September 26, 2025 • 39 mins
This week, Captain Ron welcomes Disclosure Advocate Stephen Bassett and his take on the recent House Hearings. Stephen shares his insights on what was revealed, what it means for the push toward government transparency, and how these hearings fit into the broader path toward disclosure.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast DAM
Paranormal podcast network, where we offer you podcasts of the paranormal, supernatural,
and the unexplained. Get ready now for Beyond Contact with
Captain Ron.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome to our podcast. Please be aware the thoughts and
opinions expressed by the host are their thoughts and opinions
only and do not reflect those of iHeartMedia, iHeartRadio, Coast
to Coast AM, employees of premier networks, or their sponsors
and associates. We would like to encourage you to do
(00:41):
your own research and discover the subject matter for yourself.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Hey everyone, it's Captain Ron and each week on Beyond Contact,
we'll explore the latest news in upology, discuss some of
the cl cases, and bring you the latest information from
the newest cases as we talked with the top experts.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
Welcome to Beyond Contact. I'm Captain ronad Today we're going
to be speaking with our good friend Steven Bassett. Steve's
the executive director of the Paradigm Research Group, which he
founded back in nineteen ninety six to end the government
imposed embargo on the truth behind the extraterrestrial related phenomenon.
He's the official lobbyist for this issue, and he is
the best person to give us insights into the latest
(01:30):
congressional hearings that just happened in the capitol on UAP. So, hey, Steve,
we got another hearing. I know you're excited about that.
And this particular hearing included military witnesses and even an
active duty naval officer, which is the first time I
think that's happened.
Speaker 5 (01:48):
Would you think, let's see, well, they've all had some
military and this one as well. I think the first
Navy person was there, and he was specifically there on
this personal basis, right, and we had the second time
we had a journalist and then as a civilian that's
involved an important new organization that has formed. There's so
(02:09):
many of them, so it But in general, this was
an important hearing. But I can appreciate why a lot
of people just following this or interested in the subject
may not have gotten how important it was, because the
sentiment of many is, look, we want more, bigger, better,
more spectacular, and if we're not getting that, it's disappointing.
(02:30):
We want you to, you know, if you can get
a dead et in there, and one of those little
glass thing is whatever, maybe bringing a couple of ET devices.
I get it, but they don't understand that. The hearings
are not about that. They're not about being the mechanism.
It's going to let people know what's going on, right
that will be post disclosure that will come out under
(02:53):
a bill, probably the EAP Disclosure Act. The hearings are
about it is setting a state, which is creating the
ability to do something. It's necessary because the more people
that are involved, the more the legislation is legislation, legislator
is involved, the more media coverage and the more basic
information that's out there makes it possible for the president
(03:16):
to do that. And that's the disconnect for a lot
of people. So on the basis of how I view
things happening, a lot of great things took place, and
I'm not being to elucidate on that. Are you ready?
Speaker 6 (03:28):
I am ready.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
You got a question, but let me You've got a
couple quick question. Why don't you do that? Hit me
with a couple questions.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Well, I had three quick things that stood out tomorrow
I thought were important. Number One, Luna, Burchett, and Burlason
all seem like they really have a good understanding of
this topic. They're just not asking stupid questions. They act
like they're genuinely informed. So I thought that was very important.
They are, to their credit, go ahead, Yeah, it's great.
(03:54):
And then I love that Eli Crane said this testimony
fromunerable service members and watching videos like my colleague mister
Berdlson just presented. You know, I've got to admit I've
become a believer. So here's another congress person coming forward
saying they now believe that this could be you know,
(04:14):
et And Third, I thought it was fantastic that Luna
called out Errow and Kirkpatrick and really when Adam hard
And it came up several times. So I was very
impressed by all of those aspects.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
With respect to the hearings. These are some of the
things that were extremely important. Number one shocked me Luna,
and by the way I was in the room, Well
obviously it was, but this I'll go on about that.
Luna literally went after Kirkpatrick immediately. She called him a
documented liar. Whoa, whoa? And so why is she doing
(04:52):
that because right now that where there is a would
you say, a bit of a contest going on. I
hate to say, I don't want to use martial adjectives.
And the contest is between the what I call the
fourth truth people of the four Persons of the Truth
(05:13):
opolic opelex significate it right, okay, or the forced horsemen
and women of the Truth opulist whatever. And that's of
course Mace, Burchett, Luna and Berlisson. And they are up
against two. They are up against those within the Department
of Defense uh and and pretty much representing others possibly
(05:34):
in the civilian sector, that do not want this to
go forward. They do not want the truth and Barbo
ended they do not want disclosure. And one of the
people they had to either recruit or or at least
ultimately put in a position where there's nothing he could
do was Sean Kirkpatrick, who was brought in as head
of Barrow brutal job. Wouldn't have wanted it. I don't
(05:56):
know what he expected. Things had moved along quickly enough,
we would have gotten to where we needed to go
before he had to throw himself on the fire in
the service of the truth embargo. And so when to
the extent that he could kind of be the placeholder
and run Arrow to do this and that and whatever
(06:16):
without rocking the boat that blew up when Grush came
forward in twenty twenty three, because at that moment, who's
gonna go? Who are you gonna go to next? After
Grush makes those statements to Kirkpatrick, he support Grush absolutely not.
He can't do any of that, and so he chose
either by intent or he was told to push back.
(06:37):
So he immediately writes a nasty letter about Grush, says this,
and says that suddenly Grush's medical records turn up, et cetera,
et cetera, and it goes downhill from there. So now
he's committed. Grush survives all this, He does well, he
is making his points, the people are on board, and
so it gets worse. Kirkpatrick finally gets to the point
where he just, you know, I just want out of here.
(06:59):
So he says going to quit. Fine, he's going to leave.
But before he leaves, the DoD as another pushback, says,
we got to study. We're going to finish out this
aero study and we need you to sign off on it.
And the aero study is complete nonsense, right. It is
kind of the twenty first century Robertson Report, only even
more embarrassing, and he does that and off he goes.
(07:21):
He's not the only pushback that's happening, but he became
the symbol for it, and so they needed to pop
him to let people know we are not going to
let you win that contest. And so boom, right out
of the gate.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
There it is. That was important.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
Then there was further reinforcement of that perception that came out,
and so they have made it clear we're on the
side of truth and Kirkpatrick and others are on the
side of maintaining the lie.
Speaker 6 (07:50):
So that was good.
Speaker 5 (07:52):
I want to cut right to what I consider the
most important thing that happened, and that is George Napp.
George Knapp was the second journalists to testify under oath
on this issue. The first was Schellenberger in the second
and what he had to say was interesting. Georgia is
at another level altogether. A lot of people criticized him
on the social media. What's he doing there? We don't
(08:13):
want a journalist, right, He's not an insider. They don't
but they don't know him, right. George Knapp deserves a pulitzerprise.
I assure you, an incredible investigative, not just a reporter
writing for the paper. He was an investigative journalist for
a major television station. It happened to be in a
city not that far from Area fifty one. And so,
(08:35):
in addition to hundreds of investigative reports that he has
put out, he has done an enormous body of work
for thirty eight years on this subject, talk to more
people than probably anybody had his inside opportunities. Docs researched
the whole nine yards. And so when he comes to
a witness, they could have interviewed just him for five
hours and it would have been important. And maybe he's
(08:58):
not a first hand legacy guys, so what And so
he comes in. Now there is a plan here, okay,
and so just talking about NAP's testimony, what happens. First
it gives them the opportunity to introduce all of NAP's
research in Russia. And so he turns over giant piles
(09:21):
of documents that he got from from his Russia work,
which he's talked about. It's been out there, but it
hadn't been put in the record on a congressional hearing,
has it all right? And so that goes into the record,
and one of the most important things about the Russia
research is that he he found documents and talk with
(09:41):
people that were able to corroborate the fact that there
was an event in Russia, maybe more than one, where
a craft has hovered over one of their nuclear facilities,
didn't turn them off like minut A Malstrom put them
into launch mode. It's taking them right up to launch
and then dropping them down. Now that has happened here too,
(10:01):
that we don't have the strong that we don't have
witness ready to testify under oath on it, but I
think they're out there. Hastings did the research and so
I think it happened here, but it's a safer play
it happened in Russia.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
All right, I agree, Steve, you need to take a break.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
We're going to come back on the other side and
pick it up about George Napp, who did an incredible
job at the hearing. You're listening to Beyond Contact on
the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network.
(10:46):
We are back on Beyond Contact talking to Steve Massett
about the amazing job.
Speaker 6 (10:49):
George Napp did at the hearing.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
Go ahead, Steve, and to also add something else about
it again, This was an extremely strategic that hearing.
Speaker 6 (11:01):
Right.
Speaker 5 (11:02):
Normally the chair introduces the witnesses that are going to testify,
and Anna Polina did, Polana Luna did that, except for
one George Knapp, who introduced George Knapp, his Congress representative
came in. I'm pretty sure I don't think she's on
the task for as I don't think so, and she
introduced him and ruffles and flourishes.
Speaker 6 (11:25):
Right.
Speaker 5 (11:26):
His career is legacy. All the work he's done, the
prizes he's got, Edward Armorrow, the Peabody Prizes, twenty some regionals,
but blah blah boom okay, so he's elevated. So what
we get from him is a substantial amount of information
covering a number of areas that are important, but most
(11:47):
importantly the Russia research, plus a lot of and that
the document's rated to his other goes into the record. Hey,
it's going to take them weeks to go through that,
so don't be surprised if some of that starts playing
a role in the future.
Speaker 6 (11:59):
Here hearance.
Speaker 5 (12:01):
But it is the first time in history that the
nuclear shutdown or turn ons in the presence of extraterustrial
craft has ever been entered into oath or put in
front of a hearing of Congress. He broke. He broke
the bass wall right there. And guess what in the
course of the hearing, I think in one other moment
(12:24):
with another witness, but also during George's testimony, guess who
got mentioned Robert Sallas. Oh yeah, Robert Jacob's two of
the key nuclear tampering witnesses that we have been trying
to get into hearing forever. Okay, and so now Robert
Sallas's name is in the record. Robert's sitting right next
to me. Okay. He and his wife flew in. They
(12:47):
spent a lot of money so that he could be
there at their hearing. But there's even more to that,
and so he was thrilled. Okay, So now it's in play.
Let's give some background to this. A number of people, myself,
certainly Kyler Roberts, and certainly Robert Sallas, have been trying
and doing everything they can to inform the key people
(13:10):
in Congress about this aspect of the phenomenon. That doesn't
mean they didn't know, but we're just hitting them with
the idea we want them to testify. They're desperate to testify.
Speaker 6 (13:20):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
So Tyler Roberts set up a meeting after the November
thirteenth here last year with Robert Sallas, Captain Robert Salas,
and the person who was pretty much running in at
that point, Nancy Mace, and we had a fine meeting.
We had a fine interview. I happened to be there.
I was on camera with them, and that was put out.
Tyler Roberts put it out and is out there. You
(13:42):
can find it all good, and so we were going
to go from there and kind of move on forward.
We wanted eventually to get meetings between Bob Sallas and
Burlison and Lona as well and Burchet Okay, but prior
about a month or prior to that meeting with Mace,
I who have been dealing with this issue in Bob
(14:04):
for a long long time. I submitted two sets of
witness affidavits for about nine of the witnesses, hard copy
to every single well the Senate as well every single
office of the Senate Intel Committee, as well as every
single office of the Oversight Subcommittee, most of who are
now part of the task Force, and also an electronic
(14:27):
version of the affidavits. Made some calls, let them know
what's in there. You know, I think you the best
you can, all right, And so see, I guess you
could see I was seating the field. I was just
putting that stuff out there. So it's floating around.
Speaker 6 (14:39):
All good.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
I can assume that all of these people are starting
to look at some of this stuff. They're starting to
consider this issue of the nuke tampering and how and
the nuke shutdowns, how it's important. And so as we
move towards the hearing, then we get another breakthrough. And
again Tyler Roberts is involved in this or some other
people that help.
Speaker 7 (15:00):
But ultimately we were able to get Congressman Burlson to
agree to meet Robert Sallas after the hearing, and so
that was set up so that he was going to
be meeting with the Congressman.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
This would be his second meeting, but a far more
substantial situation than before and further along into the issue.
All right, And so that was said. But then he
got better because Congressman Burlson, who I got to tell you,
we can't have a better champion on this issue. Why
he is an intelligent, grounded he is someone that is
(15:38):
he communicates with people. It doesn't matter. He's nonpartisan in
his engagements. He's also one of the safest seats in
the House. He won seventy three percent. He agrees to
hold a reception for us. I guess you could say,
you know those that kind of got the word at
the Capitol Club, which is right to cross from the
(16:00):
Cannon Building. I actually had dinner with him and four others,
lasted probably six hours a while back, where Anna Brady
Estadas gave him at the copy of Casting's book UFOs
and Nukes I would have done, didn't have one. Then
I gave him other information and so forth. All good.
That was, you know, some weeks back. But then we
(16:21):
have this thing and so sixty or seventy people are there,
all the names you would expect. Okay, Danny Shan and
Jim Garrison was there, I was there, Anna and Brady
was there, and so forth, a lot of people. We're
having a great time talking it up. People are taking
video fit and film you can find it. And we
had a wonderful evening. And that was the night before
(16:42):
and then we have the hearing, okay, which I'll get
back to. But after the hearing, we head right over
to the Congressman's office. And as it happened, Tyler Roberts,
who had helped us set this up, comes down with RSV,
one of the worst viruses right after COVID. You don't
want it. He is really hurting. He couldn't come. It
(17:02):
was like, oh my god. He was so upset. Tyler,
get well, my friend. Because we're at a place where
so many people are connected in network, we are a
we are a legitimate activist connected movement. I immediately called up
Danny Sheen and said, can we get your videographer who
travels with him to go ahead and film of the deal? Absolutely,
(17:24):
and so he agrees to do it, except that no
shade being shown, shade being thrown here. Tyler, he's traveling
with this, he's fully engaged. He's got three camera, six
case setup operation. And so we got the full deal.
And then and then Burlison has these super lighting things
(17:45):
in his office, so that's all set up, three cameras.
They're in the chair. Meanwhile people are hearing about it.
Danny Sheen's in there god knows who else with several
other people, and Alen Steinfeld showed up, I think you know,
And so we got about ten people in the room,
including the chief of staff, for a forty minute interview
with Bob six k about his entire story. Now, the
(18:10):
only thing I would say is that Bob was trying
to be very clear and he was very slow, So
you got to be patient on this. But the whole
story that was filmed. Eric shakes his hand, and that
is now spreading all over the world because Danny Sheen
is going to use it for a new Paradigm institute, right,
(18:32):
and he's got the huge website, and then it's going
to go back to Tyler. Tyler is going to use it.
I'm going to get a copy and I'm going to
put it out. And so as we go forward, Burlison
has given the full informator to a new witness is
testifying next. He has the witness statements everyone does of
the other witnesses, and we are now in a position
(18:52):
if they agree to do it, to put five nuclear
weapons tampering witnesses. And I'm going to throw in George Knapp, hello,
all right, bring him back under oath, and that is
going to blow the lid off. And the DoD knows it,
and the DoD is absolutely terrified. And so one of
the ways they tried to push back stupidly is they'd
(19:14):
actually went after Bob SaaS by by providing a whole
bunch of interviews to the Wall Street Journal to two
of their relative you know, I don't think they were
senior national security reporters, and that turned up a while back.
You may remember they tried to explain the phenomenon is
stuff that they were doing. They tried to explain the
shutdowns is a giant emp thing to test the witnesses,
(19:37):
which was completely false and undermined within days. And then
they went after Bob Sallas. Obviously he got it wrong.
Speaker 6 (19:44):
So he wrote a nice piece rebutting that.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
And sent it to the Wall Street Journal, who absolutely
should have published it. They didn't publish it. They wouldn't
publish anything. This is to their disgrace. Did they were
they were they complicit or they were they take an advantage,
doesn't matter. But the most important point is people need
to know these witnesses, and that here implos this thing
sky high and the DoD is terrified of it.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Steve, we're going to take a quick break here, we
come back. We're going to talk to you more and
find out how the coverage of this event has been
portrayed in the media. You're listening to Beyond Contact on
the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network.
(20:39):
We are back on Beyond Contact or speak with Steve Bassett. Steve,
how has this been portrayed in the media so far?
I know you have your finger on the pulse of that.
You're always counting articles. This looks good, that looks How
did they cover this hearing?
Speaker 5 (20:53):
Well, I've already logged in about sixty five articles again
mainstream press ribble of stuff, all right, and I hope
I hope to have those up on my website, Paradigm
Research Group, and so you can literally go read them.
All right. But here's the most important thing about that.
There was something that it took place at the hearing
that I'm not a fan of. I wish they wouldn't
(21:15):
do it, but this happens. I understand why. But they
put out a fairly provocative video. There's always at least
one provocative video or maybe a photo that they sort
of include in the here. I understand it gets people excited,
it gets eyeballs and so forth, but it is probably
a mistake.
Speaker 6 (21:36):
Why this is the one Burleson brought right.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
This is Burlesson in this case because one, they're never definitive.
I mean they're never like, oh right, okay, I mean
if you've got if you've got some dcent the ets
having a meeting in one of their craft and you're
in there with three cameras checking it. Yeah, but no,
it's never definitive. It's put up. Millions of people are
going to see this, thousands and thousands of them with
(22:00):
substantial capability to immediately research the hell out of it,
and if they should actually debunk it, it's a huge negative, okay.
But more importantly, it distracts away from the major testimony.
And so of the sixty or seventy articles so far,
at least seventy five percent are about the video and
(22:20):
not about the testimony. Okay, that's point number one. Are
they positive? Absolutely, these articles are treating it seriously. They're
showing everything that needs to be shown. The witness are
being handled, and of course everything that's important, such as
the George Knapps research and so forth, is going to
get somewhere. Right, So you're talking about a broad spectrum,
(22:43):
dozens of media outlets, and so the stuff is out there,
and of course it's going to be and it's going
to probably end up being about one hundred and fifty
articles by the end of the week. And I'm going
to log them all in, all the important stuff, the
appropriate stuf, appropriate stuff. I can't do every thing because
you take all of the potential media that actually turns
up on the web on this it's journalism. I could
(23:06):
put up six hundred articles. I'm not going to do that, Okay.
So the media coverage is good, uh, and I expect
that it will remain very good and the public will
get a pretty good view of the entire range of testimony.
So moving on to other witnesses. Uh oh oh. The
other thing about this hearing that you need to understand,
(23:27):
and this comes under a strategy. They had a terrible
time getting witnesses for the May the May hearing they
wanted and also skiffs. What they like to do is
a skiff, then a hearing, and then a skiff and
a hearing, skiff and a hearing. It couldn't get it.
And the reason is that stuff has gotten complicated, right,
there's been pushed back, as you know, and so and
(23:50):
certain you know, certain promises of enhanced witness protection legislation
hasn't developed yet. In fact, another bill I believe submitted
along those lines by birch At I don't think made it.
And the UAP Disclosure Act, which has I think some
more of that has still not been able to get
back in though I can talk about that. We'll probably
(24:11):
finish up on that.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Yeah, that is a component of that thing. Listen, while
you're talking about the skiff, I want to bring this
up with you. What about this whole mess of the
skiff that one guy kept saying, I can't talk about
it here, I can only talk in the skiff. And
then he brought up but that's only if you get clearance.
Speaker 6 (24:28):
To talk there. Well, that's that's the way.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
It is a barrier for them to get to the
information because the congress people can't even ask how's that
whole thing work?
Speaker 5 (24:36):
Well, no, it's always been that way, he simply point
that's something has always been the case. The way it
is is you can you go into a skiff so
that there is absolute full security that nobody can pick
it up. Okay, I'm pretty sure you have to leave
yourself at the tour.
Speaker 6 (24:52):
Right, But you can't talk to a congressman if he
doesn't have clearance.
Speaker 5 (24:56):
Right, But once you go into the skiff, whatever is
going to be discussed us. The person that you're talking
to has to have the clearance and the person that's
doing the interview has to have clearance, and that varies.
So the ultimate, well, a very high level skiff would
be one of the Gang of Eight, such as Schumer.
You're the chairman of the Intel Committee, you're chairman of
(25:17):
the Armed Services Committee. You have an extremely high clearance
and so if somebody's in there, you're going to be
able to pretty much talk about anything that person has
a clearance to say. And so the skiff has always
has value, absolutely and so so the ideas have a
skiff and go in and be able to discuss ahead
of time that you have clearance for I mean in
(25:38):
there words everbody's got clearance, fine, but you would like
to talk to that person ahead of time, so you
have a sense of how to structure the hearing, know
what to expect. You know, this isn't a crapshoot. You
just don't bring some people in and say, hey, let's
see what happens.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
What do you go?
Speaker 5 (25:52):
And so that's the purpose of the skiff and and
if if you go and watch this hearing again, this
was the whistleblower come see this meeting, okay. In other words,
there was a huge emphasis on the whistleblowers and whistleblower
testimony in this hearing deliberately in order to show that
(26:13):
they are dressing it and they know about it. And
probably the most significant maneuver they made, and this was touching,
is they brought on an Air Force of Air Force
that might have been an officer, but a person working
in high level Air force stuff named Borland. And his
message was pretty straightforward. I came forward internally with information,
(26:36):
wanted to talk about information, talking to whoever regarding crash vehicles,
crash bodies, and they decided to make I think, an
example of him. Now, they can't make an example of
every single person working in programs classification status because they
say something at lunch they shouldn't say, because they basically
(26:58):
create chaos. What they do is they will pick somebody
and crush them and they expect everybody else to notice this,
meaning you see what happened to so and so, And
apparently mister Borland I forget is I kept bringing up
on he he was crushed. And so he's in there
saying I said this, and I said that, and they
(27:20):
came at me and they destroyed me. Okay, took away Clarences,
took away position.
Speaker 6 (27:27):
You can't get a job income.
Speaker 5 (27:29):
Of course, he's got no he's lost his clearance, he
can't go into the program, and essentially he's persona non grata.
He can't get a job, he's running out of money,
and his life has fallen apart. Now and then he
actually gets a little emotional. Now let's think about this
for a second. He doesn't have to do that. He
just needs to go in front. I mean, I mean,
I'm not saying I'm not saying this potential benefit for him,
(27:52):
but again, this is not easy to do. These men
are proud. So he's actually go in front of the
millions of people are going to watch this and talk
about how his life has been ruined and he's about
to be evicted. Right, accept that he made the point
as well as anybody could. We need more protection. We
(28:14):
got some you're doing help, we need more, and I'm
an example of what goes wrong. And so that was
a powerful statement. And let me close that point with this.
I'm gonna make you a bet that already right now,
and I could do it myself, but it would not
be appropriate for a number of reasons not to mention
(28:36):
that there are people far better at this than I.
They have the resources, and they have other things they
can do that a GoFundMe, maybe more than one, has
already been set up for this gentleman Borland, and it
wouldn't surprise me. Within three or four weeks there's fifty
or sixty thousand dollars for this fellow, and that will
allow him to stabilize his life, get things in order
(28:56):
so we can decide what to do, and also get
him in a position where if this issue finally gets
on the other side of the lie, there might be
a place for this gentleman to work in the post
disclosure world. So there was that, but they were and
then you had a fellow, the fellow Spielberger, who was
who was essentially part of a brand new organization they
keep turning up faster than I can keep track called
(29:18):
Pogo right ye pre program for oversight, And one of
the key fundamental projects a're working on is whistle protection right,
very elaborate, very sophistic that is in there, right, and
then then, uh, the the problem with witnesses to come
forward came up in some of the other testimony, all right,
So this was very and then and then and they
(29:39):
also talked about it on the on the data, so
that the the the members were talking about it. So
that was one of the key strategies.
Speaker 6 (29:46):
Of this meeting. That's great.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
See if we're going to hold it right there, and
we're going to talk to you on the other side
of the break about what's next in Congress. You're listening
to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact
(30:21):
speaking with Steve Bassett for our final segment.
Speaker 6 (30:23):
Go ahead, Steve, what are you going to say?
Speaker 5 (30:25):
All right, let's cover the other witnesses real quickly. Down
on the end of the far right was Nuto selling
So his his his, his testimony was important because it
was a very significant sighting over Vandenberg. Now, there's been
a lot of multiple witness happening at Vandenberg, for sure,
but this is the first time that I'm aware of
that somebody has come forward one of the significant band.
(30:47):
This is a very important base, right very significant base,
and it's it's a hell of a signing. Multiple people
saw it, and so that was into the record. But
what he didn't say, but I know, is that one
of the things that happens at Vandenburg, which I think
was happening at the time of his sighting, is Vandenburg
is where they test the missiles that end up in
(31:09):
the silos with the nuclear warhead audience. Okay, And of
course they got they all got turned off, those silos
got shut down, and so there's a direct connection between
Vandenburg and the ICBM missiles, and so they're turning up
over there. Notable. And then you had Chief Wiggins. Very
(31:30):
interesting Navy first time, I think, so my graves, well, you.
Speaker 6 (31:36):
Know, Galadet was.
Speaker 5 (31:38):
Those were Navy pilots, weren't they they're Navy.
Speaker 6 (31:40):
But but but he's the first active.
Speaker 5 (31:41):
Duty Okay, that's a good point. Okay, So Wiggers comes
forward and yeah, he's active duty because they made it
very clear he's coming for it on his own personal basis,
not on the basis of the Navy. They're good which
race is the point? Well, I guess the Navy allowed
them to do this. Interesting Okay, And this this guy
was nuts and bolt sharp as attack, and he's giving
(32:03):
testimony about things that happened, but he's able to go
into all of the equipment and the tech and everything else.
Very impressive. The kind of thing that high level people
in Congress, people particularly former military they're serving in Congress,
they're going to respect very strong testimony. All right, then
you've got Nap, and then you have of course Orland.
(32:23):
I've talked about that, and then you have a Spielberger
which is getting into again legal stuff and everything else.
But I encourage people read all the witness, watch it all,
and then try to put it into a package that
has multiple facets that appeals to a different range of
interest as well as media and so forth. And you're
(32:45):
seeing a masterful hearing which is going to make a
big difference. Okay, now, the other thing I want to
bring up the data is the UAP Disclosure Act. God
bless the UAP discloses your act. This is the new
This is basically the Shumer Rounds bipartisan mega project to
(33:07):
take this thing to another level. And let me be clear,
the UAP Disclosure Act is an essential plank or piece
of the platform. It allows a president to step forward
on that platform in the Oval Office or the East
Room of the White House and basically say I'm your
(33:27):
denight to tell you, yes, this is true, it's real,
it is non human in origin, it is present, and
I am going to make sure that the top people
are available to the press and there will be more
hearings and we're going to engage this. That is disclosure.
It's over, and that's it. Disclosure has done. The UAP
(33:50):
Disclosure Act is absolutely key in so many ways because
it is the total package that once disclosure is done,
that all the stuff is going to come out in
the post disclosure world will will fall. There is some already,
but not under the EAP Disclosure Act, under the Act
that was left when they cut it in half back
in twenty twenty three. Since then, there have been three
(34:13):
more efforts to put this act out again, as is
another Reshuman arounds are basically saying we're just going to
keep submitting until you pass it.
Speaker 6 (34:22):
Okay, I love that because that normally doesn't happen, right.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
Steve, And no, it never happens. But it's a message
as much as it is the act, so that would
be essential. It's appropriate. However, there's enough of that platform
built now, and so here is where it's at. It
was submitted in twenty twenty three, was cut in half.
All the powers were taken, but we'll take it, okay.
It was resubmitted the next year as an amendment to
(34:46):
kind of get around reconciliation an up or down vote
to us put it into the NBA. You do it
in the House, you do it in the Senate.
Speaker 6 (34:53):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
They submitted it that way. However, the amendment process is
different from the state, from the inclusion the NBA. There
are few chairs of committees that can just block it, okay,
and they did and so okay, so they had to
back off. They could have withdrew it, but that would
have been you know, it would have been awkward. It
would in a defeat as an example of defeat. So
(35:16):
they took the face saving approach and said, well, one
of the staff are screwed up and didn't submit it
in time, and so it can't make it fine, no problem,
And so that didn't happen, and then this year they
resubmitted again as an amendment. Okay. And the reason they
tried the amendment approach is a lot had happened Okay,
in that time, right, a lot more progress make it
(35:39):
maybe a little more difficult for a chairman of a
committee to block it. But Burlison, remember Burlson, agreed to
co sponsor it, which gives it a little more possibility.
And so they they went that roach. It was approach approach,
It was submitted, Burlison sponsored it. But then it had
to go in what is called mark up. And this
is this is where you know, a bunch of staffers
(36:01):
have got to go through all one thousand amendments and
go through and check them out for this and that
and everything, and somehow they decided this thing has got
too many problems. It ain't going to get in all right,
And so that was that was the third That was
a one two as the second one. And then so
what they did, right is they resubmitted again. They're going
(36:22):
to Schulmer apparently it is going to resubmit it again
into the NDAA. They're going to try to get consentive
voted in. So now it's in the big bill which
goes to the House, where anything in that big bill
that they don't want has got to go into reconciliation. Again.
Going back to twenty twenty three, except this time everybody
(36:43):
knows what happened before. Everybody knows. If they want to
play that game and start putting pressure to gut the bill,
it's going to be absolutely transparent, and maybe they won't, okay,
And that's where it's at now. I can't say if
it'll happen. But I can say is if that bill
goes in with a modest amount of changes but nothing serious,
(37:08):
and it goes up for a vote in the House,
we may be there. And why is that Because it
is the NDAA bill and you would literally have to
vote against the NDA bill where you will be immediately
asked why and you're going to have to say why,
and you're going to have to say, well, I cannot
accept the UAP disclosure section. And so that's where we're at.
(37:31):
The year is still young.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
Yeah, we got a little bit of the time. Well
what's next? You think you think they're going to subpoena
Sean Kirkpatord.
Speaker 5 (37:39):
No, we don't want to get into subpoenas. The moment
you get into subpoenas, you've gone contentious. In other words,
you're basically you know, putting the message out. Look, you're
going to have to come in. You're going to have
to testify under oath. And if you can't testify or
don't want to, you're going to have to take the
you know, take the whatever the hell you can't talk
about it if it's not a classified man or you're
(38:00):
a literally taking the fifth And then and if you
subpoena just regular witnesses because you just want them, which
they could have done, now you're putting them on the spot.
You're putting them between in the middle between there the
oath they just took in their NDAA. You're just really
creating a hostile environment. It is a lose lose situation.
So we don't want to go there. We want to
not have to use any subpoenas on this, and we
(38:23):
don't want to get into a fight about the pushback
right and start getting angry, because that what what? Then
we need to keep the focus on a simple thing.
We need to keep having testimony come forward until and
hopefully a UAP Disclosure Act, which all could happen soon,
and get that out of the way. And then people
(38:46):
inside Congress, particularly the right committees, need to be contacting
the White House and whatever way they have access and saying, look,
we pretty much got it set up. We would appreciate it,
the president would take action.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
So ay, we are out of time. Steve, You're right,
but thank you so much for the update. Really appreciate it.
It's exciting. Hopefully some more good stuff's coming in the future.
You can find Steve at Paradigm Researchgroup dot org.
Speaker 6 (39:09):
He's got a lot of good articles on there too.
You can keep up with everything from that website.
Speaker 4 (39:13):
You can find me on Twitter and Instagram at CID
Underscore Captain Ron. Stay connected by checking out contactinthedesert dot com.
Stay open minded in rational as we explore the unknown
right here on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal Podcast Network.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
Thanks for listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Ghost
AM Paranormal Podcast Network. Make sure and check out all
our shows on the iHeartRadio app or by going to
iHeartRadio dot com.
You're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast DAM
Paranormal podcast network, where we offer you podcasts of the paranormal, supernatural,
and the unexplained. Get ready now for Beyond Contact with
Captain Ron.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome to our podcast. Please be aware the thoughts and
opinions expressed by the host are their thoughts and opinions
only and do not reflect those of iHeartMedia, iHeartRadio, Coast
to Coast AM, employees of premier networks, or their sponsors
and associates. We would like to encourage you to do
(00:41):
your own research and discover the subject matter for yourself.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Hey everyone, it's Captain Ron and each week on Beyond Contact,
we'll explore the latest news in upology, discuss some of
the cl cases, and bring you the latest information from
the newest cases as we talked with the top experts.
Speaker 4 (01:08):
Welcome to Beyond Contact. I'm Captain ronad Today we're going
to be speaking with our good friend Steven Bassett. Steve's
the executive director of the Paradigm Research Group, which he
founded back in nineteen ninety six to end the government
imposed embargo on the truth behind the extraterrestrial related phenomenon.
He's the official lobbyist for this issue, and he is
the best person to give us insights into the latest
(01:30):
congressional hearings that just happened in the capitol on UAP. So, hey, Steve,
we got another hearing. I know you're excited about that.
And this particular hearing included military witnesses and even an
active duty naval officer, which is the first time I
think that's happened.
Speaker 5 (01:48):
Would you think, let's see, well, they've all had some
military and this one as well. I think the first
Navy person was there, and he was specifically there on
this personal basis, right, and we had the second time
we had a journalist and then as a civilian that's
involved an important new organization that has formed. There's so
(02:09):
many of them, so it But in general, this was
an important hearing. But I can appreciate why a lot
of people just following this or interested in the subject
may not have gotten how important it was, because the
sentiment of many is, look, we want more, bigger, better,
more spectacular, and if we're not getting that, it's disappointing.
(02:30):
We want you to, you know, if you can get
a dead et in there, and one of those little
glass thing is whatever, maybe bringing a couple of ET devices.
I get it, but they don't understand that. The hearings
are not about that. They're not about being the mechanism.
It's going to let people know what's going on, right
that will be post disclosure that will come out under
(02:53):
a bill, probably the EAP Disclosure Act. The hearings are
about it is setting a state, which is creating the
ability to do something. It's necessary because the more people
that are involved, the more the legislation is legislation, legislator
is involved, the more media coverage and the more basic
information that's out there makes it possible for the president
(03:16):
to do that. And that's the disconnect for a lot
of people. So on the basis of how I view
things happening, a lot of great things took place, and
I'm not being to elucidate on that. Are you ready?
Speaker 6 (03:28):
I am ready.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
You got a question, but let me You've got a
couple quick question. Why don't you do that? Hit me
with a couple questions.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Well, I had three quick things that stood out tomorrow
I thought were important. Number One, Luna, Burchett, and Burlason
all seem like they really have a good understanding of
this topic. They're just not asking stupid questions. They act
like they're genuinely informed. So I thought that was very important.
They are, to their credit, go ahead, Yeah, it's great.
(03:54):
And then I love that Eli Crane said this testimony
fromunerable service members and watching videos like my colleague mister
Berdlson just presented. You know, I've got to admit I've
become a believer. So here's another congress person coming forward
saying they now believe that this could be you know,
(04:14):
et And Third, I thought it was fantastic that Luna
called out Errow and Kirkpatrick and really when Adam hard
And it came up several times. So I was very
impressed by all of those aspects.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
With respect to the hearings. These are some of the
things that were extremely important. Number one shocked me Luna,
and by the way I was in the room, Well
obviously it was, but this I'll go on about that.
Luna literally went after Kirkpatrick immediately. She called him a
documented liar. Whoa, whoa? And so why is she doing
(04:52):
that because right now that where there is a would
you say, a bit of a contest going on. I
hate to say, I don't want to use martial adjectives.
And the contest is between the what I call the
fourth truth people of the four Persons of the Truth
(05:13):
opolic opelex significate it right, okay, or the forced horsemen
and women of the Truth opulist whatever. And that's of
course Mace, Burchett, Luna and Berlisson. And they are up
against two. They are up against those within the Department
of Defense uh and and pretty much representing others possibly
(05:34):
in the civilian sector, that do not want this to
go forward. They do not want the truth and Barbo
ended they do not want disclosure. And one of the
people they had to either recruit or or at least
ultimately put in a position where there's nothing he could
do was Sean Kirkpatrick, who was brought in as head
of Barrow brutal job. Wouldn't have wanted it. I don't
(05:56):
know what he expected. Things had moved along quickly enough,
we would have gotten to where we needed to go
before he had to throw himself on the fire in
the service of the truth embargo. And so when to
the extent that he could kind of be the placeholder
and run Arrow to do this and that and whatever
(06:16):
without rocking the boat that blew up when Grush came
forward in twenty twenty three, because at that moment, who's
gonna go? Who are you gonna go to next? After
Grush makes those statements to Kirkpatrick, he support Grush absolutely not.
He can't do any of that, and so he chose
either by intent or he was told to push back.
(06:37):
So he immediately writes a nasty letter about Grush, says this,
and says that suddenly Grush's medical records turn up, et cetera,
et cetera, and it goes downhill from there. So now
he's committed. Grush survives all this, He does well, he
is making his points, the people are on board, and
so it gets worse. Kirkpatrick finally gets to the point
where he just, you know, I just want out of here.
(06:59):
So he says going to quit. Fine, he's going to leave.
But before he leaves, the DoD as another pushback, says,
we got to study. We're going to finish out this
aero study and we need you to sign off on it.
And the aero study is complete nonsense, right. It is
kind of the twenty first century Robertson Report, only even
more embarrassing, and he does that and off he goes.
(07:21):
He's not the only pushback that's happening, but he became
the symbol for it, and so they needed to pop
him to let people know we are not going to
let you win that contest. And so boom, right out
of the gate.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
There it is. That was important.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
Then there was further reinforcement of that perception that came out,
and so they have made it clear we're on the
side of truth and Kirkpatrick and others are on the
side of maintaining the lie.
Speaker 6 (07:50):
So that was good.
Speaker 5 (07:52):
I want to cut right to what I consider the
most important thing that happened, and that is George Napp.
George Knapp was the second journalists to testify under oath
on this issue. The first was Schellenberger in the second
and what he had to say was interesting. Georgia is
at another level altogether. A lot of people criticized him
on the social media. What's he doing there? We don't
(08:13):
want a journalist, right, He's not an insider. They don't
but they don't know him, right. George Knapp deserves a pulitzerprise.
I assure you, an incredible investigative, not just a reporter
writing for the paper. He was an investigative journalist for
a major television station. It happened to be in a
city not that far from Area fifty one. And so,
(08:35):
in addition to hundreds of investigative reports that he has
put out, he has done an enormous body of work
for thirty eight years on this subject, talk to more
people than probably anybody had his inside opportunities. Docs researched
the whole nine yards. And so when he comes to
a witness, they could have interviewed just him for five
hours and it would have been important. And maybe he's
(08:58):
not a first hand legacy guys, so what And so
he comes in. Now there is a plan here, okay,
and so just talking about NAP's testimony, what happens. First
it gives them the opportunity to introduce all of NAP's
research in Russia. And so he turns over giant piles
(09:21):
of documents that he got from from his Russia work,
which he's talked about. It's been out there, but it
hadn't been put in the record on a congressional hearing,
has it all right? And so that goes into the record,
and one of the most important things about the Russia
research is that he he found documents and talk with
(09:41):
people that were able to corroborate the fact that there
was an event in Russia, maybe more than one, where
a craft has hovered over one of their nuclear facilities,
didn't turn them off like minut A Malstrom put them
into launch mode. It's taking them right up to launch
and then dropping them down. Now that has happened here too,
(10:01):
that we don't have the strong that we don't have
witness ready to testify under oath on it, but I
think they're out there. Hastings did the research and so
I think it happened here, but it's a safer play
it happened in Russia.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
All right, I agree, Steve, you need to take a break.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
We're going to come back on the other side and
pick it up about George Napp, who did an incredible
job at the hearing. You're listening to Beyond Contact on
the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network.
(10:46):
We are back on Beyond Contact talking to Steve Massett
about the amazing job.
Speaker 6 (10:49):
George Napp did at the hearing.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
Go ahead, Steve, and to also add something else about
it again, This was an extremely strategic that hearing.
Speaker 6 (11:01):
Right.
Speaker 5 (11:02):
Normally the chair introduces the witnesses that are going to testify,
and Anna Polina did, Polana Luna did that, except for
one George Knapp, who introduced George Knapp, his Congress representative
came in. I'm pretty sure I don't think she's on
the task for as I don't think so, and she
introduced him and ruffles and flourishes.
Speaker 6 (11:25):
Right.
Speaker 5 (11:26):
His career is legacy. All the work he's done, the
prizes he's got, Edward Armorrow, the Peabody Prizes, twenty some regionals,
but blah blah boom okay, so he's elevated. So what
we get from him is a substantial amount of information
covering a number of areas that are important, but most
(11:47):
importantly the Russia research, plus a lot of and that
the document's rated to his other goes into the record. Hey,
it's going to take them weeks to go through that,
so don't be surprised if some of that starts playing
a role in the future.
Speaker 6 (11:59):
Here hearance.
Speaker 5 (12:01):
But it is the first time in history that the
nuclear shutdown or turn ons in the presence of extraterustrial
craft has ever been entered into oath or put in
front of a hearing of Congress. He broke. He broke
the bass wall right there. And guess what in the
course of the hearing, I think in one other moment
(12:24):
with another witness, but also during George's testimony, guess who
got mentioned Robert Sallas. Oh yeah, Robert Jacob's two of
the key nuclear tampering witnesses that we have been trying
to get into hearing forever. Okay, and so now Robert
Sallas's name is in the record. Robert's sitting right next
to me. Okay. He and his wife flew in. They
(12:47):
spent a lot of money so that he could be
there at their hearing. But there's even more to that,
and so he was thrilled. Okay, So now it's in play.
Let's give some background to this. A number of people, myself,
certainly Kyler Roberts, and certainly Robert Sallas, have been trying
and doing everything they can to inform the key people
(13:10):
in Congress about this aspect of the phenomenon. That doesn't
mean they didn't know, but we're just hitting them with
the idea we want them to testify. They're desperate to testify.
Speaker 6 (13:20):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (13:21):
So Tyler Roberts set up a meeting after the November
thirteenth here last year with Robert Sallas, Captain Robert Salas,
and the person who was pretty much running in at
that point, Nancy Mace, and we had a fine meeting.
We had a fine interview. I happened to be there.
I was on camera with them, and that was put out.
Tyler Roberts put it out and is out there. You
(13:42):
can find it all good, and so we were going
to go from there and kind of move on forward.
We wanted eventually to get meetings between Bob Sallas and
Burlison and Lona as well and Burchet Okay, but prior
about a month or prior to that meeting with Mace,
I who have been dealing with this issue in Bob
(14:04):
for a long long time. I submitted two sets of
witness affidavits for about nine of the witnesses, hard copy
to every single well the Senate as well every single
office of the Senate Intel Committee, as well as every
single office of the Oversight Subcommittee, most of who are
now part of the task Force, and also an electronic
(14:27):
version of the affidavits. Made some calls, let them know
what's in there. You know, I think you the best
you can, all right, And so see, I guess you
could see I was seating the field. I was just
putting that stuff out there. So it's floating around.
Speaker 6 (14:39):
All good.
Speaker 5 (14:40):
I can assume that all of these people are starting
to look at some of this stuff. They're starting to
consider this issue of the nuke tampering and how and
the nuke shutdowns, how it's important. And so as we
move towards the hearing, then we get another breakthrough. And
again Tyler Roberts is involved in this or some other
people that help.
Speaker 7 (15:00):
But ultimately we were able to get Congressman Burlson to
agree to meet Robert Sallas after the hearing, and so
that was set up so that he was going to
be meeting with the Congressman.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
This would be his second meeting, but a far more
substantial situation than before and further along into the issue.
All right, And so that was said. But then he
got better because Congressman Burlson, who I got to tell you,
we can't have a better champion on this issue. Why
he is an intelligent, grounded he is someone that is
(15:38):
he communicates with people. It doesn't matter. He's nonpartisan in
his engagements. He's also one of the safest seats in
the House. He won seventy three percent. He agrees to
hold a reception for us. I guess you could say,
you know those that kind of got the word at
the Capitol Club, which is right to cross from the
(16:00):
Cannon Building. I actually had dinner with him and four others,
lasted probably six hours a while back, where Anna Brady
Estadas gave him at the copy of Casting's book UFOs
and Nukes I would have done, didn't have one. Then
I gave him other information and so forth. All good.
That was, you know, some weeks back. But then we
(16:21):
have this thing and so sixty or seventy people are there,
all the names you would expect. Okay, Danny Shan and
Jim Garrison was there, I was there, Anna and Brady
was there, and so forth, a lot of people. We're
having a great time talking it up. People are taking
video fit and film you can find it. And we
had a wonderful evening. And that was the night before
(16:42):
and then we have the hearing, okay, which I'll get
back to. But after the hearing, we head right over
to the Congressman's office. And as it happened, Tyler Roberts,
who had helped us set this up, comes down with RSV,
one of the worst viruses right after COVID. You don't
want it. He is really hurting. He couldn't come. It
(17:02):
was like, oh my god. He was so upset. Tyler,
get well, my friend. Because we're at a place where
so many people are connected in network, we are a
we are a legitimate activist connected movement. I immediately called up
Danny Sheen and said, can we get your videographer who
travels with him to go ahead and film of the deal? Absolutely,
(17:24):
and so he agrees to do it, except that no
shade being shown, shade being thrown here. Tyler, he's traveling
with this, he's fully engaged. He's got three camera, six
case setup operation. And so we got the full deal.
And then and then Burlison has these super lighting things
(17:45):
in his office, so that's all set up, three cameras.
They're in the chair. Meanwhile people are hearing about it.
Danny Sheen's in there god knows who else with several
other people, and Alen Steinfeld showed up, I think you know,
And so we got about ten people in the room,
including the chief of staff, for a forty minute interview
with Bob six k about his entire story. Now, the
(18:10):
only thing I would say is that Bob was trying
to be very clear and he was very slow, So
you got to be patient on this. But the whole
story that was filmed. Eric shakes his hand, and that
is now spreading all over the world because Danny Sheen
is going to use it for a new Paradigm institute, right,
(18:32):
and he's got the huge website, and then it's going
to go back to Tyler. Tyler is going to use it.
I'm going to get a copy and I'm going to
put it out. And so as we go forward, Burlison
has given the full informator to a new witness is
testifying next. He has the witness statements everyone does of
the other witnesses, and we are now in a position
(18:52):
if they agree to do it, to put five nuclear
weapons tampering witnesses. And I'm going to throw in George Knapp, hello,
all right, bring him back under oath, and that is
going to blow the lid off. And the DoD knows it,
and the DoD is absolutely terrified. And so one of
the ways they tried to push back stupidly is they'd
(19:14):
actually went after Bob SaaS by by providing a whole
bunch of interviews to the Wall Street Journal to two
of their relative you know, I don't think they were
senior national security reporters, and that turned up a while back.
You may remember they tried to explain the phenomenon is
stuff that they were doing. They tried to explain the
shutdowns is a giant emp thing to test the witnesses,
(19:37):
which was completely false and undermined within days. And then
they went after Bob Sallas. Obviously he got it wrong.
Speaker 6 (19:44):
So he wrote a nice piece rebutting that.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
And sent it to the Wall Street Journal, who absolutely
should have published it. They didn't publish it. They wouldn't
publish anything. This is to their disgrace. Did they were
they were they complicit or they were they take an advantage,
doesn't matter. But the most important point is people need
to know these witnesses, and that here implos this thing
sky high and the DoD is terrified of it.
Speaker 4 (20:08):
Steve, we're going to take a quick break here, we
come back. We're going to talk to you more and
find out how the coverage of this event has been
portrayed in the media. You're listening to Beyond Contact on
the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network.
(20:39):
We are back on Beyond Contact or speak with Steve Bassett. Steve,
how has this been portrayed in the media so far?
I know you have your finger on the pulse of that.
You're always counting articles. This looks good, that looks How
did they cover this hearing?
Speaker 5 (20:53):
Well, I've already logged in about sixty five articles again
mainstream press ribble of stuff, all right, and I hope
I hope to have those up on my website, Paradigm
Research Group, and so you can literally go read them.
All right. But here's the most important thing about that.
There was something that it took place at the hearing
that I'm not a fan of. I wish they wouldn't
(21:15):
do it, but this happens. I understand why. But they
put out a fairly provocative video. There's always at least
one provocative video or maybe a photo that they sort
of include in the here. I understand it gets people excited,
it gets eyeballs and so forth, but it is probably
a mistake.
Speaker 6 (21:36):
Why this is the one Burleson brought right.
Speaker 5 (21:38):
This is Burlesson in this case because one, they're never definitive.
I mean they're never like, oh right, okay, I mean
if you've got if you've got some dcent the ets
having a meeting in one of their craft and you're
in there with three cameras checking it. Yeah, but no,
it's never definitive. It's put up. Millions of people are
going to see this, thousands and thousands of them with
(22:00):
substantial capability to immediately research the hell out of it,
and if they should actually debunk it, it's a huge negative, okay.
But more importantly, it distracts away from the major testimony.
And so of the sixty or seventy articles so far,
at least seventy five percent are about the video and
(22:20):
not about the testimony. Okay, that's point number one. Are
they positive? Absolutely, these articles are treating it seriously. They're
showing everything that needs to be shown. The witness are
being handled, and of course everything that's important, such as
the George Knapps research and so forth, is going to
get somewhere. Right, So you're talking about a broad spectrum,
(22:43):
dozens of media outlets, and so the stuff is out there,
and of course it's going to be and it's going
to probably end up being about one hundred and fifty
articles by the end of the week. And I'm going
to log them all in, all the important stuff, the
appropriate stuf, appropriate stuff. I can't do every thing because
you take all of the potential media that actually turns
up on the web on this it's journalism. I could
(23:06):
put up six hundred articles. I'm not going to do that, Okay.
So the media coverage is good, uh, and I expect
that it will remain very good and the public will
get a pretty good view of the entire range of testimony.
So moving on to other witnesses. Uh oh oh. The
other thing about this hearing that you need to understand,
(23:27):
and this comes under a strategy. They had a terrible
time getting witnesses for the May the May hearing they
wanted and also skiffs. What they like to do is
a skiff, then a hearing, and then a skiff and
a hearing, skiff and a hearing. It couldn't get it.
And the reason is that stuff has gotten complicated, right,
there's been pushed back, as you know, and so and
(23:50):
certain you know, certain promises of enhanced witness protection legislation
hasn't developed yet. In fact, another bill I believe submitted
along those lines by birch At I don't think made it.
And the UAP Disclosure Act, which has I think some
more of that has still not been able to get
back in though I can talk about that. We'll probably
(24:11):
finish up on that.
Speaker 4 (24:12):
Yeah, that is a component of that thing. Listen, while
you're talking about the skiff, I want to bring this
up with you. What about this whole mess of the
skiff that one guy kept saying, I can't talk about
it here, I can only talk in the skiff. And
then he brought up but that's only if you get clearance.
Speaker 6 (24:28):
To talk there. Well, that's that's the way.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
It is a barrier for them to get to the
information because the congress people can't even ask how's that
whole thing work?
Speaker 5 (24:36):
Well, no, it's always been that way, he simply point
that's something has always been the case. The way it
is is you can you go into a skiff so
that there is absolute full security that nobody can pick
it up. Okay, I'm pretty sure you have to leave
yourself at the tour.
Speaker 6 (24:52):
Right, But you can't talk to a congressman if he
doesn't have clearance.
Speaker 5 (24:56):
Right, But once you go into the skiff, whatever is
going to be discussed us. The person that you're talking
to has to have the clearance and the person that's
doing the interview has to have clearance, and that varies.
So the ultimate, well, a very high level skiff would
be one of the Gang of Eight, such as Schumer.
You're the chairman of the Intel Committee, you're chairman of
(25:17):
the Armed Services Committee. You have an extremely high clearance
and so if somebody's in there, you're going to be
able to pretty much talk about anything that person has
a clearance to say. And so the skiff has always
has value, absolutely and so so the ideas have a
skiff and go in and be able to discuss ahead
of time that you have clearance for I mean in
(25:38):
there words everbody's got clearance, fine, but you would like
to talk to that person ahead of time, so you
have a sense of how to structure the hearing, know
what to expect. You know, this isn't a crapshoot. You
just don't bring some people in and say, hey, let's
see what happens.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
What do you go?
Speaker 5 (25:52):
And so that's the purpose of the skiff and and
if if you go and watch this hearing again, this
was the whistleblower come see this meeting, okay. In other words,
there was a huge emphasis on the whistleblowers and whistleblower
testimony in this hearing deliberately in order to show that
(26:13):
they are dressing it and they know about it. And
probably the most significant maneuver they made, and this was touching,
is they brought on an Air Force of Air Force
that might have been an officer, but a person working
in high level Air force stuff named Borland. And his
message was pretty straightforward. I came forward internally with information,
(26:36):
wanted to talk about information, talking to whoever regarding crash vehicles,
crash bodies, and they decided to make I think, an
example of him. Now, they can't make an example of
every single person working in programs classification status because they
say something at lunch they shouldn't say, because they basically
(26:58):
create chaos. What they do is they will pick somebody
and crush them and they expect everybody else to notice this,
meaning you see what happened to so and so, And
apparently mister Borland I forget is I kept bringing up
on he he was crushed. And so he's in there
saying I said this, and I said that, and they
(27:20):
came at me and they destroyed me. Okay, took away Clarences,
took away position.
Speaker 6 (27:27):
You can't get a job income.
Speaker 5 (27:29):
Of course, he's got no he's lost his clearance, he
can't go into the program, and essentially he's persona non grata.
He can't get a job, he's running out of money,
and his life has fallen apart. Now and then he
actually gets a little emotional. Now let's think about this
for a second. He doesn't have to do that. He
just needs to go in front. I mean, I mean,
I'm not saying I'm not saying this potential benefit for him,
(27:52):
but again, this is not easy to do. These men
are proud. So he's actually go in front of the
millions of people are going to watch this and talk
about how his life has been ruined and he's about
to be evicted. Right, accept that he made the point
as well as anybody could. We need more protection. We
(28:14):
got some you're doing help, we need more, and I'm
an example of what goes wrong. And so that was
a powerful statement. And let me close that point with this.
I'm gonna make you a bet that already right now,
and I could do it myself, but it would not
be appropriate for a number of reasons not to mention
(28:36):
that there are people far better at this than I.
They have the resources, and they have other things they
can do that a GoFundMe, maybe more than one, has
already been set up for this gentleman Borland, and it
wouldn't surprise me. Within three or four weeks there's fifty
or sixty thousand dollars for this fellow, and that will
allow him to stabilize his life, get things in order
(28:56):
so we can decide what to do, and also get
him in a position where if this issue finally gets
on the other side of the lie, there might be
a place for this gentleman to work in the post
disclosure world. So there was that, but they were and
then you had a fellow, the fellow Spielberger, who was
who was essentially part of a brand new organization they
keep turning up faster than I can keep track called
(29:18):
Pogo right ye pre program for oversight, And one of
the key fundamental projects a're working on is whistle protection right,
very elaborate, very sophistic that is in there, right, and
then then, uh, the the problem with witnesses to come
forward came up in some of the other testimony, all right,
So this was very and then and then and they
(29:39):
also talked about it on the on the data, so
that the the the members were talking about it. So
that was one of the key strategies.
Speaker 6 (29:46):
Of this meeting. That's great.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
See if we're going to hold it right there, and
we're going to talk to you on the other side
of the break about what's next in Congress. You're listening
to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact
(30:21):
speaking with Steve Bassett for our final segment.
Speaker 6 (30:23):
Go ahead, Steve, what are you going to say?
Speaker 5 (30:25):
All right, let's cover the other witnesses real quickly. Down
on the end of the far right was Nuto selling
So his his his, his testimony was important because it
was a very significant sighting over Vandenberg. Now, there's been
a lot of multiple witness happening at Vandenberg, for sure,
but this is the first time that I'm aware of
that somebody has come forward one of the significant band.
(30:47):
This is a very important base, right very significant base,
and it's it's a hell of a signing. Multiple people
saw it, and so that was into the record. But
what he didn't say, but I know, is that one
of the things that happens at Vandenburg, which I think
was happening at the time of his sighting, is Vandenburg
is where they test the missiles that end up in
(31:09):
the silos with the nuclear warhead audience. Okay, And of
course they got they all got turned off, those silos
got shut down, and so there's a direct connection between
Vandenburg and the ICBM missiles, and so they're turning up
over there. Notable. And then you had Chief Wiggins. Very
(31:30):
interesting Navy first time, I think, so my graves, well, you.
Speaker 6 (31:36):
Know, Galadet was.
Speaker 5 (31:38):
Those were Navy pilots, weren't they they're Navy.
Speaker 6 (31:40):
But but but he's the first active.
Speaker 5 (31:41):
Duty Okay, that's a good point. Okay, So Wiggers comes
forward and yeah, he's active duty because they made it
very clear he's coming for it on his own personal basis,
not on the basis of the Navy. They're good which
race is the point? Well, I guess the Navy allowed
them to do this. Interesting Okay, And this this guy
was nuts and bolt sharp as attack, and he's giving
(32:03):
testimony about things that happened, but he's able to go
into all of the equipment and the tech and everything else.
Very impressive. The kind of thing that high level people
in Congress, people particularly former military they're serving in Congress,
they're going to respect very strong testimony. All right, then
you've got Nap, and then you have of course Orland.
(32:23):
I've talked about that, and then you have a Spielberger
which is getting into again legal stuff and everything else.
But I encourage people read all the witness, watch it all,
and then try to put it into a package that
has multiple facets that appeals to a different range of
interest as well as media and so forth. And you're
(32:45):
seeing a masterful hearing which is going to make a
big difference. Okay, now, the other thing I want to
bring up the data is the UAP Disclosure Act. God
bless the UAP discloses your act. This is the new
This is basically the Shumer Rounds bipartisan mega project to
(33:07):
take this thing to another level. And let me be clear,
the UAP Disclosure Act is an essential plank or piece
of the platform. It allows a president to step forward
on that platform in the Oval Office or the East
Room of the White House and basically say I'm your
(33:27):
denight to tell you, yes, this is true, it's real,
it is non human in origin, it is present, and
I am going to make sure that the top people
are available to the press and there will be more
hearings and we're going to engage this. That is disclosure.
It's over, and that's it. Disclosure has done. The UAP
(33:50):
Disclosure Act is absolutely key in so many ways because
it is the total package that once disclosure is done,
that all the stuff is going to come out in
the post disclosure world will will fall. There is some already,
but not under the EAP Disclosure Act, under the Act
that was left when they cut it in half back
in twenty twenty three. Since then, there have been three
(34:13):
more efforts to put this act out again, as is
another Reshuman arounds are basically saying we're just going to
keep submitting until you pass it.
Speaker 6 (34:22):
Okay, I love that because that normally doesn't happen, right.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
Steve, And no, it never happens. But it's a message
as much as it is the act, so that would
be essential. It's appropriate. However, there's enough of that platform
built now, and so here is where it's at. It
was submitted in twenty twenty three, was cut in half.
All the powers were taken, but we'll take it, okay.
It was resubmitted the next year as an amendment to
(34:46):
kind of get around reconciliation an up or down vote
to us put it into the NBA. You do it
in the House, you do it in the Senate.
Speaker 6 (34:53):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
They submitted it that way. However, the amendment process is
different from the state, from the inclusion the NBA. There
are few chairs of committees that can just block it, okay,
and they did and so okay, so they had to
back off. They could have withdrew it, but that would
have been you know, it would have been awkward. It
would in a defeat as an example of defeat. So
(35:16):
they took the face saving approach and said, well, one
of the staff are screwed up and didn't submit it
in time, and so it can't make it fine, no problem,
And so that didn't happen, and then this year they
resubmitted again as an amendment. Okay. And the reason they
tried the amendment approach is a lot had happened Okay,
in that time, right, a lot more progress make it
(35:39):
maybe a little more difficult for a chairman of a
committee to block it. But Burlison, remember Burlson, agreed to
co sponsor it, which gives it a little more possibility.
And so they they went that roach. It was approach approach,
It was submitted, Burlison sponsored it. But then it had
to go in what is called mark up. And this
is this is where you know, a bunch of staffers
(36:01):
have got to go through all one thousand amendments and
go through and check them out for this and that
and everything, and somehow they decided this thing has got
too many problems. It ain't going to get in all right,
And so that was that was the third That was
a one two as the second one. And then so
what they did, right is they resubmitted again. They're going
(36:22):
to Schulmer apparently it is going to resubmit it again
into the NDAA. They're going to try to get consentive
voted in. So now it's in the big bill which
goes to the House, where anything in that big bill
that they don't want has got to go into reconciliation. Again.
Going back to twenty twenty three, except this time everybody
(36:43):
knows what happened before. Everybody knows. If they want to
play that game and start putting pressure to gut the bill,
it's going to be absolutely transparent, and maybe they won't, okay,
And that's where it's at now. I can't say if
it'll happen. But I can say is if that bill
goes in with a modest amount of changes but nothing serious,
(37:08):
and it goes up for a vote in the House,
we may be there. And why is that Because it
is the NDAA bill and you would literally have to
vote against the NDA bill where you will be immediately
asked why and you're going to have to say why,
and you're going to have to say, well, I cannot
accept the UAP disclosure section. And so that's where we're at.
(37:31):
The year is still young.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
Yeah, we got a little bit of the time. Well
what's next? You think you think they're going to subpoena
Sean Kirkpatord.
Speaker 5 (37:39):
No, we don't want to get into subpoenas. The moment
you get into subpoenas, you've gone contentious. In other words,
you're basically you know, putting the message out. Look, you're
going to have to come in. You're going to have
to testify under oath. And if you can't testify or
don't want to, you're going to have to take the
you know, take the whatever the hell you can't talk
about it if it's not a classified man or you're
(38:00):
a literally taking the fifth And then and if you
subpoena just regular witnesses because you just want them, which
they could have done, now you're putting them on the spot.
You're putting them between in the middle between there the
oath they just took in their NDAA. You're just really
creating a hostile environment. It is a lose lose situation.
So we don't want to go there. We want to
not have to use any subpoenas on this, and we
(38:23):
don't want to get into a fight about the pushback
right and start getting angry, because that what what? Then
we need to keep the focus on a simple thing.
We need to keep having testimony come forward until and
hopefully a UAP Disclosure Act, which all could happen soon,
and get that out of the way. And then people
(38:46):
inside Congress, particularly the right committees, need to be contacting
the White House and whatever way they have access and saying, look,
we pretty much got it set up. We would appreciate it,
the president would take action.
Speaker 4 (38:58):
So ay, we are out of time. Steve, You're right,
but thank you so much for the update. Really appreciate it.
It's exciting. Hopefully some more good stuff's coming in the future.
You can find Steve at Paradigm Researchgroup dot org.
Speaker 6 (39:09):
He's got a lot of good articles on there too.
You can keep up with everything from that website.
Speaker 4 (39:13):
You can find me on Twitter and Instagram at CID
Underscore Captain Ron. Stay connected by checking out contactinthedesert dot com.
Stay open minded in rational as we explore the unknown
right here on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal Podcast Network.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
Thanks for listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Ghost
AM Paranormal Podcast Network. Make sure and check out all
our shows on the iHeartRadio app or by going to
iHeartRadio dot com.
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.