All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2015 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:14:46
Edition 193 - Stephen Bassett, Disclosure

Our second conversation with Stephen Bassett.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world.
On the internet, by webcast and by podcast, my name is Howard Hughes and this is The Unexplained.
Many thanks as ever for your emails.
I'm going to be doing some shout-outs and addressing some of your emails in this edition of the show, so listen out for that.
Very special guest on this edition, Steve Bassett.
You've asked for him to return.
It's been five years.
Count them since he was last here.
We last spoke in person in Liverpool.
This time we have a digital connection to his home in Maryland, and we're going to talk about, of course, disclosure and the latest developments in that because apparently it's closer than you think.
We're going to do some shout-outs this time too, but not until I've said thank you very much indeed to Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool, who's done some really hard work with this website and this show recently.
So Adam, thank you for that.
And like I say, thank you to you.
Please keep your donations coming.
If you want to make one to the show or you want to send me an email, go to the website www.theunexplained.tv and there are links there to do both of those things.
Okay, shout-outs.
A lot to get through, so let's do them as quickly as we can.
No men, thank you very much indeed for your email about the political situation.
I think you're really talking about both sides of the Atlantic and the equalities or inequalities that exist between people, which I think a lot of us are aware of.
Marty emails to say the weather forecasters in the US don't always get it right.
I think that's the experience here in the UK as well, Marty, but I totally understand why you say that.
Josh Riley in Australia emails with a little told story about Roswell.
And when the time is right, we will explore that.
Josh, thank you.
Rick Bartz suggests somebody called Scott Walter.
I'll look into that and him.
Jill in California, good thoughts as ever, Jill.
Nice to hear from you.
Colleen in Alberta, British Columbia, Canada.
Some very kind comments.
Thank you, Colleen.
Fellow COPA, fellow podcaster, Mark Wiltshire.
Good to hear from you.
And I'm going to listen to your podcast.
And thank you for listening to mine, Mark.
Rui Dos Remedios.
I hope I've said that right.
Loved Buff Parry.
Thank you.
Dura, can you tell me more about your work and your explorations that you emailed me about?
I'd like to hear from you more about that.
Bent in Stavanger, Norway, regular listener.
Interesting thoughts as ever.
And I will contact Richard Hoagland about what you said.
Tarquin, had a question for Darren Britton.
Sorry, Tarquin, as you will have gathered, the show was actually recorded before you sent that email, so I couldn't ask him your question, but if he comes back on the show, I will.
Niall, thank you for your invitation.
I've emailed you back just to say why I can't do that right now.
Jim Pratt wanted Buff Parry to get a whole show to himself.
Of course, he was on with Gerald Salenti.
Well, we did give him 55 minutes, but I would like to invite him back, Jim, so listen out for that.
Chris Glennon, some really good thoughts about the different shows that I've done over the years, and another listener who would like to hear me interview Graham Hancock, somebody who's proved very elusive over the years, but I'm still trying to get him one of these days.
Riald, suggesting that I get Google ads to make revenue.
Well, we've addressed this before.
I did have Google ads on the website for a very short period.
And the problem that I had with them was that they were putting ads on for, oh, I don't know, telephone mediumship sites and dating sites and that kind of stuff.
And I really did not want my name to be in any way connected with those.
And that's why we stopped taking Google ads.
If they could put more appropriate advertising on, then we might consider doing it again.
But I really didn't want to do psychic hotlines and dating sites on my website.
Thank you very much.
Tim Carth in Wisconsin, thank you for your email.
John Cameron suggested Steve Bassett.
The guest on this edition, nice suggestion, John.
Philip Saunders says you've had a lot of lame guests recently.
Really, Philip?
Are you sure about that?
Gerald Salente, Eric von Daniken, and today Steve Bassett?
Maybe not, eh?
Craig in Liverpool, thank you for your email.
Mark and Jenny in Florida, who used to listen to me on the Nick Ferrari show on LBC in London.
A few years ago now, but thank you for reminding me of that.
Jeff in Oklahoma says he's a longtime hardcore Art Bell fan, says that I've got to keep this work up.
That's my intention.
Thank you, Jeff.
And tells me that my shows are talked about on bellgab.com.
I must take a look at that.
Thank you.
Mary Jo in Nova Scotia took time to write a lot of interesting thoughts that I have taken on board.
Mary Jo, thank you.
You must have taken you a long time to write that email.
Martin from Sheffield, UK, now in Los Angeles, thanks for your suggestions.
Michael Boll, good to hear from you, or rather Michelle Boll.
Sabs in Derby, UK wants more shows about ghosts.
We'll get on to that.
Niall in Northern Ireland wants remote viewer Daz Smith on here.
Bill in Los Angeles sets me straight on a phrase that I've been using for a while.
It's not a curved ball.
It's a curved ball.
Thanks for that, Bill.
Otherwise, I'd have kept getting it wrong.
Thank you.
Dan in Andover, Hampshire, good to hear from you.
Alison Kinneary, I've taken on board what you said.
And thank you, Alison.
John in Kent, thank you for your email.
Doug in Minnesota, thank you for yours.
Lance in Tucson, Arizona, thanks for getting in touch.
Matt Schmitz, can you tell me more about that thing you emailed me about, Matt?
And I also suggest that you get in touch with the BBC here in the UK and national public radio in the US as well about it.
Christine in Oregon and many other listeners enjoyed Eric von Daniken.
Nice to hear that.
Alex gets in touch.
This is Ms. Alex Berlin, to say I've been listening to your podcast for a number of months and thinks it's better than Coast, she says.
They place too much focus on religion these days.
I haven't heard it for a while, so that's interesting.
Thanks for the fascinating guests, superb manners, professional interviews, and asking the hard questions.
Well, we try.
And thank you very much, Alex, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Stewart asked which shows featured Rendlesham Forest.
The best one is the studio interview recorded with Larry Warren, who was there.
That's edition 23.
If you look back at that, that's a studio interview recorded at Radio City in Liverpool.
He came in and did an interview for the unexplained there.
Ruiz Santos in Lisbon, Portugal.
Good to hear from you.
And Ode Shola.
I hope I've got that right.
Ude Shola in Chicago, Illinois, says, first things first, I really enjoy the podcast.
I'm one of the most critical women I know, and even I'm impressed.
She says a lot of nice things about it, and thank you very much indeed.
That's very kind.
And you don't know how much those words mean to me.
A lot is what I can say.
All right, let's cross to the US now to Maryland and talk with Steve Bassett from the Paradigm Research Group about disclosure 2015 style.
Steve, thank you very much for coming on the show.
It's my pleasure, Howard.
Now, you are one of those perennial guests, Steve.
And what I mean by that is that every month or two, somebody will say, please bring Steve Bassett back.
And I'm really sorry I haven't done it before now.
It is, I think, five and a half years since we last spoke, and you were at the Beyond Knowledge Conference in Liverpool, along with people like Richard Hoagland and Nick Pope and various other people who all went up north to Liverpool, discovered the city, and I think you all had a good time.
Yes, no.
That was the year that I spoke at Liverpool and also built a European speaking tour around it.
I flew in, I think, prior to the conference, and I scheduled a return, I think, about four weeks later, maybe five, four weeks, I think, and spoke in 11 countries.
These were venues put together by various supporters around Europe.
And so I just went from one to another to another and then came back to the U.S. So it was quite a time and was the longest I'd ever been in Europe and enjoyed it very much.
Now, this is a good opportunity for me to ask somebody who's involved in the American scene, which of course is more vibrant on these matters because an awful lot of it is centered there, more vibrant perhaps than the European scene.
Do you think that as Europeans, we take a different view of these things to the Americans?
Are we less enthusiastic about it all than you are?
It's so, so complicated, that question.
We have the phenomena, the extraterrestrial phenomena, which is what I call it.
I don't use the term UFO anymore.
It doesn't make any sense, hasn't for some time.
Is it global?
It's without that, without question, global.
So these sightings have been taking place all over the world.
They've been seen by pilots all over the world.
But the way that it's been dealt with has been since the early 50s, late 40s, dominated by the United States.
And this is pretty much a direct result of the circumstances of the time, which were not coincidental in my view.
Most of my colleagues agree that the timing of the sightings that exploded worldwide in early 47 was directly connected to the atom bombs and so forth dropped at the end of World War II.
So you have this whole phenomenon developing just after a war that the U.S. has been critically important in winning.
Then you have a new threat developing with the Soviet Union, which could lead to a new war, which could be nuclear and so forth.
And so the U.S. made the decision that wasn't particularly by any means unusual, that this phenomenon needed to be studied.
We needed to know more.
There were very significant issues going on.
And until we knew more, we would withhold it from the people.
Or at least we would certainly not acknowledge it.
And because of the circumstances of the time, the U.S.'s allies went along with it.
Excuse me.
So the effect was, is that the truth embargo, as I call it, was initiated in a formal way by the U.S., and the allies of World War II went along with it.
The defeated countries had no choice.
The Soviet Union and Communist China had their own reasons for not wanting to bring this out.
And so thus begins the truth embargo, which goes on for, has been going on for 68 years.
But you said a decision was made in the U.S. to study this phenomenon and know more about it.
Who was the moving force behind that?
That would have been the president.
Well, I say, look, President Truman was certainly informed about Roswell.
And he made a decision, clearly was a decision from Truman.
There's no way it was made at mid-level.
That, my God, do another press release and say you didn't get a saucer.
You got a weather balloon for crying out loud.
And that's exactly what they did.
And then at that point, the press, again, the circumstances of the time, this wouldn't be so easy now.
The press basically said, fine, oh, okay, you guys made a mistake.
And that was that.
Now, things quieted down, but the U.S. had a crashed vehicle of extraterrestrial origin.
It wasn't a saucer.
It was a chevron-shaped craft, partially aerodynamic, which indicates that it was not, that the entities, the civilization, the species behind it were not as advanced as some of the others.
They also had dead bodies, and we believe one live body, meaning they had extraterrestrial beings or their corpses.
And are you extrapolating that they weren't as advanced because they crashed?
If they were more advanced, they wouldn't have crashed.
Is that why you're saying that?
Two things.
The fact that they crashed, yes, though there seems to have been a number of crashes.
And secondly, the design of the craft, which kind of disappeared, really not seen much.
Nor were the beings as described in that Roswell crash were seen much.
It was almost as if circa 2000, I mean, 1947, you had X number of groups that were, quote, engaging the planet or present.
And then when the decision, I think a collective decision was made, to escalate dramatically the amount of activity to be seen more, that some of these groups were no longer appropriate to be here.
And so I guess you could say they was like it was game time, and only the starters were going to get to go in.
So there was a sort of cosmic race to come here in view of the fact that we appeared to have a technology that could destroy this place, and they were concerned about that.
So the race was on to get here, but in that race, only the strong survive.
And I wouldn't put it that way.
It wasn't a race.
They were already here, but circumstances changed on the planet, profoundly changed, when the two bombs were dropped on Japan.
This was not only the completion of our breakthrough into the atomic world, which scientifically was a paradigm shift, a major paradigm shift for a species that had been, how would you say, slowly evolving for approximately 2 billion years.
It took 2 billion years to get to a point where an animal on this planet could build an atom bomb.
That's a long time, and that's a major breakthrough.
But also that we used it.
We dropped it on other human beings.
And thus the situation, though I think it was anticipated, changed.
And something had to change in terms of the extraterrestrial interaction with us.
And so at that point, only certain groups, I think, were going to be in play and others needed to depart.
That is my sense of it.
But I can't prove that.
But speaking in terms of the earlier question.
Now, if there were various groups at various stages of advancement, I'm talking about the ETs, the ones who were here, and they were monitoring what we were up to.
I think some people may be surprised that they didn't stop us from doing that before we actually did it.
I mean, you know, pushing the button down and firing the bomb or bombs.
Well, what could I say?
We have advanced countries here on our planet that repeatedly do not intervene and stop less advanced countries from doing awful things.
So do you think they have a prime directive and always have had?
Well, I think that Gene Roddenberry will, if for anything, be remembered for his prime directive, which was amusing because it was violated in every single show of Star Trek.
I think that whatever protocols that exist with respect to engaging this planet and the life on it by extra planetary civilizations is far more complicated than any prime directive.
But the circumstances were that the engagement changed after the war and we were the victors.
If the West had lost to the Germans, I would be interested to go back in time, reverse the World War II, have the Germans win, though I would have been, I would have been the Germans, the Japanese, God knows, have been a mess.
What would the ETs would have done?
Because I think that their engagement of us transcends our politics.
It transcends West versus East, Republicans versus Democrats.
It's beyond that.
And so they're dealing with us in a way that you really, I think, have to remove yourself from the planet entirely.
Take yourself up into space.
Remove your anthropic variable or your apathropic reality and try to look almost universally, subjectively at the planet to try to get a sense of how they look and deal with the planet.
So it's almost as if we were observing, say there were various forms of life on Mars, almost as if we were observing them.
If they were fighting it out for supremacy, we would let them do it, and then we would try and have a dialogue with whoever wins.
Again, they are dealing with a civilization that has been evolving for some time.
They have had interactions.
I mean, the evidence has been emerging for some time that they have had contact with us going back a long time.
They just didn't show up.
And at that point, 1945, we crossed a major, we crossed a line.
I guess, you know, I sometimes use the coming of age analogy.
I mean, it's like when a child becomes 13 years old in some cultures and some religions, they have dynamic ceremony.
It's kind of a coming of age thing.
But there's an age, an actual line that they cross, which is the age of 13.
But we crossed a line that required their engagement to change.
And it happened to involve the United States in a big way.
And because of the circumstances, the U.S. was able to make a decision to contain it in terms of the terrestrial end of this.
And we were followed by our allies, which answers your question why there are differences around the world in how other people see this and how other nations deal with it.
In Europe, it's a get-along, go-along.
Europeans, I think, go along with this because that's the way it's been.
The U.S. has been a major world power since then.
It's kind of subservient role.
In the U.S., it's different.
In the U.S., the American people and the other institutions go along with this truth embargo because this truth embargo was heavily instituted here.
It's kind of like, you know, here's an analogy.
The embargo of Cuba.
When the U.S., and I believe incorrectly, made the decision to embargo Cuba all the way back in 62.
We're the one that put the ships around.
So it was our embargo.
But all of our allies were asked to go along with it.
So we imposed the embargo.
The other allies were told, don't Cross it, cross the line, which they didn't do.
Eventually, they did.
So now you have this sense of it.
That is the difference.
And so there is awareness in these other countries and Europe of the extraterrestrial presence.
There's awareness that obviously the truth is not being told.
But there isn't, there hasn't been a major push to end it, to end this truth embargo.
It's kind of been left to the United States.
There's a sort of master servant role here.
I mean, it's a vestige of that post-World War II era.
It's very complicated.
But let me tell you, the truth embargo that I refer to is heavily practiced in the U.S. And so in the U.S., you have a lot of institutions and people that have been completely bamboozled by this propaganda campaign.
They've been the target of that propaganda campaign.
Now, it's one thing for the U.S. to go in and terrorize some researcher back in the 1960s or screw around with information here in the U.S. A little harder to do that in another country.
It doesn't mean the other country hasn't done some of it.
I think the U.K. tends to do these kinds of things.
The U.K. is very similar to the U.S. in terms of its national security modalities and the way it conducts itself.
Well, we pride ourselves, I think, and have for many years on a culture of secrecy here, which pervades, despite freedom of information laws and all the rest of it, pervades every level of government, perhaps not quite as much as it did 20, 30 years ago, but is still very much in evidence here, Steve.
There is a view among some that the United Kingdom is more invasive of the privacy of its citizens than the United States, which, if true, is something to be addressed in the post-disclosure world.
But that said, and this, again, gets to the complexity of all this.
Given what I've just said, then factor in this.
In 2005, the United Kingdom made a decision to start releasing a major portion of its files on this phenomenon, would be called the UFO files.
They had quite a few, and so they have been releasing them in structured groups, amounts, on at least six or seven occasions since 2005, and recently had another small release.
This was prompted by many things, but not the least was the French made a decision in 2004 to release substantial files, but that followed the release of the Comeda Report in 2000.
And so I guess you could say the French were the first to break ranks.
I believe the French, which was done informally through a non-governmental entity called the Comeda Committee, was the first of the World War II allies of the U.S. to break ranks with the truth embargo.
But while they broke ranks, they released the Comeda report, which clearly stated that the phenomena most certainly was extraterrestrial.
Then they released their files, but they haven't broken the embargo.
They have not acknowledged CT presence.
And then it was a year after the French released their documents, the UK released their documents.
Now, as it turns out, since then, Canada, Australia, New Zealand have also released files.
So the Commonwealth in the collective has released files which send a message, whether intentional or not, I think it's intentional, to the United States that perhaps it's time to move on here,
but they will not take away our prerogative, this sort of understood prerogative, that the U.S. will be the one to end the embargo, just like the U.S. to people like Nick Pope, who I know you know, who's examined the released files, and I've spoken to him on each of the occasions when these files have been released.
And the kind of view we both came to is that there isn't really a smoking gun there.
There's nothing that amounts to very much in that.
So you seem to be viewing these files released in this country and other files as being very, very significant.
And yet other people who've looked at them say, well, you know, there are things that don't constructively add up to a positive confirmation of the fact that there's something extraterrestrial out there.
For example, there's the case of that British warship.
There was supposed to be a big sighting, and yet the ship's log was lost.
Well, that's suspicious, and that points in a number of directions, but it's not definitive proof, is it?
Any of it?
No, you have to look at this in a broader sense.
The evidence for the extraterrestrial presence is the collective evidence.
It's the totality of everything, of which case files about sightings in the hands of government are one part.
Case files in the hands of private organizations like KUFOS, NICAP, MUFON are others, and so much more.
And that collective evidence confirms the exoterrestal presence beyond any reasonable doubt.
Now, in terms of the files of a particular country, no one case or no one group of documents is going to be enough to, quote, close the matter.
But the collective, the many files that released in the collective has power.
It certainly added to the public evidentiary database.
And because they were released to the internet, of course, they were downloaded all over the world.
And so essentially, they're seeding the world with more and more of the evidence, right?
And that is non-trivial, but more importantly is the act of doing it.
These countries did not have to release those files.
France did it without...
They did it proactively.
That's a statement.
So that's what's really important.
And you don't think it's a case, and I don't want to be Mr. Naysayer because I'd like it to be true too, but you don't think it's a case of governments like ours in France saying, oh, God, we get so many requests about all of this stuff.
There's nothing really to it.
We don't think.
So let's just put it all out there and get rid of this problem once and for all.
Absolutely not, because it didn't get rid of the problem.
It only increased the problem, which they knew would be the case when they did it.
And then the other thing is, understand, they release only those files they wanted to release.
I assure you that all of the developed countries, certainly the major European countries, the United States, and of course Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all of them have other stuff that is in their possession, in their files, deeply classified.
Have you seen any of this stuff, Steve?
Of course not.
Has anybody told you about it?
Of course.
We have witnesses that have come forward that have made it quite clear that this issue is the most classified in the United States government and probably the most classified in any government you want to choose.
And so if you're talking about the kind of evidence or the kind of material that would almost certainly create a major sea change in the acknowledgement issue of the ET reality, they haven't released it.
They've chosen not to do that.
But what they did release was stimulating and more importantly, it was significant.
And that's part of the whole process.
The United States has not released any files.
Now, this brings up a very interesting matter that just happened.
This fascinating story.
And you will get a press release on this tomorrow.
Earlier this month, John Greenwald, the researcher and also documentarist, who started engaging this issue intensely when he was just a teenager.
I mean, I first met him, I think he was 14.
He's like the youngest person ever to develop a significant presence in this field.
He created a site called the Black Vault, which he started filling up with documents that he would obtain on Freedom of Information requests.
He filed countless numbers of these requests and accumulated other documents.
And so he's creating this sort of one-stop place where you can go and find relevant documents on ET issue called the Black Vault.
Okay, been around a long, long time.
Well, recently, he had one of his supporters using software data mined the entire blue book files, at least the public or the non-classified blue book files, which have been out there and in some locations, but mostly not well known.
People didn't know where they were and they were not necessarily easy to search or whatever.
Someone data mined that.
He then worked on those with other software to create a digitized set that was searchable and created another website, Project Blue Book website within the Black Vault, and announced, but not in a too formal way, that 130,000 of the Blue Book documents, pages of Blue Book files, were now available at this site in searchable form.
And this included both Blue Book, Project Grudge, and Project Sign.
This is a significant accomplishment and a huge asset to researchers.
Presumably, see, because that allows the collective brain and computer power of many thousands of ordinary people around the world to suddenly engage with this issue.
Yes, indeed.
Also, it brings back the blue book files.
Well, let me put it this way.
The other point that should be made is the blue book investigation actually created quite a bit of evidence to point towards extraordinary things going on.
But the blue book study was limited by the fact that the Air Force is only going to go so far, but that was a legitimate study.
There was also a classified version of the Blue Book, which, of course, we've never seen.
Nevertheless, in 1969, under a great deal of pressure, 1969, from the people that were pushing the government harder and harder and harder to come clean of what's going on, they made a maneuver.
They hired a professor named Condon at the University of Colorado to do a study on this.
He comes up with the Condon report, and it was a pre-planned whitewash where he does the study, he concludes there's nothing there, and then the Air Force used that study to say we're closing Blue Book down.
The whole idea was to get out from under this.
They felt that they could just get out of the house and away.
The people would not follow them.
They also, at the same time, were destroying NICAP, which was the most important organization in the world, had been run by Donald Keogh, significant organization.
It had a number of, a lot of high-level people in the organization, including on their board of directors, including CIA people on their board of directors.
And what they did was they accused Keogh of financial impropriety, threw him out, shut down all of NICAP's field work, and then slowly strangled the organization.
All that was going on, 68, 69.
Took a couple more years before NICAP was gone.
But nevertheless, that was part of the plan, and they were free.
And so they were out from under this.
But the Blue Book investigation, had it been not immersed in the truth embargo itself, would have, under proper circumstances, spun off all kinds of additional studies by various institutions.
But of course, that wasn't going to happen under the truth embargo.
So everything kind of gets under control again.
And it doesn't blow up on the government again for about nine years.
They get about a nine-year respite.
And then things change in 1978.
And at that time is when Stanton Friedman was introduced to Jesse Marcel Sr.
And Jesse Marcel Sr., who was the officer at the Roswell Army Air Force Base that went out to see the wreckage, was a direct witness.
He was the officer that was, the press officer that was asked to hold up the Rawwind weather balloon and say that it was in fact what they had found and so forth and so forth.
He's the man who did his duty even though he knew the truth.
Absolutely.
He was dying of cancer and he decided he was going to talk.
And so he basically spilled the beans to Stanton Friedman and eventually other researchers, and the whole Roswell incident came back to life.
Well, here's where this is kind of cool.
So, this month, Greenwald announces that he has this digitized version of all the Blue Book files.
It's available and it's up on the site.
And of course, Project, the Black Vault is fairly well known.
In other words, there are other sites that had these files, but none of them were as well known as the Black Vault.
So when he did this, it got a lot of attention.
Well, guess what?
I love this.
A good number of the editors and reporters that are working at the papers and the networks today weren't even born when the Blue Book files were closed.
Many of them don't even know what the Blue Book files are.
And so when Greenwald made, I guess you could say it a mistake, but it was a very fortuitous mistake, of not putting out a formal detailed press release about this new site when he launched it, but rather simply sent a notice out to his rather large mail list, the announcements kind of filtered up to the media as opposed to a direct announcement.
And it turns out that quite a few people in media thought, misread what was happening and thought that the Air Force had just released 130,000 new files.
Just released 100.
And they went nuts.
And it generated a massive media coverage, which if you go to the Google and Google Air Force releases UFO files, and then click on news, you will see hundreds of articles about this.
And most of them have made this mistake, that these files were just released.
And so the effect of this is that Greenwald has brought the blue book files back into play, raised a great deal of awareness of them.
And of course, these files do, in fact, add to the evidentiary confirmation of the extraterrestrial presence in their own way.
So this thing is gathering traction and momentum now, just through the fortuitous event of releasing a lot of information and letting this data go on a whole new generation who think that it's new.
It's like somebody who sees a 50-year-old movie for the first time.
They think it's something completely different and new.
Well, that's certainly the case with these files.
It also confirms that there is a hypersensitivity to this issue.
Now, again, this is so complicated, but understand, the media is made up of pretty smart people.
The people that publish papers, that editors of major papers, that run networks are very smart people.
Who also have access to all of the stuff that you and I have access to on this phenomenon.
And so be assured that there are quite a few people in our print, television, media that are convinced personally that the extraterrestrial presence is absolutely real, if not having it confirmed to them by contacts that they have within government at one time or another.
All right, now, so there's point one, point two, but there is a truth embargo underway.
It's been underway for a long time.
It's institutionalized now.
It was certainly institutionalized by the end of the Cold War.
And so they know that while they may believe that, you're just not allowed to cover that.
I mean, there are limits to what you can do with that.
And so what you have, and it's pretty much the case in Europe as well, is that the entire media are, they're not, they're on a leash.
That's the way to look at it.
They're on a leash is what they are.
It's like a dog that is leashed in the backyard and tied to a post.
And that dog is free to roam all over that backyard, but he cannot go beyond the length of that lease.
And that's the situation with the media.
They only can go so far.
Now, this has generated a substantial tension over the last six and a half decades, with that tension growing exponentially since the end of the Cold War, in which the leash is still on, but the frustration exists within parts of media that they cannot go beyond the length of that leash that they are.
But there is a whole new factor that there wasn't 50 years ago, and we're using it right now.
Alternative media.
It's generated hypersensitivity to things going on.
So when this blue book thing comes out, they jump on it.
I mean, it's something they cover.
Now, are they going to then go to the Air Force or to the Department of Defense and ask them questions?
No.
They're not.
They're going to write tons of articles about the release of these files, but they're not going to do anything else.
That is the nature of the leash.
And that's also the nature of the news cycle.
This stuff will be out there.
Everybody will say, gee, whiz, yeah, wasn't that amazing?
Look at all this information.
That might be saying something.
Then they'll move on to whatever's happening next.
Well, obviously they're going to move on ultimately, but they are on a leash.
I mean, there are a number of things that have happened over the last 25 years where the media was not leashed and they ran it to ground.
This one, they can't do that.
So this is an example of that.
Now, the work that I'm doing, the work of the advocacy movement, can be very simplified to simply say that our job is to cut that leash.
There is enough evidence to prove the extraterrestrial presence many times over, and there are a thousand questions that should be and could be asked of every major institution in this country, both the Congress, the president, the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, you name it, that would be extremely awkward and difficult to answer, but they don't have to answer, and they're not asked.
We cut that leash, those questions are going to get asked, and the truth embargo is going to end.
And that's exactly what we're trying to do right now.
So what?
Are you looking for a kindred spirit in the media, A sort of Lou Grant editor figure to be there and go the extra mile?
Much more sophisticated than that.
For the last three years, Paradigm Research Group has been in what I hope is the final phase of the advocacy movement to end the truth embargo.
And it is conducting a three-point or a three-phase plan to cut that leash on the media in the United States.
This plan is not targeting the media in the UK or Europe.
That's beyond my scope, but certainly in the United States.
And here's what has happened for your listeners that may not have been paying attention, who I last talked to five years ago.
Much has happened since then.
On September the 22nd of 2011, PRG submitted a petition to the White House calling for disclosure, calling for the acknowledgement of the extraterrestrial presence, which is the goal, the ultimate goal of all of this.
And that petition received enough signatures that it was able to require a response from the White House.
And that response came on November the 4th of 2011.
And you can see the initial petition and the response.
Simply go to disclosurepetition.org and go to disclosure petition one, and then you'll get a link directly to the White House website where the petition and the response remains to this day.
Okay, give me the gist of it.
What did they say?
The response was historical.
It was issued by the science office of the White House, the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
And it had about eight paragraphs, but the key paragraph was the second one.
And in that paragraph, the White House stated there was no evidence whatsoever for any life outside the planet.
No evidence that any extraterrestrial life has engaged human beings.
And, and this is the one I love, no evidence that the United States government has been hiding anything about this from the American people.
So they're telling you to go away?
No.
What they're doing is, well, this is very interesting.
This is very, very interesting.
First of all, this statement was remarkable for three reasons.
One, it was completely false.
Two, it was indefensibly false, meaning they couldn't defend the statement in a public form.
It would be impossible.
And three, and this is the key, it was the first time since this whole thing started, which I guess we'll say 1947, that the White House, the executive branch, had ever put its position on this phenomenon in writing.
It had never done that because that would be, that's a mistake.
You don't want to do that.
Got it.
So what they'd actually done is for the first time, they'd engaged with you on this subject.
That is significant.
Well, it's even more significant.
There were only four possible responses that they could have given to this petition.
One was to not respond at all, which would have been very awkward because under their own rules, they needed to respond.
Some of the petitions that were submitted, they needed to respond to.
They acknowledged they could not.
They announced they could not for legal reasons, and they did not respond.
But there really had been no legal reason for this, so that option wasn't going to work.
Another possibility was for them to say, yes, you're absolutely right.
This really needs more investigation.
There could be very well something here.
We're going to look into it, and we're going to come forward with more information.
So that would, of course, created a firestorm.
They didn't do that.
And three, they could have done what I expected was to write eight paragraphs of word salad, that kind of classic political speak, where you don't say anything really, and you don't expose yourself in any way so that nothing can really come of it, but yet you haven't put yourself on the hook.
So something along the lines of there is no evidence that we are aware of, but we're always ready to hear some.
Whatever.
They didn't do that.
They gave the absolute hardline response, which was exactly, I mean, without getting them to just actually disclose, meaning you got us, here's the truth, would have been the best thing they could have done.
I happen to think it might have been deliberate.
But that response, all right, opened the door for what came next.
And so it wasn't a go-away.
It was something else.
But nevertheless, that occurred on November the 4th, 2011.
And that response remains on the White House website to this day as the petition.
Had the petition not gotten enough signatures, it would have been removed after 30 days.
Because it was responded to and got enough signatures.
It is still up there three and a half years later.
So what PRG started to do after that was to start taking measures to point out to the political media repeatedly that here's evidence that the White House says doesn't exist.
What are you going to do about it?
We submitted five more petitions to the White House.
We were never able to get a response on those because they raised the threshold substantially.
First to 25,000 signatures from 5,000 and then eventually to 100,000 signatures.
But these petitions remained up on the White House website for a full 30 days.
There were press releases done and what have you.
And other things were going on.
But I was focusing a lot of the activities was being focused on the media, meaning, look, your White House just said that there's no evidence at all.
Here's the evidence.
You've got a problem here, guys.
What are you going to do about it?
In other words, I'm trying to cut the leash on the media.
Now, this made a major, a major change occurred when in late 2012, PRG got enough funding to hold the next part of this effort, the citizen hearing on disclosure, Which was originally conceived in 2000, but could not be done because of the cost.
It was a minimum of $300,000.
It eventually cost $750,000.
So on April the 29th, as part of the strategy, and for five days, PRG conducted a mock congressional hearing called the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure in the main ballroom of the National Press Club in Washington,
D.C., two blocks from the White House, and in the National Press Building, which on the 13th floor, which all the floors underneath it are filled with press and 11 blocks from the Capitol building.
We brought 42 witnesses together for an entire week.
And am I right in saying, Steve, sorry to interrupt, I've read a little bit about this, and I know that it created a lot of excitement among the kind of circles that you and I move in.
But the people who were involved in giving and taking the evidence were mostly former, whatever they might have been, former military, former politicians.
There wasn't anybody current in there, or was there?
Well, there were 42 witnesses, 17 researchers, almost all of them active researchers, and 25 what we refer to as military agency political witnesses.
And this is specific.
These are witnesses who have worked in government, in military service, in politics, with agencies like NASA, intelligence, or what have you, who have encountered events and evidence related to this and have chosen to speak about it as opposed to not speak about it.
Military, and they have some rank and station.
So these are non-trivial people.
There were 27 of them.
And they were brought to testify in a hearing, mock hearing, for 30 hours over five days in 20 sessions, eight hours a day, and then 30 hours testimony plus breaks.
And not in front of anybody, but in front of six former members of the U.S. Congress, five representatives of the House and one senator.
Three Republicans, three Democrats, two Republicans, a Libertarian, three men, three women.
With 80 years of tenure in the U.S. Congress, these are not trivial people.
And they testified before them, and we filmed everything.
Now, this was an extraordinary, one-of-a-kind event that had never been done.
And the six former members of Congress came into the mock congressional hearing on the fence, on the issue.
They were not selected because they had some intense interest in this or knowledge about it, not at all.
They were selected because they were available, they had a good record, and so forth.
By within one day, they were transformed, stunned, mightily impressed.
And then as the hearing proceeded during the week, they were calling for the Congress to hold hearings and doing other things, which is not unexpected because it's true.
I mean, that's something you have to keep remembering.
It's true.
And these witnesses are very impressive.
And so that took place in 2013.
It was relatively well covered.
There were many articles written about it, including the Washington Post, New York Daily News, New York Times, et cetera, et cetera.
I did some interviews.
We didn't get as much coverage as we liked because the Boston bombing attack occurred, and we lost the media.
But the point is we held in, we filmed it.
That was step two.
So what we had done is brought together the largest concentration of evidence and witnesses ever brought together in one place at one time and filmed it all in a rather impressive way.
It was a mock congressional hearing.
Now, part three is underway right now.
On November the 5th, it took 16 months to get to that point.
I wanted to do it a year earlier, but we had some difficulties.
It might have been for the best anyway, because American politics has just really gone to hell.
On November the 5th of last year, we shipped a DVD set of the entire 30-hour record to every member of Congress, every congressional office.
10 DVD discs of all this evidence, all this testimony, accompanied by a letter signed by all the witnesses stating they needed to review this issue, material they needed to talk with me.
I'm a registered lobbyist on this issue.
And they needed, we need hearings.
We want hearings.
And those DVD sets arrived during the post-election transition, all through the month of December.
In addition, we launched a social media campaign using Facebook, Twitter, and email.
And we have sent, generated over a million messages to the Hill, to the congressional offices, asking them to do what I just stated.
So even if the members of Congress individually might have been, some of them inclined to ignore this DVD set, via the social media campaign, you're getting their constituents to put pressure on them to take notice.
The social media campaign is targeting their offices.
In other words, these 541 offices have about 10,000 staffers up there.
And these are the ones that deal with this stuff, not the members.
So the pressure is all around them.
We're trying to get the staffers to look at this stuff.
And all of this is prelude to me having meetings.
And so as of January the 6th, the process is underway for me to start meeting with staffers on a Hill.
And about 150 offices have been contacted.
I'm about to contact them again.
At the same time, our publicist, PRG's publicist, who is a long-time independent pro, that's worked this town for 35 years, is working the mainstream media.
We're going to try to start now getting me into the mainstream media about this.
So that the next step is hopefully I'm going to work my way into these offices to try to convince the members of one of their four particular committees of note that we're targeting.
Any one of them can hold the hearings we want.
And if we can convince one of these committees to allow these witnesses to come and have their say, then we will hold hearings on the Hill.
Steve, it's massively exciting.
And nobody else, as far as I'm aware, has got as far as you've got.
I suppose the difficulty is that not only in the U.S., but also here in the UK, this is a time of turmoil politically, a lot of transition going on.
And these people will tell you, well, we've just had a Terrorist attack in France.
We don't know where it's going to happen next, so we need to give our attention to that.
Plus, of course, there's always Putin in Russia.
We've got to give him our attention.
Where are we going to get time to hold hearings on ETs?
Oh, they hold hearings at the drop of a hat, and they do it all the time.
They've held in the last couple of years so many unnecessary hearings, you can't imagine.
They'll grab on some subject like the Benghazi attack, and they'll hold 10 hearings on it.
Probably needed one.
Believe me, hearings are easy to do.
It's hard to pass laws, but it's easy to hold a hearing.
So what you have to do is to get one or a few of these staffers to open the gate for you to the actual decision makers themselves to hold these hearings.
Once you've done that, you're on the glide path to something, are you?
First, you talk to the legislative aide, then hopefully you talk to the chief of staff, and then you talk with the member.
You talk with the members of a number of the committees.
You get them talking to each other.
You get them to agree to ask the chair for hearings, and off you go.
Now, you also are hoping that things will be breaking in the mainstream media that will spur this along, like what just happened with the blue book file suddenly coming back into play after all these years, and so forth and so forth.
It is a, but the point I'm trying to make is while it is still a complex process, it is a hell of a lot easier than getting a bill passed, which can take years.
All right, this doesn't require a vote.
All this requires is for one committee chair to go, you know, these are important witnesses.
We need to know this information.
We're going to allow them to come up on the hill and under oath tell us what they know.
Now, obviously, if they do that, if these hearings are held, I assure you, the truth embargo is done.
It won't last.
I doubt if it lasts 60 days.
Now, I'm not talking about two or three witnesses speaking for a half a day.
I'm talking about 25, 35 witnesses testifying over many days across the board, and not just any witnesses.
We're talking about rank and station witnesses, the military agency political witnesses, which are ready to go.
So this is a doable thing.
Now, the point here, though, of all this is this.
As this starts to mature, if we get close to the hearings, this, because I know this town, I know the media fairly well, if the media of this town, both international and national, learn that the kind of witnesses that testified at the citizen hearing are going to actually testify in a real hearing under oath of penalty, federal perjury charges, the leash will be cut.
And that's it.
So that's what's going on.
And I'm committed to this for the next couple of months.
We're going to throw everything at it we can.
This is make or break for you, isn't it?
I mean, it's not make or break.
I mean, at minimum, when this effort is what I call Congressional Hearing Initiative, and you can Google that and you can see a lot of stuff about it on the web.
There's plenty on the web about this, as there is plenty on the web about the citizen hearing on disclosure.
Just Google citizen hearing.
At minimum, it will significantly raise awareness.
It will put a lot of the members of Congress on notice that we're here and we're not going away.
And PRG will do other things.
PRG is not going to stop until this truth embargo is over, period.
When we spoke in Liverpool, though, Steve, you told me and I asked you, and I know I pushed you quite hard towards the end of that, but we sat in the open air on that autumnal day in Liverpool and I said, you know, how close is all of this?
And I think you hinted to me it was probably a couple of years away, disclosure.
You felt it was really something you felt in your bones then.
Five and a half years have gone by.
Are you frustrated that perhaps you haven't made the progress you'd like to have made?
Well, we've made progress.
Look, when you're an activist trying to seek a major change in policy and your country and so forth, and it takes years and years and years, you're always frustrated.
The reason that I had some optimism in 2009 was that we had a new president.
I'm sorry.
Let me get back up.
Yeah, the reason, yeah, I'm sorry, yeah, I got the case.
Well, it was the beginning of a new, hopefully the dawning of a new political era.
Yeah, but it's a Democratic president.
And there were very significant reasons why there was a possibility that he could have the disclosure president because of connections back through key people to the Clintons and the whole Rockefeller initiative, 93 to 96.
This is a whole nother long story, but let me just say that it seemed like this was a possibility.
However, what I didn't understand is the politics in Washington was about to go dark.
It was about to get much uglier than it had been, and it was pretty bad to begin with.
And so while Obama came in to the presidency with enormous possibilities, those were basically strangled in their crib by the Republicans, who launched an economic catastrophe, which they'd helped set up in the first place.
Basically, for the previous two decades, they'd been piling dynamite in a room.
And then when they lost the presidency, they just threw a match into the room, blew everything up.
And as a result, the Obama administration was shot out of the air before it barely got off the ground.
And so whatever the possibilities were for that administration went up in smoke, including the prospects of being the disclosure president.
So it's like a lot of areas of life both sides of the Atlantic.
The global economic crash, which affected us just as badly as it affected you, stopped the possibilities for you just as many other people's possibilities in their lives were stopped.
And we've had like a five-year derailment.
Yeah, people don't really get that.
They don't understand that when you...
They don't understand that these kinds of manipulations, and that's what it was, and this abuse of power by the financial community in cohorts with political power has untold damage and strangles many dreams, huge implications, oftentimes leading to war.
But nobody ever goes to jail for this stuff, hardly.
But in any event, yeah, some people lost their house, Their job, their pension, the truth embargo process or advocacy work was set back.
Now it's another time.
We're leading up to another election.
But there is another major factor here which I always bring up, and it's non-trivial.
The circumstances as of now are the United States is no longer the block to be the disclosure nation.
Other nations have made it clear that they have lost patience with us by, at minimum, the release of thousands of files proactively to the public domain.
And there have been significant changes in Russia and in China.
It is not, obviously, the Russia of today is nothing like the Soviet Union of 1950.
And the China is today is nothing like the Communist China of 1950.
In fact, both nations are capable of ending the truth embargo anytime they want to, which means that's an extremely good question.
let's just say that there's Let's just say that the reason the Soviet Union and Communist China participated in this truth embargo, not as an ally of the United States, was because obviously these were ideological control states of the extreme order.
And the idea that they were going to introduce to their people this paradigm-changing, world-changing, world-view-altering truth that they weren't alone in the universe and that there were other civilizations already engaging us.
And that could potentially bring down their control state, or at least the impact they have on the people.
Absolutely.
It wasn't going to help it.
I mean, they just had no incentive at all.
And that was still true, I think, at the end of the Cold War.
However, these nations are now, it's not about communism versus capitalism anymore.
It's really about who's got the best space race, who's got the best economy.
And these nations want, and plus they're both tired of the United States being the only big dog on the porch.
And so the idea that Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin couldn't disclose the idea tomorrow needs to be understood in the White House.
The geopolitical consequences of Putin or Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping, being the disclosure head of state are enormous.
So the U.S. may feel, and whoever becomes president next, whoever it might be, would feel that fire under their feet that maybe they need to be getting off the blocks first.
Otherwise, a nation like Russia is going to come out there and do it before they do, just like America was beaten into the space race.
You know, they got a person into space before the U.S. They don't want that to happen again.
Absolutely.
Well, they need to feel that fire right now.
I don't think they've got to the next election.
I think this could happen at any time.
Now, the reasons that Russia and China don't do it, I'm sure, are knowable, but I don't know what it is.
There are huge economic implications, technological implications.
It's not clear, but I can assure you, if you look at the actions of these countries, they're slapping the United States across the face all the time.
They're challenging its currency.
They're challenging its military supremacy.
They're both going into space, particularly China.
Russia just picked off a portion of Europe, reclaimed Crimea, though I think Crimea was more than happy to do it.
But this is a new world.
The truth embargo is coming apart, and now it really comes down to which head of state is going to go first.
This is something that I cannot emphasize enough.
If you are an advisor to the president, you've got to get this.
Because I'm telling you, the truth embargo was fundamentally initiated and driven by the U.S. for 67 years.
If Vladimir Putin ends up popping the cork on this champagne bottle, the U.S. will get all of the downside, all of the negatives of having kept this truth, undermined this truth, and everything that they did in the truth embargo without the upside of being the nation that finally announces it.
It will be a geopolitical catastrophe for us.
This is where we are right now, right?
And people say, oh, oh, no, the U.S. has got everything under control.
Oh, Vladimir is a CIA agent, right?
We control the world.
Nonsense.
We can't even stop a bunch of thugs from taking over half a third of Mesopotamia and cutting off heads like it was the Middle Ages.
We are losing control across a broad...
So staggeringly out there and we're broke.
Amazingly, what may ultimately make this happen is the purest kind of politics.
The fact that you want to beat the other guy on the initiative.
You want to make sure you steal the march on them.
This could be the factor you think in 2015 or 2016 that finally gets us there.
Absolutely.
Why do you think we got to the moon in 1960?
The reason we got to the moon in seven years is because it was a race with the Soviets.
Now we have another race.
We'll call it the disclosure race.
And this is more important than the moon race, right?
Who is going to be first to tell the world that the emperor is as naked as a jaybird?
Who is going to be the nation that allows the technologies to finally emerge that have been researched for decades, extraterrestrial derived technologies that are transformative but are denied the public domain because of national security, which is the reason for almost everything now?
Who is going to be the one that pulls the curtain down?
That's the race that's underway.
That's the message I intend to put in the mainstream media very soon.
And that is another message that has the potential to cut the leash.
But I'll tell you, one way or another, disclosure is going to come about.
It's either going to come about the hard way or the easy Way, it's going to be productive or destructive, whatever, it's going to happen.
And so, all I can say is that Paradigm Research Group has continued to pursue this, that this is underway now.
If you go to paradigmresearchgroup.org, you'll see about it.
If you go to citizenhearing.org, the social media campaign is still ongoing.
That's being directed from three locations, factsonwashington.org, that's F-A-X, factsonwashington.org, disclosure.media, and a Facebook page called the Disclosure Media, Disclosure Lobby, rather, Disclosure Lobby.
Generated a million messages.
We may generate a million more.
We also have a petition up, the seventh petition, which is up on the White House website right now.
It's garnished a modest 12,000 signatures.
It will not get 100,000.
It will not get a response, but it's up on the White House website and will be there until February the 6th.
That petition, which you can see by going to disclosurepetition.org, is a basic petition.
It calls for congressional hearings.
It calls for the president to support congressional hearings.
What could be nicer than that?
Just let the witnesses come and speak.
What's your problem?
You don't have to commit on this issue.
You don't have to say what you know.
Just let the witnesses come and speak to Congress under oath and let the press and the media and the Congress decide whether this needs to be followed up.
So that petition is up.
And again, it's doing respectably well.
Well, I'm glad we had this conversation, Steve.
I thought you were going to come on here and spend most of this hour explaining why what you thought was going to happen so imminently didn't happen in the intervening years since our previous conversation.
But actually, what you've done is explain why it is now imminent and had been delayed, but that snowball is rolling down that mountainside faster than ever.
Seems to me.
You know, here's how it works with major social change.
It's not possible until it happens.
It doesn't happen until it happens.
The Soviet Union didn't end until it ended.
And the reason for this is that social change takes X amount of effort and time.
It takes a certain amount of luck.
And if there is an advocacy movement that is committed to its ultimate outcome, you get that outcome.
And that's been true down through all of time.
The only thing that would alter this would be a nuclear war, major other calamities, all of which are certainly possible, that could delay it.
Ultimately, the human race will know it's not alone in the universe.
Is that going to be after a nuclear war when we're just scavenging around on top of a waste pile looking for food?
Or is it going to be now?
Some people think, well, don't worry, the extraterrestrials will intercede if we launch the nuclear weapons.
I highly recommend against that thinking.
Well, on past form, they're not going to, are they?
Because they didn't stop us bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Yeah, but here's something they have done.
And this is part of the evidence that was testified to in the National Press Club in 2013.
It is on the DVD record that was sent to the Congress.
Nuclear tampering.
Repeatedly, they've come down and tampered with their nuclear weapons, turning them off usually is what they do.
So you go along with what Robert Salas is saying.
And the many other witnesses behind Robert.
They turn them off and we turn them back on.
And so while they're willing to go that far, is that intervention?
No.
Most of the witnesses like Robert Salas believe it's a message.
It's not intervention.
It's a message.
What are you doing with these things?
Don't you see how trivial they are?
That's not the same thing as saying, we'll never let you use them.
So again, there is a highly complicated, extraordinary engagement underway that's leading somewhere.
And the United States government has intervened in that process in a very powerful way for its own reasons.
The extraterrestrials have not essentially reversed that.
They haven't abrogated that truth embargo.
They have chosen not to do that.
And only they know for certain the reason.
I believe there is a reason why the extraterrestrials have gone along with this truth embargo, which they could have ended any time, is that the nature of what is happening under their system, under the protocols that they use,
requires, or at least prefers, that the civilization in question, that would be us, self-discloses, formally acknowledges to itself this new reality and has a certain amount of time to, quote, adapt and get used to the idea.
And then open contact in the modern era, not the same thing as open contact 10,000 years ago, but open contact in the modern era, possibly some sort of involvement or inclusion in some political construction that exists within the group that we're dealing with.
So not the United Nations, but the United Planets, maybe.
A small federation.
Believe me, the number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy far, far exceeds the ones that are just dealing with us.
The ones that are dealing with us now, if you look at the evidence objectively, are not that advanced from us.
They're actually pretty close to us, which is probably one of the reasons that they're the ones dealing with us.
And more importantly, there's evidence there's genetic connections already between us.
And so in a sense, we're dealing with kin.
We're dealing with kin.
But they're certainly not any kin.
They are interstellar beings with their own planets.
But there are connections here.
That's why they are the ones dealing with us as opposed to any of the other maybe infinite number of possibilities.
So this is an extremely complex process, made more difficult by bad human behavior, bad government policies, and so forth.
And that's been the case.
If you look back through the last 8,000 years and you look at the advancement of the human condition, it has always been important ideas and important changes that needed to take place that were confounded and blocked by behavior, bad behavior of people and bad behavior of government.
But ultimately, we get past it and we move on.
This is another instance of that.
Only this time when we move on, our ultimate destination is Not a little better standard of living or a slightly new government, but in fact, access to the Milky Way galaxy, which is highly exciting.
Very, very, ultimately exciting.
So, this is what you've helped me to understand is this is a multi-stage process as we conclude this conversation now.
It's not just about disclosure and that you believe will happen for the reasons we outlined, but it's also about the fact that that disclosure will then fire the starting gun for us to interact finally with whoever and whatever is out there.
I believe my model, which I am still comfortable with, but I would change that model in a minute if the evidence clearly pointed another direction, is that first we do disclosure.
We're going to have a couple of years of intense engagement of the subject matter.
The ET presence won't go away, but at some point it will become engaged openly.
And we will actually be dealing with extraterrestrials kind of the same way that we deal with the countries deal with each other here on our own planet within the United Nations.
I think this is where it's going.
And I think one of the reasons this is happening is that if we don't do this, then that milestone that we crossed in 1945 and other milestones we crossed later on involving bio-warfare technologies, if we don't go through this process now, these other threads are going to bring about the destruction of our civilization.
And so for whatever reason, the extraterrestrials, bless their hearts, would prefer that did not happen.
I'm glad we have this conversation, Steve.
Let's not leave it five and a half years next time.
Absolutely not.
I hope to be talking to you again soon, Howard, because you're aflame with the new realities unfolding before you.
Well, you know, I'm not the only person who's come from mainstream media and still works in it who's doing stuff out here, but there aren't very many of us.
There will be more soon, my friend.
I hope so.
I think we need, I do think it's not a movement, but there is a groundswell there, Steve.
So let's talk again very soon.
Yes, indeed.
And it's a pleasure.
Look forward to maybe seeing you in person on my next visit.
I'd like to do that.
Thank you, Steve, very much indeed.
You're welcome.
Well, a great pleasure to feature Steve Bassett on the show again.
And we will talk very, very soon because clearly these are exciting times to do with disclosure.
I'll put a link to his work on my website, www.theunexplained.tv.
Thanks again to Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for his hard work on this show.
And on the website, making sure that it stays there and it's as cutting edge as we can make it.
Thank you very much for all of your emails.
Please keep them coming in.
Your guest suggestions, thoughts on the show, or if you want to make a donation to the show, you can do all of those things at www.theunexplained.tv.
We're heading for, well, hopefully in not too many weeks, springtime.
And you know, I'm not a big fan of winter, so I'm looking forward to that.
But we've got to get through some cold weather before then.
I won't talk about the weather anymore.
Until next, we meet here on The Unexplained.
My name is Howard Hughes.
I am in London.
Please stay safe, stay calm, and stay in touch.
Take care.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection