November 6, 2024 • 56 mins
This week we are discussing what's going to happen regarding Disclosure with a new President in office. Stephen Bassett is a political activist. He made history in 1996 when he registered to lobby the U.S. Government regarding its policy of withholding from the American people the truth of an extraterrestrial presence engaging the Human Race. It was the first such registration and immediately caught the attention of the Washington Post.
Over the past 25 years Bassett has helped shape the language and chart the course for a major political movement. He has lectured around the world and given over 1200 radio and television interviews about the implications of "Disclosure" – the formal confirmation by heads of state of an extraterrestrial presence. His advocacy work has been extensively covered by news media such as CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and over 500 articles including Washington Post, New York Times, New York Magazine, The Atlantic, Washington Times, The Hill, Roll Call and Politico.
From 2004 to 2010 Bassett produced six "exopolitical" conferences in the Washington metro area, each accompanied by press events at the National Press Club.
About Director Darcy Weir
Diving into the chaos of UFOTwitter like a fearless spelunker, Darcy Weir is a documentary filmmaker who over the past two decades has chosen to explore some of the most intriguing topics of discussion today, including UFOs, Cryptids, and even Bitcoin. He has completed over 15 feature-length documentaries on these topics, all of which are available on Amazon Prime and Apple. His goal is to make the world of UFOs more accessible to the general public by shedding light on the subject in new ways. Enjoy fresh conversations with him on Twitter. Join the Twitter Space to share in the conversation.
Links
Amazon: https://amzn.to/3wHv7JJ
Apple TV: https://apple.co/3TlQQ2Q
https://x.com/occultjourneys
/ instagram: darcyweirfilms
/twitter and youtube: @occultjourneys
About Andy Marcial
Andy is a researcher of 20+ yrs who was forced down the rabbit hole after very personal and life changing close encounters which started in Puerto Rico. His entire life, all he has done, is try to understand what he saw and why he went through what he went through. It changed him and showed him that there is an entire reality out there beyond human comprehension. It also drove him to reach out to others like himself because of how psychologically damaging this can be. He also recently leaked three Department of Homeland Security videos to the public, which were controversial, but officially recognized as UAP by Customs and Border Patrol in August of 2023. Andy doesn't do what he does for any other reason than to open the minds of anyone willing to listen and to show those affected by this phenomenon that they are not alone.
Links
/ instagram and twitter: @ny_uap_discussion
/ youtube: @ufocompilation
Over the past 25 years Bassett has helped shape the language and chart the course for a major political movement. He has lectured around the world and given over 1200 radio and television interviews about the implications of "Disclosure" – the formal confirmation by heads of state of an extraterrestrial presence. His advocacy work has been extensively covered by news media such as CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and over 500 articles including Washington Post, New York Times, New York Magazine, The Atlantic, Washington Times, The Hill, Roll Call and Politico.
From 2004 to 2010 Bassett produced six "exopolitical" conferences in the Washington metro area, each accompanied by press events at the National Press Club.
About Director Darcy Weir
Diving into the chaos of UFOTwitter like a fearless spelunker, Darcy Weir is a documentary filmmaker who over the past two decades has chosen to explore some of the most intriguing topics of discussion today, including UFOs, Cryptids, and even Bitcoin. He has completed over 15 feature-length documentaries on these topics, all of which are available on Amazon Prime and Apple. His goal is to make the world of UFOs more accessible to the general public by shedding light on the subject in new ways. Enjoy fresh conversations with him on Twitter. Join the Twitter Space to share in the conversation.
Links
Amazon: https://amzn.to/3wHv7JJ
Apple TV: https://apple.co/3TlQQ2Q
https://x.com/occultjourneys
/ instagram: darcyweirfilms
/twitter and youtube: @occultjourneys
About Andy Marcial
Andy is a researcher of 20+ yrs who was forced down the rabbit hole after very personal and life changing close encounters which started in Puerto Rico. His entire life, all he has done, is try to understand what he saw and why he went through what he went through. It changed him and showed him that there is an entire reality out there beyond human comprehension. It also drove him to reach out to others like himself because of how psychologically damaging this can be. He also recently leaked three Department of Homeland Security videos to the public, which were controversial, but officially recognized as UAP by Customs and Border Patrol in August of 2023. Andy doesn't do what he does for any other reason than to open the minds of anyone willing to listen and to show those affected by this phenomenon that they are not alone.
Links
/ instagram and twitter: @ny_uap_discussion
/ youtube: @ufocompilation
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Two hundred years ago, two thousand years ago. This isn't
going to work.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
She's picking up a massive object in this video.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Ships that might be closed. I can sense them in
my vicinity, So I guess I'm just very tuned.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
In falk in head. Honcho walks out ear reveal. Yeah,
the crowd goes, oh, my God. Was to protect the
secrets from the Air Force that were not out there
in public. So welcome back to last night on UFO Twitter.
(00:50):
We're on you know, episode seven, I believe. So we're
getting up there, we're going live to kg r A.
We're doing it. And tonight's guest is none other than
UAP UFO disclosure activist Stephen Bassett, who has been running
(01:11):
New Paradigm Research Group for many years now, a disciple
of John E. Mac the famous Harvard professor that Debunker's
kind of claimed he went native with the UFO community,
but really he took these experiencers very seriously and he
(01:33):
thought there's a real phenomenon here. Bassett has been an
advocate for disclosure in the Washington you know, the capital
here Hill environment for a long time now. He's very
active in the activist movement and he's working with people
(01:57):
behind the scenes on Capitol Hill, trying to push for
UAP legislature to go through, and helping in any way possible.
And I think he's a really great person to have
on the show because now that we've just gotten through
the actual election results, we've got Donald Trump as the
(02:21):
forty seventh president of the United States. We actually have
this new congressional hearing happening on November thirteenth in Washington,
d C. With three very interesting new whistleblowers or just
(02:43):
people giving testimony on Capitol Hill at these congressional hearings.
I believe it's being held and chaired by Nancy Mace.
I am bringing in the Twitter folks from the Twitter
universe now, and I would like to start off the show.
(03:04):
We always start off the show with some positivity, because look,
the world's going through a whole bunch of negativity right now.
Let's just be honest. Not everybody's going to be happy
about the presidential election results. Not everybody is happy in
Eastern Europe right now with the war that's going on,
(03:27):
or in the Middle East with Israel and what's going
on between Lebanon and you know, everybody in the Middle
East that Palestinian sort of conflict zone. So in the
United States, there are people that are unhappy, in Canada everywhere.
(03:47):
So let's just try and start off the show with
something positive provided by Pastor Dale, a friend of mine,
and then we're going to kick right into high gear
with Stephen Bassett.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Well, I want to start off by welcoming Steve to
the space. It's awesome to have you with us. We've
all heard the saying good things come to those who wait,
but what does that really mean? Better? Yet, what does
it look like in the real world. You know, some
things can't be rushed. If you've ever made a roast
where the meat just melted in your mouth, then you've
(04:24):
mastered patience. If you rush the process, the meat will
come out tough and hard to chew, and it will
not taste nearly as good. It's a reminder that good
things come.
Speaker 5 (04:35):
To those who wait.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Another example of the importance of patients is found in
an old story I've heard, and I make no promises
about whether it is accurate, but it is ultimately about
the value of patience, and so that's why I'm going.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
To share it with you.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
The story begins with a boy finding a bird in
a nest. As he looks inside the nest, he notices
a single bird egg in it. As he looks closer,
he sees that the little bird is struggling to get out.
He notices a small crack in the egg, but the
little bird appears to be getting nowhere. Concerned, the boy
(05:13):
decides to give the struggling little bird some help, and
so he breaks the eggshell open and takes a little
bird out of its prison.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
What the little boy.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Didn't know is that he had just handicapped that little
bird for life. The little bird will never be able
to fly because his wings needed the struggle of fighting
its way out of the eggshell to strengthen them, but
now they will be deformed.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
For the rest of the bird's life.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
There's a lesson for all of us in that story,
and the lesson is everything in its time. You see,
when we try to rush things that usually doesn't end well. Remember,
good things come to those who wait, as most of
us know. Next Wednesday, November thirteenth, the house will behold
(06:00):
hearing on UAPs. I've heard that there will be at
least three whistleblowers in the hearing. The last hearing had
three whistleblowers, and their testimony was amazing, especially David Greshes.
Many people thought that was disclosure, and yet here we
are with another hearing. I'm asking everyone to temper their
(06:21):
expectations because this is a marathon, not a sprint. I said,
this is a marathon, not a sprint. And so how
do I know that? I know it because of men
like Donald Kejo, Stanton Friedman, and doctor j Allen Heinik.
And so what do all these men have in common
besides being dead? The answer is that they all fought
(06:44):
for disclosure. They all dreamed of a day when the
President of the United States or some other world leader
would say these four words. We are not alone. Martin
Luther King's junior, I have been to the mountaintops. Speech
was addressed to our great nation.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
I wish our community had a speech like that.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
I can imagine Stanton Friedman standing up and saying, and
He's allowed me to go up the mountain, and I've
looked over and I've seen the promised Land. I may
not get there with you, but I want you to
know tonight that we as a people will get to
the promised Land. Now, of course, Martin Luther King Junior
(07:27):
was talking about civil rights, and as important as that was,
what we're talking about is human rights. It is the
right of every human being to know that we are
not alone. Disclosure is our promise land, and we will
get there. I said, Disclosure is our promised land, and
we will get there. Always remember, good things come to
(07:51):
those who wait.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
And we've been waiting a long time. I think that's
an excellent message, Thank you very much, Dale. We've been
waiting for disclosure. I think Stephen Bassett is one of
the catalysts for disclosure with a big D. That's what
we all want. We want the president, the government to
officially say we are not alone. And let's hear from
(08:16):
Stephen Bassett right now.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Let me say this real quick, Darcy. I would have
added Steve's name, but he's not dead.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
Good, Yes, I'm still here.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Welcome, Welcome, Stephen. We're really happy to hear from you tonight.
How are you feeling.
Speaker 5 (08:37):
So good?
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Well, you know a lot of Americans probably are. But
you're fighting the good fight, man, You're fighting the good fight.
You're trying to get disclosure to happen. Let's not worry
too much about you know who the president is right now,
because I think this hearing is still going forward, and
there might even be one on the ninth teenth. I hear.
Speaker 5 (09:05):
It's been mentioned but not confirmed.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
So tell us what you're thinking about the thirteenth, what's uh,
what's your expectations right now?
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Okay, it will be the second proper hearing since nineteen
sixty eight. We went from nineteen sixty eight to two
thousand and two twenty three without a hearing on decision.
There were a couple of briefings back in twenty twenty
(09:42):
and so forth. These are not hearing it. The staff
came in greefed some members of Congress or even one
other in the side office. So this is the second
hearing since sixty eight, so that's like thirty two. It
was fifty five years, now sixty six years, so call
that progress of a sorts. But nevertheless, it's the second aaring.
It will be in the House, and it's part of
(10:04):
a extraordinary series of events that have clearly indicated that
the truth embargo technically is not technically the truth embargo
is collapsing, uh, and some degrees even speeding up. So
we are technically at the end of this this era,
(10:25):
this issue. But history has shown us over and over
again when it comes to major issuess like civil rights,
political rights, national rights, whatever, history is constantly interning. It's
a long process and there's so many things to get
out in this complicated world, and usually it delays things.
(10:47):
It really speeds up, and it's so we're no touption.
The discrictor movement has been hit with some sterios, constructions
or interruptions due to certains in the world. If you
don't like that, you don't want to get into this
business metritism, because it happens and then there's a good media,
(11:12):
as many of my colleagues have not seen. But this
is a very sing of there to have the theory
it will be the same people that held the first one,
same committee, same individuals, a different meeting cheer. Someone's purchased
this time would be Nancy May. Okay, the key people
(11:34):
and most of the members be a big, big practice,
the first of its kind started by Burchet are members
of the Republican Party, Great Conservative. There are several members
that will hopefully be there who are there's a Democratic
Party Garcia possibly Cortes and Raskin, or maybe not because
after all some there's been some interesting developments in the
(11:56):
last twenty four hours. There will be witnesses. We know
of two for sure, three likely. Alessando apparently is for sure,
so is Tim Galadett, Tim the Galadet, Admiral Galadet, and
lately I've heard about Christopher Mellon. That's a significant three witnesses.
(12:18):
None of them are are the level of Grush in
terms of impact. However, they have been involved in the
issue for a long time and clearly have much to say.
There's a four broader range of questions that could be
asked of these gentlemen then, say of Grush, for instance,
who really was confined to the limited experience though it
(12:40):
was very profound. The fourth witness, the mystery witness, and
this is interesting, is the individual anonymous, who gave to
a researcher I think in the UK information about documents
that he came across legally or illegally. It wasn't clear
(13:03):
the documents were clearly classified in regarding a program called
Immaculate Constellation. This was substantive of that. Schellenberger, who's a
pretty professional investigated reporter at Ross Colthart. We all know
(13:24):
they did the story. They put it out there, and
I don't think they would have done that unless they
had some confidence. But it gets more interesting because we
then later learned that there was some pressure being put
on by Nancy Mace not to hold a hearing, or
not to hold a hearing if that witness is going
(13:46):
to be there, or we just don't want that witness there.
Exactly where the pressure was coming from is not clear.
I've heard a mention of Senator Warner and in general
the d o D, but that's not confirmed. Not surprisingly, however,
if true, it's highly significant. Why because if this program
(14:10):
didn't exist, if this information was simply made up, the
DoD could care less and Mark Warner is not going
to waste any time trying to address it. And so
if in fact there was pushback to not bring that witness,
and if any of it came from the DoD, that's
about all you need to know that there was a
(14:30):
immaculate constellation program dealing with the issues that were mentioned.
Am I shocked at this? No, we don't know how
many unacknowledged special access programs there are. There could be
a thousand, we don't know, it could be five hundred,
Even fifty would be a very good number. And I'm
just referring to the UAP area, and so the uninationals
(14:54):
not A special access program is kind of the umbrella
term that you could use for the entire higher black
world on this particular issue. Everything that goes on, or
most of it goes on and have any substance, is
operating probably in an unadoledged special access program, the highest
basic level of protection I guess you could have. Though
(15:17):
it's even higher if that on a USAP is based
in a defense contractor a civilian entity as opposed to
say a government agency, because then it has even more
protection from outside interference or observation. Also, if it happens
to be under the Department of Energy, it has even
(15:39):
more legal protection. So they know where to bury the stuff,
they know how to deep to bury it, and it's
been very successful. However, the truth embargo is collapsing, and
so people are coming forward and you have this, don't
be surprised if you don't have more of this. Okay,
So if that witness shows up, this hearing is going
(15:59):
to go up a couple of notches.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Yeah, it's going to be a bit of a bombshell.
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Well, there'll be a bombshell. It'll be more significant, It'll
create a lot more controversy. Guard knows what will happen,
I think. So that's one point. The second point is
the interest apparently is very high, and so it's going
to be a tough get to get in that room.
It only has ninety five seats, and the room has
been confirmed. It is the same room. It is raver
in twenty one fifty four. It is slated for a
(16:26):
different time though, eleven thirty. So that's the particulars, all right,
And let's see it's the other developments that are related
to it are non trivial. Is that not too long
after the original hearing took place? I believe it was
(16:48):
not afterwards that Birchitt Mace or whatever they actually formed
the first UAP Congress caucus in the history of the Congress. Again,
if you wait long enough, good things happen. That caucus
has grown a number of people have joined it, including
Congressman Curtis of Utah, who, by the way, is just
(17:13):
moved up and won a senencee. And so I can
announce that a congressman from Utah was run for Congress
and won a sendence and he was in the UAP caucus.
I have put it out there in the ether, that
wouldn't it be cool? It's a Congressan Curtis Tender. Curtis
were to make the decision to decide to try to
(17:36):
start the first UAP caucus in the Senate, that would
be nice. It could happen, right, So there's a quick
kind of view of the situation that is setting towards
us on the thirteenth number.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Well, it's something to be positive about, man, and I
can I do sense a little bit of disparity in
your your voice, but we've got a crowd here to
hear you tonight. Everybody loves what you do for the
community that's here, so we all support you. We're really
happy that you're speaking on this issue of the hearings
(18:15):
that are imminent, and I just wanted to make sure
you feel the love, Bud. I'm looking forward to seeing
you next week. And can you speak to the November
nineteenth congressional hearing that's supposedly coming. Is there anything about
that that you can discuss?
Speaker 5 (18:36):
Actually, as Sir, a little as known, there was an
indication of all about Bill Brand wanted to hold a
hearing now when she says something like that, you got
to be careful because what she's held a couple of
meetings where she brought in Perfactory when he was head
(19:00):
of Arrow, and then she bought in recently the new
director of Arrow. And I think she and Ernst were
in another room, aside room, not really a briefing room,
call the staff hearing room, brother, and they asked some questions.
I don't think they raised their hand, took an oak
and need a case. And people are going hearing, hearing, hearing.
That's not a hearing, that's a briefing, all right, and
(19:20):
it's a public briefing. Andy plenty of private briefing. So
in terms of a Senate hearing, there has never been one,
all right, that is still the case. There has never
been a Senate hearing, even Bray, what's his face gray
and what's his face coming up? I do not believe
they took the oak. I believe that was a staff
briefing two members of the panel. So I don't like
(19:42):
calla hearing. The hearing that we must have must be
in the Senate, and that's something we'll we be talking
about later. That's my number one focus right now. And
so I have no idea if she's going to do anything.
And the election situation, of course, is throwing everything not
up in the air, but as a eventually shaken up
the at to sketch. All right, And so I assure
(20:05):
you there's a whole lot of people on the Hill
who now today have a slightly different how would you say,
list of to new lists than they did yesterday or
rather two days ago. Okay, So I do not know
what's going to happen, but I do know this. The
Senate is going to change hands on January third. Marco
(20:25):
Rubio will become the Chairman of the Senate Intel Committee.
And I don't I think he's still in the position.
I don't think he's given up for next year. Maybe
he is hard to say, Mitch McConnell, as far as
I know, we'll be the Senate majority leader, so he
may be about to hand that over to somebody else.
And whether that's going to happen before, well, I can't
(20:49):
happen until he is majority there, so as soon as
he made his hand it up whatever, So that's going
to happen. Okay, The House is still up in the air.
If the House also goes the House stage Republican, then
that's kind of relatively stable, and the committee chairs will
(21:10):
remain Republicans, so not much there, and so that's kind
of what we know. I mean, if I had to guess,
I would say that Jillibrand probably will not may not
have that hearing. However, and here's the most important thing
(21:32):
I'm going to say to you guys tonight, you nice ladies. Man,
I'm going to say this. I am going to make
the public case. And I've already lined up fourteen interviews,
literally fourteen interviews in the three or four days right
after that hearing, and I may end up doing twenty
and I'll continue to do interviews so the rest of
the year, and there's other things going on. And the
(21:56):
case that I'm going to be making is why it's
in the best district of the country. If the Senate
Intelligence Committee does what we've been wanting it to do
for a year or longer, and that is bring in
at least a dozen, possibly more, of the several scores
of witnesses that have made themselves available, mostly privately but
(22:16):
some publicly ready to testify tomorrow, very important witnesses that
they can choose the strongest front thus creating a hearing
of very great substance. Okay, so no disrespect to the
House hearings. I'm talking about fifteen twenty witnesses. I'm talking
about a full week of hearings in front of one
(22:36):
of the most important committees, if not the most important,
in Congress, watched by millions of people around the world.
I'm going to be making a case that that needs
to get done before the new Congress takes over on
January the third, or at minimum before the new president
takes over. Why because the new president of the United
(22:59):
States is going to be facing a huge array of
very significant problems, to say the least, all right, as
well as a good deal of political chaos, a good
deal of domestic issues and so forth. It's just a
massive challenge. And to have the disclosure thing just kind
(23:20):
of still hanging in the air trying to get resolved,
and all the interest in that will have you is
not going to make it easier. So if we can
get that hearing in front of the Senate Intel Committee,
then we can have disclosure from the president who's going
out the door not going to be president again ever,
and get disclosure done before the new president takes over,
(23:42):
and thus we will already be in the post disclosure world.
People have already adjusted to that already, you know, had
some time to think about it, and thus it will
be a far easier matter for the next administration to
address than if we just shove this thing into the
It's just one more extraordinary problem to deal with. That's
(24:05):
the case I'm going to be making vigorously for the
next two months.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Well, one can only hope that it goes that way.
And look, we're all rooting for you. We really want
disclosure to happen as soon as possible. Don't push it
to twenty twenty five. You know, there's obviously all kinds
of issues that have to be dealt with by this
new president and the people around him. You know, shout
(24:32):
out to Neanderthal. I think me and Drwthal I think
people are kind of excited about rfk's decision to try
and change the FDA. And you know how all this
Food and Drug Administration law has been empowering the big
(24:54):
pharma and empowering the food corporations that have been like
making the United States unhealthy and destabilizing the population with
basically corporate greed decisions. You know, I think there's some
really interesting things that could happen with Elon Musk. But
(25:16):
if he's really planning to come in and say, Okay,
what's your job here and wants to fire about half
of Congress or something like that, that could be detrimental
to any progress with this subject. Reason being what if
(25:37):
half the people that are for disclosure and are pushing
that sort of agenda are on the chopping block, you know,
then that just creates a full sea change with regards
to this momentum that we've been working on for the
past you know, few years. So one can only hope
(25:59):
that goes the way that you're talking about. We're behind you,
we're with you, And I think, you know, people are
nervous about the Gillibrand version of the hearing that may
happen because she is Arrow, you know, and people would think, Okay,
(26:20):
if we make any progress with the November thirteenth hearing,
maybe the plan is for the Arrow hearing to come
in and say nothing to see here, this is all bs.
These whistleblowers are not credible whatever, you know, like, we
have no idea what's going to happen for the November
nineteenth hearing, but I think that is a sentiment that
(26:42):
some people in the community have about it, and we
would hope that it's not going to go that way.
Maybe maybe she'll say, hey, you know, there is something
here and we really need to rally the troops and
let's go let's do disclosure. Who knows, well, it'll be
a really interesting next few weeks, to say the least.
(27:05):
But we have some speakers. We have Sarah that's been
brought up. We have ny UAP discussion, which is my
friend Andy Marciel He technically is he's the co host,
but he raised his hand second. So let's go with
Sarah first and then we'll go to Andy to ask
you some very pointed questions and your thoughts. Thank you,
(27:29):
Steven Sure.
Speaker 5 (27:32):
Hey, Darcy, Hey, Stephen. I just wanted to say that,
like Ela Musk cannot remove senators or congressmen from their
elected positions. Just wanted to clarify on that.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Well, what is that all about? Like, can somebody fully
explain what his plan is in terms of like reviewing
people that work for the government with Trump's administration.
Speaker 5 (27:58):
I can answer that, Okay, there are not the Congress,
but there are we have civil servants that work within
our government, okay, under civil service laws, and then there
is a very substantial number of appointees. Obviously all of
appointees can be reviewed and their status could be changed
(28:24):
with a new administration. It frequently happens. All right, Then
there are people that are working in the government that
are not appointees, but they're not civil service, and so
there is there is potential for how would you say,
having a substantial change of personnel with respect to civil service.
(28:46):
It's trickier. Some rules might have to be changed, some
laws might have to be changed, and exactly you just
can't come in and throw civil service out the door.
But it doesn't mean it's not possible. And I think
that he is referring to some civil servants as well
as non civil servants, civilian employees of the government. That
(29:10):
is what he's talking about.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Okay, so it's not Congressman or anything like that. I
completely read that wrong. Yeah, it's all right, Okay, good, Well,
I don't know, let's see how that turns out. That'll
be in So would there need to be an executive
order signed to make that sort of swift action come
into play? After you know, January third.
Speaker 5 (29:34):
Well, first of all, I want to let Sarah was speaking,
so I'm prepared to defer back to her. I don't
want to cut her off. But when it comes to
civil presidential directives, God knows, it is very complicated what
the president could do by directive. I mean one could
probably take a PhD course in it. I really don't know.
(29:56):
Usually we find out what the power of presidential directive
is when a presidential directive gets issued, and then we go, oh,
you can do that. Okay, well there you go. So
I again, were we are entering some uncharted waters here?
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (30:13):
Uh, there is storms on the horizon, the seas are rising,
and so I think mostly I recommend, you know, buckling up,
you know, pull the oars in and just hang on,
because it's very hard to know exactly what's about to
happen in six months.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Let's hope for peace. Uh, Sarah, I think dropped down. Andy,
you have a question.
Speaker 6 (30:40):
Yeah, it's thank Steve.
Speaker 5 (30:41):
How are you thinking for joining us? All right? The
two part question.
Speaker 6 (30:47):
Do you have any concerns regarding the matter which this
has been unraveling, and if so, what do you feel
the resolution for those Cristos would be?
Speaker 5 (30:55):
What you say this is unrattling, could you be more specific?
Speaker 6 (31:00):
So we I mean been told for god knows how
many years that this isn't real and now it's coming
out and oh like I mean just like like like
pushing the the ball down the.
Speaker 5 (31:11):
Hill and is not no stopping it?
Speaker 6 (31:13):
So like right, you know, like, does does that concern
you in any way that after all that and now
the way it's been unraveling, you know sure that there
may be something of concern.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
I am going to remain concerned until right up until
the moment a president of the United States steps out
in the East Room and says, it's clear from what
we've just been learning about over the last week or
so that we are definitely not alone. And then how
much further that president wants to go It mains to
be seen, but we are not alone or there is
(31:47):
no union presence, our next interrested presidence. The moment those
words come out of that president's mouth, we have had
Capital D disclosure, and the biggest paradigm shift in history
takes place. So until that happens, believe on plenty concern.
Am I upset that it's taken seven years since Roswell, No,
(32:08):
I can't be upset because there are numerous major activist
movements of the twentieth century going to bad to less
und in twenty five years or or longer, that have
taken every bit that long. Getting changes of this magnitude,
particularly when it involves changing government positions or political philosophies
(32:29):
and so forth, is extremely difficult. I wish it was easier.
I wish we could just go lay out of common
sense presentation of what's going on, and the people in
power will go, oh, of course, we should do it
that way, and it's what TOSENTI way it works. So
we're seventy seven years in given the magnitude of the issue,
the importance of it, the national security implications, of course
(32:52):
it's taken that long. Wouldn't have taken that long if
there wasn't a nuclear armswat also underway that has gotten
worse most of the left US seven years, but then
kind of got better for a while, and now it
was getting worse again. Yeah, I'm sure it would have
taken a lot less longer. We could have had disclosure,
but that's not the way it was. In terms of
the final years of it. I am well, I'm proud
(33:15):
of a lot of people. I'm proud of the people
who came forward in twenty seventeen. It wasn't like she
that was easy. There's no risks to them, not at all.
They took a tremendous risk, probably sacrificed a lot of
post retirement income as well as just comfortability. But they
(33:36):
came forward, and very slowly but surely, the media, which
has always been there, started to get even more serious
about the issue. Over the next couple of years, we
slowly started, we slowly started seeing the stigma fall away,
as measured particularly by the social media, because in that
starting in seventeen and going eighteen seventeen going forward, you
(33:58):
could just see the stigma falling away on social media
postings as well as the news articles, of which I
tracked extensively. All right, after a couple of years, it
was almost gone. There's not much left. That was very significant,
and we saw a lot more media engagement and good articles.
We then we saw the beginning of the engagement of
(34:20):
the United States Congress in a way far exceeding anything
in the past. Hearings nothing like it, I say, hearings,
private briefings, okay, open statements, discussions. We saw the first
legislation in the history of the issue in twenty twenty,
signed by the President December twenty twenty, and we kept
three more Trant's legislation. So all of this has been
(34:42):
totally appropriate. It hasn't been taken too long, right. I mean,
there are bills they've been trying to pass for decades
and the Congress can't pass the damn bill. There has
been some disruption, but when you consider how disrupted the
social media can be, it hasn't been that bad. And
there's been some craziness it turns up and some trolling
(35:03):
and what have you. But overall it has not been
that bad. I've seen worse than a lot of other issues.
So that has moved forward, all right. And then as
we got closer to the end all right, which is
exactly like the football analogy. You charge up the field,
you're moving along, you get on the two yard line,
and all of a sudden, the defense becomes a love
(35:26):
because that's what that's the next play is the touchdown came?
Why touchdown? And so as we got closer to the
end zone, things got tougher and resistance increased. This was
not surprising the form of it hasn't been awful. Some
of it's been ridiculous, but it's all been logical. In
(35:47):
other words, the people are pushing back, we knew why
they were doing it. In some cases we knew where
they were. There were some people caught up in all
of this that it got harmed in a sense. Brush
took some hits death threats, things like that Zando's had
death threats. Kirkpatrick got a lot of grief, a lot
of problems. His life was not made easy, and so forth.
Not surprising about.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
That, you're talking about like other pushback coming from like
Mike Turner and the other mic.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
Well, I mean Turner Rogers push back against the UAP bill,
Kirkpatrick pushback against Grush, and then the social media jumped
all over Kirkpatrick. Uh and then the DoD forced them
to do a bogus study called aero study. But all
of these things fall under the heading of, you know,
not unsurprising the new verse. All right, this is not
(36:37):
a country where if you're really bugging somebody, you just
disappear or start flying out of you know, the four
story windows of your apartments. We don't take people out
behind buildings and shoot them in the back of the head,
at least not now. And so we've had what I
consider a relatively democratic process. It's been increasingly led by
more and more members of our own Congress. And one
(36:59):
of the reasons, and I would say that on this
issue we've had more progress than many other key issues.
Speaker 7 (37:09):
There am forget it all right, and there's still not results.
Why because they're they're part of the red blue in
look battle. Everybody taking position the other side of can't
have accept it. But this issue is probably the most
(37:29):
non part of the ticulos in the world, and everybody
acknowledges that, both of us in the right, it's just
very difficult to make this a part.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
Of the things. And so as a result he.
Speaker 7 (37:43):
Has mose, wow, once we've got to the end, you're
the end, uh, in a very non partisan way. In fact,
he is the only non parts of the thing happening
that I can pointed.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
It's a breast of fresh air.
Speaker 7 (37:55):
Unfortunately, of course, these situations are incredibly a sense in
so right now hyper partisans that is pretty much fullus
shadow and everything. Whatever the election will be ultimately over
to the top of hits. Everybody who won will look one.
Everybody be lost, it's wall and although he needs to
run a campaign or raise another million bucks for a
(38:18):
couple of years, and so the opportunity to then get
back to this issue we're getting into political you know,
the issues of partnership will fill it up common and
that's why I'm going to be trying to.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
So far to get a non partisan full.
Speaker 7 (38:36):
Hearing the nature wis is including the new lear weapons
shut down, which because you do want to septified for
forty five years, but as since open the door as
didn't happen for the current city president, the busy miss Barbo.
And so this is the posts that goes the world
for next president will have a month orderly and structured
(39:01):
situation to address and a paradigm kick of almost unimaginable.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
We need we need Robert Salas for those nuclear shutdowns.
We need his testimony in Congress.
Speaker 7 (39:17):
I actually spoke to them more, but he's very frustrated
that basically nobody wants to hear him and take the testimony. Okay,
I know, Bob well uh one of them Democrat not
too long ago, being basic Gali.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
Are in fact still fine healthy even another very week.
Speaker 7 (39:42):
There are other witnesses of first all first bands that
set down, they're.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
Also available, uh and so, but they've.
Speaker 7 (39:51):
Never been able to set However, in two thousand and
ten they came born, gave a relative of lot and
the stress conference in the national press and they distribute
affidated from I think twelve or thirteen assigned aff The
Davids testify to exactly what they saw that during each
other now and they handed it out through all the media,
(40:15):
and the media took them and went after their office
and they basically not and Washington quote embarrassed itself by
writing a article about this drust office and they made
it a shrill Yeah.
Speaker 3 (40:30):
That was two thousand and ten.
Speaker 7 (40:32):
If I hasn't happenings I grabbed about fifty years old
and recently I had placed in the hands of hit
office of Jade Bill copies of both affligated to the
cover letters, and then I nailed a second set which specific.
Speaker 3 (40:46):
Individuals because fault.
Speaker 7 (40:48):
This is part of my effort to see if we
can get Boss Alice A. David sobel at least in
front of the hearing on the thirteenth, I'm going to.
Speaker 3 (40:57):
Be looking into that. It could happen.
Speaker 7 (41:00):
But then there is the Senate hearing down the law
necessarily what Hilo brand is doing. That's something that we
each hearing. We mean will not be Gibber brand sharing.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
It will be Warner sharing, never love. So this is
still happening. And let me be clear if.
Speaker 7 (41:16):
They're lucky, luous or I'm gonna get every chance that
I can give them.
Speaker 3 (41:22):
But it's interesting. Boss House is interviewed by Arrow. You
gave him a full interview.
Speaker 7 (41:28):
Nothing okay, now here is why The reason that the
most important WU is a lot since going back to
the picture. If anything, I have never had a hearing
before pop is because the TPU.
Speaker 3 (41:46):
There're even better is production. You think it's rushed terrible?
Speaker 7 (41:51):
You have you haven't seen anything until box Satas sits
down at a hearing the table Pixy out and details
the fine and the reason why they're soles we've been
tucking about. First hand writes to the shutting down of
all of the nuclear weapons at various text of flights
at DM place, which is impossible to do while craft
(42:14):
a craft is hovering over the base, not a thousand
feet up. They's pubbling wife over the gates of the security.
People are running in circles. They don't know what to do,
calling down to the commanders down in the silence, I.
Speaker 5 (42:29):
Mean, what do we do? What do we do?
Speaker 3 (42:31):
And then the missiles protam. Now the US government in
that case is very concerned about that.
Speaker 5 (42:37):
I don't think it's the origat and I'm sure it's.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
Like apple Puss. And then it happened again. And then
it happened again, and they.
Speaker 7 (42:44):
Probably learned for the intel community, did it happened in
the Soviet Union?
Speaker 5 (42:49):
And so what they know is the myth these entities
are willing to come down, hang over a base and
shut down missiles, some of them when they're taken that
as an existential to the human race, or at least
to the United States. Others would take it in other ways.
But whatever, it's certainly a huge embarrassment to the government
(43:09):
if it were generally known and accepted that that happened
and can happen. And so what did they do? And
going all the way back to the mid sixties, they
had only three choices. One kill them, kill them all
they all start having, you know, do buggy accidents and
you know, falling off cruise ships or whatever the hell,
(43:31):
or destroy their reputations. In other words, all these witnesses
are destroyed their reputations, or ignore them. The first two
options were simply not possible because you start doing that
to a respected sack base officers in the Strategic Air
Command and before you know it, you have a mutiny
(43:52):
going on in the entire Strategic Air Command. So they
couldn't do those. But what they did is we're going
to ignore them. We're going to ten they don't exist.
We're not going to acknowledge them, they're not going to
take questions about them. And if we ignore them, the
media will ignore them, all right. And that's exactly what
they did, and the media, to its ultimate shame, basically
(44:13):
went along with them. If they're not even paying attention
to them, how important could they be? And then Hastings
wrote a book called UFOs and Newkes which laid it
all out. They ignored it. Bob Sallis wrote three books
that laid it out. They ignored it. There was an
excellent documentary called UFOs of Nukes or something like that.
Speaker 8 (44:30):
They ignored it. They started getting news articles. I've got
a bunch of news articles. Could I could put them
up on my site tomorrow? Send it out as an
email in which the press actually wrote about this.
Speaker 5 (44:42):
They ignored it. They are the most important witnesses on
this planet and that is why they have never had
a chance to testify. And in all of this mediu right,
which really gets underway when Brush to our surprise, I
didn't know he was coming. When he turns up on
June the fifth, you know, he'd been talking to Coulthart
(45:03):
and wooman thaland came for a while, but we didn't
know that it was well kept secret, and it turns
up there he is. From that moment on right, I
wrapped my brain and how can we get these witnesses
in play?
Speaker 9 (45:14):
Well, they did make contact with Arrow and Aro did
interview them, but as we learned later, Kirkpatrick was in
a situation where he couldn't he couldn't deal with this.
Speaker 5 (45:26):
He was screwed. He knew it. He couldn't go forread,
he couldn't go back where he was simply has sit
and dump and so essentially he turned on Crush. They
interviewed Solas and totally did nothing. Okay, probably because he
knew that there was going to be pushback from the
DoD and he realized that he wanted to be on
the right side. So he went over to the dark side.
They let him quit, they let him get a nice job,
(45:48):
and on the way out the door, they said, you
got to sign this completely focused report. And so that's
a general picture what's going on. But I'm not that
unhappy about it, because one, we're still in America and
almost most of this that's going on, whether we like
it or not, we know about it. It's being covered
in the New York Times, right, it's on the it's
(46:10):
on the Internet, it's being talked about on Twitter spaces
or x spaces, Okay, and so it's it's there, and
it's and that way. It's not going to go away.
It's going to get resolved. If it's bumpy, if it's difficult, hey,
that's the that's the way it is. Right. This ship
is not easy. But ultimately the truth embargo is cooked.
(46:31):
That is not my concern. If somebody were to ask me, now,
is there going to be disclosure? It's inevitable. Okay. Is
the truth and bargo going to end? It is inevitable,
and it's soon. Then what's your problem, Steve? Here is
my problem. As I've said many times, my concern is
not whether the truth embargo is going to end. It's
(46:55):
my concern that it's not going to end before we
have a nuclear war, because if we have a nuclear war,
getting the truth out about the extraterrustrial presence will be
the least of our concern. As I've said repeatedly, the
risk of nuclear war is the highest it has ever
been and it's probably not getting any better anytimes.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
Well, that's a scary thought, you know. It's it kind
of harkens back to that Dead Zone movie with Christopher
Walkin based off the Stephen King book. We're thinking Martin Sheen,
crazy president with the finger on the button here. But
let's hope he makes the deal. He needs to make
(47:39):
a deal, you know, he's just got the deals. He'll
go to Putin, He'll go to Jeep Bing, He'll make
a deal, everybody will win whatever whatever.
Speaker 5 (47:49):
I want to say that like, the situation is extremely
dangerous right now. And I mean I don't post the
media on this much. Yeah, I do post some, but
I watched the media and if you just go through
and follow the media over the last five years on
(48:10):
this subject, you can literally see us walking right there
and increasingly more and more high level people intellectuals and
analysts with credentials are speaking out and saying, guys, we
are really close and so and so. Okay, So the
(48:31):
second question is, okay, so why is disclosure happened to
happen first? Right? Simply because if you have a nuclear
wor you won't happen and you won't have your precious disclosure, Steve,
And that just kisses you off. No, that's not the reason.
The reason is simple. Disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence is
of a magnitude so significant, so global, and so nonpartisan,
(48:54):
that if we can get it done, there will be
a much greater possibility that we can then address some
of the problems that are creating this existential threat, this
nuclear threat. We can we can suddenly start talking countries,
could start negotiating things to start happening that are currently
not happening now, because the paradigm shift of that magnitude
(49:16):
has many effects, many changes, And that's the only thing
I see. I don't see anything else that could even
remotely change this course. Okay, And so for me, it's
literally existential that we have disclosure before we have a
nuclear war. And while I have watched all the Walking
(49:37):
Dead episodes and become very expert on how to deal
with a book composed apocalyptic world. I've watched the movies.
I've seen them all. They're pour out, They're constantly coming out.
We love to watch them. You know, it's you know,
it's a it's Fury, Fury and uh, you know those
(49:58):
movies in Australia, Mad Accidental. I'll post apocalyptic episodes showing
us what it's going to be like, and we love them.
Why because we think it's a damn good possibility. That's
exactly what's going to happen. And so for me, it
is truly existential. It doesn't get bigger than this. And
trying to make that connection to people, one Twitter space
(50:19):
at a time, one post podcast at a time, is
not easy. There are no intellectuals out there writing for
the Washington Post or giving lectures at Harvard or anywhere
else that are talking like this. They simply can't do
it right. It's et can't talk about that. And then
connecting into nuclear war, Oh, that gets to be radical.
I don't want to lose my tenure. Blah blah blah
(50:42):
blah blah. Nobody is talking about this, and so fine,
I'll talk about it. If I just need bigger platforms, right,
I'd like, you know, the New York Times. The Washington
Post doesn't call me anymore because I kept telling them
the truth and it was driving them nuts. All Right, CNN,
all this sort of stuff I can't get on, but
I can get on podcasts, goodter spaces, and by god,
that's what I'm going to do. It comes down to this,
(51:05):
we either get disclosure or a nuclear war is any
for us like a freight train. I don't have any kids,
I don't even have a pet, and so ultimately ain't
gonna make much difference in my life. But for people
that have families and pets, they really need to think
about this very hard.
Speaker 2 (51:24):
Yeah, Steve, we've got about three minutes before I go
off of KGr but we're still going to stay on
the space and continue with an after show for KGRRA,
which is for their subscribers. But we've probably got a
couple of people that have questions here. I'll let one
(51:44):
question go and then maybe a quick answer before where
our time is up?
Speaker 5 (51:50):
So who's stain?
Speaker 2 (51:52):
Who's go for it? Dale?
Speaker 5 (51:59):
Dale?
Speaker 4 (52:00):
You there, I'm here, I'm here. I hit the button
and it didn't unmute me. I had a few questions,
but I'll say something for later. You mentioned Robert Hastings.
What about Mario Woods. I mean, he has a remarkable story.
I find him, he's a friend of mine. I find
him very credible. He went to Arrow as well. You know,
(52:23):
I saw the invitation itself. They talked to him on
the phone. But it's the same deal, you know. That's
why when it comes to Gillibrand, I'm just like, I
don't know what to think. I used to think she
was our champion, but then she disappeared and now she's
spoken her head back up again, and so I don't
know what to make of Jillibrand. I know Errow was
her baby, But what about people like Mario Woods?
Speaker 5 (52:46):
What do you think about that?
Speaker 10 (52:47):
Steve Well, I mean it's there are a lot of witnesses,
and there are various stories and so forth, and uh,
it's not this one versus that one.
Speaker 5 (52:59):
But where my focus is the nuclear shutdowns? All right,
that's the key focus. If you can't get a nuclear
a command I'm sorry, if you can't get a sack
based command officer who is working a nuclear nuclear weaponsite,
(53:21):
who is so highly regarded and cleared that he has
been given the right to turn a key along with
his associate inside that silo and launch eighteen nuclear missiles
that will obliterate eighteen cities in another country. If you
can't trust that person's testimony, whose can you trust? And
(53:42):
so I'm focusing on them, But I assure you there
is a there's probably several thousand potential witnesses for eventual
apearings that will go on well after disclosure. They'll go
on for months and months. If not you, I assure
you it'll be hearing city.
Speaker 7 (54:02):
Right.
Speaker 5 (54:02):
There are probably several thousand witnesses that would blow most
people's minds that could come forward and may eventually come
forward on this issue. All right, This, this is this
program and this and this whole engagement of the et
issue by the government seventy seven years on. They spent billions,
if not a trillion or more dollars on it, maybe
trillions on it. Right, they spend billions on our underground facilities.
(54:25):
And so we're talking about something huge, right, And so
you know, that's that's the best I can say. I
can't I can't get into the details of all of
these there's too many, right, But I want all of
the legitimate witnesses eventually to be able to testify, and
(54:47):
I think that's that's a good possibility. But most of
the ones that end up testifying, and this includes contactees,
we'll not get that considering until after this flosure.
Speaker 2 (55:02):
All right, we got to go to break. We gotta
go break. Let me just play the outro here for
KGr A listeners, head over to Twitter spaces every week.
We'd love to hear from you, jump up, ask questions
from our guests, all that stuff. Thanks for tuning in,
and I will play the outro.
Speaker 1 (55:23):
Vigrip two hundred years ago, two thousand years ago.
Speaker 2 (55:34):
This isn't going to work, but she's picking up a
massive object in this video.
Speaker 1 (55:40):
Ships that might be closed. I can sense them in
my vicinity, So I guess I'm just very tuned in.
Speaker 2 (55:45):
Bulkan Head Honcho walks out ear reveal. Yeah, the crowd goes,
oh my God. Was to protect the secrets from the
Air Force that were not out there in public. So
Two hundred years ago, two thousand years ago. This isn't
going to work.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
She's picking up a massive object in this video.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Ships that might be closed. I can sense them in
my vicinity, So I guess I'm just very tuned.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
In falk in head. Honcho walks out ear reveal. Yeah,
the crowd goes, oh, my God. Was to protect the
secrets from the Air Force that were not out there
in public. So welcome back to last night on UFO Twitter.
(00:50):
We're on you know, episode seven, I believe. So we're
getting up there, we're going live to kg r A.
We're doing it. And tonight's guest is none other than
UAP UFO disclosure activist Stephen Bassett, who has been running
(01:11):
New Paradigm Research Group for many years now, a disciple
of John E. Mac the famous Harvard professor that Debunker's
kind of claimed he went native with the UFO community,
but really he took these experiencers very seriously and he
(01:33):
thought there's a real phenomenon here. Bassett has been an
advocate for disclosure in the Washington you know, the capital
here Hill environment for a long time now. He's very
active in the activist movement and he's working with people
(01:57):
behind the scenes on Capitol Hill, trying to push for
UAP legislature to go through, and helping in any way possible.
And I think he's a really great person to have
on the show because now that we've just gotten through
the actual election results, we've got Donald Trump as the
(02:21):
forty seventh president of the United States. We actually have
this new congressional hearing happening on November thirteenth in Washington,
d C. With three very interesting new whistleblowers or just
(02:43):
people giving testimony on Capitol Hill at these congressional hearings.
I believe it's being held and chaired by Nancy Mace.
I am bringing in the Twitter folks from the Twitter
universe now, and I would like to start off the show.
(03:04):
We always start off the show with some positivity, because look,
the world's going through a whole bunch of negativity right now.
Let's just be honest. Not everybody's going to be happy
about the presidential election results. Not everybody is happy in
Eastern Europe right now with the war that's going on,
(03:27):
or in the Middle East with Israel and what's going
on between Lebanon and you know, everybody in the Middle
East that Palestinian sort of conflict zone. So in the
United States, there are people that are unhappy, in Canada everywhere.
(03:47):
So let's just try and start off the show with
something positive provided by Pastor Dale, a friend of mine,
and then we're going to kick right into high gear
with Stephen Bassett.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Well, I want to start off by welcoming Steve to
the space. It's awesome to have you with us. We've
all heard the saying good things come to those who wait,
but what does that really mean? Better? Yet, what does
it look like in the real world. You know, some
things can't be rushed. If you've ever made a roast
where the meat just melted in your mouth, then you've
(04:24):
mastered patience. If you rush the process, the meat will
come out tough and hard to chew, and it will
not taste nearly as good. It's a reminder that good
things come.
Speaker 5 (04:35):
To those who wait.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
Another example of the importance of patients is found in
an old story I've heard, and I make no promises
about whether it is accurate, but it is ultimately about
the value of patience, and so that's why I'm going.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
To share it with you.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
The story begins with a boy finding a bird in
a nest. As he looks inside the nest, he notices
a single bird egg in it. As he looks closer,
he sees that the little bird is struggling to get out.
He notices a small crack in the egg, but the
little bird appears to be getting nowhere. Concerned, the boy
(05:13):
decides to give the struggling little bird some help, and
so he breaks the eggshell open and takes a little
bird out of its prison.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
What the little boy.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Didn't know is that he had just handicapped that little
bird for life. The little bird will never be able
to fly because his wings needed the struggle of fighting
its way out of the eggshell to strengthen them, but
now they will be deformed.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
For the rest of the bird's life.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
There's a lesson for all of us in that story,
and the lesson is everything in its time. You see,
when we try to rush things that usually doesn't end well. Remember,
good things come to those who wait, as most of
us know. Next Wednesday, November thirteenth, the house will behold
(06:00):
hearing on UAPs. I've heard that there will be at
least three whistleblowers in the hearing. The last hearing had
three whistleblowers, and their testimony was amazing, especially David Greshes.
Many people thought that was disclosure, and yet here we
are with another hearing. I'm asking everyone to temper their
(06:21):
expectations because this is a marathon, not a sprint. I said,
this is a marathon, not a sprint. And so how
do I know that? I know it because of men
like Donald Kejo, Stanton Friedman, and doctor j Allen Heinik.
And so what do all these men have in common
besides being dead? The answer is that they all fought
(06:44):
for disclosure. They all dreamed of a day when the
President of the United States or some other world leader
would say these four words. We are not alone. Martin
Luther King's junior, I have been to the mountaintops. Speech
was addressed to our great nation.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
I wish our community had a speech like that.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
I can imagine Stanton Friedman standing up and saying, and
He's allowed me to go up the mountain, and I've
looked over and I've seen the promised Land. I may
not get there with you, but I want you to
know tonight that we as a people will get to
the promised Land. Now, of course, Martin Luther King Junior
(07:27):
was talking about civil rights, and as important as that was,
what we're talking about is human rights. It is the
right of every human being to know that we are
not alone. Disclosure is our promise land, and we will
get there. I said, Disclosure is our promised land, and
we will get there. Always remember, good things come to
(07:51):
those who wait.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
And we've been waiting a long time. I think that's
an excellent message, Thank you very much, Dale. We've been
waiting for disclosure. I think Stephen Bassett is one of
the catalysts for disclosure with a big D. That's what
we all want. We want the president, the government to
officially say we are not alone. And let's hear from
(08:16):
Stephen Bassett right now.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Let me say this real quick, Darcy. I would have
added Steve's name, but he's not dead.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
Good, Yes, I'm still here.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Welcome, Welcome, Stephen. We're really happy to hear from you tonight.
How are you feeling.
Speaker 5 (08:37):
So good?
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Well, you know a lot of Americans probably are. But
you're fighting the good fight, man, You're fighting the good fight.
You're trying to get disclosure to happen. Let's not worry
too much about you know who the president is right now,
because I think this hearing is still going forward, and
there might even be one on the ninth teenth. I hear.
Speaker 5 (09:05):
It's been mentioned but not confirmed.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
So tell us what you're thinking about the thirteenth, what's uh,
what's your expectations right now?
Speaker 5 (09:20):
Okay, it will be the second proper hearing since nineteen
sixty eight. We went from nineteen sixty eight to two
thousand and two twenty three without a hearing on decision.
There were a couple of briefings back in twenty twenty
(09:42):
and so forth. These are not hearing it. The staff
came in greefed some members of Congress or even one
other in the side office. So this is the second
hearing since sixty eight, so that's like thirty two. It
was fifty five years, now sixty six years, so call
that progress of a sorts. But nevertheless, it's the second aaring.
It will be in the House, and it's part of
(10:04):
a extraordinary series of events that have clearly indicated that
the truth embargo technically is not technically the truth embargo
is collapsing, uh, and some degrees even speeding up. So
we are technically at the end of this this era,
(10:25):
this issue. But history has shown us over and over
again when it comes to major issuess like civil rights,
political rights, national rights, whatever, history is constantly interning. It's
a long process and there's so many things to get
out in this complicated world, and usually it delays things.
(10:47):
It really speeds up, and it's so we're no touption.
The discrictor movement has been hit with some sterios, constructions
or interruptions due to certains in the world. If you
don't like that, you don't want to get into this
business metritism, because it happens and then there's a good media,
(11:12):
as many of my colleagues have not seen. But this
is a very sing of there to have the theory
it will be the same people that held the first one,
same committee, same individuals, a different meeting cheer. Someone's purchased
this time would be Nancy May. Okay, the key people
(11:34):
and most of the members be a big, big practice,
the first of its kind started by Burchet are members
of the Republican Party, Great Conservative. There are several members
that will hopefully be there who are there's a Democratic
Party Garcia possibly Cortes and Raskin, or maybe not because
after all some there's been some interesting developments in the
(11:56):
last twenty four hours. There will be witnesses. We know
of two for sure, three likely. Alessando apparently is for sure,
so is Tim Galadett, Tim the Galadet, Admiral Galadet, and
lately I've heard about Christopher Mellon. That's a significant three witnesses.
(12:18):
None of them are are the level of Grush in
terms of impact. However, they have been involved in the
issue for a long time and clearly have much to say.
There's a four broader range of questions that could be
asked of these gentlemen then, say of Grush, for instance,
who really was confined to the limited experience though it
(12:40):
was very profound. The fourth witness, the mystery witness, and
this is interesting, is the individual anonymous, who gave to
a researcher I think in the UK information about documents
that he came across legally or illegally. It wasn't clear
(13:03):
the documents were clearly classified in regarding a program called
Immaculate Constellation. This was substantive of that. Schellenberger, who's a
pretty professional investigated reporter at Ross Colthart. We all know
(13:24):
they did the story. They put it out there, and
I don't think they would have done that unless they
had some confidence. But it gets more interesting because we
then later learned that there was some pressure being put
on by Nancy Mace not to hold a hearing, or
not to hold a hearing if that witness is going
(13:46):
to be there, or we just don't want that witness there.
Exactly where the pressure was coming from is not clear.
I've heard a mention of Senator Warner and in general
the d o D, but that's not confirmed. Not surprisingly, however,
if true, it's highly significant. Why because if this program
(14:10):
didn't exist, if this information was simply made up, the
DoD could care less and Mark Warner is not going
to waste any time trying to address it. And so
if in fact there was pushback to not bring that witness,
and if any of it came from the DoD, that's
about all you need to know that there was a
(14:30):
immaculate constellation program dealing with the issues that were mentioned.
Am I shocked at this? No, we don't know how
many unacknowledged special access programs there are. There could be
a thousand, we don't know, it could be five hundred,
Even fifty would be a very good number. And I'm
just referring to the UAP area, and so the uninationals
(14:54):
not A special access program is kind of the umbrella
term that you could use for the entire higher black
world on this particular issue. Everything that goes on, or
most of it goes on and have any substance, is
operating probably in an unadoledged special access program, the highest
basic level of protection I guess you could have. Though
(15:17):
it's even higher if that on a USAP is based
in a defense contractor a civilian entity as opposed to
say a government agency, because then it has even more
protection from outside interference or observation. Also, if it happens
to be under the Department of Energy, it has even
(15:39):
more legal protection. So they know where to bury the stuff,
they know how to deep to bury it, and it's
been very successful. However, the truth embargo is collapsing, and
so people are coming forward and you have this, don't
be surprised if you don't have more of this. Okay,
So if that witness shows up, this hearing is going
(15:59):
to go up a couple of notches.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Yeah, it's going to be a bit of a bombshell.
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Well, there'll be a bombshell. It'll be more significant, It'll
create a lot more controversy. Guard knows what will happen,
I think. So that's one point. The second point is
the interest apparently is very high, and so it's going
to be a tough get to get in that room.
It only has ninety five seats, and the room has
been confirmed. It is the same room. It is raver
in twenty one fifty four. It is slated for a
(16:26):
different time though, eleven thirty. So that's the particulars, all right,
And let's see it's the other developments that are related
to it are non trivial. Is that not too long
after the original hearing took place? I believe it was
(16:48):
not afterwards that Birchitt Mace or whatever they actually formed
the first UAP Congress caucus in the history of the Congress. Again,
if you wait long enough, good things happen. That caucus
has grown a number of people have joined it, including
Congressman Curtis of Utah, who, by the way, is just
(17:13):
moved up and won a senencee. And so I can
announce that a congressman from Utah was run for Congress
and won a sendence and he was in the UAP caucus.
I have put it out there in the ether, that
wouldn't it be cool? It's a Congressan Curtis Tender. Curtis
were to make the decision to decide to try to
(17:36):
start the first UAP caucus in the Senate, that would
be nice. It could happen, right, So there's a quick
kind of view of the situation that is setting towards
us on the thirteenth number.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Well, it's something to be positive about, man, and I
can I do sense a little bit of disparity in
your your voice, but we've got a crowd here to
hear you tonight. Everybody loves what you do for the
community that's here, so we all support you. We're really
happy that you're speaking on this issue of the hearings
(18:15):
that are imminent, and I just wanted to make sure
you feel the love, Bud. I'm looking forward to seeing
you next week. And can you speak to the November
nineteenth congressional hearing that's supposedly coming. Is there anything about
that that you can discuss?
Speaker 5 (18:36):
Actually, as Sir, a little as known, there was an
indication of all about Bill Brand wanted to hold a
hearing now when she says something like that, you got
to be careful because what she's held a couple of
meetings where she brought in Perfactory when he was head
(19:00):
of Arrow, and then she bought in recently the new
director of Arrow. And I think she and Ernst were
in another room, aside room, not really a briefing room,
call the staff hearing room, brother, and they asked some questions.
I don't think they raised their hand, took an oak
and need a case. And people are going hearing, hearing, hearing.
That's not a hearing, that's a briefing, all right, and
(19:20):
it's a public briefing. Andy plenty of private briefing. So
in terms of a Senate hearing, there has never been one,
all right, that is still the case. There has never
been a Senate hearing, even Bray, what's his face gray
and what's his face coming up? I do not believe
they took the oak. I believe that was a staff
briefing two members of the panel. So I don't like
(19:42):
calla hearing. The hearing that we must have must be
in the Senate, and that's something we'll we be talking
about later. That's my number one focus right now. And
so I have no idea if she's going to do anything.
And the election situation, of course, is throwing everything not
up in the air, but as a eventually shaken up
the at to sketch. All right, And so I assure
(20:05):
you there's a whole lot of people on the Hill
who now today have a slightly different how would you say,
list of to new lists than they did yesterday or
rather two days ago. Okay, So I do not know
what's going to happen, but I do know this. The
Senate is going to change hands on January third. Marco
(20:25):
Rubio will become the Chairman of the Senate Intel Committee.
And I don't I think he's still in the position.
I don't think he's given up for next year. Maybe
he is hard to say, Mitch McConnell, as far as
I know, we'll be the Senate majority leader, so he
may be about to hand that over to somebody else.
And whether that's going to happen before, well, I can't
(20:49):
happen until he is majority there, so as soon as
he made his hand it up whatever, So that's going
to happen. Okay, The House is still up in the air.
If the House also goes the House stage Republican, then
that's kind of relatively stable, and the committee chairs will
(21:10):
remain Republicans, so not much there, and so that's kind
of what we know. I mean, if I had to guess,
I would say that Jillibrand probably will not may not
have that hearing. However, and here's the most important thing
(21:32):
I'm going to say to you guys tonight, you nice ladies. Man,
I'm going to say this. I am going to make
the public case. And I've already lined up fourteen interviews,
literally fourteen interviews in the three or four days right
after that hearing, and I may end up doing twenty
and I'll continue to do interviews so the rest of
the year, and there's other things going on. And the
(21:56):
case that I'm going to be making is why it's
in the best district of the country. If the Senate
Intelligence Committee does what we've been wanting it to do
for a year or longer, and that is bring in
at least a dozen, possibly more, of the several scores
of witnesses that have made themselves available, mostly privately but
(22:16):
some publicly ready to testify tomorrow, very important witnesses that
they can choose the strongest front thus creating a hearing
of very great substance. Okay, so no disrespect to the
House hearings. I'm talking about fifteen twenty witnesses. I'm talking
about a full week of hearings in front of one
(22:36):
of the most important committees, if not the most important,
in Congress, watched by millions of people around the world.
I'm going to be making a case that that needs
to get done before the new Congress takes over on
January the third, or at minimum before the new president
takes over. Why because the new president of the United
(22:59):
States is going to be facing a huge array of
very significant problems, to say the least, all right, as
well as a good deal of political chaos, a good
deal of domestic issues and so forth. It's just a
massive challenge. And to have the disclosure thing just kind
(23:20):
of still hanging in the air trying to get resolved,
and all the interest in that will have you is
not going to make it easier. So if we can
get that hearing in front of the Senate Intel Committee,
then we can have disclosure from the president who's going
out the door not going to be president again ever,
and get disclosure done before the new president takes over,
(23:42):
and thus we will already be in the post disclosure world.
People have already adjusted to that already, you know, had
some time to think about it, and thus it will
be a far easier matter for the next administration to
address than if we just shove this thing into the
It's just one more extraordinary problem to deal with. That's
(24:05):
the case I'm going to be making vigorously for the
next two months.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Well, one can only hope that it goes that way.
And look, we're all rooting for you. We really want
disclosure to happen as soon as possible. Don't push it
to twenty twenty five. You know, there's obviously all kinds
of issues that have to be dealt with by this
new president and the people around him. You know, shout
(24:32):
out to Neanderthal. I think me and Drwthal I think
people are kind of excited about rfk's decision to try
and change the FDA. And you know how all this
Food and Drug Administration law has been empowering the big
(24:54):
pharma and empowering the food corporations that have been like
making the United States unhealthy and destabilizing the population with
basically corporate greed decisions. You know, I think there's some
really interesting things that could happen with Elon Musk. But
(25:16):
if he's really planning to come in and say, Okay,
what's your job here and wants to fire about half
of Congress or something like that, that could be detrimental
to any progress with this subject. Reason being what if
(25:37):
half the people that are for disclosure and are pushing
that sort of agenda are on the chopping block, you know,
then that just creates a full sea change with regards
to this momentum that we've been working on for the
past you know, few years. So one can only hope
(25:59):
that goes the way that you're talking about. We're behind you,
we're with you, And I think, you know, people are
nervous about the Gillibrand version of the hearing that may
happen because she is Arrow, you know, and people would think, Okay,
(26:20):
if we make any progress with the November thirteenth hearing,
maybe the plan is for the Arrow hearing to come
in and say nothing to see here, this is all bs.
These whistleblowers are not credible whatever, you know, like, we
have no idea what's going to happen for the November
nineteenth hearing, but I think that is a sentiment that
(26:42):
some people in the community have about it, and we
would hope that it's not going to go that way.
Maybe maybe she'll say, hey, you know, there is something
here and we really need to rally the troops and
let's go let's do disclosure. Who knows, well, it'll be
a really interesting next few weeks, to say the least.
(27:05):
But we have some speakers. We have Sarah that's been
brought up. We have ny UAP discussion, which is my
friend Andy Marciel He technically is he's the co host,
but he raised his hand second. So let's go with
Sarah first and then we'll go to Andy to ask
you some very pointed questions and your thoughts. Thank you,
(27:29):
Steven Sure.
Speaker 5 (27:32):
Hey, Darcy, Hey, Stephen. I just wanted to say that,
like Ela Musk cannot remove senators or congressmen from their
elected positions. Just wanted to clarify on that.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Well, what is that all about? Like, can somebody fully
explain what his plan is in terms of like reviewing
people that work for the government with Trump's administration.
Speaker 5 (27:58):
I can answer that, Okay, there are not the Congress,
but there are we have civil servants that work within
our government, okay, under civil service laws, and then there
is a very substantial number of appointees. Obviously all of
appointees can be reviewed and their status could be changed
(28:24):
with a new administration. It frequently happens. All right, Then
there are people that are working in the government that
are not appointees, but they're not civil service, and so
there is there is potential for how would you say,
having a substantial change of personnel with respect to civil service.
(28:46):
It's trickier. Some rules might have to be changed, some
laws might have to be changed, and exactly you just
can't come in and throw civil service out the door.
But it doesn't mean it's not possible. And I think
that he is referring to some civil servants as well
as non civil servants, civilian employees of the government. That
(29:10):
is what he's talking about.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Okay, so it's not Congressman or anything like that. I
completely read that wrong. Yeah, it's all right, Okay, good, Well,
I don't know, let's see how that turns out. That'll
be in So would there need to be an executive
order signed to make that sort of swift action come
into play? After you know, January third.
Speaker 5 (29:34):
Well, first of all, I want to let Sarah was speaking,
so I'm prepared to defer back to her. I don't
want to cut her off. But when it comes to
civil presidential directives, God knows, it is very complicated what
the president could do by directive. I mean one could
probably take a PhD course in it. I really don't know.
(29:56):
Usually we find out what the power of presidential directive
is when a presidential directive gets issued, and then we go, oh,
you can do that. Okay, well there you go. So
I again, were we are entering some uncharted waters here?
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (30:13):
Uh, there is storms on the horizon, the seas are rising,
and so I think mostly I recommend, you know, buckling up,
you know, pull the oars in and just hang on,
because it's very hard to know exactly what's about to
happen in six months.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Let's hope for peace. Uh, Sarah, I think dropped down. Andy,
you have a question.
Speaker 6 (30:40):
Yeah, it's thank Steve.
Speaker 5 (30:41):
How are you thinking for joining us? All right? The
two part question.
Speaker 6 (30:47):
Do you have any concerns regarding the matter which this
has been unraveling, and if so, what do you feel
the resolution for those Cristos would be?
Speaker 5 (30:55):
What you say this is unrattling, could you be more specific?
Speaker 6 (31:00):
So we I mean been told for god knows how
many years that this isn't real and now it's coming
out and oh like I mean just like like like
pushing the the ball down the.
Speaker 5 (31:11):
Hill and is not no stopping it?
Speaker 6 (31:13):
So like right, you know, like, does does that concern
you in any way that after all that and now
the way it's been unraveling, you know sure that there
may be something of concern.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
I am going to remain concerned until right up until
the moment a president of the United States steps out
in the East Room and says, it's clear from what
we've just been learning about over the last week or
so that we are definitely not alone. And then how
much further that president wants to go It mains to
be seen, but we are not alone or there is
(31:47):
no union presence, our next interrested presidence. The moment those
words come out of that president's mouth, we have had
Capital D disclosure, and the biggest paradigm shift in history
takes place. So until that happens, believe on plenty concern.
Am I upset that it's taken seven years since Roswell, No,
(32:08):
I can't be upset because there are numerous major activist
movements of the twentieth century going to bad to less
und in twenty five years or or longer, that have
taken every bit that long. Getting changes of this magnitude,
particularly when it involves changing government positions or political philosophies
(32:29):
and so forth, is extremely difficult. I wish it was easier.
I wish we could just go lay out of common
sense presentation of what's going on, and the people in
power will go, oh, of course, we should do it
that way, and it's what TOSENTI way it works. So
we're seventy seven years in given the magnitude of the issue,
the importance of it, the national security implications, of course
(32:52):
it's taken that long. Wouldn't have taken that long if
there wasn't a nuclear armswat also underway that has gotten
worse most of the left US seven years, but then
kind of got better for a while, and now it
was getting worse again. Yeah, I'm sure it would have
taken a lot less longer. We could have had disclosure,
but that's not the way it was. In terms of
the final years of it. I am well, I'm proud
(33:15):
of a lot of people. I'm proud of the people
who came forward in twenty seventeen. It wasn't like she
that was easy. There's no risks to them, not at all.
They took a tremendous risk, probably sacrificed a lot of
post retirement income as well as just comfortability. But they
(33:36):
came forward, and very slowly but surely, the media, which
has always been there, started to get even more serious
about the issue. Over the next couple of years, we
slowly started, we slowly started seeing the stigma fall away,
as measured particularly by the social media, because in that
starting in seventeen and going eighteen seventeen going forward, you
(33:58):
could just see the stigma falling away on social media
postings as well as the news articles, of which I
tracked extensively. All right, after a couple of years, it
was almost gone. There's not much left. That was very significant,
and we saw a lot more media engagement and good articles.
We then we saw the beginning of the engagement of
(34:20):
the United States Congress in a way far exceeding anything
in the past. Hearings nothing like it, I say, hearings,
private briefings, okay, open statements, discussions. We saw the first
legislation in the history of the issue in twenty twenty,
signed by the President December twenty twenty, and we kept
three more Trant's legislation. So all of this has been
(34:42):
totally appropriate. It hasn't been taken too long, right. I mean,
there are bills they've been trying to pass for decades
and the Congress can't pass the damn bill. There has
been some disruption, but when you consider how disrupted the
social media can be, it hasn't been that bad. And
there's been some craziness it turns up and some trolling
(35:03):
and what have you. But overall it has not been
that bad. I've seen worse than a lot of other issues.
So that has moved forward, all right. And then as
we got closer to the end all right, which is
exactly like the football analogy. You charge up the field,
you're moving along, you get on the two yard line,
and all of a sudden, the defense becomes a love
(35:26):
because that's what that's the next play is the touchdown came?
Why touchdown? And so as we got closer to the
end zone, things got tougher and resistance increased. This was
not surprising the form of it hasn't been awful. Some
of it's been ridiculous, but it's all been logical. In
(35:47):
other words, the people are pushing back, we knew why
they were doing it. In some cases we knew where
they were. There were some people caught up in all
of this that it got harmed in a sense. Brush
took some hits death threats, things like that Zando's had
death threats. Kirkpatrick got a lot of grief, a lot
of problems. His life was not made easy, and so forth.
Not surprising about.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
That, you're talking about like other pushback coming from like
Mike Turner and the other mic.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
Well, I mean Turner Rogers push back against the UAP bill,
Kirkpatrick pushback against Grush, and then the social media jumped
all over Kirkpatrick. Uh and then the DoD forced them
to do a bogus study called aero study. But all
of these things fall under the heading of, you know,
not unsurprising the new verse. All right, this is not
(36:37):
a country where if you're really bugging somebody, you just
disappear or start flying out of you know, the four
story windows of your apartments. We don't take people out
behind buildings and shoot them in the back of the head,
at least not now. And so we've had what I
consider a relatively democratic process. It's been increasingly led by
more and more members of our own Congress. And one
(36:59):
of the reasons, and I would say that on this
issue we've had more progress than many other key issues.
Speaker 7 (37:09):
There am forget it all right, and there's still not results.
Why because they're they're part of the red blue in
look battle. Everybody taking position the other side of can't
have accept it. But this issue is probably the most
(37:29):
non part of the ticulos in the world, and everybody
acknowledges that, both of us in the right, it's just
very difficult to make this a part.
Speaker 3 (37:39):
Of the things. And so as a result he.
Speaker 7 (37:43):
Has mose, wow, once we've got to the end, you're
the end, uh, in a very non partisan way. In fact,
he is the only non parts of the thing happening
that I can pointed.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
It's a breast of fresh air.
Speaker 7 (37:55):
Unfortunately, of course, these situations are incredibly a sense in
so right now hyper partisans that is pretty much fullus
shadow and everything. Whatever the election will be ultimately over
to the top of hits. Everybody who won will look one.
Everybody be lost, it's wall and although he needs to
run a campaign or raise another million bucks for a
(38:18):
couple of years, and so the opportunity to then get
back to this issue we're getting into political you know,
the issues of partnership will fill it up common and
that's why I'm going to be trying to.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
So far to get a non partisan full.
Speaker 7 (38:36):
Hearing the nature wis is including the new lear weapons
shut down, which because you do want to septified for
forty five years, but as since open the door as
didn't happen for the current city president, the busy miss Barbo.
And so this is the posts that goes the world
for next president will have a month orderly and structured
(39:01):
situation to address and a paradigm kick of almost unimaginable.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
We need we need Robert Salas for those nuclear shutdowns.
We need his testimony in Congress.
Speaker 7 (39:17):
I actually spoke to them more, but he's very frustrated
that basically nobody wants to hear him and take the testimony. Okay,
I know, Bob well uh one of them Democrat not
too long ago, being basic Gali.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
Are in fact still fine healthy even another very week.
Speaker 7 (39:42):
There are other witnesses of first all first bands that
set down, they're.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
Also available, uh and so, but they've.
Speaker 7 (39:51):
Never been able to set However, in two thousand and
ten they came born, gave a relative of lot and
the stress conference in the national press and they distribute
affidated from I think twelve or thirteen assigned aff The
Davids testify to exactly what they saw that during each
other now and they handed it out through all the media,
(40:15):
and the media took them and went after their office
and they basically not and Washington quote embarrassed itself by
writing a article about this drust office and they made
it a shrill Yeah.
Speaker 3 (40:30):
That was two thousand and ten.
Speaker 7 (40:32):
If I hasn't happenings I grabbed about fifty years old
and recently I had placed in the hands of hit
office of Jade Bill copies of both affligated to the
cover letters, and then I nailed a second set which specific.
Speaker 3 (40:46):
Individuals because fault.
Speaker 7 (40:48):
This is part of my effort to see if we
can get Boss Alice A. David sobel at least in
front of the hearing on the thirteenth, I'm going to.
Speaker 3 (40:57):
Be looking into that. It could happen.
Speaker 7 (41:00):
But then there is the Senate hearing down the law
necessarily what Hilo brand is doing. That's something that we
each hearing. We mean will not be Gibber brand sharing.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
It will be Warner sharing, never love. So this is
still happening. And let me be clear if.
Speaker 7 (41:16):
They're lucky, luous or I'm gonna get every chance that
I can give them.
Speaker 3 (41:22):
But it's interesting. Boss House is interviewed by Arrow. You
gave him a full interview.
Speaker 7 (41:28):
Nothing okay, now here is why The reason that the
most important WU is a lot since going back to
the picture. If anything, I have never had a hearing
before pop is because the TPU.
Speaker 3 (41:46):
There're even better is production. You think it's rushed terrible?
Speaker 7 (41:51):
You have you haven't seen anything until box Satas sits
down at a hearing the table Pixy out and details
the fine and the reason why they're soles we've been
tucking about. First hand writes to the shutting down of
all of the nuclear weapons at various text of flights
at DM place, which is impossible to do while craft
(42:14):
a craft is hovering over the base, not a thousand
feet up. They's pubbling wife over the gates of the security.
People are running in circles. They don't know what to do,
calling down to the commanders down in the silence, I.
Speaker 5 (42:29):
Mean, what do we do? What do we do?
Speaker 3 (42:31):
And then the missiles protam. Now the US government in
that case is very concerned about that.
Speaker 5 (42:37):
I don't think it's the origat and I'm sure it's.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
Like apple Puss. And then it happened again. And then
it happened again, and they.
Speaker 7 (42:44):
Probably learned for the intel community, did it happened in
the Soviet Union?
Speaker 5 (42:49):
And so what they know is the myth these entities
are willing to come down, hang over a base and
shut down missiles, some of them when they're taken that
as an existential to the human race, or at least
to the United States. Others would take it in other ways.
But whatever, it's certainly a huge embarrassment to the government
(43:09):
if it were generally known and accepted that that happened
and can happen. And so what did they do? And
going all the way back to the mid sixties, they
had only three choices. One kill them, kill them all
they all start having, you know, do buggy accidents and
you know, falling off cruise ships or whatever the hell,
(43:31):
or destroy their reputations. In other words, all these witnesses
are destroyed their reputations, or ignore them. The first two
options were simply not possible because you start doing that
to a respected sack base officers in the Strategic Air
Command and before you know it, you have a mutiny
(43:52):
going on in the entire Strategic Air Command. So they
couldn't do those. But what they did is we're going
to ignore them. We're going to ten they don't exist.
We're not going to acknowledge them, they're not going to
take questions about them. And if we ignore them, the
media will ignore them, all right. And that's exactly what
they did, and the media, to its ultimate shame, basically
(44:13):
went along with them. If they're not even paying attention
to them, how important could they be? And then Hastings
wrote a book called UFOs and Newkes which laid it
all out. They ignored it. Bob Sallis wrote three books
that laid it out. They ignored it. There was an
excellent documentary called UFOs of Nukes or something like that.
Speaker 8 (44:30):
They ignored it. They started getting news articles. I've got
a bunch of news articles. Could I could put them
up on my site tomorrow? Send it out as an
email in which the press actually wrote about this.
Speaker 5 (44:42):
They ignored it. They are the most important witnesses on
this planet and that is why they have never had
a chance to testify. And in all of this mediu right,
which really gets underway when Brush to our surprise, I
didn't know he was coming. When he turns up on
June the fifth, you know, he'd been talking to Coulthart
(45:03):
and wooman thaland came for a while, but we didn't
know that it was well kept secret, and it turns
up there he is. From that moment on right, I
wrapped my brain and how can we get these witnesses
in play?
Speaker 9 (45:14):
Well, they did make contact with Arrow and Aro did
interview them, but as we learned later, Kirkpatrick was in
a situation where he couldn't he couldn't deal with this.
Speaker 5 (45:26):
He was screwed. He knew it. He couldn't go forread,
he couldn't go back where he was simply has sit
and dump and so essentially he turned on Crush. They
interviewed Solas and totally did nothing. Okay, probably because he
knew that there was going to be pushback from the
DoD and he realized that he wanted to be on
the right side. So he went over to the dark side.
They let him quit, they let him get a nice job,
(45:48):
and on the way out the door, they said, you
got to sign this completely focused report. And so that's
a general picture what's going on. But I'm not that
unhappy about it, because one, we're still in America and
almost most of this that's going on, whether we like
it or not, we know about it. It's being covered
in the New York Times, right, it's on the it's
(46:10):
on the Internet, it's being talked about on Twitter spaces
or x spaces, Okay, and so it's it's there, and
it's and that way. It's not going to go away.
It's going to get resolved. If it's bumpy, if it's difficult, hey,
that's the that's the way it is. Right. This ship
is not easy. But ultimately the truth embargo is cooked.
(46:31):
That is not my concern. If somebody were to ask me, now,
is there going to be disclosure? It's inevitable. Okay. Is
the truth and bargo going to end? It is inevitable,
and it's soon. Then what's your problem, Steve? Here is
my problem. As I've said many times, my concern is
not whether the truth embargo is going to end. It's
(46:55):
my concern that it's not going to end before we
have a nuclear war, because if we have a nuclear war,
getting the truth out about the extraterrustrial presence will be
the least of our concern. As I've said repeatedly, the
risk of nuclear war is the highest it has ever
been and it's probably not getting any better anytimes.
Speaker 2 (47:18):
Well, that's a scary thought, you know. It's it kind
of harkens back to that Dead Zone movie with Christopher
Walkin based off the Stephen King book. We're thinking Martin Sheen,
crazy president with the finger on the button here. But
let's hope he makes the deal. He needs to make
(47:39):
a deal, you know, he's just got the deals. He'll
go to Putin, He'll go to Jeep Bing, He'll make
a deal, everybody will win whatever whatever.
Speaker 5 (47:49):
I want to say that like, the situation is extremely
dangerous right now. And I mean I don't post the
media on this much. Yeah, I do post some, but
I watched the media and if you just go through
and follow the media over the last five years on
(48:10):
this subject, you can literally see us walking right there
and increasingly more and more high level people intellectuals and
analysts with credentials are speaking out and saying, guys, we
are really close and so and so. Okay, So the
(48:31):
second question is, okay, so why is disclosure happened to
happen first? Right? Simply because if you have a nuclear
wor you won't happen and you won't have your precious disclosure, Steve,
And that just kisses you off. No, that's not the reason.
The reason is simple. Disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence is
of a magnitude so significant, so global, and so nonpartisan,
(48:54):
that if we can get it done, there will be
a much greater possibility that we can then address some
of the problems that are creating this existential threat, this
nuclear threat. We can we can suddenly start talking countries,
could start negotiating things to start happening that are currently
not happening now, because the paradigm shift of that magnitude
(49:16):
has many effects, many changes, And that's the only thing
I see. I don't see anything else that could even
remotely change this course. Okay, And so for me, it's
literally existential that we have disclosure before we have a
nuclear war. And while I have watched all the Walking
(49:37):
Dead episodes and become very expert on how to deal
with a book composed apocalyptic world. I've watched the movies.
I've seen them all. They're pour out, They're constantly coming out.
We love to watch them. You know, it's you know,
it's a it's Fury, Fury and uh, you know those
(49:58):
movies in Australia, Mad Accidental. I'll post apocalyptic episodes showing
us what it's going to be like, and we love them.
Why because we think it's a damn good possibility. That's
exactly what's going to happen. And so for me, it
is truly existential. It doesn't get bigger than this. And
trying to make that connection to people, one Twitter space
(50:19):
at a time, one post podcast at a time, is
not easy. There are no intellectuals out there writing for
the Washington Post or giving lectures at Harvard or anywhere
else that are talking like this. They simply can't do
it right. It's et can't talk about that. And then
connecting into nuclear war, Oh, that gets to be radical.
I don't want to lose my tenure. Blah blah blah
(50:42):
blah blah. Nobody is talking about this, and so fine,
I'll talk about it. If I just need bigger platforms, right,
I'd like, you know, the New York Times. The Washington
Post doesn't call me anymore because I kept telling them
the truth and it was driving them nuts. All Right, CNN,
all this sort of stuff I can't get on, but
I can get on podcasts, goodter spaces, and by god,
that's what I'm going to do. It comes down to this,
(51:05):
we either get disclosure or a nuclear war is any
for us like a freight train. I don't have any kids,
I don't even have a pet, and so ultimately ain't
gonna make much difference in my life. But for people
that have families and pets, they really need to think
about this very hard.
Speaker 2 (51:24):
Yeah, Steve, we've got about three minutes before I go
off of KGr but we're still going to stay on
the space and continue with an after show for KGRRA,
which is for their subscribers. But we've probably got a
couple of people that have questions here. I'll let one
(51:44):
question go and then maybe a quick answer before where
our time is up?
Speaker 5 (51:50):
So who's stain?
Speaker 2 (51:52):
Who's go for it? Dale?
Speaker 5 (51:59):
Dale?
Speaker 4 (52:00):
You there, I'm here, I'm here. I hit the button
and it didn't unmute me. I had a few questions,
but I'll say something for later. You mentioned Robert Hastings.
What about Mario Woods. I mean, he has a remarkable story.
I find him, he's a friend of mine. I find
him very credible. He went to Arrow as well. You know,
(52:23):
I saw the invitation itself. They talked to him on
the phone. But it's the same deal, you know. That's
why when it comes to Gillibrand, I'm just like, I
don't know what to think. I used to think she
was our champion, but then she disappeared and now she's
spoken her head back up again, and so I don't
know what to make of Jillibrand. I know Errow was
her baby, But what about people like Mario Woods?
Speaker 5 (52:46):
What do you think about that?
Speaker 10 (52:47):
Steve Well, I mean it's there are a lot of witnesses,
and there are various stories and so forth, and uh,
it's not this one versus that one.
Speaker 5 (52:59):
But where my focus is the nuclear shutdowns? All right,
that's the key focus. If you can't get a nuclear
a command I'm sorry, if you can't get a sack
based command officer who is working a nuclear nuclear weaponsite,
(53:21):
who is so highly regarded and cleared that he has
been given the right to turn a key along with
his associate inside that silo and launch eighteen nuclear missiles
that will obliterate eighteen cities in another country. If you
can't trust that person's testimony, whose can you trust? And
(53:42):
so I'm focusing on them, But I assure you there
is a there's probably several thousand potential witnesses for eventual
apearings that will go on well after disclosure. They'll go
on for months and months. If not you, I assure
you it'll be hearing city.
Speaker 7 (54:02):
Right.
Speaker 5 (54:02):
There are probably several thousand witnesses that would blow most
people's minds that could come forward and may eventually come
forward on this issue. All right, This, this is this
program and this and this whole engagement of the et
issue by the government seventy seven years on. They spent billions,
if not a trillion or more dollars on it, maybe
trillions on it. Right, they spend billions on our underground facilities.
(54:25):
And so we're talking about something huge, right, And so
you know, that's that's the best I can say. I
can't I can't get into the details of all of
these there's too many, right, But I want all of
the legitimate witnesses eventually to be able to testify, and
(54:47):
I think that's that's a good possibility. But most of
the ones that end up testifying, and this includes contactees,
we'll not get that considering until after this flosure.
Speaker 2 (55:02):
All right, we got to go to break. We gotta
go break. Let me just play the outro here for
KGr A listeners, head over to Twitter spaces every week.
We'd love to hear from you, jump up, ask questions
from our guests, all that stuff. Thanks for tuning in,
and I will play the outro.
Speaker 1 (55:23):
Vigrip two hundred years ago, two thousand years ago.
Speaker 2 (55:34):
This isn't going to work, but she's picking up a
massive object in this video.
Speaker 1 (55:40):
Ships that might be closed. I can sense them in
my vicinity, So I guess I'm just very tuned in.
Speaker 2 (55:45):
Bulkan Head Honcho walks out ear reveal. Yeah, the crowd goes,
oh my God. Was to protect the secrets from the
Air Force that were not out there in public. So
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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.