Stephen Bassett

None

Episode Transcript

(00:04):
Ladies and gentlemen, Welcome to MeanwhileHere on Earth. This program features in
depth conversations with the leading names inthe subjects of UFOs abductees, the paranormal
panel discussions, and the very bestand brightest of the next generation of writers

(00:24):
and researchers. Meanwhile Here on Earththe show breaking new ground in alternative talk
with your in trepid host, veteraninvestigative writer and researcher, Peter Robbins.

(00:51):
Good evening, good morning, orgood afternoon, depending on when you're tuning
us in. This is Peter Robbins, the show is Meanwhile Here on Earth,
and my special guest tonight is StephenG. Bassett. Stephen is the
first extraterrestrial life disclosure lobbyist in theUnited States. He is also the executive

(01:12):
director of Paradigm Research Group, betterknown as PRG, founded in nineteen ninety
six to end a government imposed embargoon the truth behind extraterrestrial related phenomena.
He has spoken to audiences around theworld about the implications of disclosure that,
by definition here being the formal coninformation by heads of state of an extraterrestrial

(01:38):
presence engaging the human race. Stephenhas given over twelve hundred radio and television
interviews, and prg's advocacy work hasbeen extensively covered by national and international media,
including CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The

(01:59):
New York Times, among other venues. Bassett has appears in many documentary films,
and his lectures and interviews are wellrepresented on YouTube. In two and
thirteen, PRG organized citizens hearing ondisclosure at the National Press Club in Washington.
In November of two thousand and fourteen, PRG launched a two year political

(02:21):
initiatives out of Washington, DC thatinjected the ET issue into the two thousand
and sixteen election. PRG recently launcheda new exopolitical podcast out of Washington,
DC, The Disclosure Wire, basedin a National Press building two blocks from
the White House. Steve's involvement withET politic political activism began in nineteen ninety

(02:46):
six, when he worked as avolunteer for Harvard Medical Schools Pulitzer Prize winning
biographer Professor John Max's Program for ExtraordinaryExperience Research. Basset as registered as Washington
d C's first DC lobbyists covering thatYale here and between two thousand and four

(03:07):
and two thousand and ten, PRGproduced six X conference that's what they were
called as an exo political conferences inthe Washington, DC metro area. The
first five were held at the HiltonHotel in Gethersburg, Maryland. The sixth
conference was held at the National PressClub in Washington. From November fifth,

(03:30):
two and fourteen, through December thirtyfirst, two thousand and sixteen, PRG
concluded a political and niiganded a politicalinitiative targeting presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The
purpose of the initiative was to putmedia pressure on Secretary Clinton to publicly address

(03:50):
her connection and the connection of herhusband, President Clinton and her campaign manager
John Podesta to the extraterrestrial presence.This connection goes back to the Rockefeller Initiative
nineteen ninety three to six, launchedby Lawrence Rockefeller, engaging the Clinton administration
to release all government held UFO filesand grant amnesty to witnesses who might come

(04:13):
forward with relevant information, something whichis more prophetic every day at this point.
The main website is Paradigm Research Groupdot org and Stephen Bassett, it's
a pleasure to have you back onMeanwhile, here on Earth, how goes
it today it goes fine. Iwant to correct something, Peter, I

(04:34):
need to update that bio for you. The Disclosure Wire podcast really never got
formally underway. It was I startedto start it up as the pandemic literally
was starting. Things got a littlestrange. Well, ultimately has happened is
that I temporarily shut down my operationat the National Press Club. I intend

(04:59):
to get back very soon and forthe last for most of the last two
years, I have been in Californiaand I have been engaging how would you
say, people in the film industry, the big one, you know,
the one with the you know itdoes all the big stuff right, and
to try to see to what extentthey could be brought into this issue in

(05:24):
an increasingly substantive way. I mean, there is some of that going on,
but much more could happen. Andit's been an interesting two years.
The film industry is very complex field, filled with very complex people, and
I really should have done this backwhen I was in my thirties. But

(05:44):
nevertheless, soon I'm going to beable to announce that a a media project
is going to be launched. It'smodest, but it is with a attached
to a major studio, and we'llhave the highest production values and we're going
to build from that. And there'sI know of a couple other projects in
the works Hollywood exciting. Yeah,yeah, it will get it because there's

(06:08):
money to be made. Okay,I should have also double checked that is
it's definitely an out of print bio. Let's get right to it. Steve.
One week ago on June fifth,a relatively in terms of world media,
lesser known information website and a damngood one too, called The Debrief

(06:28):
published a piece that really has gonearound the world repeatedly since it happened.
And I'm going to read just theopening lines of the article itself, written
by Ralph Blumenthal and Lesley Kane,two of the most distinguished journalists in America
and probably the two best known andmost respected regarding the subject of UFOs and

(06:50):
their implications. Quote a former intelligenceofficial turn whistleblower has given Congress and the
intelligence community in spector General extensive classifiedinformation about deeply covert programs that he says,
possess retrieved intact and partially intact craftof non human origin. End quote.

(07:14):
Now you and I know that overthe decades we have had any number
of people come forward and allege,accurately or sometimes not, that they have
been part of some classified government programwhich involves the repression of exotic technology.

(07:34):
And how can I say the cuttingedge information about the subject of UFOs that
is often considered sensationalistic. However,the reception that this news release has gotten

(07:58):
is somewhat different, actually quite differentthan many others. And I think it
has to do as much with theinformation, if not more, as it
does with the credibility and the respectfor the two journalists who have signed off
on it. What's your initial takeon this, Steve, Well, let's

(08:20):
see, the truth Embargo is nowin its seventy sixth year. It's a
long time. Over those seventy sixyears, huge amount of work was done.
Witnesses came forward just like now,not just like now, but similar

(08:41):
to now. But when the TruthEmbargo reigned supreme, it didn't matter who
you were, that simple just didn'tmatter. You weren't going to get the
attention you wanted. You're not goingto get the media coverage, you're not
going to be you're not going tobe acknowledged by the government, and so
forth. You just did the bestyou could edgar Mitchell in two thousand and

(09:03):
eight after he spoke at my exconference, was part of the post conference
press conference at the National Press Club, and he stood up there and said,
there's an extra tredcial presence there,right. Gordon Cooper said it a
vacuum. Two thousand and the sixteenBobert Robert Bigelos said it there had been

(09:24):
witnesses to come forward in every fiftyone, just about every aspect of this,
but the truth Embargo was in fullflower, and that was that frustrating.
And of course, given the factthat the truth and Barber was well
in place, the people who cameforward, it didn't make their life any
better. Okay, they were victimsof the truth embargo, as we all

(09:45):
are. And what can you doactivism is that way you stepped forward into
it, and depending upon where thethe historical curve is, you may have
a really rough time, you mayhave an easy time. This is true

(10:07):
of every major activist movement. Thedifference now is this the truth Embargo's days
are almost over the final weeks andmonths. As I recently have created a
nice, wonderful love I created aTwitter hashtag that I can actually call mine
nobody else came up with this.This is my hashtags. Clear, it's

(10:33):
called months not years, because Ihad too many people telling me it's years
away, ten years, twenty years, my God will never see it in
our lifetime, blah blah blah blah, and so I said, now it's
not and I put up hashtag monthsnot years. I'm very proud of that.
But I have a surprise for youlater. It starts in twenty seventeen
with the emergence of the ten individualsinvolved in that organization to the Star's Academy

(10:58):
of Arts Science. They all hadnational security backgrounds, military intelligence, compact
complex backgrounds, including civilian contractor.Yeah, they were careers and they were
they were, i believe at thetime now private citizens, and they knew
what they intended to do. Onceprivate citizens, they were going to be

(11:18):
involved in this project. And thisproject was at a lark. It was
a serious effort on the part ofpeople who felt the truth embargo needed to
end. And I assure you thereare many people inside government that has felt
that way for a long time.I noted that launch of that program,
I said, this looks interesting.What's going to happen next? And what

(11:41):
happened. Next is, of course, the New York Times articles of December
sixteen, seventeen, with the guncamera footage and all the stuff that happened.
I don't want to go over allof that. All I'm trying to
say, and that was a seachange, that was an absolute turning point.
We were in a totally different place. Let me jump in for one
moment, us to remind folks orlet them know if they're not aware that.

(12:05):
I guess it's one of those placeswe can actually say paradigm shifting article
in the New York Times in midDecember of twenty eighteen. Actually two articles
were written by two of the threereporters that broke the original stories that began
or marked this change of direction awayfrom UFO ridicule and toward more active disclosure.

(12:28):
And they were Ralph blementhal Leslie Kane, and Helene Cooper. It is
Leslie and Ralph who are responsible forthis article, and I just never I
don't think I expected either of themto sign off on a story that even

(12:50):
touched on the idea of crashed orrecovered craft. They've just been too careful
appropriately so they have done. Theyhave been of so much value by keeping
away from the more exotic aspects anddoing their work as the superb journalists that
they are. But something turned themaround, and it was really in the

(13:13):
form of an individual. Going backto the original the article from last week,
the Whistleblower, David Charles Grench thirtysix, a decorated former combat officer
in Afghanistan, is a veteran ofthe National Geospatical Intelligence Agency, something many
of us had not been aware ofNGA and the National Reconsistance Office NRO.

(13:37):
He served at the Reconsistance Office isrepresentative to the United Unidentified Aerial Phenomenal Task
Force from two and nineteen to twentytwenty one. From late twenty and twenty
one to July of last year,he was the nnga's co lead for UAP
analysis and its representative to the taskForce. Now, these are no slout

(14:00):
credentials and they have all been checkedout. They're bona fide. What does
your initial take on, girlsh hereas the width blower. Well, just
to close out the point I wasthinking before, it was that event in
twenty seventeen that led to him comingforward. Everything has happened and then five
years is kind of connected. It'sding King King, Ding King Ding Ding,

(14:24):
all right, and we've talked aboutthis on your show before. No
time to go into it. ButI have thousands of articles on my print
media archive on Paradigm Research Group dotorg under resources where you can read the
media coverage of all of it,and it pretty much shows you the whole
process. So so Grush emerges andhe comes out of nowhere, at least

(14:52):
as far as I knew, right, he caught everybody at this Contact in
the Desert by surprise, we exceptDanny Dan. That event was fantastic.
It was June two to four,an amazing event. It's the return of
contact in the desert. Uh weuh. We had a decent attendage because

(15:13):
but not not not what we cando because of the COVID issues and the
conferences were all harmed. We anticipatethree to four thousand people next year.
And so Monday morning it's pretty muchover except for the intensives. There's some
long three hour presentations by people likeRichard Dolan and Danny Sheen and others.
And I wake up and I've gotall these messages, and it's well,

(15:35):
what what's going on? And soI went downstairs and started talking to people
and learned what had happened. Thestory had broken the debris. So I
went and read the debris story.All right, WHOA and I will watch
the interviewview on News Nation and Igot the picture. This isn't. This

(15:58):
isn't of a milestone event. Therehave been a number since twenty seventeen.
This is a milestone event of atype. It is, and it has
enormous implications and impact. But howdid it happen? Here's how it happened.
First of all, there has beenprobably two or three times as much

(16:21):
activity going on inside. It wasnot in the public domain, not being
covered. Then we're actually seeing inthe in the newspaper articles. Witnesses are
going here, witnesses are going there. There's interactions something media. Of course,
there's a plenty going on in Congressand briefings and everything else. It's
there. It's teeming with activity.I don't know exactly what's being said or

(16:47):
done. Some people know a littlemore than others. The point is is
if people think that all that's happeningis that arrow is being set up and
NASA held a briefing, I trustyou that's nothing. There is a b
hive of things happening, and soit's not surprising that something may just happen
that catch us off guard, andthis is one of them. Grush is

(17:08):
a witness, but he is morethan that. He is a whistleblower.
He is an example of an actualwhistleblower. Yeah, almost all the witnesses
so far are not whistleblowers. AndI've talked about this before and I'm not
going to stop talking about it.There is a huge difference between whistleblowers and
witnesses. Bob Salis is a witness, Right Fraver is a witness, and

(17:32):
so forth. But Grush is alegitimate whistleblower, which is why he's gotten
death threats. You see why it'simportant to be You know, if you're
going to be a whistleblower, fine, but if you're a witness, you
don't want to be that. Andso we need to separate this. He
is a whistleblower because one, heclaims personally that what he is reporting is

(17:56):
illegal is illegal activity. He hasmade an effort to bring that to the
attention of the various and appropriate entities, and he did not get the necessary
response he wanted, and so hecame public with the assistance of journalists.
And when he came public, hecalled himself a whistle law okay without I

(18:18):
don't know the specific timeline, butsome time ago, a year, year
and a half, two years ago, he because he had been discussing during
this extraordinary time, this new erathat we're in, and I think after
the initial legislation that Rubio put inthe twenty twenty bill, his understanding and
knowledge about quote engine re engineering ofcrash vehicles and dead bodies, okay,

(18:44):
internally, and he started getting grief. Apparently some felt that he should have
said anything to anybody, and theystarted giving him a hard time. He
became concerned enough that he went toan IG office I believe was that at
Pentagon's IG could have been the intelligencecommunity, I either one. He went
there and said, I'm filing awhistle blower, which he did, and

(19:07):
one of the most important initial pointsof credibility for those that feel that we've
got to have a massive amount ofevidence confirming the person's credibility right before we
consider him right. The attorney thattook his case was the former director of
the IG office. He had retiredfrom that office and now he's representing Rush

(19:33):
say no more. So they addressthe issues, and I imagine to some
degree it mitigated the situation and hecomes back. Okay. Now, as
things move forward, he I thinkwas having to make decisions about what should
I do next, And as weknow, the process leading to the hearings

(19:56):
which will end the truth embargo hasstretched out all right a little bit.
People think it's going too slowly,Arrow is taking too long and go for
them one moment, let me getrid of this. No, just get
that, Remind you later. Andso he's losing patience. He's losing patience
with this. And then something verysignificant happened, probably the most significant thing

(20:19):
in the legislation of all the threemajor bills. This was the third legislative
bill. This is the one thatMark Warner sponsored after the Rubio and then
a Gillibrand bill, and Warner isthe head of the chairman of the Intel
Committee sent it into And when Iread the language of this bill, I

(20:40):
was stunned. The bill itself waspretty cool, had lots itself, but
then it had this paragraph Individuals whoare trying to bring information out within the
context of these processes that we're settingup appropriately legally, who are given problems
or harassed or in any way harmby somebody in their office anywhere in the

(21:03):
government. Frankly, that's that's illegal, right, that's not allowed, that
will not be permitted. Okay,good in matters. He's giving the witnesses
some cover, some protection. Wegot your back. And then he added
this paragraph which really stun to me. He said that if you are such
a person and you are in factharm in some way, you can sue

(21:25):
that person. I mean, ifyou're if you're if you're in the Air
force, and the head of yourcommand. Basically it gives you a lot
of grief because you've been talking aboutsomething. You can sue the head of
your command. And they added inthe paragraph, and you can sue the
United States government. Well, youknow you've been around a while, and

(21:47):
you know that the government will goto great links to make it impossible to
sue it. And I'm saying,oh my goodness, now, I didn't
think that language could possibly make itinto the final bill. I'm sure you
didn't think it would make into thefinal bill. However, the language of
the Senate version of the bill wasup on the website of the legislative website

(22:11):
frauds, and anybody in the governmentcould go read it, including the witnesses,
including the people of the deepest uSAP programs, because just because you're
in a USAP un acknowledged special accessprogram doesn't mean you can't watch the news
or you know, go on theinternet. And so he was What Warner
was doing was sending a message outto everybody in the entire military intelligence complex.

(22:36):
I the chairman of the Senate IntelCommittee, the most powerful committee or
important committee in Congress, are makingit clear that we want to hear testimony
from witnesses, right, don't screwaround. So when the language comes out,
the message is sent. And soGrush sees that, and a lot

(22:57):
of other witnesses see that, andI think that significantly helped them make the
decision that Grush, who is notthe only one aware in his group,
we don't know who they are,of the re engineering programs and crash vehicles
and dead et bodies, he wouldbe the one that would come forward,

(23:18):
and he decided to do it.Ye who we've talked to, we don't
know it. Maybe you talked toHe talked to several entities. It's not
clear exactly who, but there wasthere was a number of approaches that were
made, and ultimately Leslie Kane andRalph Bloomenthal, he's talked to them,
engaged them, or they engaged him, and they decided to they were going

(23:41):
to bring the story for it,and they were going to do it in
an appropriate way to tell the story. And we know they went to the
Post. We know they went tothe Times, and as Ralph Bloomenthal said
in an interview with Martin Willis justtwo days ago, they couldn't take it
because the story is too big.It requires them to handle it in a
way that that of course vetting ata level that simply could not be done

(24:06):
in a few days. They justcouldn't do it. They didn't pass on
it. And so they said,look, they went to the debrief.
The debrief is great. It's notthe New York Times, but these are
some pretty good people working there.They've got great stories and a good track
record, like a Hanks to inthe film. And they and they went
to and then of course that Ido not know which news organizations they went

(24:30):
to. Did they go to CNN? And I think they did go to
CNN, maybe a few others.I'm not sure, probably the similar situation,
but ultimately they go to News Nation. News Nation is a new UH
news program. It is backed bya major company. It was set up
along with more than one UH inan attempt to provide conservative, conservative based

(24:53):
news or conservative leaning news outlet thatis not is extreme as Fox, something
a little more palatable. Great Plusdidn't had a track record because tim Berschett
is where he went initially to makehis first there are ets here statement,
and I think it's been back acouple of times, but certainly Timberhet,

(25:15):
Congress from Tennessee, had gone onthere and done that, so they're already
in board, so naturally they tookit immediately. They put that together and
they make the move and out itcomes all right. That is the basic
story. I may have a fewthings a little off, but that's the
basic story of David Rush's maneuver here. Now, what does he want.

(25:38):
I'm sure that he wants to testifybefore Congress on that, Okay, obviously,
so he had made it really clearthat there's no chance he's going to
be overlooked. He did talk toArrow, and there was a chance he
might have been overlooked why Because,as I've stated many times, Peter,

(26:00):
this process underway has got to kindof stay within certain boundaries in order to
score the touchdown. If they goout of bounds. If you if you're
on the one yard line and you'reon your way to a touchdown, you
step out of bounds even a fewinches, that play is over, no
touchdown. And so there. AndI don't think that dead et bodies was

(26:22):
on the menu. Initially, theyhad plenty to work with. But that's
really getting into the heavy stuff.It instantly confirms Roswell, though they never
said Roswell because that would be steppingout of the Yes, it's a problem.
And I think to some degree hemay have been thinking, you know,
I'm taught to arrow. I thinkhe did. I don't think they're
gonna They're not gonna They're not gonnause me. I'm not gonna be on

(26:44):
the menu initially. I'm not goingto settle for that. I'm speculating here,
but I know this. He's onthe menu now, all right,
Now, let's get take it tothe next level. Yes, the situation
now is and was even before Grushcame forward, critical why this issue is

(27:07):
now in play it's absolutely in playworldwide and certainly in the United States.
Yeah, people know about it,they're excited about it. Twitter, Facebook,
all the social media, all theirhonor. Great, okay, and
guess what. We have an electioncoming up very soon. Technically it started
the day after the last election,but whatever, it's going to really get

(27:29):
underway toward the end of the year. And you've got the New Hampshire primary,
which is ludicrously early, and thewhole process completely needs to be taken
down and completely rebuilding the ground up. It's all very terrible. It's a
giant sausage machine that gives us abunch of sausage running a country on Capitol
Hill. Nevertheless, it's going tostart later this year. If they don't

(27:49):
get these hearings done, which leadsto disclosure, then all of this stuff
that people is excited about simply movesinto the political campaign unresolved, with several
thousand candidates running for federal office,state governorships and everything else in a position
I don't know, I mean,they haven't said, they're not defined.

(28:12):
I don't know. I mean,I know nothing. It's just a mess
that can't even speak to it.And so it's just going to be well,
this is going to be embarrassing,and so it needs to get done
before the campaign begins. But youknow how it is, there's always something,
you know, the deathstealing and theend of the American economy, another

(28:34):
war, a damn blows up,whatever the hell, it's always something,
and you got to you know,they got to go home for a while,
they're out of town, and andthen there's indictments of ex presidents and
things like just the usual stuff.And so it's easy. It just keeps
moving forward and forward and forward.And I've been making clear you have got
to hold those hearings now. Goodnews. There are a number of people

(29:00):
in the Congress who who are involvedin committees who think they should be helped
right away and it should be theircommittee. Never I think we need to
hear it. My committee is readyto do it. Another congress named comer
in the House is saying, I'mgoing to hold it hearing. I think
Burschette is talking about trying to geta hearing. It may be in one

(29:21):
of his committee. They're starting tocompete to see which committee goes first.
Oh that's good. I like that. That's good news, all right,
But here's the other good news.Grush is basically literally accelerated the time frame
days. They can't not do it. Now. Here's why. You're Mark

(29:41):
Warner and you're trying to decide whento hold a hearing. And this individual
comes forward and unless they can somehowshow that he's either a Soviet spy or
an avatar or AI or something likethat, the guy doesn't even exist.
Whatever, this thing is going toget really hot, much hotter than it
is now. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street

(30:03):
Journal, probably the La Times,Chicago, and god knows every other major
publication is on it. Now.They have got their reporters of their correspondent
talking to whoever to try to getadditional information, find another witness, whatever,
get something that they can put inthere that's new, and they're going
to launch those stories. And ifGrush holds up, and he's going to,

(30:26):
then this thing is going to beon fire. And Warner is going
to be sitting there going, well, that's interesting, but you know,
let just don't hold, just don'trush here. Let's no The pressure to
hold those hearings is going to beenormous. But that's not all the president
is now in a terrible position.The president. If you go back over
the last three years I'm talking aboutthe current president, he has tried and

(30:51):
successfully stayed out of this. Thisyear he is absolutely stepped back from it.
Why because it cannot and should notbe political size, and so he
is staying back, letting it cometo him. Wonderful that whole Chinese balloon
fiasco caused a problem, and itforced him to step into it a little

(31:15):
bit. They talked about they setup a White House kind of that sports
thing is short. They kind oflook into it, so he didn't look
like he's completely oblivious to Chinese balloons. But in that point it attached him
to the UAP issue. He didn'twant that, And now comes grush.
And so what is President Biden goingto do? And this could happen this
week if well, or his spokespersonwhose name escapes me, but she's very

(31:41):
good, and they're going to beasked her question, what does the president
think about this gentleman who worked inthe NRO and has a substantial career and
had to quit because he was beingharassed and says, we have dead alien
bodies. What does he do withthat? And So all I can say
is if the president, and I'mnot I would be calling up Mark Warner

(32:04):
and saying, Mark, buddy,my good buddy, my friend, Mark,
I would really appreciate it if youcould get those hearings going immediately and
get that gentleman in front of youunder oath, and let's get this ball
rolling in Congress all right. Andguess what, Mark doesn't have to do
that separation of powers. He cannotforce Mark Warner to hold a hearing,

(32:28):
but he could certainly call him upand say, Mark, my man,
we go back a long ways here. So the pressure is such that I
think they have to hold the hearings. And once they start those hearings,
the moment that first person raises theirhand and make takes that oath, start
counting the days down right then untilPresident Biden is in a position appropriately nonpartisan

(32:53):
to be able to say, yeah, I'm watching it. Definitely non human
technology. That's disclosure, you know, Steve, I'm going to jump in
for a moment, and looking backon all the decades I've been involved in
this subject, so many of ourcolleagues as well. Every once in a
while, every few years, fiveyears, seven years is kind of a

(33:15):
wave for where an individual or anevent or an allegation takes hold and winds
over more and more of us witha sense of anticipation that this may signal
something in an ironic way. Inthe nineteen nineties and the Clinton administration,

(33:36):
something happened really out of the bluethat caught I think all of us off
guard and seemed to signal that achange was in the wind, and then
everything went dead. It was adocumentary that came out of the Walt Disney
studios. It was feature length,excellent documentary material. What caught many of

(33:58):
us completely off guard that it openedwith a very serious series of statements from
Um Eisenberg, who the CEO ofDisney at the time, who made it
very yeah exactly, who made itvery clear that this was the real deal.

(34:20):
And off it went. It wasscreened, it was shown on television
one time and never came back.At the time VHS time, a lot
of people like me would just havethe habit of having an empty VHS tape
in the port ready to go,and a number of people slammed it in
at that moment and yeah, Ido too, And I remember this is

(34:50):
like fifteen twenty years into my interestin the subject. It seemed to be
a tipping point. This is WaltDisney. This is an institution that has
such a hold on the psyche's andAmerican culture, and love of American children
and the interest of American parents whogrew up with Disney, and it went

(35:12):
away when Leslie, please, Peter, do you know the year. I
think it was ninety two, giveor take. It was definitely Clinton administration.
We were right into the Rockefeller initiative, as I recall, ninety three,
maybe I think you're right. Everythingseemed poised and then it went away.

(35:34):
In retrospect, all I could think, after having watched the documentary several
times, was the Disney organization wouldhave never on their own without some kind
of signal encouragement. Support taken thetime, the money, the effort,
and I'm sure there's a great dealof security around the making of it and

(35:59):
put it out up there. Ithink something happened right in there where the
forces that they said, you know, I'm this isn't going to happen now,
so you're hanging in the wind.I remember when Leslie and Ralph and
Helen Blumenthal's pair of articles came outin mid December of two and seventeen.

(36:22):
I had been so conditioned by whatwe'll laughingly call reality to know that it
really wasn't going to make a difference, and simply went on waiting for the
other shoe to fall to trip itup. It was almost a year before
I found myself saying, holy mackerel, this has changed. The ridicule factor

(36:45):
is dissipating. The mood in thecountry is different. Individuals with reputations are
coming forward, and right now,I mean this point that we're at,
I'm thinking, it's hard to putyourself. We can't be the other people
to put yourself beyond the eyes.I've centered wonder right now and thinking about
what is going on in his mindand ticking away. And he is on

(37:07):
a very short leashan time clock rightnow. I think, so maybe he
doesn't, but I hope he does. I guess time will tell. Let
me give you some context on that, Peter. We've had some opportunities to
be in the post disposure world.The very first one came in nineteen forty

(37:30):
basically eight President German could have madethe decision. Look Ramy reversed that thing.
For now, we've gotta we gotta, we gotta do some check in
here. We got to do something. Okay, because that was instantaneous,
I get it. The press releasewas not not supposed to go out,

(37:51):
and then they could have contemplated itfor a few months, and then in
early forty eight they could have madethe decision, look, we're this is
big and these things are flying aroundand he can't stop that. He would
have known that and say, look, let's let's tell the American people.
And has literally been a retro fantasyof mine for decades, and knowing something
about Truman, his personality, hastemperament, his independence, he might well

(38:14):
have been the one to do it. One thought, to bounce off of
you. He had brought around hima team of extremely qualified individuals to look
into the matter, trying to imaginewhat it must have been like to be
invited to be part of the mostextraordinary cabal in human history of the last

(38:37):
couple of millennia, and that senseof power and feeling special. These are
a bunch of well connected white guyswho I'm sure after a period of time
the president asked their advice. I'mnot sure. I'm as sure as I
can be on how to proceed.If I had been one of them,

(38:58):
I think I probably would have giveninto my ego and not wanting to lose
this extraordinary position I had in thehistory of America, the world, and
humanity, and said, mister President, my serious advices that we simply continue
to study this phenomena before reaching aconclusion bringing it to the people. And

(39:20):
Truman acquiesced. And here we aretoday with that piece of sand, that
irritant that started the National security stateoff, calcified like crazy, and you
surrounded by a hundred million secrets.This turn of events, though, which
is just a week old right now, is something I'm feeling more optimistic about

(39:42):
than I have allowed myself to feelabout any similar event. Looking back,
I think in more than forty yearsof fascination with this subject, this situation
is a hundred times more pregnant thanBut there was an opportunity it could have
made that decision. I don't knowwho said what to who. I hope
there's some memoirs that will eventually turnup. I'd like to know the history

(40:04):
of this. It's incredible history,and they may have some of those memoirs,
probably classified at this point, butThat was the first opportunity. The
second opportunity came in fifty three.Five years later, the ETS decided to
send a stronger message. Well,I don't know. The crass wasn't a
message, but certainly they sent amessage in fifty two when they decided,
let's just fly over the capitol forI don't know, a couple of ten,

(40:27):
twelve, thirteen days and they're flyingaround, can't do anything. Everybody's
watching it. Nobody had enough camerasback then. There were no cell phones,
so there were photos, I think, but none of them have made
it to the present that I'm awareof. Seen one. I believe the
government has some that the classifar atleast held. But we know the event
happened in all the particulars. Thatwas a big deal. They had to

(40:49):
give a press conference about that.That Actually they gave a little ground.
It was fifty two, the KoreanWar was underway, but it wasn't exactly
World War two, and they couldhave announced it then, all right,
and this would have been Eisenhower.But no, they decided, nope,
they they well, they asked thepanel to look at it. Robertson panel,
a bunch of CIA guys, andthey came in and said, oh

(41:10):
no, no, no, no, no, no, no no,
we can't go there. Second opportunitygone, the really the only and then
the Cold War takes off, andthat the next opportunity doesn't come for another
essentially thirty nine years. We're talkingnineteen ninety one and thereafter. Now when
Clinton comes into the office. Rockefellerwasn't the holy person that had already foreseen

(41:37):
that the opportunity to finally get thisdone wash post right Uh. End of
Soviet Union. Uh. It tooka while to digest that, and we
and and and Bush was tied upin the with issues over the Middle East.
There was a war of the equitywar and what have you, and

(41:57):
so it didn't look it they couldn'tact right away. But I have a
feeling a whole lot of people,Disney and who knows else, we're saying,
look, as soon as this electionis over, as soon as HW.
Bush wins the second term, we'regonna get to that. We're we're
gonna try to engage the government behindthe scenes and get this done. And

(42:19):
he would be a very acceptable presidentwith all the credentials to do it,
and do it in such a waythat the military intelligence community would be well
served. It was all set upand ready to go. But Bush lost.
All right, Disney still published thatthat film. I think Disney was
thinking the same thing that Rockefeller was, and they put that film out or

(42:40):
that show out. Rockefeller went tothe Clinton administration and started the Rockefeller Initiative.
There were probably a few other thingsout there along these lines, and
the opportunity was there, but thepresident was the wrong one. And so
essentially the military intelligence community, tothe extent that they anyone they're leaning that

(43:00):
way, we're shut down because look, yeah, it's probably the right thing
to do, but not with thispresident, no way. We do not
like this man. We don't wanthim to be president. He beat our
George HW. Bush, and wewill never forgive him for that. And
so that opportunity was lost. Andnow it's taken thirty more years, well

(43:20):
actually twenty five before things got goingagain, and now this time it's going
to happen. The situation now isway beyond anything we have been in.
It's not in the same lig Weare literally on the precipice. One of
the most extraordinary changes has been wella short half a dozen years ago even

(43:45):
certainly ten years ago, the subjectof UFOs, truly and almost UFOs and
their implications for humanity was generally classifiedas an outsider subject. It was not
something that if you were interested in, you shared that interest with anybody.
The chance of being made fun,of being perceived as somebody who might be

(44:15):
less than ethical, a total mystic, somebody who was looking for attention or
mentally in some way dealing with someissue had been so ingrained into the Western
mindset that even presidential candidates would backaway from having taken the subject seriously.

(44:37):
Rockefeller is a good example in thateven billionaires genuinely do not like to be
made fun of. The late SandraWright, who was quietly working with him,
and one of the most decent peopleI've ever met, Marie Galbraith at
the time, the wife of ourambassador friend and the daughter in law of

(45:00):
the great economists, were working withRockefeller ultimately to put out the best evidence
publication for members of Congress. Andthen, I'm sure you remember when the
sit the New York Observer, theweekly had that huge political cartoon below the

(45:22):
massed head above the fold like fulltabloid of Lawrence and Marie running through downtown
Washington holding raincoats over their head,looking terrified as dozens of little aliens in
the sky. Were you making funof them out of their flying saucers?
That was it for Lawrence. Heyou got a copy of that? Can

(45:45):
you get me that graphic? Idon't know if I have it, I
will find out it is. Idon't know if it was David Levine,
but it was one of those cartoonistswho was just absolutely at the top of
their form. But I knew Lawrencea little bit through his philanthropy to the
theater company that I work with,and because and I'll just say it now,

(46:09):
even though I could have never talkedabout it back then. We shared
the same psychotherapist for a period oftime, and when doctor Baker passed,
Lawrence I had tremendous admiration from goinginto therapy, so to say, at
that point in his life he movedto a therapist that Baker had had trained.

(46:32):
And not ever sure if I everlaid this out in live radio,
but at one point he was afriend of mine and I received a phone
call from her, literally hitting thefloor saying, I have never made a
call like this to a somebody whois a lay person. I don't expect
to do it again, but Idon't know who else to turn to.

(46:54):
I have a patient who has becomeextremely interested, to the point of obsession,
about this subject of UFOs, whichshe took seriously, thankfully, And
I am concerned because he is aman of some substance that sooner or later
some more unscrupulous individuals are going toinfluence him and mislead him. And can

(47:17):
you take the time to put togetherwhat amounts to a doosier? I know
you've got a great file of authenticdeclassified documents relating to this, fifty or
sixty documents. Put them in anice binder, chronologically, write a good
cover letter, and deliver them tohis office. I'm intrigued, and I

(47:38):
say who is it? And shesays, strictly between you and I,
it is Lawrence Rockefeller. Well,of course I was galvanized, and I
did just that. Over the nextfew days. Barbara had said I will
cover copying costs, and the nextthing I know, I check in with
her and she says, you havean appointment be at the office at such

(48:00):
and such a time on such aday. What you will do is you
will go into thirty Rock, andyou will walk to the back of the
elevators, and there is a privateelevator that will take you to his office.
His office was on the very topfloor of thirty Rock. And I'm

(48:21):
looking sharp. I'm ready for oneof the great ventures of my life.
I've got this all packed up nicelyin a minila envelope. Elevator goes up,
the door opens. What do Isee? I won't forget it.
A room with a desk I thinkprobably authentic French provincial. Behind it a

(48:43):
woman of a certain age, hairin a chignon type French hairdo. I
don't know much about fashion, butI think she was wearing a really nice
vintage channel suit. No pictures onthe wall, but behind her two doors,
the one on the left closed,the one on the right opened.
I could see a window, andI knew if I had had permission to

(49:04):
walk in and throw that office andlook down, I'd be looking down into
the area where they skate during thewinter and have the restaurants during the summer,
and the floor black and white marblecheckerboard. In the right hand corner,
a marble bust about a foot offthe floor, fluted on it a
full size white marble bust of JohnD. Sor I'm going into an altered

(49:30):
state here. And she looks atme and she nods and smiles. And
then I see, moving from theright, distinguished gentleman about six feet tall,
perhaps Jamaican complexed, wearing a sportsjacket with Rockefeller Center logo on it.

(49:51):
And he looked at me and hesaid, mister Robbins, and I
said yes, and he looked atit and he said, I'll take that.
It's like, oh, if that'ssnub, I don't know, thank
you. What in town I went. I spoke to his therapist the next
day. She said, he verymuch appreciated. He's really not interested in

(50:12):
discussing it with you. And shortlythereafter he became a public person in the
work. So what what what thetimeframe on this event when you met him?
This would have been I think ninetytwo. I'm one of those people
who, even now do not keepmy appointments in my phone. I have
appointments books going back decades, andif pressed, I'm sure I could find

(50:37):
the appointment and the exact day intime that I was supposed to be there,
if anybody wanted to look at mecross eyed they could pay for an
analysis of the ink, and thenaccused me of being at thirty Rock for
some of the reason that afternoon.But I think it was ninety two.
I think it was President was President. You would have remembered if President Clinton
was in office yet, right hewas. He was, as I recall,

(51:00):
really in office. It wasn't ninetytwo. It would have had it
been ninety three, well, earlyninety three. I don't remember, but
I can't look at I'm saying thisis that Rockefeller makes his approach to the
Clinton administration on March I think twentythird, when his lawyer, Henry diamond

(51:20):
sends a facts to the Office ofScience of Technology Policy, saying, my
boss, Lawn Stockefeller wants to engagethe president on this issue. And so
I'm speculating that your dossier may haveplayed a role in the final decision to
send that facts. I don't thinkit's out of the question, given the

(51:43):
circumstances, And I'm not doing thisto tout myself. It's just the way
it happened. So I think Henry. I believe Henry Diamond died not too
long ago. Of course, Andy'sgone, so I think Marie may still
be alive. I don't know.But let me tell you, the Rockefeller
initiative was far more substantive than peopleknow, even the ones that have maybe

(52:07):
read Grant's book and have followed mycoverage of it. It was substitutive.
There was a lot of significant peopleinvolved. And I want to elaborate on
this because you know, I canjust go off on tangents. But that
planted a seed into a very powerfulpolitical family, I guess you could say,

(52:30):
all right, and that seed remainedeven and remains even to this day.
And so in that sense, hedid something significant, even though it
never really went anywhere, and andand so forth. But the response of
the government, actually the government ofthe Department of Defense and the Air Force,

(52:50):
to Clinton's effort to follow suit onwhat Rockefeller wanted definitely had an impact
on him, and notably his wifeand his top aid Podesta, and so
essentially that that has that affected historyin a big way. But we did

(53:12):
not get I know, by theway, and I have two I have
two Lawrence stories very quickly, allright, you got yours, I got,
By the way, is that thefirst time you've ever told that storytime
I've ever told it in a broadcastformat. I've certainly shared it with a
few people privately. But um,Lawrence has gone, his therapist is gone.
And yeah, so uh well that'sa good story. I can't match

(53:37):
that. But I got two ones. Okay. First of all, I
am going to cut you off,not now, but shortly. So okay,
if you want to hold those wehave, um like the three ish
minutes left to these are short,short, Okay, go for it.
I obviously became aware of the Rockefellinitiative after I got involved. When I

(54:00):
got involved in January of nineteen ninetysix, I didn't know anything about it.
Sometime in nineteen ninety six it sortof got to my attention. I
might have been from Grant Cameron.Somehow. It basically wrapped up in October
of ninety six. It was doneleading into the next election. But at
some point I submitted a proposal tohim. Later I forget when about possibly

(54:22):
funding PRG. And obviously he passed, and it was nice. One of
his attorneys were kind enough to callme and say, you know, mister
Rockfeller has passed. We noticed yourproposal on his desk, and obviously we're
not going to be able to respondto that. I'm so sorry. I
thought that was very nice. Okay. My second story is cooler. When

(54:45):
I started the ex conferences in twothousand and four, I gave an award
I forget which one could have beenLifetime Achievement, hall of Fame something,
a major award to Lawrence Rockefeller posthumously, all right, in two four to
five. In any event, okay, but I have a number of posthumous
awards. A couple have never beendelivered yet. They're they're sitting in a

(55:07):
in a storage but I want todo that one day. But I eventually,
after about a year or so,I found out where his daughter lived.
His daughter was living in a verynice community in Marin County, right
there in the ocean. It's kindof a fairly well known community. It's
like going back in another time.And so I arranged to meet her.

(55:27):
And because I didn't have friends inNapo Valley in Naple County, and so
I drove to this seaside town andwe had a lovely lunch. And that
is going to bring people back.Right after our break, my special guest
is Stephen Bassett. We are talkingabout breaking news of the most extraordinary kind.
The show is meanwhile here on Earth. We will see you back here

(55:50):
in four minutes. Bye ye heymembers. The new kgrra dB app is now

(56:14):
available on iOS and Android devices.Gain on demand access to any kgrra dB
programming. Download any show directly toyour mobile device to listen or watch on
the go, Go to the appstore and search KGr ra DP. Are

(56:47):
we alone in the universe? Themost important question facing humanity is on the
verge of being settled once and forall. The Mutual UFO Network has been
at the forefront of this journey fornearly fig years. Our members worldwide are
dedicated to the research, documentation,and awareness that will shape the future of

(57:07):
humanity. Won't you join us?It's not just a donation. It's a
warm blanket, it's a bottle ofclean water. It's a roof and a

(57:31):
bed. It's knowing someone cares.It's feeling safe. He said today,
that's better than yesterday. Every dollaryou can spare helps so much more than
you can imagine. Please donate nowto help people affected by Hurricane Ian.
Your support is urgently needed. Discoverthe Observation Deck, a one of a

(57:55):
kind virtual event platform that takes videoconferencing to the next level by using avatars
to navigate a campus. There's somany areas and activities to choose from.
There's a thousand seed auditorium, anexpo hall, a nightclub, and even
a beach. So come atwn Aconference, take a class, or hear
a lecture on the incredible Observation detcampus. Go to the observation dk dot

(58:21):
com. You're listening to the KGrA Digital broadcasting Network. We provide unparalleled
coverage of trending news in the worldof upology, cryptozoology, and paranormal phenomenon.

(58:43):
Whether you're watching our video live streamor listening to one of our audio
programs, you are getting the bestfrom world renowned researchers and hosts guiding you
through topics the mainstream won't touch.Miss one of your favor programs, no
problem. Head over to the membersarea at kgra adb dot com for access

(59:07):
to our massive library of award winningcontents. Make contact stay connected only at
kg r a dB dot com,and we are back. Peter Robbins here,

(59:43):
my guest is Stephen Bassett. Beforewe return to that point where Stephen
left off, I want to justmake sure that our viewers and listeners know
that the article that we are talkingabout in great part here is called Intelligence
Officials say US has retrieved craft ofnon human origin. The byline is Leslie

(01:00:08):
Kaine and Ralph Blumenthal. It waspublished a week ago on June fifth.
In the debrief and just to readanother clip from this extraordinary article, Gress
said, the recoveries of partial fragmentsthought and up to intact vehicles have been

(01:00:28):
made for decades through the present dayby the government, its allies, and
defense contractors. Analysis has determined thatthe objects retrieved are quote of exotic origin
non human intelligence, whether extraterrestrial orunknown origin, based on the vehicle morphologies
and material science testing and the possessionof unique atomic arrangements and radiological signatures,

(01:00:53):
he said. In filing his complaint, Gruce is represented by a lawyer who
served as the initial Intelligence Community InspectorGeneral. This is extraordinary and really without
present, but I don't want toforget where we were. You have just
had a very pleasant lunch with missRockefeller and continue it's very brief. I

(01:01:20):
gave her the Postumius Award for ourholler, and we talked about this and
that, and it was very nice, and I was careful not to be
intrusive, but I did ask herthis question, which is why I tell
the story. I asked her nameescapes me right now. She's passed.
I said, what did the familythink about Rockefeller's effort with respect to this

(01:01:40):
issue? And she said the familywas not supportive. But I was all
right. I always remember that moment. And we parted and I went my
separate ways again. I hope thestory of his efforts comes due. And
I'm not going to get into this, but one of the I don't know

(01:02:06):
if it's a tragedy, but oneof the fascinating stories of the twentieth century
political stories, which is going tobe written up big time. Grant has
written his book, but I'm talkingabout heavy duty. Book is how this
issue and that facts it was sentin March twenty three, nineteen ninety three,

(01:02:27):
impacted the careers of Bill Clinton andHillary Clinton and by extension, the
Democratic Party, as well as thecareer of John Podesta. This is an
amazing story. They carried this thingforward. They had there, they had
a certain way they wanted to doit. They had their own plans and
dreams, and they dealt with itas they dealt with it, and as

(01:02:50):
they were doing it for nearly twentyyears. I have been dogging them.
I think that's the proper phase.I'm an activist. Was I polite?
Was it polite to do that?No? Was I rude or crude?
No? But I absolutely and I'mnot the only one. But nobody dogged
it more than I did, justjust constantly, and you know, and

(01:03:15):
I've done endless interviews, right,and I brought it up four times than
I can imagine, constantly trying toremind them through whatever microphone, and I
was talking about as well as thepublic that this happened. And they've still
out there and they're still politically involved, and they're very important and parable people

(01:03:37):
in the Democratic Party. Engage engageit, engage it, engage it.
And I don't get any car stonersfrom them. I've never even had a
little note, you know, saying, you know, he, how are
you doing, Steve. No,I'm sure that I've not didn't make your
life any easier, but for me, it was easy. Absolutely. They
had so many opportunities to go,Okay, damn it, we're going to

(01:04:00):
tell the people what happened with myhusband and how he was lied to,
how they've spent twelve million dollars tocreate a Mogil balloon report and under air
force budget, whatever the hell,and really take this forward. It shows
not to And when finally she getsto run for president, I was more
ready than ever, and so usingthe citizen hearing on the as citizen Hearing

(01:04:23):
on disclosure as a platform, Ithen my publish than I got in touch
with top media and we drove fourhundred stories into that campaign, four hundred
articles or on my website you cango find him under the twenty sixteen election
initiative connecting her and Podesta and herhusband to the issue in New York Times.
I just following all the way throughthat campaign, and I also made

(01:04:48):
some statements on media. Look,Podesta was playing it safe. A little
here, a little there, don'tget carried away. He had no choice.
If I hadn't I I hadn't donewhat I was doing, he probably
wouldn't have had to do anything.But they never really engaged it. And
if they had, if they hadsaid, look, sit down with the

(01:05:12):
top journalist at NBC News now withGeorge Stephanopolis, because in news, who
was there in the White House whenthe Rockefeller initiative was going on, and
just tell the people what happened.She would have walked away with that election.
Now, I'm not partisanly promoting oldwhy didn't win. I'm simply saying

(01:05:34):
that this issue traveled along with himfor twenty years. I'm sorry if they
hate me for that, but itwas the right thing to do, and
if they had done the right thing, they would she would have been president.
And I believe that a lot ofother people. Right, that was
the first run. I'm talking aboutthe first run, not the second run.

(01:05:54):
Okay, and in fact, whenthe second I mean, hang on
a second, I'm gonna get thisright now. No, her first run
for president, we weren't able todo much and she was out before the
primaries. Second run is what I'mtalking about. That as I was twenty
and sixteen. She didn't bring itup in the first time, but there

(01:06:15):
wasn't much I could do about it. I wasn't in a position to really
push much. I didn't have theconnections, I didn't have the journalistic connections,
and so really nothing really came up. As she's trying to compete for
that nomination, which apparently had lockedup and then lost it to Barack Obama.
And so it was eight years beforeand she might not run again.

(01:06:36):
They could have retired comfortably on aCaribbean island, but she decided she wanted
to be back in the White House. And I think a lot of people
knew that on her agenda because again, they had never let that issue totally
disconnect from them, and that hasbeen John Fodesta's job. He's never let
that issue die that when she gotback in the White House, by god,

(01:06:58):
she was going to see to itthat you see that was taken from
her husband by his own Department ofDefense and Air Force. I see his
own so when he commands was notgoing to happen to her. And a
lot of people knew that, andthey saw her winning and high in the
polls. They saw these articles comingout boom boom, boom, boom boom,
and I have a feeling it's possiblethat helped them make a decision.

(01:07:20):
We're going to take direct action ourselvesand come forward. Not necessary to get
her elected, because they didn't,they didn't come forward early enough for that,
but rather we're going to be thereto help ensure and be part of
this process when once elected she endsthe truth embargo, and of course that

(01:07:42):
all blue sky high when she lost. So there's a history here that I
don't have the resources to get into, but I'm hoping there's some histories and
best class are you listen, There'sthere's an unbelievable history here that has got
to be written up someday. Yes, that will be book worth reading.

(01:08:03):
At this moment, I thought thatI kind of let's slide before. Well,
we're at a time right now we'remore and more people care less and
less what other people think about theirviews on the subject of truly anomalous UFOs
and their implications, And there isan increasing ground swell which I think is

(01:08:30):
naturally leading toward a tipping point duringwhich we will have a much more receptive
population to such major breaks of newsas we expect to come down the pike
at some point. More and moreelected officials who would have never dared to
associate their name with the subject arenow realizing this is important and as important

(01:08:55):
as anything even dare I say,environmental crime. The implications for humanity are
that extraordinary. I'm not asking youto make a prediction, But can you
give us an idea of a scenarioor scenarios that you feel maybe coming at
us over the next three to sixmonths based on the gravity that this stone

(01:09:23):
is starting to roll down the hillwith. Well, since you ask,
I'm so glad. I had starteda new hashtag trend on Twitter, okay,
and I invite people to use it. Right, That's how you get
things tied together on Twitter. Ilove Twitter, by the way, I
don't care what you think of belonloss. Twitter is very important. It's

(01:09:44):
going to be fine, and it'sgoing to be very significant in our lives
going forward. My new hashtag ishashtag weeks not months, Okay, weeks
not months. As far as I'mconcerned, it's simple at this point,
it's straightforward. Mark Warner has nochoice but to call hearings immediately. If

(01:10:13):
he doesn't, nothing good is goingto come from it. Right. First
of all, the first thing thathe has to consider is that representative Comber
and god knows who else is goingto jump up. He's gonna steal the
stundard. They're gonna hold the firsthear it right now. If I'm Mark
Warner and and my and my companionsand associates on the most important committee in

(01:10:36):
Congress. They send an Intel Committee, which created the initial legislation in nineteen
twenty twenty, the second legislation oftwenty twenty one, and the second in
twenty twenty two, literally defining thatthe process is underway and calling for the
reports. And you've got witnesses thatare going to change the world and probably
be part of the most watch hearingsat all of history. You are going

(01:10:59):
to sit there and let a modestcommittee in the House start the ball rolling?
Are you that generous? Mark?And I'm not being too flippant about
this, look, I have nothingagainst the House of Representatives. It's a
very important house and their committee isdo important work, of course, but
everybody understands that the Watergate hearings werenot in the House Representatives. I'm pretty

(01:11:27):
sure it might have been a combinedthing. But whatever. The point is
is that it's essential that these hearingsare definitive and final. This is ball
game, right, Okay, we'rein the ninth inning. The game is
on the line. You don't goto your bench and call up the three

(01:11:47):
weakest hitters. Not that they're notprofessional ball players, they are and they're
good athletes, certainly the star oftheir high school teams. But you don't
call them up to go to batin the ninth You got to win the
game. And so these hearings needto be as powerful as they can be,
which means they need to be infront of the Intel Committee, unless
he wants to pass it to theArmed Services Committee. But I think that's

(01:12:11):
a mistake because the Armed Services Committeeis all about the Armed services, which
puts too much of an emphasis onthe how would you say threat? Thing?
Okay, the Intel Committee is aboutintelligence. Intelligence is a good thing.
Being intelligence is a good thing.Intelligence is information. They're gathering,
information that they're even willing to sharewith us, though not all. Some

(01:12:32):
of it will be classified because it'sclassified intelligence. In other words, that
is the way it needs to start. It guarantees the amount of gravitas and
so forth, and so Mark hasto do it right. The president clearly
can't be thinking, oh, Iwant to run for president with this whole

(01:12:56):
thing hanging out in nowhere with noresil Lucian and I'm trying to answer questions
about it like Hillary Clinton, onlythe situation now is one hundred times more
pregnant than it was when she ran. He would have to be. It
would be a huge political mistake.Let me just say, called me,
I'll confirm it, all right,Have your White House aide called me.

(01:13:17):
I'll be happy to say this directly. And so he almost certainly wants it
as well. Therefore it's going tohappen when that hearing gets underway. I
have a pretty good idea, asmany of my colleagues do, who the
witnesses are. I know what thetestimony is going to be, right,
And let me tell you if youthought and his name escapes me, but

(01:13:40):
your memory is way better than mine. It's right in the tip of my
tongue. It was the individual whowas before the Watergate hearing committee, right,
and he was asked, was ityou'll know it? He was asked
about something, and he happened tosay, well, is there a take
you know what I'm talking about?Yes, exactly, yeah, And all

(01:14:04):
of a sudden we knew about rightand board huge and off we go.
That was considered pretty substantial testimony.The testimony that they're going to get in
the first couple of days of thishearing is a thousand times more potent and
powerful than that. That is nothingcompared to what we're going to hear.

(01:14:28):
And I'm telling it, the world'sgoing to go whoa, And the journalists
are going to go poets or prises, and the witness they're going to start
pouring out, my God. Andthat's it. That's ballgame, and and
and it's and it's the right waybecause everybody is participating in this revelation,
this intelligence. They're participating, they'reseeing it happen, they're watching it.

(01:14:49):
They're really fired up, and sois the president. And so we jump
in and ask a devil's advocate question. For more than three quarters of a
century, there has been a workinggroup within government spread about different agencies with

(01:15:15):
a vested interest in keeping the secretsthat we're talking about absolutely secret, with
a policy of keeping it. Whetherit's their invested interest, I don't know,
but maintaining that policy, which wasnational security and essentially coming down from
the White House. I think forme, if we take it back to

(01:15:36):
the baseline, we're dealing with individualswho have had careers that have brought them
power, prestige, notoriety, interestingand exciting lives who are pretty pumped up
about it. Most of them arecollege educated white guys who have been part

(01:15:59):
of this movement, so to say, since the get go, and they
don't want things to change. Also, there are well the defense establishment.
There are so many trillions of dollarssitting that could go either way into the

(01:16:28):
future in terms of petrochemical industry collapsing, or just so many parts of what
we accept as our day to daylife in terms of technology and politics could
vaporize. And that is very concerningto folks that want things to simply stay

(01:16:53):
stable. We understand that, butwe also know, without being a theatrical
or overly dramas attic, the forcesthat they have occasionally taken steps that are
draconian and have cost people their livesa certainly shut them up for the rest
of their lives. Can you envisiona worst case scenario of a way to

(01:17:15):
try to kill this momentum, thiseffort that is now moving at increasing speeds
to become a reality. Okay,first I have to ask a favor,
and then I'm going to give youanother answer. Okay, all right,
here's what I want you to doright now. Listen carefully. This has
to be right here. It's goingto seem silly you want to ask me

(01:17:36):
this question, Stephen. On ascale of zero to one, what do
you think the chances are that theprocess underway leading to disclosure will prevail over
the quote vested interests of those whiteguys. Let me cut you off there

(01:17:59):
and say, on a scale ofone to ten, what do you feel
the chances are? And complete thesentence as you had, What are the
chances that this process will prevail overthose educated white guys? One hundred percent?
Now you know why I wanted youto do that. You made the

(01:18:19):
connection. One of my favorite scientistsin the whole world who I've met I
loved this guy is a gentleman bythe name of doctor Gary Nolan. Carry
is a bullet surprise, I mean, a Nobel Prize and nominee head of
mythology at the Stanford Hospital. Ibelieve patents all over the place. Beloved

(01:18:43):
Okay been involved in the issue forsome time and was one of the ten
people that came forward in October oftwenty and seventeen. Is part of the
two Stars cats right. He iskind of laid back, but he has
inserted himself more recently and getting interviewsand what have you. And he recently,

(01:19:05):
and whether he knew Grush was comingor not, I don't know,
but it's very possibly, dude,because again, if there's all kinds of
stuff going on behind the scenes.But he went to an important convention or
conference in New York. It wasn'tabout our subject. It's the Eye Connections
conference, right, and he's beinginterviewed by this very elatively young academic looking

(01:19:30):
fellow, and he asked him somethingalong the lines of what we pay carry
goal about this the UAP thing andso forth. I mean, do you
think we're being visited by non humanYes, guys, but didn't he didn't

(01:19:50):
quite expect that. I don't thinkyou could tell he didn't expect that answer.
And so he gathers himself together.He says, doctor Nolan, on
a scale of zero row to onehundred, what is the percentage likelihood that
we are, in fact being engagedby extraterrestrials? Boom right, and let

(01:20:13):
me tell you that got picked up. That went around all right, And
then of course people are saying,well, obviously he will be fired at
Stanford. Of course, you know, retract that nomination that they gave him
one a Nobill Prize and he'll haveto, I don't know, find another
career, maybe fishing offshore out ofSan Diego or whatever the hell aolutely nothing.

(01:20:36):
So again, what I'm trying tosay, Peter, is that h
this is this is, this cakeis baked, all right. All of
the various reasons for why we needto keep it going they're gone are They're
irrelevant. It's done, all right. And those out there who are have

(01:21:01):
vested interest in what happens in thepost disclosure world. And for some people
that's how can I keep making moneyat the almost obscene pace that I'm making
it now because I only have threeyachts and one island and one private plane.
But I'd like to have more yachtsand two private planes. Whatever they
start planning now, all right,And I encourage people to do that.

(01:21:24):
I mean, I would love tobe advising some corporations for a modest fee
on how to consider a post disposureworld and what's coming. I'd never get
calls back on that. It's therewas this wonderful scene. It was one
of the great scenes and one ofthe great movies of all time, a
movie that changed my life, maybenot for the better. It's to graduate

(01:21:45):
and is in the kitchen with hisfather, and I was telling about all
his big plans and I forget whather name was, the laying or where
the hell it was. How he'she's gonna marry her and he's going to
do this, and as father says, it's just this cake doesn't seem to
be baked, and just and Hoffmanlooks at it. Oh, it's fully

(01:22:08):
baked. It's fully baked. Okay, well, look, I'm Dustin Hoffman
to graduate what was his name,Benjamin? This cake is fully baked.
All we have to do is takeit out of the oven, and the
person that ultimately has to do thatis Mark Warner. At this point,
the person that should do it isMark Warner. And then Mark Warner just

(01:22:30):
needs to put the icing on it, put some candles on it, or
maybe one candle, light it,and deliver it to the President who will
blow out the candle and say Happydisclosure Day. All right, So there
you go. I've described it inabsolutely my highest professional terms that I can,
and CNN call me, I'll behappy to do it on your show.

(01:22:50):
I you heard it here, folks. By the way, while I
may have a better memory than you, on certain things. One of our
great listener viewers, William James Smithhas a better one than both of us,
was Alexander Butterfield. Advisor put forwardthat information about the tapes, and

(01:23:13):
that is how we knew about theWatergate tapes. And thank you William for
that. Alexander Butterfield. I hopehe's still with us. Yeah, I
don't know. He probably isn't,but if he is, thank you.
He's going to enjoy the hearings tocome and he's going to be watching him
going, who's going to be theAlexander Butterfield here? Is it going to
be? Right? You know whowould have imagined? Yeah? Yeah,

(01:23:34):
yeah right now? Leslie King andRalph Bloomenthal are no doubt fielding questions and
inquiries every day. I wanted tosay that one of the things for me

(01:23:56):
that made this expose article different thanany UFO related expose article I have ever
read in my life not only hasto do with the timing and the quality
of the information, but the twojournalists who have signed off on it.
I often will describe myself if asked, besides being a broadcaster, author,

(01:24:23):
lecturer, I'm an investigative writer.Great I am and do that on and
off. What did I need toqualify for that title simply to call myself
an investigative writer? And I thinka lot of more casual listeners, viewers,
readers, they don't really appreciate thatjournalists qualified professional journalists. Ralph,

(01:24:53):
for example, being a graduate ofColumbia University School of Journalism, he's a
Politzer Prize winner. That much moreimportant to them than making a lot of
money or certainly a good living.But making their main goal money is not
what they're about, or they wouldnever have become journalists, and they don't

(01:25:15):
make a lot of money. Forthese two individuals who have been so careful
about never associating themselves with any exoticaspect of the UFOs story in any public
form. Whatever their personal feelings areand beliefs are their own, but neither
of them has ever even remotely goneon record as they have with this,

(01:25:42):
And for me, that says thatthey did the due diligence. They spent
the time, and they researched andinvestigated to the point where they could sign
off on these articles knowing they haddone their best job, that everything that
they were saying was true. Thatis a huge milestone in this subject in

(01:26:05):
terms of the level of the gameof the people reporting it. And I
think that's one of the things thatmakes it so important what's going on right
now, if it had been anybodyelse, bless their hearts, with less
credibility, or again not. Ralphwas a reporter for the New York Times

(01:26:27):
for fifty years and has continued towrite with them since. Leslie, of
course, has written from many ofthe greatest publications in America, and neither
one of them have ever been,to the best of my knowledge, called
on the carpet as reporting anything inaccurate. Well they're not. You know,
he's retired and she's independent, sothere's no carpet to be called on.
But from twenty seventeen on they didfive years. Lord knows who they're talking

(01:26:55):
to or what's having at what they'redoing. But I do know that she's
written some article since then over this, and so is Ralph Bloomale and and
and I mean no disrespect to MicahHankster, Tim McMillan and Brian Bender a
lot of the other people that arewriting about this, but there needs to
be a polar zurprise here, andit needs to go to Leslie Cannon,
Ralph Bloomenthal period, they don't geta pulitzerprise. I think there's going to

(01:27:18):
be blowback, right, I'm gonnaget on it because I'm gonna come on,
what you gotta do, right,what kind of a story you gotta
break? And so yeah, welllet's let I hope that that happens,
and I hope that I get togo to the ceremony where they where they
if they do that, I thinkit's ceremonies. I think they do whatever.
I'd like to go to the ceremonywhere they are getting that award.

(01:27:41):
Um. So yeah, uh,this is great journalism, but plenty of
the journalists have had an opportunity.I had some exchanges back around two thousand
and I'm gonna go. I don'tknow Mid, and I could check my
records. It's kind of like Mid. I think it was maybe mid to
late twenty twenty, might have beenearly twenty one. And Ashley Parker,

(01:28:05):
who I admired very much. Imean, she's a great journalist and she
is the White House Bureau chief forthe Harsh College is a very important person
and she as things we're moving forwardright. She uh actually authored right even
though she used the bureau chief.She authored an article about this subject,
and she called me up and Igave her, you know me, she

(01:28:29):
called me up, and I gaveher about three times as much as she
really wanted. But she used,she used. She closed out her article
with a quote for me, whichis which is one that I really appreciated.
So I got back in touch withher, and I made a really
concerted effort to look and again,we're talking twenty twenty one. I think
it's a you know, minum andtwenty and I try to and I've done

(01:28:53):
this before, but this was probablythe more, much more personal, intense
effort to try to convey to thebiggest story of all time is coming.
It's unfolded. It doesn't get biggerthan this, right, And I'm I'm
not a journalist, I'm an activist. I don't have any I'm not here.
I know I'm in. I'm inthe National Press building just up the

(01:29:16):
street. And I said, look, if you could let me come in
and talk to some of the editors, let me come in talk some of
the reporters. I can give themperspective on this, right, I could
help them make decisions. No,absolutely thank you. Yeah, some thanks.
No, not really needed that,and so uh then then then they
didn't write about it for a while. There's been some stories and some coverage

(01:29:40):
has been some stuff, but theWashington I believe me. I I started
hitting the Washington Post all the wayback in nineteen ninety seven. It was
my paper. I love the WashingtonPost. I read it constantly, great
and the funnies. I love thefunny So it was my paper, right,
And so I was, you know, and obviously registers a lobby.

(01:30:00):
They're they're the one that launched mycareer when they saw the registration and came
out and gave me a nice interview, put it in the big front page
of the of the of the businesssection, which is almost as good as
the In fact, it's better thanthe front page, because there's no way
I could have gotten a photo thatbig on the front page business section the
Washington Post. And if I go, I'm legitimized. And so I'm trying
to get stuff in and a poseand get stuff in the Post. And

(01:30:21):
there was one. And I've gotthe facts in my file. It's it's
it's back in storage in Washington.Got I gotta get my office back there
in the press building. I gottaraise two thousand and two thousand and three
thousand dollars to do it. Butwhatever it was, Bondrill, I think
and think he came was the editor, might have been the edit of the
style section. But there was somethingthat was written and I sent I sent

(01:30:42):
a facts in to him about somethingright, meaning something was going on,
and I wanted to see if hewanted to cover that. And I got
a facts back from him, andit was very short, said, mister
Baston was very interesting. And I'mparaphrasing here, it's bry interesting. Once
you brought a dry attention, soforth, I'll tell you if you can

(01:31:04):
come into our offices and bring anextra an alien with you, we will
will consider having a check. Rightnow, I've got that puppy and I
intend to use it at the righttime. Okay, he's still around.
I think now he's been playing aruder, but that is you know,
Ben Bradley. I went up toBen Bradley, boy, I don't know

(01:31:27):
I forgoing happened there have but nothinggood came from it. I've tried.
I did everything I could to getthe Washington Post on top of the story
I knew, particularly given the cutonconnection. Okay, because the Clintons were
close to the to the to thepost people right, including Katherine Graham.
Obviously it's a left leaning, youknow, publication, but it's a fine

(01:31:49):
paper. And I tried and triedand tried it. I couldn't do it.
I couldn't do it. I wouldhave loved to see the Washington Post
break this story wide open, shouldhave literally sent it into the stratoste.
The New York Times would have beensitting there going we were missed it?

(01:32:12):
How did we miss it? Right? I did my best post. What
can I say? I subscribe tothem online now and I get all their
articles. But I have no no, no, no regrets there. I
don't know what else I could havedone. I said, go down and
I don't know, start picking themand stand out in front of the offices
with a sign or something like that. Uh. And and this is but

(01:32:32):
this is not just a post.One of the great books. It needs
to be written is how what werethe forces? What were the factors that
contributed to extremely intelligent, professional,educated journalists who aren't in it for the

(01:32:53):
money, They're in it for thenews, and nothing is more in the
news, and of course the ultimateacknowledgement is the Pulitzer Prize. What is
it that they just couldn't do astory about what was flying over their head?
Right? How much stuff had tobe shoved in their door? Or

(01:33:15):
if they're going this isn't what?Were they under a constant sort of understanding
that the military intelliensed community would besevere if they did that, was somebody
gonna get killed? I mean theydid that. They did the Pentagon papers,
and they thought the damn thing wouldbankrupt, and they thought they'd be
destroyed. Were they in fear ofsomething far worse than that? Is it
ignorance? Was it loyalty patriotism?That they honestly felt that covering the story

(01:33:41):
would somehow the story of the countrysomebody I don't know, but I would
like to know. Right, it'sa great story, and somebody's going to
write it. Somebody's going to dothat history because we can't have this happen
again. Steve, do you thinkit's fair to say that, with the
breaking of the story again in amodest but respectable and well thought of venue

(01:34:03):
like the Debrief, that there areindividuals, whether assigned or self assigned at
the Washington Post, at the NewYork Times, at the major broadcast venues,
with the other national dailies who arewatching this story develop every day,

(01:34:24):
because they know, while the storyhas broken, it's broken in a way
that it's being set up to reallybreak at some point in the future.
And that is something I'm sure thatthey want to be in on, and
that there are chess pieces being movedaround right now of we need to be

(01:34:46):
much more prepared to validate this materialor check it out or confirm it at
high speed, because when this breaks, the major venues that have the courage
and the imagination and the resources tohave their names attached to it, it
will be a seizemic jump for us. Well, this is another aspect of

(01:35:10):
David Grush Gush Davids Grush pronounced likebush. That is non trivial and it's
a good thing. Okay, Sothe Post and the Times can't go with
it. They don't have enough timeby it's fine, and so okay,
Leslie and Ralph could have just goneoff and said, well, let's just

(01:35:31):
sit on it for a while andgive them a little time, and we'll
wait for it to happen. Orwhatever. However, in which case the
Post of the Times might have sentsome of their correspondents out to try to
make some contacts and what have you, and they would have tried to be
polite and reasonable and so forth.But when Grush goes, when Leslie and

(01:35:56):
Ralph go to the brief, andthe brief pops it, and by the
way, debriefs, remember, readershipis going up a lot. Okay,
I'm pretty sure about as well asshould. And so he comes out and
it's there, it's out. Whatthat does is it gives the Post and
the New York Times now license toget really serious. Now the word's not
worried about. You know, we'regoing down. You go down, Go

(01:36:20):
down to the Department of Defenses ofPublic Office. There are you going and
kick some serious ass. Okay,you're not going to take any nonsense.
By the way, start rummaging throughtheir garbage cans. You gotta see some
stuff there, whatever it takes.They have given a license to do that
now, to be far more aggressive. And as a result, because of

(01:36:40):
Rush, the New York Times andthe Worston Posts may come up with some
good stuff, right, because ifthey can come up with some equally compelling
stuff new we didn't know. Maybesome witnesses, Oh my god, kind
of stuff they might get a Pulletzerprize, in which case they had better
send David Grush several cases is ofthe finest champagne, one from each,

(01:37:01):
one from each paper, because Ithink he helped that make that happen.
He unmeasured them. Yes, AndI'm going to jump in for a moment
here to say that great journalists,no matter how qualified, how serious,
how much credibility a whistleblower witness likeRush has, you triangulate. You build

(01:37:27):
on that information with other information thatis credible and grounded, and create kind
of a triangulated structure where for anybodylooking to take it apart, they've got
a lot of taking a part ofdifferent parts to do. And for us
and people who follow this UFO storyto the level that we do, and

(01:37:50):
even now that second and third tierof people who are interested in check in
every once in a while. Thename Christopher Mellon has real weight. Melon
spent nearly twenty years in the USintelligence community and served as Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence. Work withCongress for years on the Unidentified aerial phenomena

(01:38:15):
question quoting from the article quoting Melon, A number of well placed current and
former officials have shared detailed information withme regarding this alleged program, including insights
into the history, governing documents,and the location where a craft was allegedly
abandoned and recovered. Melon said,However, it is a delicate matter getting

(01:38:40):
this potentially explosive information into the righthands for validation. This is made harder
by the fact that, rightly orwrongly, a number of potential sources do
not trust the leadership of the AllDomain Anomaly Resolution Office established by Congress end
quote. Yeah, I interpreted thatfairly softly. I don't think it's they

(01:39:06):
don't trust Kirkpatrick because they think heis nefarious or he's playing a game or
whatever. Yeah. I think whatthey're saying is they do not trust Arrow
to be able to move fast enoughto get this information out in the time
it needs to get out. Andthat's true. Arrow's job is not to
end the truth embargo. Arro's jobis to show the American people we set

(01:39:30):
up an interagency committee right, andwe're doing the right thing. In other
words, and I'll have to saythis again, forgive me, Peter.
This is my four hundred and ninetyseventh time, but it is the most
important thing I'm going to say onyour show tonight. The lottery tickets and
no, I'm sorry, the numberof thought. No, that's not everything

(01:39:51):
that you were seeing. The legislationthat was put in the creation of ARROW
or before that, the UAP TaskForce, all right, the hearings that
are being set up, the reportsfrom the engagement of the issue by our

(01:40:12):
fine Space Agency NASA, and statementsfrom a quality human being Bill Nelson.
They're recent briefing where they brought usup to speed, and all the little
things they're going to do about data. This is a data than everything else.
Everything you have been seeing that hascome out related to government structuring and

(01:40:32):
engaging this issue is nothing zero todo with finding out what this phenomena is.
Zero bupkus nothing. They all readyknow. Lots of people know.
Now maybe a few people that areinvolved in these things they're setting up,

(01:40:55):
like a member of Congress here orsomebody that's on the Interagens Committee there or
whatever. But in terms of thegovernment, in terms of the d D,
the Air Force, the Navy,whatever, they all ready no,
and you're saying, well, okay, then why are they doing this if
I already know? Just tell us, right, it's time to end the
embargo. Just tell us. Well. The reason is complicated, but it

(01:41:18):
can be put simply this way.This truth embargo, nothing quite like it,
I think has ever happened in history. It's hard for me to imagine.
I'm sure back in the old days, you know, the spharaohs and
the kings and whatever, they toldthe people whatever they wanted, and they
didn't like it, they'd kill him. I mean, it's just another time

(01:41:42):
people didn't even count. But ina modern society, a democratic, constitutional
republic with massive amounts of resources andjournalism and everything else, that they managed
to maintain this fundamental line for seventysix years is phenomenal. I mean,
it's an amazing accomplishment, and itrequired a great deal of bending. How
would you say, the rules,the laws, the aspets, the morals,

(01:42:05):
whatever. Now Stephen Greer in hispress conference today, which is pretty
pretty significant, and encourage people towatch it still up on YouTube. It's
a two and a half hour pressconference. He did two things and and
I a lot of people will probablynot be surprised but I think a lot

(01:42:25):
of people don't know his history andwhat's going on. He did two things,
which which you're interesting. One heset the bar on one side.
He set the bar representing, Ithink the extreme position of just how evil
our government has been, the lawsthey've broken, the awful things they've done
related to this subject. I believethat the government's done plenty of other evil

(01:42:48):
things and other subjects, and weknow that, and that's fine. But
he's and just in terms of thissubject, the UAP and everything connected to
it, directly or indirectly, hehas established that bar really awful, evil,
violent, bad things. At thesame time, he set a limit
on the other side in terms ofthe ETS themselves and his bar. His

(01:43:12):
position there is that the ETS areabsolutely non violent, non threatening, good,
have our good intentions and so forth, And and that's about as far
as you can go on both ofthese. It's interesting. Versuly, everybody
else is in the middle somewhere,Okay, in the middle with respect to
the ETS and how wonderful they are, and with respect to the government,

(01:43:34):
how evil it is and how manybad things seg time. And so I'm
going to guess that the truth isin the middle somewhere. But he has
set the bar. He's established thatand that's significant, right and and so
yeah, that was a really goodThat was a really good segue I made,

(01:43:55):
But I lost my way. I'mtrying to get back. Where was
I before I started that segue?Did you ask me? I'm just well,
you were talking about Stevens press conferenceday before that, just before that,
I was I was trying to makea point. What was I trying
to make a point about. Man, I lost it. I'm getting old,
Peter. You know. No,I don't look old, but I

(01:44:16):
am getting old. The numbers don'tlie. Um what I was I think
I'll trying to make a point that, um hm hmm, I don't remember
either. So yeah, well,all right, just gets back to the
what I was saying before. Umall logic and common sense political sense.

(01:44:44):
Yeah, says they must launch theherrings immediately unless they're out of town,
okay, And so I can checkfind out. I mean, just go
on your calendar and see when theSenate goes back in session next. If
they're not in session now, okay. Uh. And if they're unless they're
leaving town in a couple of daysor something, they need to call these

(01:45:05):
hearings immediately. They have the witnesses, they've been interviewed. The public is
ready on fire. We've now gotthis trigger thing that has taken it to
another level, a level that's farmore complicated and implicative. All right,
it's not that huge numbers of people. Don't suspect we had to crash vehicles.

(01:45:26):
How We've been given conferences and lectureson that forever. The idea of
crash vehicles has been out there forever. In fact, Roswell was a crash
vehicle, but in terms of itbeing really in play where it has the
potential to affect people's careers and orcause issues and or generate problems for institutions.
Now it is there, and soconsequently they simply have to do it.

(01:45:48):
They have to call these hearings assoon as possible. So we'll see
what happens and if they do.I will also say that in this last
five years. One of the thingsthat happened this last five years, So
I wasn't paying attention prior to toseventeen, but I think in the last

(01:46:09):
five years you had I think thebulk of what will be called the podcast
revolution. Right now, you area live show, right, and you're
going over radio, but I thinkyou're also also have some other the moment
it's over, it's archived, andtechnically it becomes a podcast streaming streaming.

(01:46:30):
But the podcast revolution is another thingin a sense, in that people are
doing real journalism out of their basement, you know, with reasonably nice cameras
and lighting. And then of courseyou add zoom, right, I mean,
zoom doesn't automatically lead to a podcastrevolution, but if you're going to
have one of those, zoom andstream yard and stuff gold and so now

(01:46:50):
everybody can interview everybody else and actuallylook about as good as better than it
looked when ABC was doing news backin nineteen sixty two in black and white.
And so the podcast revolution has providedan almost infinite platform for anybody and
everybody to get something out and getinformation out to the people in a personal

(01:47:14):
way. And so guess what,whether your research or a witness or whatever,
you've got a platform. And thenguess what, Because the Internet is
the Internet, a podcast goes upand stays there forever. And so now
you give an interview, you getyou give an interview to somebody back in
nineteen fifty three. It's probably noteven on cameras. In writing, they
take some notes, is put inthe paper, and that's thrown in the

(01:47:36):
trash. That's the end of that. If you get on ABC News,
CBS News, which I did once, okay, and it was I was
at a rally and they interviewed me, and I rushed back and I watched
Cronkite Show and I came up atthe very end and there I was that.
I was very pleased. That thengets puts into the vault. It
may be somewhere. I believe thatit's possible to sometimes go back and get

(01:47:59):
something like that, but they wantsomething like five to ten thousand dollars.
That was then. Now thousands andthousands of interviews and witnesses and research and
activists are being done, and boom, maybe they're only ear a thousand people
watch it and it goes up onthe net forever, and now you can
search YouTube and find it. Whoin their right mind thinks that this truth

(01:48:20):
embargo can continue like this without embarrassingeverybody, not just awkwardly, but embarrassing
them to death. I mean,my god, how much embarrassment does the
government want to suffer on this policy. It's already doing enough to embarrass itself
in other areas. Right, thisis the one where they can fix it.

(01:48:42):
Okay, they're doing plenty of stupidstuff everywhere, but here is thinks
something that they can do it right, and enough people are going to love
that that they may be more understandingabout all that stupid stuff they're doing.
And so I'm thinking, come on, people, come on, Ashley,
come on you New York Times,right, right, Ralph is one of
your guys, right, you shouldbe. I expect you to follow up

(01:49:03):
with a major story. Right,back your man up, back Ralph again
A right? The truth in theend of the truth and bargo doesn't lead
to utopia. It's not going tofix everything in the world. It opens
the possibilities to fix a lot ofthings. It changes worldview. It can
be transcending, there's no question.But I'm not an utopist. I'm actually

(01:49:25):
kind of a pragmatist. From apragmatic point of view, ending the truth
embargo is obvious. It's an imperativeSteve. One thing that has increasingly occurred
to me, especially over the lastfive years, when I took time out
to research the origins of the ridiculefactor. How did it happen that,

(01:49:50):
in so many words, individuals oran individual alleging I've seen something in the
sky or things that I've never seenbefore, either defined by their flight characteristics,
their shape, movement. However thatI don't know what it was,

(01:50:10):
and I wonder what it was thatthe Western mindset has been so deeply conditioned
to hear those words. But say, you know what's wrong with Peter?
Is he meant ly ill? Doeshe want to feel special? Is he
occultist? Is he looking to makemoney? It made no sense and ultimately
taking me back to the origins ofthe cover up and coming to a realization.

(01:50:34):
I wouldn't call it an epiphany,but that, like so many people
in the work, and I think, in the most draconian over theatrical to
a degree terms that Stephen Greer laidout today, as far as the evil
empire that is the United States government, we have to actually take a moment

(01:50:56):
and try to appreciate what those mensurrounding Truman we're faced with in terms of
the unknown and what it could leadto. Back in nineteen forty seven,
and much to my surprise, itfound me giving myself an avenue by which
I started to see it the waythey were seeing it, and with all

(01:51:19):
of the abuses and all of thecover ups and the miseducation, and to
think how much time we've lost inbeing a brave new world to find a
way to forgive them or at leastunderstand why it happened. I think that
mindset is rather healthy and helps usclear the air a bit also, And

(01:51:43):
this is my opinion, but basedon a lot of time and a lot
of work and a lot of study, and certainly interfacing with some hundreds of
people who I am as convinced asI can be based on everything I've learned
about them over the studies I've doneand of them working with Bud Hopkins,
that they these other intelligences that we'vecome to call aliens that some people and

(01:52:09):
Steve seems to be one of thosepeople who simplifies it to say them meaning
there's only one group that's coming andgoing, when the likelihood is that there
are a myriad of civilizations visiting usfor their own reasons, with their own
histories and their own relationships with humanity, who may well have the same span

(01:52:30):
of intentions toward us that we havetoward each other from the benevolent and kind
to the pathological, and that hasblown off. And I just wanted to
be on record to say they arenot all good. If they are,
there is no way that we canempirically know that, and we should not

(01:52:50):
assume that anyway. I don't Ibrought that up because it's it's simply to
state that that was brought and itwas interesting and I think it may serve
a good purpose. But I'm notcertainly going to get any debate on whether
that's the that that is too farout there or too extreme, but it

(01:53:11):
is. It is set the bar. It is saying, Okay, this
is as good as it gets.That's as bad as he gets. But
and Steve, we have had amissing time experience. I can hardly believe
it. But this show is over. Thank you, my friend, it
really is. We are at thatpoint. And um, it has once
again been a pleasure. A bigcyber hug to you. Stay in touch,

(01:53:32):
and thanks again, thank you fortonight. M To our listeners and
viewers, thank you for tuning in. Stay well, stand up for what
you believe in, and be kindto each other and see you next week. Four