Stephen Bassett - Wall Street Journal UFO Disinformation? Direction and Misdirection of UAP Disclosure

In this episode with Stephen Bassett we discuss and respond to the Wall Street Journal article titled, “The Pentagon Disinformation That Fueled America’s UFO Mythology.” Bassett is not convinced that UFOs were invented by the government. Like the 2024 AARO Historical Report, we discuss the historical innacuracies regarding Robert Salas and the March 24th, 1967, Malmstrom Air Force Base UFO incident when missile silos were exposed to a UFO wihch deactivated the nuclear warhead carrying missiles. We also cover the contradictions within the article and the phenomenal feats supposedly faux UFOs.

Also: Whistleblowers Matthew Brown, David Grusch, Jake Barber, Luis Elizondo and more continue to emerge. But is it enough to make a difference to breakthrough the barrier blocking UFO disclosure?

Steve Bassett is Executive Director of Paradigm Research Group. He is a political activist and Disclosure advocate who has spoken to audiences in 20 countries about the political implications of UAP/ET phenomena and Disclosure – the formal confirmation by heads of state of an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race. In 2013 PRG organized and conducted a “Citizen Hearing on Disclosure” at the National Press Club in Washington. In November of 2014 PRG launched a two-year political initiative out of Washington, DC that injected the ET issue into the 2016 presidential campaign. In December 2023, Steve co-founded The Hollywood Disclosure Alliance in Los Angeles. He can be found at: Directors - Paradigm Research Group https://x.com/stevebassett?s=21&t=O53-Gmek079SYdU5cspDjQ

☕️ Wherever you listen to podcasts, please give a good rating and review.

☕️ Please subscribe help the channel grow. SUBSCRIBE, like, comment, and click the YouTube Notification Bell so you don’t miss a show. Thank you!
https://www.youtube.com/mysticlounge

 HALF LIGHT documentary: https://tubitv.com/movies/678744/half-light 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:10):
Welcome back to coffee. The UFO's two of my favorite things.
I have a special guest tonight, Steve Bassett. We finally
got together Steve, so I'm really happy to have you
back on How are you?

Speaker 2 (00:23):
I'm pretty good. Just the last three weeks when we
took it out of me, we had the comp to
comp to a major conference in Indian Wells and I
just spoke up in Oregon with Georgian ore and I'll
tell you I'm getting old.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
Wearing little yeah, yeah, I was just I was just
talking to a friend who was also a researcher in
these fields, and he said, this is going to be
the last time I think I fly globally. He's like,
I can't do any more twenty four hour trips.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
I haven't done that yet, but I'm hoping to do
one in October.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
We'll see, Oh really, where are you going?

Speaker 2 (01:03):
There's a Dubai conference that's been in the works for
a while and it's tended to be rescheduled for October.
But it's a big one, huge, but it's kind of
subject to the vicissitudes of the modern world and the
issues between countries, which, as you probably know, is problematic.

Speaker 1 (01:24):
Right now, yes, understood, we can speak out about our
own country. I'd really like to jump into the recent
Wall Street Journal article titled the Pentagon disinformation that fueled
America's UFO mythology. You know, I know what I think
about it. I know what others think about it.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
I'd really like to know what what your assessment is.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Oh, I'm sure we're on the same page. This requires
context to understand what just happened, and we're in a short
fuse tonight, so let me make it real quick. We
made enormous progress twenty seventeen. I already knows that the
so much has happened that now are taken for granted.
But if you if people we could bring people from
the fifties and sixties forward and so on, what's going on?

(02:09):
They they got believable. And so we've been moving closer
and closer, occasionally slowed way down, but closer and closer
to the finish line. The finish line for me, it's
only one finish line, and that's the President's got to
confirm the et presence or human advanced on human technology.
But whatever, the help and we are closer and closer

(02:30):
and closer. So much has happened to make this possible. Fine,
Now the people on the inside are fully aware of
how close we're getting, and they started to push back,
and that's fine. I don't blame them. There's so many
people involved. There's a lot of embarrassing questions. It's going
to be very awkward. I get it, but probably not

(02:51):
as bad as they think. So they started pushing back.
The first major push was when they sent a bunch
of lobbies up the hill and said, look, you got
to gut that UAP Disclosure Act that Schumer wrote with Rounds,
and they've actually submitted it for you know, it cleared
the Senate, right, and so that's how close he got, right,
So they had to cut it off. At the reconciliation meeting.

(03:13):
They took all the powers out that they left the
first part, and it's good in a sense, and it
states clearly what we wanted to do, just didn't have
any powers to do it. So they bought some time
and I understood that, and then we moved on from there.
More's happened. It's been an extraordinary time for the disclosure movement,

(03:33):
but it slowed down by the fact that we're having
extraordinary political developments in the United States. I mean, I've
been around a while. This is easily on a par
We'll soon be on a par with the period from
nineteen sixty five nineteen seventy five. I was in DC
for a lot of that. I saw some huge marches.
I saw a lot of some violence. It was intense hate,

(03:57):
a lot of that. And then the civil rights movement
was going at the same time, and there were some
major issues there. We're not there yet, but the fufah,
the engagement of the media and all the political rhetoric
is probably exceeding that. Now. The question is whether we'll
go to the street. So this is a big deal
and slowed things down with that question. But nevertheless we're

(04:22):
very close and the insiders know it. And so the
major pushback was on the bill. We were wondering what
else they were going to come up with, nothing serious,
frankly until now, and that was, of course the article.
So what happened here, I'm going to give you my interpretation.
Historians will sort it out. Mance Anapoline a Luna said

(04:45):
she was going to have a hearing she wanted a
skiff on May twenty seven, a hearing on I get
that right June one. No, I'm sorry, April twenty seven,
May one, and they were going to have a briefing
on May twelve, all real and real good. But things

(05:09):
were happening. A lot of stuff went down, and well,
first of all, they had some people sick that couldn't
do the skiff, which means they really didn't want to
do the hearings. That they moved that into June, and
then comes the hearing. They moved the hearing of and
then more things happened, right, I guess you could say
the beginning of the tariff issue happened. In the meantime,

(05:33):
they had set up a task force which was also
moving forward, very strong, very important, and they put Loan
in charge of that, so she had her hands full
with the task force, which has been getting documents about JFK.
More is coming. They're really serious about it. I'm not
saying this is going to flood because these are awkward documents,
I can assure you, but the fact that they're doing

(05:54):
it and getting at all has really raised their credibility
and given them a lot of gravitas. Of those documents
come out just make them more powerful. Uh. They clearly
have u AP on the schedule. That's really good. And
so we're kind of hanging there, but something else was happening.
I'm gonna take I'm gonna I'm gonna toot my horn
here if you don't mind, little horn tuty prior to

(06:16):
that last announcement, going back a couple of well number
all the way back to last year. So we had
the uh you had to hear in November. And in
just prior to November thirteen, I went into the Congress

(06:38):
and delivered AFFI Davidson in witness statements for about seven
or eight nuclear tampering witnesses okay first and Air Force
officers present when they were shut down, Robert Jacobs, who
took the extraordinary film of a UFO coming in and
just playing with one of our missiles at eight thousand

(06:58):
miles an hour, and a number of others, And I
hand delivered a copy of these affidavits to forty offices
the sixteen seventeen offices of the Senate Intel is one
of about twenty or so of the subcommittee offices in
the House. Then I mailed a copy into him know
another set would come in about four or five days later.

(07:19):
And then I had cards for all the offices. So
then I sent an electronic copy of the affidavits into
all of those offices.

Speaker 3 (07:29):
I think I see where this is going, okay.

Speaker 2 (07:30):
Yeah, And then Mace holds the hearing, and one of
those witnesses, Bob Sallis, was there, and I helped get
him in. After the hearing, Tyler Roberts has set up
an interview with Mace. Got brought into it, and so
we went up to her office and I was in
there for thirty minutes with her alone, and then twenty
five minutes or so she interviewed Bob Sallas and me,

(07:50):
mostly Bob filmed by Tyler. That's out there. She indicated
she liked to have the nuclear witnesses. Okay. So that
was the thirteenth Okay. Now ever since then, I've been
doing what I can to certainly get Bob Sallas and
those witnesses out there. What's the point I'm making my view,

(08:12):
the nuclear tampering witnesses are the most powerful witnesses out
there period, pretty much unless some USAP guys come in
carrying equipment and god knows what else, or maybe even
a body wheels it in on a gurney. Now, these
are the most powerful. These are sac based officers who
had the responsibility to turn the keys that were eventually

(08:33):
annihilated a good part of civilization. So they weren't randomly
off the street. And they initially came forward, starting with
Bob Sallas ninety four. Not long after that, Hastings, Robert Hastings,
extraordinary researcher, got in and wrote a masterpiece called UFOs
and Nukes, interviewed hundreds of people and just made the
case flat out backs our missiles were shut down not once,

(08:57):
not twice, but a number of times. But we've got
witnesses certainly for the two initial ones, and then research
also indicated it happened in Russia. So this is a
big deal. It is the most important thing we know
about et is not what they look like, not that
they're creating hybrids that if they are, it's the turning
off are nukes, all right? And so that is a

(09:17):
big deal. So they have been trying to get in
front of a hearing ever since.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
There's a big difference between observing us and affecting our technology.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
Yes, and they're not turning off Disneyland riots, they're turning
off our nuclear weapons. They're cutting right to the heart
of the most important thing in the world today on
our end, which is the risk of nuclear war, which
is closer than it's ever been. In case you're paying attention,
every day something else comes out. Telsey Garberg just put
in a Gabbert just put out a film that was

(09:49):
striking powerful. Some people are already attacking it talking about
the closeness of nuclear war and the worst.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
It is interesting the timing of this because in the
article they've really they set the stage that the US
government has put out a disinformation campaign for decades and
then Sallus's you Knows from Air Force Base experience was
one of the cases that they highlighted, and this seemed

(10:18):
to try to debunk.

Speaker 2 (10:20):
Oh yeah, I was rambling. That's where I'm going, and
I know about that. Forgive me for remed I tend
to ramble. I got to work on that. So the
upshot is is that and Plush, Bob Salas and two
other new witnesses were invited to the contact in the
Desert event. They were up on the on the website
for months, people were seeing it promoting it. So the

(10:43):
upshot is is that they clearly figured out that there
was a good chance these gentlemen are going to testify
at a hearing, probably held by Luna. It could happen
in July, could even happen late June, and they do
not want that. They've ghosted these men for thirty years,
essentially sixty and they couldn't kill him, They couldn't make

(11:06):
them disappear, but they ghosted them and generally they kind
of kept them at bay. But apparently their time is
cone because they've just stuck to it and and they've
stayed alive. We're talking eighty four eighty five, so this
is not something they want. So okay, what would they
likely do? So they decided, got a lot of pressure,

(11:27):
we're gonna we're gonna make a bold move. They made
a bold move on that cutting that bill. They made
a bold move here. So the Wall Street Journal wanted
to do an article. Checkman, who I think is a
legitimate journalist, was assigned that he has a woman that's
a co co authoring with their name escapes from you
right now, and so he went off to do the article.

Speaker 3 (11:47):
It's a Runna Viswana.

Speaker 2 (11:50):
Excellent, excellent allan Avena Vesuanama quality. And so guess what
either he's like forty or fifty people as an a
scientists and in the depart of Defense and call me.
I don't think he called Richard Dowen, but he interviewed
all the inside people and they gave him the information
and he wrote it up in the article. I got

(12:10):
no problem with checkman, but they kind of blew it here.
And here is why, when you're near, when you're in
the when you're in a corner, you do desperate things.
In end of a chess game, people that are really
in trouble, they tend to get desperate and make a
bold move and then the player, the good player, just
creams of them. So what they did with this article

(12:31):
is two major bunking maneuvers. They felt that this might
just buy some time push back. They were very very
pleased with this. So the major first major room was yes,
we did. We did disinformation, lots of disinformation. They were
even pranks that were held, you know the fund people,
and these are the men who were going out and

(12:53):
doing things, maybe saying something being interviewed, but it was
not real. It was our disinformation campaign. They imply it
covers it all without actually going there, which would have
been even more ridiculous. And so okay, it's disinformation. But
here's the problem. One, they had never acknowledged that they

(13:13):
were doing disinformation before. They'd ever acknowledged that. You know,
when Haynes came out in ninety seven and said, now
now it's crash test dummies, tall guys in Air Force
uniforms that we dropped from planes in fifty two that
were mistaken for four foot gray aliens and forty seven.
That's disinformation. But they didn't say that. They've been doing
it for sixty years, and they had to acknowledge it.

(13:35):
So right away they're going to get a taped boom.
All right, why should we believe anything you said, including
the rest of this article. And so they outed themselves
on that. They threw themselves on their own sword to
maybe buy a little time. Okay, not gonna work.

Speaker 3 (13:49):
It's the Richard Doughty problem, right, it's.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
Richard Dody cubed. So that was the first half the article.
But then they had another problem. They needed to you
with the Bob Salas new witness situation that was getting
closer and closer. He's actually in Mace's office talking to
a member of Congress. I actually spoke and Ron James
spoke with Gilliland. There's photos of us talking after her

(14:14):
briefing with Kozlowski, and she said, yeah, I'd like to
talk to Bob Sallas, but she hasn't. But that's all right. So, uh,
what they decided to do was to go straight after
the events, which is interesting given that case Ting's interview
two hundred people. It's been out there for thirty some years.

(14:37):
It's there's a major book, couple of documentaries, and three
more books written by Bob Sallas that brad to take
it on right.

Speaker 3 (14:44):
A lot of the leg work has been already been
done for you.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
Yeah, they really thought, really really hard, how could we
do it? And they came up with a master plan
that No, this was us again, it was us. Yeah,
when you were testing them with EMP devices to see
if they could be taken down by an EMP from
a nuclear weapon. Now the physics is all all wrong.

(15:09):
It's absurd on its face, but it had a certain
logic to it, and so Checkmann wrote it up. Since then,
they have been ripped to pieces by a pride of
lions on the Internet. They're coming from every direction. Merrick
Ron renning Camp ripped it to pieces. Richard Dolan ripped

(15:32):
it to pieces. You can't it's all over the place.
There's no there's almost no support for this. But the
logic of it is just being presented to people is like,
this doesn't work, it's impossible. But it gets better because
one of the people that actually investigated the event, I
don't know how long after, I don't think it was
too long, could have been a couple of months, three months,

(15:53):
but he was part of a group to try to
investigate how the missiles got shot shut down none other
then my friend Colonel John Alexander, who has been involved
in a damn near everything during his unbelievable career, and
he stated clearly that now we ruled out the e
MP couldn't have been done, all kinds of reasons for

(16:15):
that are going to them. But read this stuff. It's impossible,
it's ridiculous, it's absurd in space.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
Well, to give people an example really quick and Greg
and comment section referred to Matt Ford's show where he
explained how this testing e MP testing rig how big
it would be and to build it you have to
bring in these large trucks. It takes, you know, several
days to build these platforms, cement slabs all the Meanwhile,

(16:46):
none of the security people, Robert Sallas, no one at
the s but the security people, the security people, no
one noticed this.

Speaker 3 (16:57):
Somehow it gets.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
Worse, it gets worth. Let me make it worse for you.
Sure you know they said that, you know we fake UFOs, right,
We actually finked we have alicopters. We fake UFO. So
we do that too as part of the disinformation. So
we did. So we flew telicopters in there, okay, and
we made them look like a UFO. And somehow, in

(17:19):
addition to that, they then built a platform up that
holds the giant MP about the right device over the
base and then they put they made that glow so
it looked like the UFO. But apparently they couldn't see
the scaffolding and that's what that's what they saw. And
then of course the missiles were turned off. They sent
crews out right away, and somehow they disassembled the scaffolding

(17:42):
and carried this massive MP device off right and then
the guys come in that the people that are going
to restart the missiles, and they restart them right away.
That's just for openers. The fact is that the way
the way is designed. It wouldn't work, and if it
did work, it would knock out stuff all over the
place instead of apparently just that the what they call
the h inertial guiding device.

Speaker 1 (18:05):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (18:06):
And once you do that, they trick off. So it's
they've made a complete fool of themselves. Have they reached
the game that the colonel Huh Haines Haines's level of
six foot crash test Stubby's mistaken five years later for
fourth foot grades. They're in the ballpark, I mean, they're
getting there all right.

Speaker 1 (18:26):
And and I would I would argue that that's actually
it seems more probable that it extra thracial UFOs did
this than their explanation. Statistically, there's so many holes in
the problem, in the in their.

Speaker 2 (18:39):
One reason they're trying to get away with a alan
is that when these events took place, they scared the
Jesus out of the security gods. These are not officers, right,
a little younger families. They just basically scared the hell
out of it. And then they reassigned them all over
the place. They just sent them off in far corners.
Many went to Vietnam right away, Okay, And that's the

(18:59):
first and I think after the first two events that
minded a mounstrom, they speak out, we got problem here,
and so they were kind of tipped off. So any
subsequent event, I think they swooped in and really hit
these people with the wrath of God and said, you're
not going to say anything. Now there is a witness
or two for a later event. But most importantly, there

(19:23):
are more security guys still alive that actually saw these
things than there are sac based office, but they haven't
come forward. However, as this thing continues to mature and
get out there, at any time, five or six security
guys can come forward and say, I don't think it
was a giant thing with an EMP device. I saw it.

(19:46):
I watched it for twenty thirty forty minutes, and so
they've only bought a little bit of time, but they
also did a lot of damage to their situation, and
so it's a big win for us. My job is
to let people know that case they're getting a little upset.
It's a loss for the Wall Street Journal. Not Checkman.
I don't think you did anything wrong, but the Wall

(20:06):
Street Journal, it's a pretty substantial paper, and so the
idea that they didn't and they haven't been well, and
they've done articles on this issue. The Wall Street Journals
done on this issue, and they're not really bad, and
so they just let this go through. They sacrificed Joel
on the altar of the truth in Bargo and actually
feel bad for well.

Speaker 1 (20:25):
I yes, but I do think that there it was,
you know, a checkbook access journalism.

Speaker 3 (20:34):
Possibly maybe maybe, what do you mean, maybe.

Speaker 1 (20:38):
Joel gets insider scoops from the Pentagon or whomsoever in
exchange for putting out this article. Hey, give us some
cover here and we'll give you some access.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
I don't think so. I would never want to put
that out there because we just don't know, and that
brings into real credibility the Wall Street Journal. And so
it's in a sense, we're we're going to put the
Wall Street Journal up on the cross next to the
Pentagon unless without further information, I will assume the Wall

(21:12):
Street Journal wanted an article. There was a lot of
stuff going on. They signed a quality reporter to go
talk to the people. The one mistake he made, because
we're not quite there yet, is that there's a number
of very good researchers they could have talked to in
our world at big paychecks. I believe, I don't. I

(21:33):
think he talked to Bob. I'm not he did.

Speaker 1 (21:35):
He he talked too, yepsels And according to Bob, he
said that he had a first conversation with him earlier
on when the article was being written. They didn't mention
that they were interested in the EMP theory at all
to him, didn't ask him any questions. Then he said
he later talked to him a second time, you know,
less than a week I guess before the article was published.

(21:57):
They had already sent people to come out and take
a picture for the article, and the article was essentially
already written. Yeah, and then Joel apparently had said to him, oh,
and this is what the article is going to be about,
and Salah said, well, I can counter that. I can,
I can rebuke that. And and he didn't seem to

(22:20):
be receptive to to what Bob had to say. So
you know that that's where you know, I hear that
that's anecdotal. But I don't think Bob has any reason
to lie about that.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
Oh no, I'm sure no, he doesn't lie. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (22:32):
Yeah, So you know, it just it does make you
gives you the sense that there was a pre planned
agenda with the article. I mean, do you really think
it's do you think it's just surface level poor reporting
that that that they didn't do their.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
Research forty inside people and scientists, right be Kirkpatrick and
all that. That's a lot of interviewing. You're going to
quote the subsistent sources.

Speaker 3 (22:58):
That's true.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
So he wrote what the government told him. You know,
I'm shocked that they did this. I'm shocked the government
made this plague. But I'm sort of understand the position
they're in. It's not good right now. It's going to
get worse and I know that, and so they made
a decision. But it gets better for us because what
they Wall Street Journal did. Bob Sallie saw this event

(23:24):
back in sixty seven, so it's been almost let's see,
let's see, it's like fifty eight years. Okay, it comes
out in nineteen ninety four. They did everything they could
to get it into really make it a story. Several
of them attended might and testified before six former members
of Congress at my citizen hearing on disclosure in thirteen.
They held a press conference in nineteen I think they

(23:45):
held a press conference twenty ten. A lot of press
came to the Press Club. The Washington Post wrote a
funny article about it. They've done everything they humanly can,
but they can't quite get there until the mighty Oversight
Committee of the House jumps and the four horsemen of

(24:07):
the Aocalypse Mace, Luna, Burlason, and Burchette just took it
by the horns and it become world famous, all right,
And so we don't know when the hear he's going
to come. But by doing this, they put Bob Sallas's
name in a huge article in the Wall Street Journal.

(24:29):
It's gone worldwide. They just took Bob from a struggling
witness trying to get in there and made him a
global figure. Bob could not be happier. He's got people
coming at it from eight different directions. We're kind of
hoping we can get him on. Joe Rogan fantastic Joe
for Joe, solid as it could be. He's written a
counterpiece that went in the o High Paper. He set

(24:51):
the same article to the Wallston Journel. They should print that, absolutely,
we should print that. If they don't, we're going to
hammer him with that, right getting embarrass him and and
shame up with that.

Speaker 3 (25:02):
And so It's funny.

Speaker 1 (25:03):
It's funny how the timing of these things work, because
I understanding, you know, Bob was kind of trying to
wind down a little bit at this at this point,
and all of a sudden there's just boom, all this
attention and excitement in the case.

Speaker 2 (25:14):
Well, that's the other thing he was he you know,
I brought him in and two other witnesses, David Chindalay
and Robert Jamison, who is very up there in age.
But he went through. He wasn't easy for him to come,
and he came. We had a discoke, I mean, a
UFOs and nukes panel, solid panel, had some fantastic people
on it, Ross Colethart, Danny Shan and so forth. So

(25:39):
h and by the way, a conference was fabulous. It
was the best ever that I've been to and next
year is going to be even better. And so he's
getting that, he's up on the site, he gives he
gives a lecture, and then shortly after that he's in
the Wall Street Journal. Right, and so they have now
made Bob Sallas ten times more a problem than when

(25:59):
before the article guaranteeing that Mona is going to bring
him into the White house and hopefully she'll bring in Chindelli,
possibly Robert Jacobs, and we may have one or two more.
So they shot themself in the foot. They bought a
little time. But they underestimate all the time because these
people are insular. They're inside, you know, they're you know,

(26:19):
the people they were in the d D. They got
clearances and so they don't go on social media. Social
media is like this, you know, no, no, no, can't
do it. Uh, And so they don't get it. They
don't understand how powerful it is now. Uh. They think
it's TikTok videos and stuff, and it's it's not. It's
filled with researchers. They're capable of immediately descending on the

(26:39):
issue and ripping it to pieces, publicly sharing their information,
carving them up like a Christmas turkey.

Speaker 3 (26:46):
They still you know, I was watching an interview not
too long.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
Ago with Katie Kirk and like she gets it right,
and she's she's a you know, classic reporter anchor, and
she gets it, and she is confused why other reporters,
why politicians don't seem to understand that the dissemination and
fact checking and information sharing, it's a whole new world

(27:12):
it's just not the traditional path. As you know, it's done.
You can't go back.

Speaker 2 (27:18):
The Internet is the greatest fact checking system of old time,
and when you add AI even better, it's also the
greatest disinformation issue of all time. And how do you
deal with that? There's only one way you deal with
that situation. If I have a kid, right, is this?
You have a child, it's going to go to school.

(27:39):
They absolutely well, assuming our schools get reformed and actually
can teach again, because they really can't. It's our education
system going in a toilet. Is that they have to
learn how to go on the Internet and figure out
what's disinformation and what is fact, and how to disseminate
the good from the bad and be able to navigate it.
You wouldn't send a kid out in the forest and

(28:00):
not give them any information about how to, you know,
walk through a forest and how to take care of yourself.
But that's what they're doing with the net, and so
that is key. If you can't tell between the good
information and the bad information, and you're a child and
you go on the net, by the time you're seventeen,
you're already a Q and on down the rabbit hole.
Person you're screwed.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
You know, it's hard. I mean, I it's frustrating, Steve.

Speaker 1 (28:24):
And I think that's part of the problem because I
have to fact check all the time, and there's things
that I see then I'm like, oh, I go and
I look it up. Nope, false, right, And it takes
time to actually do that, and I think a lot
of people don't have the attention span, er don't want
to actually take the time to do the fact checking.
But it's you know, to my mind, it's worth it.
So this article from the Well Street Journal, do you

(28:45):
know if there are any more parts in the series
to come out?

Speaker 2 (28:50):
They indicate that there was. It was part of a series.
I didn't notice that.

Speaker 3 (28:53):
Yeah, at least the one of two parts was my impression.

Speaker 2 (28:57):
Yeah, I'm probably by check check my again. Okay, well,
I'll tell you we're gonna get a litmus test if
that's true. I love this because the Wall Street Journal
is getting his head handed to him to it. Checkman
is getting a lot of grief. But again, I don't
think he is the culprit here. And so do they

(29:18):
have the cajonies the double down and come back with
their counter emp thing or whatever. The hell they're going
to come up with or are they going to realize
they've been taken for a ride and come back the
other way. All I can say is Wall Street Journal,
don't do it. Don't do it. Really, walk into a

(29:38):
blind canyon. There's Indians all over the place up there.
They're gonna they're gonna destroy the whole wagon.

Speaker 3 (29:43):
Save yourself.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
Yeah, And what I was wanted to see more of
was receipts, and I don't receive receipts. You know, Bob
Stiles had mentioned that, you know, if the security officers
help from Air Force Base nineteen sixty seven had seen
or were in a privy to this apparent secret EMP
test over their missile silo, that they if that were true,

(30:07):
they would have had to sign some kind of NDA
of some sort.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
Well that's what they said. They signed an n DA
so they wouldn't tell the Russians that they're testing a
missiles for that makes no sense. They did have to.
They did have to sign I think NDAs and also
have the Jesus scared out of him because it was
a non human craft shutting down our missiles. So that's
kind of neither here nor there. But this is one

(30:32):
of their big problems is that I think one security
person came forward. I don't know enough to go name,
but I do know what happened. My understanding is that
person was given hell it was did not go well
at all. But there's there's dozens more, and as you know,
more witnesses are coming forward all the time. In fact,
I can't even keep up with the witnesses that are.

Speaker 1 (30:53):
So Steve, I'm sorry. So what you're saying is a
security personnel had come forward to counter.

Speaker 2 (31:01):
The mountains, came forward to to say I saw it right,
and he got worked over pretty bad. That's what I understand.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
I don't want to go into se if you're saying,
saw what the UFO or the the apparent MP rigular, so.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
He came forward. This has been a while ago to
kind of confirm what Salas was saying. There was something
over the base, but I happened to be up there,
so I saw it and he got ripped pretty bad.
But that's the only one. But they're dozens more, and
at some point the bar is going to drop and
all of a sudden they're going to start showing up,
and then they the Pentagon is going to have to

(31:39):
deal with these guys who are probably pretty much retired now,
not as old as Bob, near the end of their life.
They have much to lose. But also that the situation
is not so scary that kids are grown, they're doing fine,
and they're gonna sit down take an oath. Now, remember,
these are security guys on the ICM basis. These aren't
a bunch of guys hanging out of camp. And so

(32:01):
they're going to have to somehow dismember or ridicule top
people that they're running our ICBM basis and nobody is
going to believe it. So they're tinkering. They're just right here,
balancing on the edge. It's going to come down. It's
going to crash. The sooner the better. But I admire
their hutsbah right.

Speaker 3 (32:21):
So two things.

Speaker 1 (32:23):
So it reminds me of the anti Jakinson book that
she wrote Area fifty one, claiming that the Roswell UFO
was a disinformation foe UFO sent by the Russians with
either deformed bodies of some sort on the craft purposely

(32:46):
crash landed on our base to trick us into thinking
that these are aliens. Now I find that ironic because
now what we're saying is we tried the same thing
on the USSR. We tried to convince them that what
is seen over Area fifty one in the eighties and

(33:07):
seventies or UFOs and not SR seventy one or you know,
the stealth bomber, Which which is it like trying to
convince each other of UFOs.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
Union's got its own crash vehicles right to talk about
the issue as we do, so that would have been ridiculous.
Here's what happened. Now, let me be clear. Annie Annie
Jacobson is a great writer. She's done some fantastic work,
and her book on nuclear war is fantastic. But she
got taken for a ride disinformation. Somebody in Area fifty one,

(33:41):
for whatever reason, got her attention and sat down and
fed her this grotesque story. It's so awful. It's even
worse than the thing that came up with the you know,
the EMP device and literally endangered her journalistic reputation and career. Now,
she did print it. She could have done some Betty,

(34:03):
There's a lot of people she had to talk to,
but she printed it. So she was a victim of
disinformation in that case. Because the government does do disinformation.
But I'm particularly irritated by that, and I hope that
that miss Jacobson finally gets the you know, the confirmation
of that and comes to understand and comes back pops.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
Some really good Well.

Speaker 1 (34:22):
As we mentioned earlier about Richard Do, he did just
that right. He fed information to Paul Benowitz to lead
Paul Benowitz into believing that that.

Speaker 3 (34:31):
Extraterrestrial UFOs were flying.

Speaker 1 (34:34):
Over Albuquerque, and that was a cover story apparently for
our own you know, special crafts.

Speaker 2 (34:44):
It was more than that. It was more than that,
you know what it was. He was really on him
and he was filming stuff and becoming a problem, and
so they wasn't just a matter of disinformation. They basically
went at and try to break.

Speaker 3 (35:00):
Them because he was investigating.

Speaker 2 (35:02):
He was investigating, so they give him this stuff. And
it wasn't like they told him all it's this to
cover and move on. Oh No, they were getting back
to him and back to him and string him along
until he killed himself. Greg Bishop covered that in a
master work. So that's more than disinformation. That's murder. Okay.
Now Rick Doti is trying to re establish himself. He
has that right, and he's been saying a lot of things,

(35:25):
and it's and it's some of it is helpful. Has
he ever been held accountable? Now, that was a national
security action, completely legal, But that's that's that's a worst
case example of disinformation.

Speaker 1 (35:39):
Well, you know, I just like you, don't want to
pass dispersions on the Joel Skeptman on this article. I mean,
do you think murders is really the right word for
what happened to Paul?

Speaker 2 (35:51):
You're right, it's not murder. It would be what is
the word? You can it is a criminal offense, but
it's assault. Let me put it this way. There have
been a number of trials that are a little more
common in which some kids or somebody super encourages a
very distressed person to kill themselves, and they do kill themselves,
they can be charged, and I know what the charge

(36:13):
is facilitating.

Speaker 3 (36:14):
That's a manslaughter of some sort or something.

Speaker 2 (36:16):
Well, not murdered, thank you for correcting me. Not true
and ultimately not legal because it was done under orders.
And I'm glad that you know he's acknowledged that. But
he's coming forward. Obviously some degree is acknowledged that you'd
have to put it behind them. I get that there's
probably worse situations the government has done, without question, but
you see the dance that we're doing here. This, this

(36:37):
is not helping. And by the way, this.

Speaker 3 (36:39):
Is what they want, right, yeah.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
What I want. One of the reasons there's a battle
in Los Angeles and political upheaval, the capital, you know,
has been attacked. I can list fifty thousand things. One
of the reasons that we're in this dilemma right now,
core reason, without getting in the manusha is is that

(37:03):
trusting government has collapsed to a point where the democracy
is unstable. And one of the major contributors to that
pact of trust is the complete inability of our government
or our military intelligence complex to protect the country without
line through their teeth every single day. And as the
media increased and people's access to information increased with the

(37:26):
Internet and email and the social media. Now podcasts, you've
heard of those, there's millions of them now, they still
kept lying and so nobody believes them. And so the
truth embargo contributed mightily to the breakdown of trust in
the United States, leading to multiple diseases infecting the body politic.
They could take down the democracy and if it does,

(37:48):
one of my last things before I sail off to
a remote island somewhere. Is the truth in Bargo has
got to take a hell of a lot of responsibility
for that and be ashamed.

Speaker 1 (38:00):
Yeah, so we have a question from Android in chat
he says, Okay, here we go.

Speaker 3 (38:09):
I love going too fast.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Guys, hold on, Okay, what would be your analysis if
Wall Street Journal refuses to correct the story with the
facts from Bob Sells.

Speaker 2 (38:20):
No, the least they should do, and it's absolutely journalistic appropriate,
is that when the principle has been abused in that article,
sends in a competent, intelligent which he's written response, you
don't publish it. That's absolutely obscene. That's all I'm interested in.
For them to turn around would be whoa right? Whoever's

(38:40):
the editor of the Wall Street Journal. If he does that,
I'm gonna buy him a lobster dinner, biggest restaurant in Manhattan.
But what we want is for them to be clear
they have got to publish Bob's letter, and they can't say, well,
we can't publish it because it was in the Ohai paper.
And if they don't trust me, I do a lot
of podcasts. I'm gonna barbecue.

Speaker 1 (39:04):
Okay, we got android with another comments. It was to
add the fact that matt Ford presented documents that the
device from the Wall Street Journal was not released until
after this event. Now that sounds like a mogul problem again.

Speaker 2 (39:19):
Right, there's about eighteen reasons why that explanation is ridiculous. Again,
the whole idea that they built this thing and the
guys didn't see it, and then they made it, get
it a light so they looked like a UFO, and
then everybody's running around, the missiles go down, and then
without the guy seeing it, they dismantled the damn thing
and carted it off. Meanwhile, at the same time, you

(39:41):
got people rushing out there to turn the missiles off.
The average person, the truth embargo is based upon putting
nonsense out to just regular citizens of this country who
are living paycheck paycheck to paycheck. In a lot of cases,
they've got kids, problems, and they just see it and
it's like, okay, take it. And that's the vast majority

(40:01):
of the people. And so if if out of three
hundred and thirty million people, if about two hundred and
ninety five million are kind of like okay, well, the
government said even though there's a lot of people left over,
even thousands of researchers. They're able to ride that game.
But now as the Internet is connecting just about everybody
in the country, it's much more difficult to ride a

(40:24):
vehicle made up of that fundamentally core citizens who simply
can't invest much time in it. That they were losing that,
but it's all they have left, and so they're still
trying to play that game. The same thing with Arrow
right Errow was set up just to be Arrow, and
Kirkpatrick had an awful job. He wasn't supposed to do anything,

(40:46):
and Grush put him in a spot. He lost it attack,
Crush then quit, and then before he exited the door,
they took another desperate attempt was this is not the
first of pushbacks, and they persuaded him to put his
name on a study that basically said nothing here, we
did it all, don't have it. That study is another
abomination that's floating around somewhere. They're just they're just it's

(41:10):
like in desperation there. It's like a person is about
to be found out for serious crime in one of
those comic movies, and they're trying. They can't deal with it,
so they keep trying and they make one more dumb
thing after another and pile it up.

Speaker 3 (41:22):
It's called it exactly.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
It's called a hasty generalization, like whatever I can pull
out of my hat anyway right now, Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (41:29):
Throwing you're throwing you know, somebody's coming at You're throwing
pens at them, You're throwing your cupcakes at him. Whatever
the hell, it's not gonna work.

Speaker 3 (41:36):
It's just not going to work.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
So I'm not too upset by this.

Speaker 1 (41:39):
Yeah, well, and again we have to talk about it,
and like because like you said, we have social media now,
so now we can actually in real time counter the narrative.
Whereas before you couldn't do that. You didn't have that
opportunity unless somebody went to a bookstore and picked up
a book and read they didn't know. And now we
can be loud about it, which is great.

Speaker 2 (41:59):
You got to question it, just can't accept them.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
Yeah, a question from Terrence we got. Do you think
they're panicking with this obvious lie because they know the
truth embargo is about to break and thank you Stevie
ruck Bingo perfect.

Speaker 2 (42:17):
It is closing in on them. They're trying to buy
some time and there's another problem they have. Now when
I say they, I'm referring to the core insiders. All right,
this is not the point e level, this is down
that's who we's talking to. So they have another problem
that's gotten very scared. And it's not complicated, it's simple.

(42:41):
And I do not make partisan statements. Anybody that's seeing
me do work hundred podcast interviews. They have a new
administration unlike anything they've ever seen before. And this administration,
the president has selected a very type supportive group of

(43:01):
appointees across the board in all the key positions particuteen
defense and so forth, national security, so, homeland security, whatever,
National Intelligence Office, who are going to pretty much support
whatever the president wants to do. And the president does
whatever the hell he wants to do, right so, and
they know that. And so if the president wants to

(43:24):
come out and say yeah, we're not alone, we're not alone. Yeah,
we've got those bodies, we've got those texts, there's nothing
they can do. There's nobody to talk them out of it.
And so they understand that right now they have a
president that could walk out there tomorrow. And the reason
the president could do that is because all the necessary
platform that he can stand on to make the statement

(43:45):
that will work and not get some everybody upset or
shock anybody. Has been built. The legislation, statements by numerous
members of Congress that the ets are real scientists, all
the stuff that's happened, all of this has built this platform,
particularly the legislation. It built a platform. And it was

(44:05):
the President come out and say we're not alone. That's
disclosure capital D followed by many other heads of state.
And then the next day when all l breaks loose,
they're ready got the arrow, you know, uh, the legislation
they'll have you know, they'll have briefing rooms set up,
they'll set up some panels, and it'll be orderly. Up
until recently they couldn't do that. It would have been

(44:26):
absolute madness. But it would have if one of the
other heads of state, particularly Sijenping or Putin had done it,
they'd have been caught flat footed. And so they're working
really hard, which leads me to the point that I
have to say over and over again, nobody else is
saying this. And I'd love to go on a major
talk show, nothing to name any names, and say this.

(44:48):
If you want to, you want to get the cognitis
and dissonance out and kind of get more comfortable with
crap that's going on which doesn't make sense. Here is
what you need to know. The legislation, the briefing of Congress,
the setting up of organizations like the Task Force and ARROW,
all of this has nothing to do with finding out

(45:10):
what's up there. They already know. They've known since forty seven.
They've spent billions of dollars analyzing, tracking, doing science work
on the crash vehicles, re engineering. They got stuff that'll
take years to get out. They already know. Okay, okay,
well fine, if they already know, why are we doing

(45:30):
all this? Because they already know, But pretty soon they're
gonna have to tell us, and that's disclosure capital D
and then all hell breaks loose, and so they need
to get set up for that. They need to set
it up so the president can do it and it's
gonna go well, but they can't tell us why. It's

(45:51):
a classic catch twenty two Joseph Heller, one of the
great books of all time. In other words, they have
to set up for disclosure, but they can't say why
they're setting up, So they give you the next logical reason,
it's time we found out about those UFOs. Arrow's gonna study,
gonna make them whatever the hell, we're gonna talk here,
talk there, We're gonna find out, gonna get the reports

(46:12):
into the pilots. It's all a not a ruse, but
it is a diversion, like when they set set up
a bunch of set up a bunch of our drones
into the giant orb swarms or plasma ball swarms Foo
fighters basically because they could not explain it, they couldn't
deal with it, and so all they can do is
send our drunes up, let us see him and go

(46:32):
drune swarm and grandfather everybody and there. This is days
of desperation. And so understand that all of this is
just to set up so disclosure will go well. Now
they'd like to see disclosure weight off, ye know, another
five ten years, but that's not gonna happen. And so
now the stage is set, it can happen tomorrow. So
they're really they're really pretty uptight. I'm sure they're taking

(46:55):
a lot of xanax over there at the DD.

Speaker 3 (46:58):
Yeah, they might be taking something.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
I'm gonna ask you about this that's brought up in
the article, which you know you have briefly touched on
in the beginning. This this here's the quote from the article.
It turned out the witnesses, meaning those who had apparently
seen UFOs or been exposed information about it, turned out
the witnesses had been victims of a bizarre hazing ritual. Now, look,

(47:23):
I understand there can.

Speaker 3 (47:24):
Be strange hazing rituals in the.

Speaker 1 (47:26):
Military and the intelligence community. For the people who are
podcast listener, Steve has covered his face with his hands. Uh, Steve,
what's your take on this.

Speaker 2 (47:38):
Look, there's a reason why the Air Force, of all
the entities out there, has done nothing. I mean they
have been absolutely silent because the Air Force has the
biggest problem post disclosure. I mean, they are just gonna
have to be, you know, apologizing for decades. I mean,
they got the worst situation, worse the entire Energy Comission,

(48:01):
definitely worse in the Navy. Uh. And so they're just
staying back, okay, And but not surprisingly they're happy to support, uh,
you know, some efforts to hold off until everybody there
is retired and moved on to Florida playing golf and whatever. Uh.
And so this I mean, I mean hazing. Yeah, sure,

(48:25):
we're talking about we're talking of some of the people
are hazing and making fun of are or our top pilots,
that the pilot planes they can do unbelievable things. They're
talking about people working the sack bases and the ICM facilities.
They're they're punking them. Of course you're gonna you're gonna
punk these people. I mean, you know, you own them
as unstable as possible. I'm surprised they're not giving an LSD.

(48:46):
This is embarrassing. This is nineteen ninety seven. Plus this
is Haines standing on that stage. Go watch the video.
It's not hard to find trying to explain Roswell again
confirming the mobile balloon explanation and then have I need
to go to the crash test dummies because that was
in play.

Speaker 3 (49:03):
Out and it was umies also didn't work out either,
but you know, that's.

Speaker 2 (49:09):
All they can do, and now they're trying it again.
So that's the Air Force. And so all I can
say is, I'm going to be generous when we get
the confirmation from the President. I'm not going to go
running around you know, you know, the Air Force Academy
with a sign I'm not going to discourage them in media,
which I hope to have a lot of. I'm going
to just make it make the simple point that the

(49:32):
truth Embargo has made victims of us, all all of us,
including me. I mean, it's victimized me, it was the Sunday.
It's victimized journalists. It's victimized the Air Force, the Navy,
it certainly victimized presidents. It's just a bad policy. It
was good for maybe I don't know, two years, but
it need to end. When you had the massive flyover
over the capital back in fifty two, which apparently was

(49:55):
a bunch of flying emb devices, well well.

Speaker 1 (49:58):
That gets another really important point too. Okay, So, like
you said, we would have to have some amazing technology
that imitated UFOs, which would have been beyond the technology
we're trying to cover up. Okay, let's just let's just
give them that if we wanted to.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
That's a good question too too.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
This is a phenomenon that occurred worldwide. So did we
provide these fake UFO videos to every country on the
planet to create this USID and and back quickly steve
to the hazing ritual. I have to read this to
you Okay, So the definition of hazing is the imposition
of strenuous, often humiliating tasks as part of a program

(50:40):
of rigorous physical training and initiation. Now, if part of
the hazing is to trick you and humiliating, right, you
have to at least reveal it.

Speaker 3 (50:49):
At some point.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
Well, it's not if you.

Speaker 3 (50:52):
Tell someone, hey, this is a secret, keep it a secret,
and then they keep it.

Speaker 2 (50:56):
For decades involved in somebody entering being part of a
group entering something, right, and they raised them to test
their their merit and let them know that, hey, you're
coming into a group and where And of course paternities
are famous for this, so it's kind of attached to
belonging to something in this case is not attached to

(51:16):
that at all. Basically, they just pulled a hoax on them, right,
or they set them up. So it's hazing is a
kind way of saying what they did They set up
officers and highly skilled people to make asses of themselves. Okay,
and so so if they did that, yeah, I that
you're gonna those people that did that are going to

(51:37):
need truth and reconciliation after disclosure I have lost come
forward and say, look, if you tell all about this.
You can be reconciled, but you've got to tell everything
otherwise we're coming for you. So that's that's not that's
you know, that's my take on hazing.

Speaker 1 (51:54):
Yes, still't have it. In the comment actually said testing
fake loyalty. I guess that could be a it could
be a motivation.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
Right, I wanted to hand up some nuclear secrets and
see how they do with that. I hate to see.
This is not a good time for the United States government,
particularly the military intelligence complex, to embarrass itself. The Washington
Post is sort of massive four days ago, making it
quite clear that we are this close to nuclear war.

(52:21):
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has this close to nuclear war.
That that director National what's he he's a d and
I Director of National Intelligence, Tulsa Gabberts put out a
very intense, scary video with this close to nuclear war.
And there are others. And you know why they're doing that,
Because we're this close to nuclear war and or are

(52:43):
moral authority and ability to get nations to cooperate to
avoid you know, disaster. I mean they're they're they're evacuating
our embassy in Iraq because they're so afraid that Iran
is going to attack US facilities, so evacuating or so
or two other Middle East countries or right the golf
countries because Iranic good attack at any time. Israel could

(53:08):
attack their NUKEA facilities at any time. Right, You've got India,
you know they've got nukes. All of the pretty much
all of the nine nuclear countries are in some sort
of a ship storm with somebody and trusting government's collapsing.
So one of the reasons I do what I do
is because I became convinced a long time ago that

(53:30):
a nuclear war was inevitable and that there was no
way we're going to politically work our way out because
we just aren't. I mean, we're doing exactly the opposite.
But disclosure is so profound, so world changing, so paradigm shifting,
so worldview altering, that in the post paradigm era, we
might be able to step back and rethink a little
bit and start to address these issues and actually back away.

(53:53):
There is nothing else that can do it. Some special
book that you read and you go, oh, I got
to get rid of the nukes, or just meditation or
I don't know what else somebody could have. But we're
not even close. So we're literally dancing on the edge
of the volcano hoping we don't fall in. When there
is a way to change things, but the government doesn't

(54:17):
want that to come out because it doesn't want to
be embarrassed. Apparently it's more afraid of being embarrassed than
completely turned to dust by a nuclear weapon. And meanwhile,
everybody's building underground facilities everywhere. The United States is building on.
Russia has built huge numbers, Switzerland has huge amounts of
underground bunkers. Rich people are building underground bunkers. They're buying

(54:38):
houses in New zealand putting underground bunkers under there. Right,
I'm glad that the rich people are going to survive
the nuclear world. What could we do with a world
that didn't have rich people. But message is clear, and
that's why one of the reasons I do what I do.
If it was just all we want to know about
the ets, it'll be so nice. No. I mean, I
know there's ets here. I don't even have to see them.

(55:00):
But and this connection that I've just mentioned to you
what really solidifies it. They turn our nuclear weapons off repeatedly.
They do it in Russia. They land craft next to
school yards, not once, not twice, but a dozen or
more times. Get out of the craft, write them over
and put messages in their heads about this terrible disaster

(55:24):
that is coming, imploying that it's nuclear. These kids grow
up with that. Some have handled it well, some of
them haven't. We know about two major cases Rua Zimbabwe
Aerial School and Westall in Australia, but there's been more
they see on these that too as well.

Speaker 3 (55:38):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (55:38):
I mean, if if you think it is as bad
as you think it is, our approach to you know,
the other war, you know, I hope I could.

Speaker 3 (55:48):
I would hope that the.

Speaker 1 (55:50):
Information the messages from these contact ees is the benevolent
one and that they would be able to step in
and prevent us from from doing such a thing. I
don't want to leave us too heavy of a note.
If you can leave us with just one thought, see
what would it be.

Speaker 2 (56:07):
Oh God, don't do that to me. Don't do that.
What we're talking.

Speaker 3 (56:16):
Anything you want?

Speaker 2 (56:17):
Oh man, let me think about this. Okay. Look, all
I do is follow this issue and try to give
the big picture. I'm not a researcher. There are other
people doing that. I don't get into fights. I don't
get into minutia. I don't get down the evidence is
already there. I don't care. I don't need to say anymore.
I'm trying to pursue the political process as best I can.
Danny Shean and the New Paradigm Institute are doing it too,

(56:38):
and they're bigger than I am, and that's okay, right,
and we're getting there. Try to stay calm, don't get overwrought,
try not to get too depressed over the domestic and
foreign developments. So it's hard not to understand that a
major change could be coming, that there are people trying
to make this happen. Right, And once again, try not

(57:04):
to overreact to the process going on, because it's not
about finding what these things are. They already know. It
is trying to set up a platform and get everything
ready so they can make the announcement. And you may
say that's not true. Yeah it is. They're going to
make an announcement sometime and they want to be ready
for it now. It could happen later or sooner, depending
upon what's happening in the world, but it's coming. And

(57:28):
I have been talking about the nearness of disclosure over
various ways. I never picked a date for years, and
I've been trolled about that. I don't blame them, but
I swear to you. I swear to you, no matter
what I've said in the past, I am more optimistic
than I've ever been in twenty nine years.

Speaker 3 (57:46):
Perfect. Well, let's leave it at that.

Speaker 1 (57:48):
If you appreciate Steve Bassett as much as so many
of us do in this world, please check out Paradigm
Research Group dot org.

Speaker 3 (57:58):
Also Hollywood.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
Disclosure Alliance Closure Alliance.

Speaker 3 (58:04):
And did you just set that up with Dan Harrari?

Speaker 2 (58:07):
Yes, Dan and I founded that about a year and
a half ago and it's up to two hundred and
five members and growing fast. And if you are someone
in Hollywood that open to this issue, and you don't
mind putting your name and your photo behind it, we'll
get your membership. And if you are somebody in the
et issue that wants to side of help with create content,
get involved in the creation of content in some way,

(58:28):
not just research. You could you could become a UAP
founding member. The other would be a Hollywood founding member.
We're networking. Things are happening. We don't make money. We're
purely nonprofit and we're helping to create, helping to make content,
create content. Not so much for the disclosure process, because
that's moving along quite nicely, but for the post disclosure

(58:48):
world when eight point three billion people, I want to
know everything all at once, everywhere.

Speaker 1 (58:56):
Let's do it all right, Steve, thanks so much, have
a good night, and thank you everybody for your chat, questions,
your comments.

Speaker 3 (59:02):
I really appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
As a friendly reminder, Coffee and UFOs is rebroadcast on
the Unex Network Thursday evenings eleven pm Pacific time, two
am Eastern Time Friday mornings special thanks to Race Hobs
and Margie k at the ONEX Network. And if you
guys are a fan of this podcast, please like comment
down below. I'd love to hear your thoughts on tonight's subject.

(59:24):
Subscribe and for the podcast listeners, give a good rate
and review.

Speaker 3 (59:28):
I'd really appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (59:29):
We continue to grow and that's because of you and
the great guests we have every week. So peace and
love everyone, and live in the mystery