular charm or charisma.
I am just lucky.
We could name these people.
You know who they are.
Someday they're going to get the credit they deserve.
I'm going to read you something that I consider fairly typical of the UFO community, which, frankly, most of the time doesn't get along very well with itself, which is a big problem, and I'm sure we could spend time talking about that.
But this concerns you, and it's typical.
So just let me read it, and then you can react.
Art, don't trust Steve.
Don't trust him until he explains his financial situation.
What better way to sabotage UFO investigators than by posing as a UFO lobbyist in Washington?
He's always talking out of both sides of his mouth.
For example, last time he was on regarding cancer cases among ufologists like Stephen Greer, he just couldn't resist mentioning that they shared a high degree of tension in their work.
Some of the things that he said, meeting you, Steve, about Francis Barwood, his own client, were far from flattering.
Steve's comment about Kathy Keaton keeping Hope alive on this issue of ufology for many years proves how cynical his real agenda is.
So there you go, Steve.
You get into this field and people are going to, and what this basically, of course, is doing is accusing you of perhaps being a disinformation agent.
And I'll be honest with you, I just don't want to put the effort into responding to it.
It's an interesting subject, but there's other things to talk about.
Perhaps at another time someone wants to go on a call-in-answer kind of thing and get into that.
But I'll make a very quick point, and I've said this to a number of people.
The UFO world has had a very significant problem because it's somewhat inbred.
Because it's had so many obstacles in its way up against very, very intense resistance, very heavily funded and well-motivated resistance.
And as the X-Files now continues to taunt us, it always is the next step and the next day and the next effort, the next slide, the next video, the next credential, never quite getting there.
People are very frustrated.
They can't fight City Hall.
They're not winning those battles, and so they turn on each other.
And one of the ways they do it is to accuse everybody of this and that.
And one of the classic things is disinformation.
Disinformation is something you can virtually not prove.
You can throw it out any time you want.
And so to the extent that it does that, it's really chasing its tail, just going around in circles.
There's only one way to break that cycle, and that's this.
Every piece of information that anybody comes forward with should be judged on its merits, period.
And trying to figure out someone's motives or get into deep analysis of their psychology or doing a lot of research on their quote background is a lot of time and effort and money that could be spent on doing research on these issues.
And if the material holds up, fine, work with it.
If it doesn't, dispense with it.
But getting into who's disinformation, who's government operative, and all this stuff, this is unfortunately kind of a syndrome that is a result of the way things have gone for 50 years.
And I do not blame the community for this.
This has not been a fair game.
It hasn't been a fair playing field.
And people are people.
And it's not easy to work without money and without payoffs.
There's a certain amount of jealousy, but it's mostly just frustration.
I think most of this would like people would prefer to direct this, I think, at the government if they had targets, but they don't.
And I can make two allusions here.
One is that back in Colorado, this is back around 1980, I can't remember the year, 84, 85, I actually had the, I only heard Alan Hynek speak one time.
He came to Colorado, and I heard him, and it was only about a month or two before he died.
I didn't even know he was ill.
But I remember the meeting, and I remember that he was struggling, and that he wasn't particularly clear.
In other words, his discussion was not as lucid as one would expect, and I didn't know what to make of that.
But I could tell that he was struggling.
Two months later, he was dead.
And of course, then I realized that this man who had been in this issue and had done so much for so many years, and as you realize, of course, was nearly 10 years shy of being able to live and see the results, was doing everything he could to the very end, right up to the end.
That's the kind of dedication that's involved here.
And that's what I think about when I think about when I'm having a problem or I'm a little discouraged.
I think about people like Heineken.
And I say, look, I'll never go through what they have to go through.
And so I'm not going to get upset over those kinds of things.
The media operates under two fundamental premises and has on this issue for as long as we can remember.
Premise number one: under no circumstances, with very few exceptions, do you ever do a straight UFO story?
You just don't do it.
And premise number two: whatever doubts you may have about not doing that story, you know, that you're missing out on something, or maybe there's really something here, and boy, there's a Pulitzer Prize and not going to get it, or maybe we're going to get scooped.
And one of the key exceptions is when a UFO situation hooks to a legitimate story, and then all the frustration that these people have about maybe they ought to be covering this gives them a chance to really jump.
Frances Barr was an example.
She was a council person, and she worked in a real city and a real council, and she got up and talked about this, raised a ruckus, got the governor involved.
It's easy to forget and to step back and take a look at some of these things and say, wait a minute, what just happened?
Well, you really have to do that with Corso's book.
This is an unbelievable event, an unbelievable book.
I know.
And so this thing gets published.
Well, guess what?
When that book was published, really that was a shoe-dropping.
The other shoe hasn't dropped yet.
And a lot of people I don't think are paying attention to this.
Let's make an analogy.
If Colonel Corso, with all the credentials that he has, had published a book this year basically stating that while he was on President Eisenhower's staff, he came into information which clearly indicated that several of Eisenhower's cabinet members were feeding secrets directly to the Soviet government.
And then later on, while he was in military intelligence, he learned of several generals that were doing the same thing and were part of a secret cabal of Soviet spies within the government during the 50s and 60s.
Let me tell you, very, very quickly, not only would the media be all over it, but the government would be doing some major investigations and the fur would fly.
Now, His claims, of course, boil down to he had access to Roswell technology.
His job was to take that technology and integrate it into American industry.
And the claims are that fiber optics, and we could go on and on and on, modern chip technology, all the rest of it, came not from some hard research, but rather back-engineering these items that Colonel Corso transferred to private industry.
That is basically, in a nutshell, the Corso story.
Well, Colonel Corso's book is a UFO story, and they don't do UFO stories.
Now, the government is in an interesting position with respect to Corso, isn't it?
It only has three options.
Option number one, come forward with clear evidence that Colonel Corso, due to advancing age and other illnesses, has become essentially delusional, senile, and has acted inappropriately.
It's very unfortunate that they hope that he gets care.
They're willing to help him, et cetera, et cetera.
Second one, they can come forward and say these are incredible allegations which go to the core of the integrity of the government, and we are refuting them all, and here's the evidence refuting them.
A major daily, a major daily, is entering into editorial discussions this week regarding the initial, How can I phrase this?
Editorial level discussions regarding gathering information so that they can make a decision to put their full investigative resources behind going directly after the issue of witnesses, witness pool, congressional hearings, and testimony such as the public already given testimony such as Corso.
It's a major daily, so everybody's going to recognize a major daily.
Now, I cannot say which one it is at this point, but that will become apparent soon enough if they choose to act.
If they choose not to, that's another story.
Now, the implications of this are enormous.
Because remember that second tenant?
There are people out there in the conspiracy world that feel comfortable.
It makes them feel more comfortable if they believe that all of the newspapers and all the media in this world are in a giant cabal run by a greater power, and it's all orchestrated.
Well, this is just too simple and too easy.
It's not the case.
The media in this country has brought down presidents.
It has gone after every sacred cow you can point at.
It has brought down governments.
Believe me, when it gets motivated, nothing gets in its way.
And if a major daily goes into this issue, not trying to prove Roswell per se, but going into the testimony issue and who wants to testify and what was Corso talking about, the moment they start that series, most of the rest of the papers are simply not going to sit by and read the greatest story of all time and somebody else.
Okay, now, suppose I'm that major daily, unnamed daily newspaper, and you're coming to me trying to make a case that I should expend my resources in this area.
What do you tell me that is strong enough, powerful enough, to make me want to devote my resources to going after this?
Without getting into too much specifics, let's just say that I think there's a relatively strong awareness in the public domain about the gathering witness pool, which brings us back to, let's go back to that circle.
Remember the government posture in the middle of an encroaching circle?
We talked about the intensive meetings of CCETI for five years, which are still going on.
That is one point of the compass.
Let's move to another point of the compass.
Another thing that is encroaching on the government posture is that the fundamental government cover-up is leaking like a sieve.
Now, it has been for some time, but the leaks are just getting bigger and bigger.
More people coming forward, people loosening up, feeling a little more less fear about sticking their nose out.
So the witness pool continues to sort of accumulate like water dripping into a pool.
And there are people that represent those witnesses.
So if I were, you know, we're speaking purely hypothetical now.
If I were the editor of a major daily and someone could come and give me a pretty substantial picture of the quality of that witness pool, government people, rank stations, types of testimony, levels of testimony implications,
and i was really convinced that these people were there and ready to go uh... i i i think that i might uh... decided time to uh... to get out get on the saddle and get into this issue pretty big and you would make that decision based editorial editorial decision uh...
And that's the difference between a story meeting and an editorial meeting.
It's not an unreasonable position to take, but I think my best response to that would be this: that if these inside cabal type situations always had their way and the media and citizen action really can't bring about what we call defined results, then the Vietnam War would have lasted eight more years.
Johnson would have served a second term.
Nixon would have served his term out.
The fact of the matter is, all this was happening in the real world.
There are plenty of people involved.
This is not a simple thing.
It's not a chess game between two people.
It's a chess game between probably about a couple hundred, 300 people in the government and about 2 million people on the outside.
So let's just wait and see.
Remember, I'm prepared to eat my words in April of 99.
My assessment is that the government, no later than the beginning of the primary season for the presidential election in 99, which is April, about 15 months away.
Prior to that, not next month, likely, but within 12 months, 14, 15 months, the government will be forced to disclose its position and will, based upon certainly my assessment of the field, be forced to acknowledge the validity of the alien hypothesis as the explanation for the UFO phenomena.
It is an inevitability that we've been heading for for 50 years, and we're getting near the end of the line.
And what we're talking about tonight is why that's going to happen.
We were talking about the second point of the compass, in other words, this encroaching circle that's closing in on the government posture.
And that's the leaking cover-up, which is a good metaphor, leaking people who are pooling together, in a sense, outside the circle, growing larger and larger, whose stories are inevitably going to be told in one fashion or another.
Let's move to the third point of the compass in this circle.
That is constituted by what I call much more direct action.
In other words, pointed directly at the government for specific purposes.
Examples of this are straightforward as Operation Right to Know's activities.
They started what I call direct demonstrations on this issue.
Obviously, this isn't an anti-war issue or the Vietnam War, so we're not talking about huge demonstrations, but they were out there all the way back to 91, demonstrating in front of the White House, Washington Post, GAO.
A lot of that activity was organized and directed by Elaine Douglas, who is also, in addition to belonging to Operation Right to Know back then, is now the director of MUFON in the District of Columbia, MIT graduate, very sharp.
They were simply punching on the door, and the media was showing up and covering it.
But in addition to that, you've got the FOIA activity, the Freedom of Information Act, all the way back to the 70s, and that's associated with the Citizens Against UFO secrecy cause.
Now, one of the original founders there was Peter Gerston.
He's still important because he's still in play, and he's still working on behalf of cause from his points of travel that he's doing.
And one of the things he's doing right now, which we need to update on, is that he filed recently a Freedom of Information Act request specifically, and this is a very, very tight request for information on Colonel Corso.
Now, you see, the government, unlike most Freedom of Information requests, is in a very tough position on this one, isn't it?
No, they basically, I think, referred him to the Air Force, which is then going to refer him to the archives, which is then going to say we don't have anything.
It's the usual thing.
I mean, it would be astounding.
If they actually come forward with the Roswell records, well, hey, no problem.
But he's anticipating that not happening.
Now, Peter ⁇ this FOIA stuff, he's He's not the only one that's filed FOIAs.
But these things have been kind of like a Chinese torture for the government.
As you know, it's established several key points, namely that saucers are real.
In other words, the government has information pertaining to sightings and blips and so forth.
It's also confirmed some of the government's positions on some of these things.
And some interesting clues have been ferreted out.
And it's also kept the thing in the legal process and built up a legal sensibility about this.
So that's direct action.
Now, if I could be so presumptuous, I'd like to maybe suggest, Art, that Peter, who is a really interesting guy and goes all the way back to 78 and knows the legal side of getting this information out as well as anybody, is somebody that you may want to consider bringing on a show, particularly in the light of his ongoing FOIA on Colonel Carso, which is going to eventually have to resolve itself.
The government eventually has to take a position.
Now, if it eventually takes a position that there are no documents, it is de facto saying that Colonel Carso is nuts.
And that is a story.
And I can assure you that I, and I'm sure others, are not going to let that story go by without making sure the media understands what that means.
So Gerston's activities and cause and Operation Right to Know, this is coming at the government, and it's using legitimate legal structures which can't simply be completely ignored.
And then let's go around to the other side of the circle to the last compass point.
And it needs to be stressed, I think, in case people, lest they forget what's going on.
Here's what the petition says.
This is a petition, again, originated by Stargate International, non-proprietary.
It's intended to be the community's petition.
It's intended to try to represent as many groups and people as possible.
It is perhaps the right petition at the right time, we hope.
And this is what it states.
I, the undersigned, petitioned my Congress to hold in 1997 an open hearing in which government, military, civilian contract, and agency employees, active and retired, are permitted to give testimony regarding their personal knowledge of any UFO-related evidence.
This testimony to be given under immunity by waiver of any applicable security oath or agreement of nondisclosure.
Now, let me clarify something here.
First of all, I'm going to make something very clear.
UFO-related evidence.
This petition was written to be as simple as possible so that there'd be a minimum amount of confusion and consternation on the part of the average person that reads this.
But UFO-related evidence, let me be very unambiguous.
It refers to everything that is related to the UFO and obviously behind it, the alien hypothesis that anyone working for the government at any time has encountered in any way.
And that takes in, obviously, sightings.
It takes in any NASA evidence.
It takes in any of the photographic evidence that may have been seen by, erased by, referred to regarding moon and Mars artifacts or crash and recovery evidence?
Absolutely.
It refers to video stuff that may have come off of the space shuttles.
It refers to anything that the government may have dug up somewhere archaeologically on this planet.
It refers to anything behind the UFO and alien hypotheses.
It could have been stated perhaps more elaborately, but the intent was to try to keep that petition as tightly written as possible.
And the witnesses that are pooling, that essentially hopefully will eventually testify at this hearing, cover that entire range.
It's not just some people are going forward and say, I saw a sighting, I saw a craft.
They're going to be covering a whole range of things which in their totality paint a pretty broad picture and a pretty thorough picture of what we already know fairly confidently to be the general state of affairs.
I'm going to say, for the sake of argument, that you get well over a million signed petitions asking for this.
Is it not possible that upon their delivery, even though it obviously would create a great deal of interest, the section which would hold people harmless from the documents they signed regarding national security just wouldn't get passed?
We'll get into that at length when we talk about Area 51.
But, you know, I'm not getting much resistance on that issue.
Resistance is fundamentally perhaps along the lines of, is there really anything there?
I don't think that when push comes to shove, providing immunity to these people.
The interesting thing about it, it is the provision of immunity, which really is what the particular committee involved is going to be doing.
That's the service they're going to be providing.
That's what makes this hearing possible.
The people that are going to have to make the decision about holding this hearing are not going to have to debate amongst themselves and whoever else wants to join the debate, some particular aspect of the UFO evidence.
They're simply allowing people that want to talk to talk.
I mean, that's pretty simple.
It's not rocket science.
And these people are requesting protection from problems.
The lower issues are very well known in government.
It's hard to imagine, though, that even if the best happened and they issued the immunity, went along with the whole thing, held the hearings, I can't imagine they'd be public.
But the 66 hearing, there were three people that testified.
One was General Brown.
One was McDonald.
And one of the, that was it.
It was like holding these, what, like holding this whole giant hearing on financing and have three people come in, talk about financing, and then shut it down.
It was obviously a ruse, but that's not going to happen now.
Several years ago, I began to shift the emphasis of the program away from everyday kind of politics in discussion to issues like the one we're discussing right now.
And I did that, Steve, basically because I began to come to the conclusion that politics, at least in the last few years, has, for the most part, been irrelevant to the everyday lives of most Americans, and they were getting, frankly, frustrated, bored, and disinterested in it.
And I was one of those Americans.
And so I began to change the focus of the program several years ago.
And I got a very, very interesting facts earlier today from the Republican National Committee.
I would actually, the question I would ask would be actually more related to the Area 51, and I'll posit it this way.
I'll basically say this.
I'll say, in the 50 years since the end of the war, we wrote the government a blank check.
Basically said, look, prosecute this Cold War.
Keep these nukes off of our back.
Do whatever you've got to do.
Spare us the details.
And the government did.
It spent trillions of dollars, built huge infrastructures, intelligence agencies, vast covert operations, secret activities, black budgets, the whole nine yards.
Built up this huge edifice.
The Cold War is over.
This edifice hasn't gone away.
We are operating with huge amounts of secrecy and classification.
We've discussed many, many things during the course of the program.
We're going to finish up with the Area 51 case.
That is as much as we're able to talk about here shortly.
And then we're going to open the phone lines.
And if you have a question for Stephen, I guess the time would be now.
And I've got a good one for him in a moment.
There are three new UFO photographs on my website that are definitely worth a look-see.
There's also a new photograph up there as part of the book signing photographs that I think you would want to see.
It includes in the background Richard C. Hoagland and David John Oates, who both came late to the book signing.
And someone took a photograph of all of us and sent it to me.
So I scanned it and got it up there.
I thought you might want to see what David Oates looks like.
And I think you'll be quite surprised.
I was.
And David, of course, that always occurs, doesn't it?
I see it all the time.
People see a photograph of me after hearing me for years and they say, oh, my God, I thought you were fat and bald, and you're not.
Or it goes the other way, and they say, gee, I pictured you this way, and you look that way.
Usually people that you hear for a long period of time and then finally see never ever meet up somehow with what your mental impression of them was.
So if you want to see that photograph, it's up there.
And perhaps most important of all is the link to Stephen Bassett's to his, I keep saying his website, and it's really not his website.
He's simply involved.
He is assisting Stargate International's Coalition for Honesty in Government.
And the petition that you can fill out, all it'll cost you is a little time, is there.
So you go up to my website, scroll down to the guest section, you'll see Steve and Bassett's name, and there's a link there.
When you hit it, you'll go over to Stargate International's Coalition for Honesty in Government, and you'll see that petition.
By all means, get up to my website, jump across and fill that out.
That really, really is important.
Now, you heard earlier Steve Bassett's proposed question for the RNC chair, who I tentatively have scheduled for tomorrow night.
When he hears all of this, he may not come on.
Who knows?
However, if he does, as opposed to Steve Bassett's question, the following question is proposed by a faxer, and I want to run this by you, Steve, and see if you would prefer it asked.
Okay?
My faxer says, Steve's question is a gigantic soft ball.
I would phrase a question like this, quoting me.
I have a national audience in the multi-millions.
It is composed of a cross-section that represents constituents from all walks of life, including, but not limited to, scientists, engineers, physicists, truck drivers, physicians, homemakers, police personnel, factory workers, corporate employees, CEOs, you get the idea.
I receive literally thousands of verbal and written inquiries about the subject of UFOs and related issues.
It is clear that most of these questions come from people who are reasonable, knowledgeable, well-informed, and rational in CAPS.
Would your party be willing to incorporate in your ongoing operating platform a commitment to have the Republican leadership in Congress conduct open public hearings on this subject?
Which I think I think Discovery Channel is nicely launched for, and making the UFO issue, the core fundamental UFO issue, part of that campaign, essentially nationalizing her effort there.
And in a sense, she'll be doing what this fellow is, or a person, a fax writer, is suggesting that the National Committee do.
Interestingly enough, it's more likely to happen at the level of a Francis Barwood.
And the reason is very simple.
It's money.
One of the problems these politicians have is that, say you're a senator, and your party and your backers just spent, say, $12 million getting you elected.
You've got a whole range of issues that they're hoping you'll pursue.
The moment you want to talk about UFOs, their immediate reaction is, your ability to pursue those other issues is going to be destroyed.
We just invested $12 million in you.
What are you doing?
Someone at that level of Frances Barwood, she's going to run an inexpensive campaign.
It's not going to cost a lot of money.
She's not owing to anybody or beholding anyone.
You really can raise the issue into a state campaign like that in an appropriate way and not be overwhelmed with resistance and still accomplish the job.
If anybody is in the media or knows people in the media that would like to bring this case to their attention, email me at paradigmrg, aol.com.
I will be happy to send you a full packet.
Other people I recommend contact your paper, contact your local politician, mention this case is going forward, and you want them to pay attention to it.
There are some national implications here.
I'm sure that they could use all the help they can get.
Since it's apparent that we have to broaden our interpretation of national security with grave geophysical and atmospheric and environmental threats announcing their imminence, any persons or entities that prevent the public from taking advantage of all of the apparently very capable assistances at hand to mitigate dangers is itself a threat to national security.
And therefore, I want to commend your timely courage and also yours as well, Art, for continuing to bring such guests on your program.
Because since individuals with a different priority and loyalty have insinuated themselves into the government, we are all being put in jeopardy.
My question, would you consider it to be an advantage to have some further very apparent manifestations of this higher order that's here to help us to be of any benefit in perhaps persuading leaders in this government and perhaps around the world?
He's raised a very interesting issue, and I think it's something that can't simply be overlooked, and that is that we can't lose sight of what the core driving force is.
In other words, perceived evidence, some strong theories about some pretty fantastic stuff.
I think in general, particularly in the area of political action, I'm not a researcher, and I'm mostly focused in political action.
There are many people doing a lot of research and theorizing on this, and I love to do it, but it's not what I'm doing in terms of a formal way.
I operate completely aside from anything of that type because it's virtually beyond the control.
It's certainly beyond my control, and it's beyond the control of anybody else that I know or work with.
And the moment that I allow that to come into play, really I'm now almost building strategy on pure speculation.
That is the wildcard.
That is the Joker in this deck.
And at any time, that card could be played.
And that brings me to another question I'd like to throw at the RNC guy, and that is this.
It's my view that when disclosure comes, and you know what my time schedule is, the party that's on the wrong side of this is ruined for a long time.
And my question to them is, are you prepared to completely sit this out and just spectate it or poo-poo it and have it blow up in your face and be off to the sidelines for four or five, six elections?
But look at what the gun lobby does, the anti-gun lobby.
Somebody walks into a fast food restaurant, kills a bunch of people, and before you know it, there is five new bills hitting the floor to restrict new guns or take guns away from people.
So in that sense, any additional manifestations would be of assistance to you, correct?
I think, remember, the hearings are narrowly focused initially, testimony of government witnesses, employees, and so forth about their personal experiences.
It's not structured to start off with UFO people in general coming in, talking about anything they want in the UFO field, which is vast.
If a significant number of people testify under oath under camera with only a modest amount of their testimony redacted, I cannot imagine that Congress would say, oh, that's very interesting.
I mean, if he testifies in a committee hearing under oath, I think even at that point, the New York Times, Washington Post, and other papers have got to say, well, you know, he certainly is pressing this matter.
No, no, you see, as a caller, you're missing the boat entirely.
The block wall is a wall that sits there for researchers who come up with documentation of this or that and then don't even have a clue as to how to get it into the political system to actually get movement toward opening all of this up.
He's raised a point, though I'll mention that is that one of the problems is this, and this is true of all issues.
If you have a very controversial issue in play, let's pick one.
Pick abortion, right?
And you perhaps would like, you're a member of a staff of a congressperson, and you maybe want to get some information on it, discuss it a little bit.
You're going to have the head of the number one abortion rights group or abortion group come into your office and sit there and have that get around.
This is a very intense and difficult way to enter dialogue.
It's much easier to deal with a lobbyist who's representing that group and maybe some others.
It's less.
You can have a little bit more of a reasonable discussion without getting it, quote, in bold italics.
And so that's what I'm doing.
It's not easy for these people to simply have some of the top researchers, UFO celebrities, as it were, walk into their office, have people notice that, have it possibly get in the press.
And I don't share the optimism that in the near future the government is going to make any disclosure.
And the reason why I believe this is because Michael Lindemann, he said that such an event would be a meta leva.
What means from that point in time in history, things are unpredictable.
And also, concomitant with that is that we have Dr. Lear who's pulling out implants and abductees, which the government would have, these are the questions that are going to be raised once you open up the subject.
Art Bell's UFO Inquiry00:03:36
unidentified
And I do believe there's a silent wall going on because I could personally verify some incidents that I have witnessed myself and have been documented by Dr. McEnby.
I had a UFO encounter, but I don't want to take your time up on that.
But I think the ramifications are so vast that I think the only choice the government has is to keep silent and let people gradually come around to their own realization of what's going on.
And I don't, and I think from where he's sitting, it probably is the appropriate response.
I think one of the things is that, remember, by and large, most of the UFO community is built around the research, the evidence, and the UFO forums and conferences, which are slideshows and very interesting and exciting, and that's kind of the way it's gone.
Most of the people in the UFO community, again, a loose community, pretty knowledgeable about the evidence.
I mean, they can talk evidence all day long, but they don't know much about the politics and they haven't followed it here or here.
So they really don't have a sense of what's happening politically and media-wise.
There's two colleagues important points that should be made.
First of all, we've been through this before.
If you go back in history, there have been a number of times in the history of civilizations where they've gone through major paradigm changes, which don't seem as severe looking backwards because we have all this knowledge that we carry around.
Even the average high school student has a huge amount of knowledge of the world and science.
But if you go back and try to put yourself in the mind of the people during some of these major changes, whether it's the Catholic Church hierarchy during the time of Galileo, you really can get a sense of just how profound it was.
We've been through it before.
We've survived.
But there's another more important point.
I think that we have a trade-off here.
There's no question that this transition is going to be tough and there's going to be consequences.
But the one thing we have to deal with that transition, and this is true of every country on this planet, is the social contract that exists between the people of the state and the state.
And there's a social contract between every groups of people and the nation-state they live in throughout this globe.
And what is happening is that as this process continues to prolong and as abuses of power and abuses of this social contract are engaged in to, quote, play this game, the very contract by which we need to have intact to deal with these issues is being ripped to pieces.
And so at some point, we risk a worse scenario in which fundamental trust in the government is gone.
There's all kinds of fractionization going on.
And the disclosure comes anyway, because remember, there's a wild card in the deck.
And I'm talking about the Independence Day scenario.
This disclosure can come regardless of what your politics are.
And if that happens, I want that social contract to be intact.
And right now, it's getting a lot of hits.
And so I understand what she's saying.
It's a very tough call.
And it may be that what we learn post-paradigm, we may say, gee, I sure wish I was dumb and barefoot.
Have you ever wondered, Steve, if you had somebody come to you, which could conceivably occur, literally with the smoking gun?
Undeniable, unambiguous, absolute evidence that would blow the whole thing wide open, and you had it sitting in your hot little palm, whether you would sit there all night or two nights or a week or a month considering the implications before you say went to the Times or Wall Street Journal or whoever you would go to with it to blow the whole thing up.
I mean, would you have some reason to sit there and consider the implications for society before you let it out?
I have thought about that issue many, many times, and I think most of the people in this field have at one time or another.
There are unknowns here.
There are some uncertainties.
I liken it to a scenario.
It's a hypothetical scenario, but I think it points it up pretty well.
Let's go back to the time of Galileo.
And let's imagine, this may even happen, but I'm making it up.
But let's imagine.
Galileo goes to the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and he goes in with his telescope that he's concocted.
And basically what he's saying is, look, I've been looking through this thing, and I've discovered that Jupiter has moons around it.
There seems to be moons around it, which means that it's probably a planet like ours.
And that has all kinds of implications.
And I want to tell you about this.
You've got to know this.
And I've got the smoking gun.
It's a telescope.
Look through this telescope and you'll see.
And I can almost see the head of the church saying to Galileo, Galilei, I can't do that.
And Galileo would say, why?
He'd say, because, you know, if I look through that telescope, everything in the world will change forever.
And so I'm not going to look through it, and everything will stay the same.
And to some degree, we're playing out the same exact scenario.
I think we've gotten to the point where the relationship between the people of this country and our government is every bit as important as the implications of this paradigm change.
And it's complicated by the Cold War and what transpired there.
When you factor these in, I have personally voted for pursuing this.
I think in some degree, all of what we've gone through, all of the research, all of the effort, all of the blind alleys, all of the indoctrination, the meetings, the press conferences, the conferences with the slideshows, everything else, all of this is a process which in some sense is earning us the right to make this transition.
Millions of people have been brought into play.
Huge amounts of effort has been taking place.
Much thought has gone into it.
Perhaps the very act itself is taking us to the transition point, and it is totally appropriate.
But if we try to operate from a guarantee of final result and try to calculate in advance how it's going to go, I'm afraid we will be frozen and we'll take no action whatsoever.
I know, but even you, I mean, I'm going back to your own words now.
You said that if revelation comes outside of the present political construct in this country, it could have social implications or political implications that would be so severe for the government that we might bring a government down over it.
I mean, you could go to, you could blow the whole thing out in public, risking a final endgame erosion in government confidence.
Or you could take your little smoking gun and you could go to Senator so-and-so and Congressman so-and-so and you could try and say, look, I want to keep the present system together.
You know, the fact is that, in a sense, what you're saying is if somebody had absolute power with respect to this issue one way or the other, what would they do?
And to some degree, that's the way the government operates.
It operates from a position of near absolute power.
The fact of the matter is that no one has absolute power on this, and no one is really in a position to really turn it one way or the other.
And to the extent that it is being narrowed and kept confined, it is putrefying.
And I think you guys will be very interested in this.
The death of John Denver was very unfortunate, and it got me to investigating this because he was flying a long easy aircraft, which is a Bert Rutan design, and subsequently, Bert Rutan sent one of those out there.
I'm going to lob a modest proposal in the general direction of the West Coast.
Look, for four decades now, a host of people who I won't attempt to name for fear to offend the ones that I forget.
Researchers and enthusiasts and people involved and interested have pursued this complex, extraordinary phenomenon.
They have had no money.
They have suffered ridicule and derision.
They have lost jobs and spouses and friends.
They've suffered frustration and bad health.
And they have pressed this forward to the point it's now converting into political action, and we've moved into the end game.
At this point, now people in the mainstream are coming forward and taking considerable personal risk, jeopardizing their career, perhaps, showing great courage.
People like Stephen Schiff, people like Jonathan Turley, and I'm sure a few others will be stepping forward.
We are near the end.
And still, though, this field is virtually penniless.
There is no money.
People like Stephen Greer have come in and put virtually their entire savings and invested an entire life's practice into it.
And that's fine.
But much more is needed.
There is an opportunity to drive some of these political processes with much more effectiveness.
And so I lobbed this proposal in the direction of those people who are the moguls of the entertainment industry and the moguls of the high-tech industry.
These are individuals in many cases that have made large sums of money by incorporating a lot of this material into very entertaining and clever entertainment, which they have every right to do, and have made a fortune off of technology, which is an essence of our society and at the core of a lot of the UFO evidence.
You know, they've made a lot of money.
They're very wealthy.
Their lives are fulfilled.
But they have a one-in-a-millennium opportunity, a one-in-a-eon opportunity to truly impact history.
And if they would move to a more aggressive posture and direct some money toward the UFO community, particularly some of the political action, and I could sure show them where to send it, they can be able to say later on that they did more than just make movies about this or build a computer or build a software game about aliens.
They can say that they were part of the transition that changed the world, and they can start helping us have the funds so that before this line is crossed, to get back to that girl's question, one of the things is also needed is a whole lot of structure needs to be built up, a whole lot of citizen involvement and discussions and conferences.
We need to get into this business seriously so that, in fact, we don't have the anarchy and the confusion that this young woman is scared to death of.
Part of the problem with the cover-up and the don't ask, don't tell is all of this is just kept off to the side.
They're going to get blindsided.
I ask these people to consider how many opportunities they're ever going to have to affect history this way and to consider putting some of that money to good use.
And so you might say, gee, why is it that the U.S. seems to dominate?
Very interesting point.
We are the major power.
We did start the nuclear age, in a sense.
And we've ended up, as many would have predicted, the top dog.
To some degree, for that reason, we seem to be the focus a lot of this.
And also, because of our position as a major power, I think other nations are reluctant to politically step forward and say, look, we've got a lot of evidence here, and we're going to break this open, and we're going to pop the balloon.
Because, again, as the young woman pointed out, there's a lot of risk here.
And I think some of these countries are thinking, gee, what are the consequences of us forcing this issue ahead of the time schedule that the U.S. seems to be on?
And would they be ignored?
I mean, Mexico could call a conference tomorrow and claim that UFOs are here, and it's very good that the rest of the world would just say, hey, that's amusing, and ignore them.
And is that right?
No, it's not.
So the rest of the world is kind of a wildcard.
My hands are pretty full just dealing in the U.S., obviously.
But I would not rule out the possibility that something major could come from another country that could force the issue.