June 17, 2025 • 56 mins
Tonight on The 'X' Zone Radio Show with Rob McConnell… He’s been called the leading voice in the political truth movement for UFO disclosure. As the Executive Director of the Paradigm Research Group, he has spent decades lobbying Congress, briefing political leaders, and shaking the very foundations of secrecy surrounding extraterrestrial contact. From the corridors of Washington, D.C. to the halls of international media, Stephen Bassett has made it his mission to end the government-imposed truth embargo on the ET presence. With growing public interest, Congressional hearings, and whistleblower revelations, are we on the brink of full disclosure? Joining us now is Stephen Bassett, the first registered UFO lobbyist in the United States, and the man behind www.paradigmresearchgroup.org. Get ready for a conversation that might change the way you see our world—and the universe around us. Stephen, welcome to The 'X' Zone!
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-x-zone-radio-tv-show--1078348/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-x-zone-radio-tv-show--1078348/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
All.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the X Zone, a place where fact is
fiction and fiction is reality. Now here's your host, Rob Hacanno.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
In the late night hours when the world's asleep, Rob
McConnell's voice echo secrets to keep from Roswell's whispers to
tales of the sky. On the X Zone Radio, we
learn to fly high.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
With every new guest, the story unfolds, from abductee's tales
to the mysteries told government cover ups. There deep in
their wide But we're on a quest with the true
as our guys.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
And welcome to the excellent every one. I am Robert Connell,
coming cure from our broadcast center and studios in Saint Catherine's, Ontario, Canada.
If you'd like to send an email exon at x
On Radio, TV, dot, comment on all social media sites
Xzone Radio, TV, Tonight on the Xzone, and we have
a very special guest. He's been called the leading voice
(01:30):
in the political truth movement for UFFO disclosure. As the
executive director of the Paradigm Research Group, he has spent
decades lobbying Congress, briefing political leaders, and shaking the very
foundations of secrecy surrounding et contact now from the corridors
of Washington, d C. To the halls of the international media.
(01:52):
Our guest, this our Stephen Bassett, has made his mission
to end the government imposed truth embargo on the et presence.
With growing publican rest, congressional hearings, and whistleblower revelations, are
we on the brink of a full disclosure joining us? Yes,
Stephen Bassett, the only registered UFO lobbyist in the United
States and the man behind www. Dot Paradigm Researchgroup dot org,
(02:18):
ready for a conversation that might change the way you
see our world and the universe around us. Steven, Welcome
back to the Exon.
Speaker 5 (02:27):
Good to be back. Rob. Let me clarify something. I'm
proud to say that they are oh maybe five six
seven lobbyists, other lot of people that have registered on
this issue with our government going back maybe started about
five years ago. So I'm not the only one, but
I'm glad about that. It just reflats where the issue
is going, all right.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
So I should say that you are the first one.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
I was the first person crazy enough to register as
a lobbyist on the EPSUE, knowing that the newspaper we
find it amusing, which they did and margin and post
interview good interview, by the way, Once I interviewed hit
the front page, it was gangbusters after that.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Steven, what originally inspired you to find the Paradigm Research Group?
Speaker 5 (03:14):
It was, as I've counted many times, I just got
a point in life when I wanted to do something
that net something I'd spent the first half of my
life doing what this is will do, which is okay, Bill,
time to enjoy yourself and all that, but I wasn't
good enough for me. Something was not right. And at
the age of forty nine, they said, look, I'm going
(03:35):
to do something that's meaningful and try to help the
way serve. I guess you could say to serve is
not quite the same thing as just trying to get
a paycheck. And so I thought about the issues and
this is the one that came to my attention and
most I've been aware of it. And what tripped it though,
is I had read a few books that I read
John Max's book Alien Abduction Round Alien whom An accounted
(03:59):
with it and this is in the ninety five and
it was it really impressed me and I'm going, Wow,
this thing is really happening. And so I got in
touch with them and they let me come volunteer for them,
and I had a nice little door to go through.
Met my first contact ees, met John Mack. I'm all excited,
got pumped up, and I was up in Boston and
(04:21):
it was there that I figured out, well, what can
I do. I'm not a I don't have a I
have a physics degree. It's not going to help me
in this field, really, and what do I do? And
then I realized that I was a political guy. He's
involved in some of the protests back in the sixties
and been in the Washington most of my life. Kind
of new the ropes. And I realized that this is
(04:43):
not a science problem. It's been treated as a science problem.
Prove it, prove it, prove it. Then the government will go, oh,
you proved it. No, it's a political problem. It's a
national security decision. To maintain a truth embargo on this,
as I came to call it, it has to have
a political solution. You can prove all you want, I'm
gonna matter, so therefore you have to engage it politically.
(05:03):
Who's doing that virtually Nobody that I'm most aware of.
It turned out they were a couple of people I
wasn't aware of, but still, and I said, okay, how
do I do that? How do I get involved? Don't
have any money, but I do have a family, place
to stay and things like that. And I realized, wait
a minute, nobody's ever resister as a lobbyist on this,
probably because they're either not they're not, they're shame right,
(05:25):
they have family, jobs, whatever. I didn't have those problems,
and so I said, I can radister so obvious I'm perfect.
And I did, and it was a great decision and
it worked out. I haven't done a lot of lobbying,
and I assure you I ended up basically as a
political activist, which is really what I was, and my
(05:46):
role increasingly became trying to explain bigger picture to just
regular people who are trying to keep up with all
this and a little concerned, and then also prussing the
government in various ways. But to be a pure I'm
not pure lobbyous. I'm up to activists. That's registers and lobbyists.
You want to lobby, really professionally lobby on something, you
better belong to a firm and you better have a
(06:07):
lot of money available to you. And that, of course
is not the case with this, but nevertheless, there are
a number of lobbyists. Now the issue is fully engaged
and very politicized, and so I'm optimistic, but it's still
a very tough ride.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Can you explain the mission and goals of the Paradigm
Research Group, Well.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
It was it was set up specifically to and the
truth in bargo, which I didn't call it that. I
didn't call it the truth embargo until two thousand and
one maybe. And the truth embargo is the policy of
the government that we can't handle this truth. We can't
and we don't have a legal right to ity then
and so forth. That's the policy starting in forty seven.
(06:54):
And that policy may have had value and unjustified in
the early couple decades, but at some point it's simply
outlived its appropriateness. And that really starts after the Cold
War ended, at least the first round of the Cold
War ended in ninety one, and as things went on
after that, it only got worse and worse. And so
(07:16):
the truth embargo is the government policy not to confirm
that this is in fact real here present, and that
truth embargo has to end the end of that embargo
must come from a president, must come from a head
of state. And that's what I've come to call capital
D disclosure. That's the only definition of it. There are
no others because I made it, and pursuing disclosure then
(07:40):
became the prize of this movement, which is now truly
a movement and PRG That's what it's been all about.
It is about ending the truth embargo. After that it
will try to adjust. I already starting by forming our
changing to a final in two three not profit. After
that comes addressing and dealing with the post is closure world,
(08:00):
which is real, the real fun.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
You know you've been at the forefront for the fight
of disclosure. Well ever since I've known you. How close
are we to the actual government acknowledgment in your opinion
of non human intelligence?
Speaker 5 (08:16):
Yeah? We were seventy eight years in since Roswell. The
first seventy years were tough, Google some progress, major setback,
but a huge amount of research was done, a huge
amount of evidence was gathered, and a great platform was
(08:37):
made to finish it off. But the opportunity to really
close the deal doesn't begin until twenty seventeen. A breakthrough.
Some people came forward very parapolic articles in the New
York Times, and it was very quickly obvious to me
that several key people, particularly Christopher Mellen, were now pursuing
(08:59):
the resolution because they had the means, the connections and
the history to do it. And they represented probably quite
a few others still working in government that would like
to be public and do it but they simply can't,
but they support the idea. Members Over the years, more
and more people did. People inside government really felt embargo
(09:20):
this issue was no longer acceptable and they would like
to see it end. But that doesn't mean they couldn't
really do anything. But some people had chosen to come
out and do that, and the process began. It's now
seven years long, and it's been a study progress towards
ending the truth in Bargo, with some significant moments and highlights.
And we've been close, real close a couple of times,
(09:45):
but not quite there. But unfortunately, the history of this
time is extremely complex and volatile, and it's help it
hurt rather unlike in the past, a major event would
happen like N'm nine to eleven and so forth. It
just totally set the issue back and almost put it reverse.
(10:05):
Everything that's happening in the last seven years, and it's
been a rather lot of stuff, both domestically and foreign.
It's never reversed the truth and Barbo's course, it's flowed
it down, maybe to crawl at times, but never stopped it.
And so we've been heading towards be inevitable. But we've
recently had another major how would you say, slowed down,
(10:27):
and we're now dealing with that. It's frustrating, but there's
a lot of very complex and dangerous things going on,
both in the world and domestically, and you just have
to yield to that because the press and the public's
interest are going to be focused on those major issues.
And until that kind of clears up the truth and
(10:49):
bargo remained safe.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
Why do you believe successive USAID administrations have withheld information
about UFOs and dt context stave.
Speaker 5 (11:03):
We don't have, obviously, statements from all these presidents about
why they did what they did, so we have to
surmise historians will eventually get that information and write some
rather extensive books about it. But my basic explanation for
just the average person trying to understand this is that
the government learned no later than forty seven that there's
(11:26):
these non humans with non human tech in our airspace.
It's not elsewhere. No later than forty seven, because they
had a vehicle and they had the bodies. That's absolutely
established by some tremendous research by Carrie and Don Schmidt
and Stanton Friedman and others, and we have hundreds of witnesses.
(11:46):
So it's a done deal. But they might have done
a little sooner because there's other and that's emerging about
a nineteen thirty three crash in Italy that might have
ended up ultimately in our hands but after the war,
poss before Roswell, but incredibly tightly held. So let's just
work with forty seven. So they've known about it since then,
(12:08):
and Truman had a simple decision. We got a vehicle,
this is a major story. War two is over, we're
heading into what would be a pretty stable time, though
the Korean War was about to get going. Nevertheless, he
had a decision to just tell Roger Rainey, the General
venta fort Worth Worth, Look, let's just sit on this
for a while, come up with a cover story, and
(12:30):
then we'll examine it at the high level in DC
and make a decision about what to do. Maybe we'll
just go ahead and tell the people. Guess what This
is going to be a real interesting second half of
the twentieth century. But ultimately what he decided to do
was to not tell the people and sit on it
longer than a few weeks. So they kind of started
(12:52):
to address it, I think internally, started putting people together
to deal with it, making a decision that they would
maybe come forward later. They give it a little time,
but the Korean War gets started. That doesn't help, and
so now it's kind of locked down for national security reasons.
Speaker 4 (13:12):
All right, Steve and I have to take my break.
I have to take a rakulo, so please stand by,
excell nation. I guess this hour is Stephen Bassett And
if you'd like to find out more about Steven, its
website is Paradigm Research Group dot RG.
Speaker 5 (13:27):
This is the Xcell.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
I'm Rob McConnell. We'll come to you on the Talk
Star Radio Network, Mutual Broadcast Network and the Exon Broadcast Network.
Will be back on the other side of a sharp break,
don't away the.
Speaker 6 (13:39):
Cosmos for answers beyond arly.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
Watching from a farm.
Speaker 8 (14:16):
In the twilight hush, where shadows whisperlow, a silver gleam
streaks across the sky, a glow.
Speaker 9 (14:33):
With a haunting mellowdy.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
The air begins to throw an echo of the wonders
that from beyond ta come celestial encounter as the stars
a line, a tapestry of wonders woven.
Speaker 9 (14:57):
Through space and time from the void of dogs.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Of course, so the stories unfolding.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Excell Nation Now. Steve Ambassadors are special guest and his
website is www dot Paradigm Research Group dot org. And Stephen,
we were talking about what happened after World War Two
with the with the coming of the Korean War.
Speaker 5 (15:26):
Yeah, the question was why has it been with held
administration administration all these years? And the answer, long story
short is that by mid fifty two, Truman had still
not made a decision obviously to let the people know
about this. The Korean War was not helping. But then
in July fifty two, the EPs, for whatever reason, these
(15:49):
being wherever they're from, did a substantial flyover the capital
that went on for quite a few days, pretty much
very much upsetting the government. There's nothing they can do
about it. Fortuning were a lot of people with cameras
walking around and did a lot of shots, but it
was news and he got picked up and it forced
a response from the government, some kind of response they
(16:10):
had to make. It in general, Stanford's response is famous.
Don A Kioso responded at the time it was now
really much into the issue and said flat out that
it was extra trusts, but nevertheless it really shook the
government up. They pulled together a panel pretty quickly later
that year called the Robertson Panel to CIA Channel, and
(16:31):
the conclusion was that under the circumstances the well, the
phenomenon seemed to pose no threat, which is a very
important thing to know. That was in the report. The
public's growing interest as we moved into what is clearly
going to be a kind of nuclear arms race with
a war going on in Korea that had to potential
(16:52):
to trigger a nuclear weapons use, that let's just let's
sit on this. We're just not going to put this out.
We're going to classify it indefinitely and then see how
this whole nuclear thing in this Soviet Union thing plays out.
And that decision remains the policy to this day. It's
(17:12):
a political decision, national security based. It's legal, and it's
still in place, but it's time for it to end.
I mean, it's well past time for that policy to
be changed.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
See one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for
the US government is actually hiding the truth that you
know of.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
It's not a piece of evidence, it's a mass of
evidence accumulated and one hundreds, if not thousands of books
by scores of researchers over seventy years. Documents have come out,
Some have been gotten to FIA, some have actually been
released released by the FBI and the CIA, which actually
talks about this. You can find them online. It's not
(17:56):
they're not completely and couldn't if they wanted to. Just
nor all this. The composite of the evidence, the brutality
of it is overwhelming, and that's how things are proven.
No single thing does it. There's been plenty of witnesses
that have had experience in dealing with the issue inside
that have come forward, even going back twenty thirty forty years.
(18:17):
Pilots of course, have made reports. The totality of the
evidence is overwhelming that this is a non human phenomena.
This is not tech that we built. And so the
logical conclusion is there from another star system. Put your
money on that if we had the ability to go
from star to star, We sure as ell would and
(18:39):
we do the extradrust us.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
What about the new administration that has been in power
since January? Do you think that President Trump in his
cabinet will be part of disclosure?
Speaker 5 (18:55):
Absolutely could happen. There's a number of factors underway. Here's
extremely complicated. That the situation in the United States and
internationally is probably more complicated than what's going into World
War Two. It's pretty straightforward. You had good, the bad,
and they went at it. Now the world is just
(19:15):
four dimensional chess all the time. But the fact is is,
since twenty seventeen, major unprecedented progress has been made towards
getting this over, getting this truth embarcal ended, and a
great deal that had to happen has happened. Legislation, hearings,
(19:37):
direct engagement by a number of politicians, a number of
people in Congress, both parties, a very bipartisan or nonpartisan approach.
All of this is exactly what was needed. Many witnesses
coming forward, major serious hearings, and thousands of articles, six
thousand least. I've logged into my print media archive at
Paradigm Research Group dot org. It's just nineteen and first
(20:01):
twenty eighteen, So all of that pretty much and then
the creation of office is like as force Erro and
all of that. All of this is exactly what was
needed for the government to be able to disclose and
end this embargo. And all of this is not about
finding out what it is they are, no, but it
is about preparing for the inevitable confirmation it's coming, which
(20:25):
is awkward because you can't say that. So they're basically saying,
we're going to look into this, We're going to find
out what it's all about. But that's a cover for
setting up this infrastructure which is in place.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
What was your what was your reaction to the recent
what was your recent you know, like, what was your
reaction to the recent congressional UAP hearings.
Speaker 5 (20:45):
Oh? I was there and certainly the two major ones.
This is unprecedented. These are major events in history. Only
the truth embargo prevents them from being celebrated fully from
how the world. David Rush actually broke a major barrier
there and took everything to another level and under oath
(21:06):
he said, we have non human second non human bodies,
which is pretty much as clear as it could be.
Other members of Congress like Tim Burchette have gone on
television programs camera and said, we have non human sure,
we have a president's echi presence whatever. So all of
that is powerful, but it's what's more important is it's
(21:28):
all part of a bigger project, which is building the
platform for the president to stand on and say what
has to be said and not have some ridiculous reaction
or people get upset. In fact, they'll be quite understanding
because given everything else is happening, it supports it. So
in other words, the platform is built, the president has
(21:49):
a stepped out on it. Yet thirteen presidents could have
done this. Every one of them knew there was an
et presidence, I assure you, or this non human presence
way we want to call it everyone because you just
don't get the president and that kind of thing is
kept from you. Now that doesn't mean that you've been
heavily briefed or you know all the details. It just
means you know it's real. But they've all chosen though
(22:10):
there's been a few efforts to not do it. This
is the fourteenth president, this is his second time around,
and my feeling about this is pretty strong that there's
enough there for the president to act the platform has
been built, but is he the kind of president that
would do it? And of all the fourteen, he is
(22:32):
the president who could do it. He has a unique,
I guess you could say, a way of handling the
matters and dealing with things. He is much less dependent
upon other people's advice, and he's surrounded by people that
want to support whatever he wants to do. And so
(22:53):
I think he could do it, and he could do
it tomorrow, and there's plenty of evidence pointing that it's possible.
It's not. I'm not just this is not just a conjecture,
but more and more when I think about what the
current president could do, I'm reminded of a movie that
I love many many years ago. I think it's forty
years ago. Anyway. It's Lawrence of Arabia with O'Toole and
(23:14):
Anthony Quinn, a major motion picture. I think it won Austin.
And so there is this classic scene in the movie.
They're out in the desert. Lawrence is out in the
desert at the encampment of Abu Dai, a very powerful
leader of one of the groups there, and he's trying
to convince him to help take the city of Akkaba,
(23:36):
which is kind of critical for the war effort at
that time. And it's going back and forth and Abu
Dai is not not extrusted, but he says Lawrence says
to him, he says, you know you you you must
take Akaba. And Abu Day comes back and he says,
Abu Dai must take Aqua Acaba. And Abudai comes back
(23:57):
and says why does he why should he take Pakaba?
And Lawrence's will I was classic because it pleases him
to do so. Do you ever get to watch this movie?
Watch that scene. It is a very significant scene, stuck
with me for years. Always like it, lo and behold
some forty years later, I think, but in a situation
(24:20):
that is so like it, it is almost eerie. And
so the conversation goes like this. You know, I'm just
you know, fantasizing here, but let's let's let's go with it.
I'm in the Oval office and I'm trying to persuade
the President trying to end the truth embargo. Mister President,
(24:41):
you should end the truth embargo. And the President says,
and why should the president end the truth? And Barbo
and my answer would be because it pleases him to
do so, and that kind of sums it up. Anybody
that has followed the career of the current president knows
that that's statement absolutely applies. If it pleases him to
(25:03):
do so, he will do it, and nobody will talk
him out of it. He's got plenty of people around him.
I believe that actually think it's a good idea, including
his son. But there's a lot going on. Okay, let's
face it. I mean, all hell is going on all
over the place, and so it's not like a top
of his list, and it's obviously more resistance given the
(25:25):
national security issues that are in play because of extraordinary
and dramatic events happening overseas, and then of course we've
got political chaos here, but certainly appeal. But that doesn't
mean he couldn't do it tomorrow. I'm just saying that
the stage is sets and I want people to know that.
But it's at this point completely up to the presidents
(25:47):
whether he chooses to do that. And the only thing
I would add is that if he doesn't do it,
there are a couple of heads of state that could
come out and confirm it. They will be the disclosure
head of state. They will get the historical legacy. They
will that the glory is dam the great truth teller,
and our president will have to follow second or third.
And that's pretty straightforward. It's not a complicated, complicated set up.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
Is it possible, Steve, that a different countries leader like
China or North Korea or even Russia would come out
and head up the disclosure.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
Yeah, it's very possible. There are a number of reasons
why Hiji things she could do it. I can elaborate,
but number of very good reasons I haven't done it
so far as reasons. So that Putin certainly could do it.
He is somewhat brought. But I doubt that any of
the allies of US would do it, such as Canada, UK, Australia,
even France, Germany. And I don't see that Korea is
(26:44):
an outlier there. I think it's possible, but probably not
because that's the most controlled state in the world, and
the great leader does not watch his people distracted by
learning that there's even more advanced and powerful and who's
out there then their leader. All right, Steve, I've got
to put it down to all.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
Right, I've got to take my break here. Please stand
by explanation. Stephen Bassett is our very special guest, and
if you'd like to find out more about Stephen, visit
his website www. Dot Paradigm Research Group dot o RG
and we'll be back on the other side of the
short break. Don't go me.
Speaker 7 (27:25):
With a haunting helloady.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
The air begins to throw an echo the wonders that.
Speaker 7 (27:38):
From beyond come celestial encount as the stars a line,
a tapestry of.
Speaker 9 (27:48):
Wonders woven through space and time from the void of
darkness of chorus six, so bright.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
The story is unfolding.
Speaker 10 (28:12):
Some days I walk, some days I crawl. Some days
I can't feel much at all. My body's amaze that
I try to read every step forwardward a.
Speaker 6 (28:35):
Silent but I won't let this break who I am.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
I've learned how to fight, learn.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
How to stand.
Speaker 6 (28:51):
I may fall, stirise through the pain, through the tea
using This road is long, but it bread.
Speaker 7 (29:10):
With every side.
Speaker 9 (29:13):
A live.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
Chief inmbassadors or guests a hour. Www Dot Paradigm Research
Group dot o r G. Stephen, what protections do whistleblowers
really have in this field? Like you know you've got
them coming up there, You know they're they're they're putting there,
they're putting their themselves at risk. Is do they get
(29:41):
any protection?
Speaker 5 (29:44):
This is a very complicated area for a number of reasons.
There are witnesses and there are whistleblowers, and they're not
the same thing. Well, I guess a whistleblower is a witness,
but really a witness with this is not the same thing,
and some people get that confusing. A witness is someone
that is simply providing information, either because they're asked that
(30:07):
they've stepped forward about something that's important and this is helpful.
The government may get the information to act on it,
journalists may act on it, but overall they're just a witness.
That doesn't mean they're not subject to some issues or problems.
A whistle blower is something quite different. A whistle blower,
(30:28):
if you're going to use the term correctly, is like
the gentleman that came forward to basically blow the whistle
on the cigarette companies where he had worked and showed
that they had been withholding evidence and essentially distorting the
evidence in order to present their product as a safe product.
(30:49):
He was a whistleblower because he is someone coming forward
to give testimony that within his workplace, something illegal was happening,
and he had an extremely tough time. There have been
other whistleblowers that have had a tough time, evasually even
committing suicide. So there's a big difference. The level of
(31:12):
protection for the whistleblower is obviously greater, and there have
been some whistle blower acts, but they are not toolproof.
It's almost impossible to have a quote, full proof protection
to whistle blowers in the day, in this day and age,
I want anybody can threaten to kill anybody in a
lot of different ways, and Mernaine anonymous, you just you
(31:34):
can't stop that. Mostly whistleblower protection is designed to protect
them against their own company or possibly a formal legal
action from government, but you can't protect them against what
citizens do, as they just recently learned just a couple
of days ago. Witnesses have less risk, but occasionally what
they are presenting is definitely pretty significant, and while they
(31:58):
have no culpability or guilt, people just decide they don't
like them. So there has been some effort to add
additional protection for whistle blowers and witnesses in this particular genre.
Some of it was in some of the legislations there's been,
they're trying to write more, and again is that kind
(32:21):
of legislation is extremely complex. They have some protection, certainly,
they probably will get more, but nothing is as complete
in the age of the internet and so forth. If
you do these things, you can expect to be threatened,
you can expect to be docked, you can expect your
information to get out, and so you just have to
(32:41):
be prepared for a rough time. The legislation will help, obviously,
but it's not full proof. And that's why I don't
I don't encourage somebody to do it. I just suggest
they think about it, and if they can do it,
they do it. But I'm not the one that would
have to suffer the consequences of a whistleblower coming out
(33:04):
because I thought it was a good idea.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
How Come ever, since the last congressional hearing where David
Grush gave testimony, nobody hears about him anymore.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
Well, for one thing, he got doxed, he got attacked
by Kirkpatrick and and other problem. So what he already
been harassed before he came forward. So he was a
legitimate whistleblower, I believe, and so forth, and so he
stepped back, I think appropriately to get away from that.
(33:36):
He did what he had to do. He don't think
he came forward to be the leader of the disclosure movement.
He made his statements and occasionally you'll hear from a
little bit. Overall, he's trying to get back to somewhat normal,
like is a family. Hopefully the death threats have stopped,
and that's the reason. But there are plenty of other
witnesses coming forward faster than you can keep up with.
(34:00):
So we have no lack of witnesses. Well, we just
need is more hearings to get them under oath.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
How are these witnesses vetted?
Speaker 5 (34:12):
Typically, Well, let's sakes crushes situation. He's working, he's already
got a classification status. He's working on the task force.
But let's say you're coming out of the d i A.
If you're doing it right, you will go to the
appropriate committee. You will go to a committe in Congress
that that staff that have the clearances to listen to
(34:33):
what you have to say. You sit down privately and
provide information. They will decide what to do with it,
such as taking it to the attention of there of
certain numbers. That committee that have the appropriate classification, who
will then decide whether they want to go further, whether
they want to investigation, whether they want to have a hearing,
(34:54):
and if they have a hearing, you would then be
called in to testify. But before then you would talk
to them again and go the testimony, so they have
a heads up of what's going to happen again, all
with people that have clearance, and then you would testify
under oath or your testimony would be included in other investigations.
That is the way Grush wanted it to go. But
(35:16):
ultimately he was harassed enough that he had to threaten
enough that he had to go to the expected General
and we've got clearance there. But then he still was
not able to I guess in theay the issue appropriately
and so he went public to some journalists Ross Coulthart,
Wlo McGall as he came and the whole thing blew
out on June the fifth of twenty twenty three, making
(35:38):
him a very famous person. Since then, you have witnesses
coming forward without so much risk and so much foofah.
But they are coming forward now. The potential for someone
to slip in who's not really legit is always there
there's a temptation that government might want to slip in
somebody deliberately to muddy the water. But overall, the witnesses
(36:03):
that have come forward have been legit and they provided humendous information.
And there have been at least are now six who
have testified under oath before committees of Congress, at least,
well they're two major, but there have been several others.
But they weren't witnesses, they were insiders, were bought it
to be brief. But six people are testified under oath
(36:23):
about this issue. In their testimony, if you objectively does
what supposed to do, it confirms that. So there's a
non human tech presence.
Speaker 4 (36:32):
You know, there are a lot of people who say
that there was no smoking gun at the last congressional
hearing and it was a waste of time.
Speaker 5 (36:41):
No people are impatient. I get it. They're frustrated. It's
been seventy some years that the idea of the smoking
gun is an illusion. There really is no such thing.
The object of all of this, the hearings, whether they
and people involved know it or I think most of
them do that some don't. The object of all of
(37:02):
this is not to tell the people what's going on.
They already know what's going on, and informing the people
really has to be the act of the president. There
have been people like astronauts and others that have said,
there's ed there, so what until the President confirms it
as a formal action and thus opening all kinds of
(37:25):
doors to address it, including getting the final acts passed
and other hearings underway and actual real process and information
coming out previously classified now made public. The president has
to do it. All. This is preliminary to that. It's
all about setting that up. And so no, they're not
(37:47):
going to drag a body of an ET out in
a plastic case and show it in a hearing, but
they're trying to get the platform set up so the
president can confirm and post disclosure. We may very well
see not too long a time photos, if not the
actual containers that some of the g are in, the
(38:07):
ones that kind of like the ones that Jackie Clason
was given the privilege to see by Richard Nixon. That's
the true story, as well as crafts and other things.
But we're not going to get that as part of
this process, because that's not what this is about. This
is about setting up the President to take ferment and
then under a very powerful if you Disclosure Act which
(38:30):
will probably be finalized, to build out and under substantial
public trutiny the information and artifacts and everything else, will
start a process that will bring them all public and
archived in a reasonable amount of time, probably less time
in the government life. And we won't be the only
country doing this. Other heads of state will come forward
(38:51):
and they those countries will be bringing out information again
confirming the et presence. All of this is ahead of us.
On the other side, disclosure, which right now may be
just a matter of whether or not it's pleases the
President of the United States to do so.
Speaker 4 (39:07):
What would it do to the United States Ego? If
Russia wants to come out and present the proof that
ets are here and that the United States government had
been perpetrating a fraud, a hoax on the American people
for seventy eight years, it would.
Speaker 5 (39:26):
There would there's not enough eggs in the country, the
plaster on the faces of all the people in government.
In the event that that happens, we will be second,
we will be embarrassed. Confidence of government will drop even lower.
Whoever does this will be given the title of the
great truth teller, paradigm shifter. They'll be building statues of
(39:48):
this head of states in various countries because it's a
nonpartisan global matter, right, and not ours though ours in
beginning any statue, so it will be a with relations
to ASCO, the national security loss in the sense, a
loss of prestige, and it will elevate the country of
(40:10):
the head of state that doesn't That's what this stake.
And I have been saying this for thirty years on
over fifteen hundred interviews. I almost always get to it.
If less the leaders such as Ladimir Putin and she
Jinking name a few others are actually working for the
CIA and getting a W two every year. They could
(40:33):
do it at any time. And so the ones that
are dragging their feet over there at the DD and
coming up with ridiculous news statements like this recent article
in the Wall Street Journal, they are putting our country
at risk of being second in one of the greatest
events in history. And it's I just don't know why
they haven't figured that out, and don't take.
Speaker 4 (40:54):
That stand by Steven you we've got to take our
final break into exponation. I guess this hour is Stephen Bassett,
well known to everyone within the UFO community. His website
is Paradigm Research Group dot organ. If you go there,
be prepared to spend a lot of time there. It's
got newspaper clippings, it's got everything you want to do.
(41:15):
If you want to learn about what the truth is
behind the UFO cover up and why disclosure hasn't happened,
go to his website www dot Paradigmresearch dot org. And
we'll be back on the other side as we wrap
up this hour here in the X Zone with yours truly,
Rob McConnell from our broadcast center in studios in Saint Catharine's, Ontario, Canada,
(41:36):
on the Talk Star Radio Network, Mutual Broadcast Network, and
of course on the xone Broadcast Network.
Speaker 5 (41:42):
We'll be back.
Speaker 4 (41:43):
Don't go away.
Speaker 10 (41:46):
SOMEDAYZA can'tee much.
Speaker 6 (41:52):
My body's a memes?
Speaker 3 (41:55):
Did I try?
Speaker 2 (42:05):
In the heart of the night?
Speaker 11 (42:09):
Where are the shadowss play? On the X Zone we gather,
Come what May with Rob McConnell guiding us through the dark,
searching for truth hidden, igniting the spark whispers of spirits
(42:32):
both gentle and bold tales of the ancients in the
stories retold from haunted old houses to the echo in
halls we seek the unknown, where Misterry calls on the exone.
Speaker 4 (42:56):
Radio and welcome back everyone, see ambassadors, our guest, and
of course his website is Paradigm Research Group dot org. Stephen,
all right, let me ask you the question on the
other side of the of the sword that I did
on the other side by saying, what would happen if,
you know, if I Orussia was to release the information?
(43:19):
Having this this knowledge, why doesn't the President of the
United States just come out and say it? What are
you waiting for? It makes no sense because if somebody
else does it, he's screwed.
Speaker 5 (43:38):
Again. That's that's my point every president from Truman on Kuldo,
And as you move forward in time, given the circumstances, h.
Carter gave it a bit of a run, but there's
no chance. In seventy seven, there was an effort to
get Clinton administration involved, and he did it. He did
(43:59):
make an effort. He did engage Lawrence Rockefeller and others
and what we call the Rockefeller Initiative, but it was
the platform wasn't built, and that d. D was not
a fan of the Clinton administration, and so it really
didn't have a chance, but it was the logical thing
to do after the Cold War ended. Once the Cold
War ended, great deal of the national security basis for
(44:21):
maintaining some embargo just disappeared. And if they had gotten
the embargo done, if they had brought disclosure about at
that point, I think it would have changed the whole
course of the rest of the twentieth century. Instead, we
ended up going right back into a new Cold War two,
a new arms race, not of numbers, but of advanced
(44:42):
weaponry and plenty of wars. So one of the great
mistakes of history. So but every president could do it,
but there was some serious reasons that they couldn't. And
this time is different. This president is just simply cut
in a different law. He is the one president, frankly
could just do it, and and and his appointees that
(45:05):
it stayed, and U. C. I, A, and D O
D and and Homeland Security and National Intelligence, of all
that they're they're basically loyal loyalists to him. They're really
not likely to put up much of a fight. So
he's really gone. It's right there for him. And that's
why I brought it up earlier and let history decide
(45:28):
whether it was a good decision or not. So there's
a whole lot of reasons to do it. There are
limited and eroding reasons not to do it. And so
there you have it. The current president of the United
States could be the disposed president. It could happen tomorrow,
it could happen a couple of weeks, in a couple
(45:49):
of months. But there's no real barrier, as we've seen
in the past, other than of course, the d O
D is still trying to resist, which is why they
put out that they use the Wall Street Journal to
put out a grotesque new article that I can talk
about in a second. Sure, but that's the best answer
I'd give you. But before I go on, I want
(46:10):
to mention that there are a lot of people in Canada,
a lot of Canadians who have been part of this process,
the disclosure process and research as well over the years.
Grant Cameron, my good friend, certainly has been involved in it.
And then of course a shout out to the leading
disclosure activists Disclose your advocate in Canada, and that's of
course Victim with Johnny, who is as relentless and persistent
(46:33):
as I am. So I do hope that Canada will
share in what's coming as much as possible. So that's
basically my answer to that. But let's let's get into
the Wall Street Journal's happened. Is that because of a
huge amount of unrest internationally, there's something that the press,
a lot of a lot of chaos domestically, the whole
(46:58):
process is slowed down to something grace not reverse slowed down,
and those opposing disclosure decided to make a move they've
made others in the past, taking advantage of the situation.
And so I believe how this went down, though it
hasn't been vetted yet and it's heard of it. But
the Wall Street Journal, which has done something like nineteen
(47:21):
stories almost twenty stories in the last three years, was
going to do another story about developments, and they assigned
that story to two national security reporters, good good reporters,
Joel Sheckman and Aaruna. This went off of and so
they went about to put these stories together to do
(47:44):
an assessment of what's going on, and naturally they went
talked to about two dozen I just mentioned in the
article two dozen insiders, dug scientists. They were provided lots
of documents from these same people, and they spent three
lenks on this. In fact, Shechman even talked to me
three months ago. I helped him get in contact with
Bob Sallas, which is I think one of the only
(48:05):
people on the other side of this issue. Outside a
bit meant that they've talked to and I did talk
to him, but gave him information, but he was more
interested in salut. That's fine. When the story came out,
it was amazing. It was absolutely amazing, and it's a
testimony to, you know, the definition of insanity, which is
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
(48:27):
different results. What they did was the story has two parts.
In the first part, these insiders presented to these two
reporters essentially the assessment that, in fact, virtually all the
UFO stuff that's been reported over the years was in
fact government disinformation. We have been doing disinformation. We had
(48:48):
been playing with all of this information in order to
protect certain testing and so forth. That we're doing it
was for national security. It's the first time they formally
admitted to disinformation, which is interesting. They felt they had
to take that risk, thinking it'll pay off. It won't,
and so essentially the other papers are now writing these articles,
(49:10):
I guess it was us all along. It was the
government doing it all along and hoping they can grandfather
the entire phenomena and everything reported in the thousands of
hundreds of thousands of reports into government disinformation which is
completely bogus, absolutely wrong, totalize, and then I hope it
wasn't delivered. The second half of the story was devoted
(49:33):
to one thing, Robert Sallas and the nuclear shut down
witness testimony. And the reason they did that is because
they are well aware that the chances of a number
of former Sack based officer are testifying under oath to
the incidents where they were present and our missiles were
all shut down away. A giant object craft type glowing
(49:57):
object is holding directly over the base, over the the
large control center, rather being seen by all the security people,
is getting very close to being in a hearing. Nancy
Mace met with Bob Sallas. I was present for that
meeting was filmed by Tyler Roberts back in November last year.
I have delivered affidavits for all their witness testimony to
(50:20):
the thirty six offices, including the Senate Intel Committee, in
the House Under Oversight Subcommittee electronic copies and so forth.
It's definitely. But and they see this coming, and these
are the witnesses, They dread testimony, and so they gave
these two reporters a story that in fact, they have
always known what shut those witnesses down. It never acknowledged this.
(50:44):
It was a it was us. It was an EMP
experiment to see if the missiles were vulnerable to an
MT blast from another weapon by an enemy, and they
went to elaborate efforts to convince them of this. It
is a complete lie. Bob Sallas has already responded. Others,
(51:06):
Danny Sheen has responded, Mark vond Running Camp has responded.
Kevin White and the Internet in general is shredding this thing.
It is an absolute joke. And I have to wonder
and hope one day to be able to ask some
inside people about this. Were you aware that when this
article was going to be played out, that you would
(51:26):
have half the article saying everything you saw was not
true because we created all this disinformation. And then in
the second half of the article you provided an alternative
explanation for something that's been researched for decades to death
with books and everything else, with witnesses coming board and
ask the reader to believe you that you put those
(51:48):
two together. Did you see the irony there at all?
Is that delivered? Did you miss it? Did it not
occur to you that that's pretty outrageous. We've been lying
to you for seventy years this one thing. You got
to believe it. What can I say? That is an
example of pushback. There have been others, as it is
(52:09):
the case in this case. Kir Patrick, who was pushed
back on this issue, was involved. We think Kathlaski was involved.
Philips is involved, and many others, not just them. One
more shot to try to buy a little time to
keep the inevitable from happening. And it's so transparent now
in the age of the Internet. This is you don't
do this. It worked in sixty nine, it worked in
(52:31):
fifty two, but in the age of the Internet, hundreds
of millions of people talking about the issue worldwide, in
touch with each other, able to troll you in a
moment's notice. No, it was absolutely ridiculous, which is why
Anna Poline a Luna is set up, and so she
is called for the defunding of Arrow. Kevin Wright is
called to the defunding of Thattor, he writes for the
(52:53):
Roswell Daily Records. And I think Arrow has to be defunded.
It was put in place to just be a content
village to hold the fort. This whole thing, though, was
dragged on too long as a result against Arab was
kind of sucked in in a way to the whole process.
And now is a debunking entity. And so it has
to be it has to be defunded, eliminated and had
(53:13):
to start over as quickly as possible with the new organization.
And and and that's that's not just me saying it.
That had a poline alone of saying it. And I
think you're gonna have a few more members and cons
saying it. And so again the desperation and the desperate
attempts by the Pentagon like the Mogul balloon and the
crash test dummies, uh and other, and and the end
(53:36):
the the echos to try to dispel the UFO flap
of last year by calling it drones but not being
able to say whose drones they are. U are explained
the phenomena in general. They were our drones, by the way,
But the rest of that stuff, all those plasma orbs,
the food fighter stuff that was et one of the
biggest UFO flap of all time. These these are embarrassing,
(53:59):
they're demeaning, They degrade our national security structures. We lose
trusting government. These are the people that have defended us
risk their lives. They're not supposed to be pops in
a giant disinformation campaign that's still going on even after
they admitted it. And so that's just what happened recently.
(54:19):
And there have been other things that have happened, both
in our country and outside of our country that are
extremely concerning, and I'm just hanging in there. Activism is tough.
It is if the whims of history, anything can disrupt
the goal may be pure, but history is bigger than
a particular movement, and so as in the case of
other movements, we are now kind of back in a
(54:41):
holding pattern, but not going backwards. Luna has announced to
Matt Laslow that she plans on hearings in July. She's
going to get a skiff, so she doesn't care who's
evading who, who's bombing who. She is prepared to go
forward on this. She is ahead of the task Force
for classifying federal secrets. Jesus she's a pistol. Okay, I
(55:03):
mean this is a determinent, intense woman. She's she's probably young,
but she'll stand up to anybody on the hill. Got
to give her credit, Steve, I quite clear, Steve.
Speaker 1 (55:13):
I hate.
Speaker 5 (55:13):
I hate to do this. It is the most bipartisan issue, Steve.
Speaker 4 (55:16):
I hate to do this. Our times just run out.
I want to thank you so much for joining us.
Please come back again and keep keep it up.
Speaker 8 (55:23):
Steve.
Speaker 4 (55:23):
I feel that one day you're going to be right
up there with those people on the podium showing off
what ET really is. Take care of yourself, la stage.
Speaker 5 (55:31):
I'll settle for a nice party. Man. You got to
come all.
Speaker 4 (55:34):
Right, take care Steve, All right, excell nation. My guest
this hour has been Stephen Bassett his website Paradigm Research
Group dot org. I'll be back on the other side
of the short break as the xceone continues with yours,
Shirley Rob McConnell from the x ON Broadcast Network, Talk
Star Radio Network and Mutual Broadcast Network and streaming on
it Classic twelve twenty dot ca A. I'll be backed
(55:55):
on the way
All.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to the X Zone, a place where fact is
fiction and fiction is reality. Now here's your host, Rob Hacanno.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
In the late night hours when the world's asleep, Rob
McConnell's voice echo secrets to keep from Roswell's whispers to
tales of the sky. On the X Zone Radio, we
learn to fly high.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
With every new guest, the story unfolds, from abductee's tales
to the mysteries told government cover ups. There deep in
their wide But we're on a quest with the true
as our guys.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
And welcome to the excellent every one. I am Robert Connell,
coming cure from our broadcast center and studios in Saint Catherine's, Ontario, Canada.
If you'd like to send an email exon at x
On Radio, TV, dot, comment on all social media sites
Xzone Radio, TV, Tonight on the Xzone, and we have
a very special guest. He's been called the leading voice
(01:30):
in the political truth movement for UFFO disclosure. As the
executive director of the Paradigm Research Group, he has spent
decades lobbying Congress, briefing political leaders, and shaking the very
foundations of secrecy surrounding et contact now from the corridors
of Washington, d C. To the halls of the international media.
(01:52):
Our guest, this our Stephen Bassett, has made his mission
to end the government imposed truth embargo on the et presence.
With growing publican rest, congressional hearings, and whistleblower revelations, are
we on the brink of a full disclosure joining us? Yes,
Stephen Bassett, the only registered UFO lobbyist in the United
States and the man behind www. Dot Paradigm Researchgroup dot org,
(02:18):
ready for a conversation that might change the way you
see our world and the universe around us. Steven, Welcome
back to the Exon.
Speaker 5 (02:27):
Good to be back. Rob. Let me clarify something. I'm
proud to say that they are oh maybe five six
seven lobbyists, other lot of people that have registered on
this issue with our government going back maybe started about
five years ago. So I'm not the only one, but
I'm glad about that. It just reflats where the issue
is going, all right.
Speaker 4 (02:47):
So I should say that you are the first one.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
I was the first person crazy enough to register as
a lobbyist on the EPSUE, knowing that the newspaper we
find it amusing, which they did and margin and post
interview good interview, by the way, Once I interviewed hit
the front page, it was gangbusters after that.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Steven, what originally inspired you to find the Paradigm Research Group?
Speaker 5 (03:14):
It was, as I've counted many times, I just got
a point in life when I wanted to do something
that net something I'd spent the first half of my
life doing what this is will do, which is okay, Bill,
time to enjoy yourself and all that, but I wasn't
good enough for me. Something was not right. And at
the age of forty nine, they said, look, I'm going
(03:35):
to do something that's meaningful and try to help the
way serve. I guess you could say to serve is
not quite the same thing as just trying to get
a paycheck. And so I thought about the issues and
this is the one that came to my attention and
most I've been aware of it. And what tripped it though,
is I had read a few books that I read
John Max's book Alien Abduction Round Alien whom An accounted
(03:59):
with it and this is in the ninety five and
it was it really impressed me and I'm going, Wow,
this thing is really happening. And so I got in
touch with them and they let me come volunteer for them,
and I had a nice little door to go through.
Met my first contact ees, met John Mack. I'm all excited,
got pumped up, and I was up in Boston and
(04:21):
it was there that I figured out, well, what can
I do. I'm not a I don't have a I
have a physics degree. It's not going to help me
in this field, really, and what do I do? And
then I realized that I was a political guy. He's
involved in some of the protests back in the sixties
and been in the Washington most of my life. Kind
of new the ropes. And I realized that this is
(04:43):
not a science problem. It's been treated as a science problem.
Prove it, prove it, prove it. Then the government will go, oh,
you proved it. No, it's a political problem. It's a
national security decision. To maintain a truth embargo on this,
as I came to call it, it has to have
a political solution. You can prove all you want, I'm
gonna matter, so therefore you have to engage it politically.
(05:03):
Who's doing that virtually Nobody that I'm most aware of.
It turned out they were a couple of people I
wasn't aware of, but still, and I said, okay, how
do I do that? How do I get involved? Don't
have any money, but I do have a family, place
to stay and things like that. And I realized, wait
a minute, nobody's ever resister as a lobbyist on this,
probably because they're either not they're not, they're shame right,
(05:25):
they have family, jobs, whatever. I didn't have those problems,
and so I said, I can radister so obvious I'm perfect.
And I did, and it was a great decision and
it worked out. I haven't done a lot of lobbying,
and I assure you I ended up basically as a
political activist, which is really what I was, and my
(05:46):
role increasingly became trying to explain bigger picture to just
regular people who are trying to keep up with all
this and a little concerned, and then also prussing the
government in various ways. But to be a pure I'm
not pure lobbyous. I'm up to activists. That's registers and lobbyists.
You want to lobby, really professionally lobby on something, you
better belong to a firm and you better have a
(06:07):
lot of money available to you. And that, of course
is not the case with this, but nevertheless, there are
a number of lobbyists. Now the issue is fully engaged
and very politicized, and so I'm optimistic, but it's still
a very tough ride.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Can you explain the mission and goals of the Paradigm
Research Group, Well.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
It was it was set up specifically to and the
truth in bargo, which I didn't call it that. I
didn't call it the truth embargo until two thousand and
one maybe. And the truth embargo is the policy of
the government that we can't handle this truth. We can't
and we don't have a legal right to ity then
and so forth. That's the policy starting in forty seven.
(06:54):
And that policy may have had value and unjustified in
the early couple decades, but at some point it's simply
outlived its appropriateness. And that really starts after the Cold
War ended, at least the first round of the Cold
War ended in ninety one, and as things went on
after that, it only got worse and worse. And so
(07:16):
the truth embargo is the government policy not to confirm
that this is in fact real here present, and that
truth embargo has to end the end of that embargo
must come from a president, must come from a head
of state. And that's what I've come to call capital
D disclosure. That's the only definition of it. There are
no others because I made it, and pursuing disclosure then
(07:40):
became the prize of this movement, which is now truly
a movement and PRG That's what it's been all about.
It is about ending the truth embargo. After that it
will try to adjust. I already starting by forming our
changing to a final in two three not profit. After
that comes addressing and dealing with the post is closure world,
(08:00):
which is real, the real fun.
Speaker 4 (08:04):
You know you've been at the forefront for the fight
of disclosure. Well ever since I've known you. How close
are we to the actual government acknowledgment in your opinion
of non human intelligence?
Speaker 5 (08:16):
Yeah? We were seventy eight years in since Roswell. The
first seventy years were tough, Google some progress, major setback,
but a huge amount of research was done, a huge
amount of evidence was gathered, and a great platform was
(08:37):
made to finish it off. But the opportunity to really
close the deal doesn't begin until twenty seventeen. A breakthrough.
Some people came forward very parapolic articles in the New
York Times, and it was very quickly obvious to me
that several key people, particularly Christopher Mellen, were now pursuing
(08:59):
the resolution because they had the means, the connections and
the history to do it. And they represented probably quite
a few others still working in government that would like
to be public and do it but they simply can't,
but they support the idea. Members Over the years, more
and more people did. People inside government really felt embargo
(09:20):
this issue was no longer acceptable and they would like
to see it end. But that doesn't mean they couldn't
really do anything. But some people had chosen to come
out and do that, and the process began. It's now
seven years long, and it's been a study progress towards
ending the truth in Bargo, with some significant moments and highlights.
And we've been close, real close a couple of times,
(09:45):
but not quite there. But unfortunately, the history of this
time is extremely complex and volatile, and it's help it
hurt rather unlike in the past, a major event would
happen like N'm nine to eleven and so forth. It
just totally set the issue back and almost put it reverse.
(10:05):
Everything that's happening in the last seven years, and it's
been a rather lot of stuff, both domestically and foreign.
It's never reversed the truth and Barbo's course, it's flowed
it down, maybe to crawl at times, but never stopped it.
And so we've been heading towards be inevitable. But we've
recently had another major how would you say, slowed down,
(10:27):
and we're now dealing with that. It's frustrating, but there's
a lot of very complex and dangerous things going on,
both in the world and domestically, and you just have
to yield to that because the press and the public's
interest are going to be focused on those major issues.
And until that kind of clears up the truth and
(10:49):
bargo remained safe.
Speaker 4 (10:52):
Why do you believe successive USAID administrations have withheld information
about UFOs and dt context stave.
Speaker 5 (11:03):
We don't have, obviously, statements from all these presidents about
why they did what they did, so we have to
surmise historians will eventually get that information and write some
rather extensive books about it. But my basic explanation for
just the average person trying to understand this is that
the government learned no later than forty seven that there's
(11:26):
these non humans with non human tech in our airspace.
It's not elsewhere. No later than forty seven, because they
had a vehicle and they had the bodies. That's absolutely
established by some tremendous research by Carrie and Don Schmidt
and Stanton Friedman and others, and we have hundreds of witnesses.
(11:46):
So it's a done deal. But they might have done
a little sooner because there's other and that's emerging about
a nineteen thirty three crash in Italy that might have
ended up ultimately in our hands but after the war,
poss before Roswell, but incredibly tightly held. So let's just
work with forty seven. So they've known about it since then,
(12:08):
and Truman had a simple decision. We got a vehicle,
this is a major story. War two is over, we're
heading into what would be a pretty stable time, though
the Korean War was about to get going. Nevertheless, he
had a decision to just tell Roger Rainey, the General
venta fort Worth Worth, Look, let's just sit on this
for a while, come up with a cover story, and
(12:30):
then we'll examine it at the high level in DC
and make a decision about what to do. Maybe we'll
just go ahead and tell the people. Guess what This
is going to be a real interesting second half of
the twentieth century. But ultimately what he decided to do
was to not tell the people and sit on it
longer than a few weeks. So they kind of started
(12:52):
to address it, I think internally, started putting people together
to deal with it, making a decision that they would
maybe come forward later. They give it a little time,
but the Korean War gets started. That doesn't help, and
so now it's kind of locked down for national security reasons.
Speaker 4 (13:12):
All right, Steve and I have to take my break.
I have to take a rakulo, so please stand by,
excell nation. I guess this hour is Stephen Bassett And
if you'd like to find out more about Steven, its
website is Paradigm Research Group dot RG.
Speaker 5 (13:27):
This is the Xcell.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
I'm Rob McConnell. We'll come to you on the Talk
Star Radio Network, Mutual Broadcast Network and the Exon Broadcast Network.
Will be back on the other side of a sharp break,
don't away the.
Speaker 6 (13:39):
Cosmos for answers beyond arly.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
Watching from a farm.
Speaker 8 (14:16):
In the twilight hush, where shadows whisperlow, a silver gleam
streaks across the sky, a glow.
Speaker 9 (14:33):
With a haunting mellowdy.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
The air begins to throw an echo of the wonders
that from beyond ta come celestial encounter as the stars
a line, a tapestry of wonders woven.
Speaker 9 (14:57):
Through space and time from the void of dogs.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Of course, so the stories unfolding.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Excell Nation Now. Steve Ambassadors are special guest and his
website is www dot Paradigm Research Group dot org. And Stephen,
we were talking about what happened after World War Two
with the with the coming of the Korean War.
Speaker 5 (15:26):
Yeah, the question was why has it been with held
administration administration all these years? And the answer, long story
short is that by mid fifty two, Truman had still
not made a decision obviously to let the people know
about this. The Korean War was not helping. But then
in July fifty two, the EPs, for whatever reason, these
(15:49):
being wherever they're from, did a substantial flyover the capital
that went on for quite a few days, pretty much
very much upsetting the government. There's nothing they can do
about it. Fortuning were a lot of people with cameras
walking around and did a lot of shots, but it
was news and he got picked up and it forced
a response from the government, some kind of response they
(16:10):
had to make. It in general, Stanford's response is famous.
Don A Kioso responded at the time it was now
really much into the issue and said flat out that
it was extra trusts, but nevertheless it really shook the
government up. They pulled together a panel pretty quickly later
that year called the Robertson Panel to CIA Channel, and
(16:31):
the conclusion was that under the circumstances the well, the
phenomenon seemed to pose no threat, which is a very
important thing to know. That was in the report. The
public's growing interest as we moved into what is clearly
going to be a kind of nuclear arms race with
a war going on in Korea that had to potential
(16:52):
to trigger a nuclear weapons use, that let's just let's
sit on this. We're just not going to put this out.
We're going to classify it indefinitely and then see how
this whole nuclear thing in this Soviet Union thing plays out.
And that decision remains the policy to this day. It's
(17:12):
a political decision, national security based. It's legal, and it's
still in place, but it's time for it to end.
I mean, it's well past time for that policy to
be changed.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
See one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for
the US government is actually hiding the truth that you
know of.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
It's not a piece of evidence, it's a mass of
evidence accumulated and one hundreds, if not thousands of books
by scores of researchers over seventy years. Documents have come out,
Some have been gotten to FIA, some have actually been
released released by the FBI and the CIA, which actually
talks about this. You can find them online. It's not
(17:56):
they're not completely and couldn't if they wanted to. Just
nor all this. The composite of the evidence, the brutality
of it is overwhelming, and that's how things are proven.
No single thing does it. There's been plenty of witnesses
that have had experience in dealing with the issue inside
that have come forward, even going back twenty thirty forty years.
(18:17):
Pilots of course, have made reports. The totality of the
evidence is overwhelming that this is a non human phenomena.
This is not tech that we built. And so the
logical conclusion is there from another star system. Put your
money on that if we had the ability to go
from star to star, We sure as ell would and
(18:39):
we do the extradrust us.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
What about the new administration that has been in power
since January? Do you think that President Trump in his
cabinet will be part of disclosure?
Speaker 5 (18:55):
Absolutely could happen. There's a number of factors underway. Here's
extremely complicated. That the situation in the United States and
internationally is probably more complicated than what's going into World
War Two. It's pretty straightforward. You had good, the bad,
and they went at it. Now the world is just
(19:15):
four dimensional chess all the time. But the fact is is,
since twenty seventeen, major unprecedented progress has been made towards
getting this over, getting this truth embarcal ended, and a
great deal that had to happen has happened. Legislation, hearings,
(19:37):
direct engagement by a number of politicians, a number of
people in Congress, both parties, a very bipartisan or nonpartisan approach.
All of this is exactly what was needed. Many witnesses
coming forward, major serious hearings, and thousands of articles, six
thousand least. I've logged into my print media archive at
Paradigm Research Group dot org. It's just nineteen and first
(20:01):
twenty eighteen, So all of that pretty much and then
the creation of office is like as force Erro and
all of that. All of this is exactly what was
needed for the government to be able to disclose and
end this embargo. And all of this is not about
finding out what it is they are, no, but it
is about preparing for the inevitable confirmation it's coming, which
(20:25):
is awkward because you can't say that. So they're basically saying,
we're going to look into this, We're going to find
out what it's all about. But that's a cover for
setting up this infrastructure which is in place.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
What was your what was your reaction to the recent
what was your recent you know, like, what was your
reaction to the recent congressional UAP hearings.
Speaker 5 (20:45):
Oh? I was there and certainly the two major ones.
This is unprecedented. These are major events in history. Only
the truth embargo prevents them from being celebrated fully from
how the world. David Rush actually broke a major barrier
there and took everything to another level and under oath
(21:06):
he said, we have non human second non human bodies,
which is pretty much as clear as it could be.
Other members of Congress like Tim Burchette have gone on
television programs camera and said, we have non human sure,
we have a president's echi presence whatever. So all of
that is powerful, but it's what's more important is it's
(21:28):
all part of a bigger project, which is building the
platform for the president to stand on and say what
has to be said and not have some ridiculous reaction
or people get upset. In fact, they'll be quite understanding
because given everything else is happening, it supports it. So
in other words, the platform is built, the president has
(21:49):
a stepped out on it. Yet thirteen presidents could have
done this. Every one of them knew there was an
et presidence, I assure you, or this non human presence
way we want to call it everyone because you just
don't get the president and that kind of thing is
kept from you. Now that doesn't mean that you've been
heavily briefed or you know all the details. It just
means you know it's real. But they've all chosen though
(22:10):
there's been a few efforts to not do it. This
is the fourteenth president, this is his second time around,
and my feeling about this is pretty strong that there's
enough there for the president to act the platform has
been built, but is he the kind of president that
would do it? And of all the fourteen, he is
(22:32):
the president who could do it. He has a unique,
I guess you could say, a way of handling the
matters and dealing with things. He is much less dependent
upon other people's advice, and he's surrounded by people that
want to support whatever he wants to do. And so
(22:53):
I think he could do it, and he could do
it tomorrow, and there's plenty of evidence pointing that it's possible.
It's not. I'm not just this is not just a conjecture,
but more and more when I think about what the
current president could do, I'm reminded of a movie that
I love many many years ago. I think it's forty
years ago. Anyway. It's Lawrence of Arabia with O'Toole and
(23:14):
Anthony Quinn, a major motion picture. I think it won Austin.
And so there is this classic scene in the movie.
They're out in the desert. Lawrence is out in the
desert at the encampment of Abu Dai, a very powerful
leader of one of the groups there, and he's trying
to convince him to help take the city of Akkaba,
(23:36):
which is kind of critical for the war effort at
that time. And it's going back and forth and Abu
Dai is not not extrusted, but he says Lawrence says
to him, he says, you know you you you must
take Akaba. And Abu Day comes back and he says,
Abu Dai must take Aqua Acaba. And Abudai comes back
(23:57):
and says why does he why should he take Pakaba?
And Lawrence's will I was classic because it pleases him
to do so. Do you ever get to watch this movie?
Watch that scene. It is a very significant scene, stuck
with me for years. Always like it, lo and behold
some forty years later, I think, but in a situation
(24:20):
that is so like it, it is almost eerie. And
so the conversation goes like this. You know, I'm just
you know, fantasizing here, but let's let's let's go with it.
I'm in the Oval office and I'm trying to persuade
the President trying to end the truth embargo. Mister President,
(24:41):
you should end the truth embargo. And the President says,
and why should the president end the truth? And Barbo
and my answer would be because it pleases him to
do so, and that kind of sums it up. Anybody
that has followed the career of the current president knows
that that's statement absolutely applies. If it pleases him to
(25:03):
do so, he will do it, and nobody will talk
him out of it. He's got plenty of people around him.
I believe that actually think it's a good idea, including
his son. But there's a lot going on. Okay, let's
face it. I mean, all hell is going on all
over the place, and so it's not like a top
of his list, and it's obviously more resistance given the
(25:25):
national security issues that are in play because of extraordinary
and dramatic events happening overseas, and then of course we've
got political chaos here, but certainly appeal. But that doesn't
mean he couldn't do it tomorrow. I'm just saying that
the stage is sets and I want people to know that.
But it's at this point completely up to the presidents
(25:47):
whether he chooses to do that. And the only thing
I would add is that if he doesn't do it,
there are a couple of heads of state that could
come out and confirm it. They will be the disclosure
head of state. They will get the historical legacy. They
will that the glory is dam the great truth teller,
and our president will have to follow second or third.
And that's pretty straightforward. It's not a complicated, complicated set up.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
Is it possible, Steve, that a different countries leader like
China or North Korea or even Russia would come out
and head up the disclosure.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
Yeah, it's very possible. There are a number of reasons
why Hiji things she could do it. I can elaborate,
but number of very good reasons I haven't done it
so far as reasons. So that Putin certainly could do it.
He is somewhat brought. But I doubt that any of
the allies of US would do it, such as Canada, UK, Australia,
even France, Germany. And I don't see that Korea is
(26:44):
an outlier there. I think it's possible, but probably not
because that's the most controlled state in the world, and
the great leader does not watch his people distracted by
learning that there's even more advanced and powerful and who's
out there then their leader. All right, Steve, I've got
to put it down to all.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
Right, I've got to take my break here. Please stand
by explanation. Stephen Bassett is our very special guest, and
if you'd like to find out more about Stephen, visit
his website www. Dot Paradigm Research Group dot o RG
and we'll be back on the other side of the
short break. Don't go me.
Speaker 7 (27:25):
With a haunting helloady.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
The air begins to throw an echo the wonders that.
Speaker 7 (27:38):
From beyond come celestial encount as the stars a line,
a tapestry of.
Speaker 9 (27:48):
Wonders woven through space and time from the void of
darkness of chorus six, so bright.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
The story is unfolding.
Speaker 10 (28:12):
Some days I walk, some days I crawl. Some days
I can't feel much at all. My body's amaze that
I try to read every step forwardward a.
Speaker 6 (28:35):
Silent but I won't let this break who I am.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
I've learned how to fight, learn.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
How to stand.
Speaker 6 (28:51):
I may fall, stirise through the pain, through the tea
using This road is long, but it bread.
Speaker 7 (29:10):
With every side.
Speaker 9 (29:13):
A live.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
Chief inmbassadors or guests a hour. Www Dot Paradigm Research
Group dot o r G. Stephen, what protections do whistleblowers
really have in this field? Like you know you've got
them coming up there, You know they're they're they're putting there,
they're putting their themselves at risk. Is do they get
(29:41):
any protection?
Speaker 5 (29:44):
This is a very complicated area for a number of reasons.
There are witnesses and there are whistleblowers, and they're not
the same thing. Well, I guess a whistleblower is a witness,
but really a witness with this is not the same thing,
and some people get that confusing. A witness is someone
that is simply providing information, either because they're asked that
(30:07):
they've stepped forward about something that's important and this is helpful.
The government may get the information to act on it,
journalists may act on it, but overall they're just a witness.
That doesn't mean they're not subject to some issues or problems.
A whistle blower is something quite different. A whistle blower,
(30:28):
if you're going to use the term correctly, is like
the gentleman that came forward to basically blow the whistle
on the cigarette companies where he had worked and showed
that they had been withholding evidence and essentially distorting the
evidence in order to present their product as a safe product.
(30:49):
He was a whistleblower because he is someone coming forward
to give testimony that within his workplace, something illegal was happening,
and he had an extremely tough time. There have been
other whistleblowers that have had a tough time, evasually even
committing suicide. So there's a big difference. The level of
(31:12):
protection for the whistleblower is obviously greater, and there have
been some whistle blower acts, but they are not toolproof.
It's almost impossible to have a quote, full proof protection
to whistle blowers in the day, in this day and age,
I want anybody can threaten to kill anybody in a
lot of different ways, and Mernaine anonymous, you just you
(31:34):
can't stop that. Mostly whistleblower protection is designed to protect
them against their own company or possibly a formal legal
action from government, but you can't protect them against what
citizens do, as they just recently learned just a couple
of days ago. Witnesses have less risk, but occasionally what
they are presenting is definitely pretty significant, and while they
(31:58):
have no culpability or guilt, people just decide they don't
like them. So there has been some effort to add
additional protection for whistle blowers and witnesses in this particular genre.
Some of it was in some of the legislations there's been,
they're trying to write more, and again is that kind
(32:21):
of legislation is extremely complex. They have some protection, certainly,
they probably will get more, but nothing is as complete
in the age of the internet and so forth. If
you do these things, you can expect to be threatened,
you can expect to be docked, you can expect your
information to get out, and so you just have to
(32:41):
be prepared for a rough time. The legislation will help, obviously,
but it's not full proof. And that's why I don't
I don't encourage somebody to do it. I just suggest
they think about it, and if they can do it,
they do it. But I'm not the one that would
have to suffer the consequences of a whistleblower coming out
(33:04):
because I thought it was a good idea.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
How Come ever, since the last congressional hearing where David
Grush gave testimony, nobody hears about him anymore.
Speaker 5 (33:14):
Well, for one thing, he got doxed, he got attacked
by Kirkpatrick and and other problem. So what he already
been harassed before he came forward. So he was a
legitimate whistleblower, I believe, and so forth, and so he
stepped back, I think appropriately to get away from that.
(33:36):
He did what he had to do. He don't think
he came forward to be the leader of the disclosure movement.
He made his statements and occasionally you'll hear from a
little bit. Overall, he's trying to get back to somewhat normal,
like is a family. Hopefully the death threats have stopped,
and that's the reason. But there are plenty of other
witnesses coming forward faster than you can keep up with.
(34:00):
So we have no lack of witnesses. Well, we just
need is more hearings to get them under oath.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
How are these witnesses vetted?
Speaker 5 (34:12):
Typically, Well, let's sakes crushes situation. He's working, he's already
got a classification status. He's working on the task force.
But let's say you're coming out of the d i A.
If you're doing it right, you will go to the
appropriate committee. You will go to a committe in Congress
that that staff that have the clearances to listen to
(34:33):
what you have to say. You sit down privately and
provide information. They will decide what to do with it,
such as taking it to the attention of there of
certain numbers. That committee that have the appropriate classification, who
will then decide whether they want to go further, whether
they want to investigation, whether they want to have a hearing,
(34:54):
and if they have a hearing, you would then be
called in to testify. But before then you would talk
to them again and go the testimony, so they have
a heads up of what's going to happen again, all
with people that have clearance, and then you would testify
under oath or your testimony would be included in other investigations.
That is the way Grush wanted it to go. But
(35:16):
ultimately he was harassed enough that he had to threaten
enough that he had to go to the expected General
and we've got clearance there. But then he still was
not able to I guess in theay the issue appropriately
and so he went public to some journalists Ross Coulthart,
Wlo McGall as he came and the whole thing blew
out on June the fifth of twenty twenty three, making
(35:38):
him a very famous person. Since then, you have witnesses
coming forward without so much risk and so much foofah.
But they are coming forward now. The potential for someone
to slip in who's not really legit is always there
there's a temptation that government might want to slip in
somebody deliberately to muddy the water. But overall, the witnesses
(36:03):
that have come forward have been legit and they provided humendous information.
And there have been at least are now six who
have testified under oath before committees of Congress, at least,
well they're two major, but there have been several others.
But they weren't witnesses, they were insiders, were bought it
to be brief. But six people are testified under oath
(36:23):
about this issue. In their testimony, if you objectively does
what supposed to do, it confirms that. So there's a
non human tech presence.
Speaker 4 (36:32):
You know, there are a lot of people who say
that there was no smoking gun at the last congressional
hearing and it was a waste of time.
Speaker 5 (36:41):
No people are impatient. I get it. They're frustrated. It's
been seventy some years that the idea of the smoking
gun is an illusion. There really is no such thing.
The object of all of this, the hearings, whether they
and people involved know it or I think most of
them do that some don't. The object of all of
(37:02):
this is not to tell the people what's going on.
They already know what's going on, and informing the people
really has to be the act of the president. There
have been people like astronauts and others that have said,
there's ed there, so what until the President confirms it
as a formal action and thus opening all kinds of
(37:25):
doors to address it, including getting the final acts passed
and other hearings underway and actual real process and information
coming out previously classified now made public. The president has
to do it. All. This is preliminary to that. It's
all about setting that up. And so no, they're not
(37:47):
going to drag a body of an ET out in
a plastic case and show it in a hearing, but
they're trying to get the platform set up so the
president can confirm and post disclosure. We may very well
see not too long a time photos, if not the
actual containers that some of the g are in, the
(38:07):
ones that kind of like the ones that Jackie Clason
was given the privilege to see by Richard Nixon. That's
the true story, as well as crafts and other things.
But we're not going to get that as part of
this process, because that's not what this is about. This
is about setting up the President to take ferment and
then under a very powerful if you Disclosure Act which
(38:30):
will probably be finalized, to build out and under substantial
public trutiny the information and artifacts and everything else, will
start a process that will bring them all public and
archived in a reasonable amount of time, probably less time
in the government life. And we won't be the only
country doing this. Other heads of state will come forward
(38:51):
and they those countries will be bringing out information again
confirming the et presence. All of this is ahead of us.
On the other side, disclosure, which right now may be
just a matter of whether or not it's pleases the
President of the United States to do so.
Speaker 4 (39:07):
What would it do to the United States Ego? If
Russia wants to come out and present the proof that
ets are here and that the United States government had
been perpetrating a fraud, a hoax on the American people
for seventy eight years, it would.
Speaker 5 (39:26):
There would there's not enough eggs in the country, the
plaster on the faces of all the people in government.
In the event that that happens, we will be second,
we will be embarrassed. Confidence of government will drop even lower.
Whoever does this will be given the title of the
great truth teller, paradigm shifter. They'll be building statues of
(39:48):
this head of states in various countries because it's a
nonpartisan global matter, right, and not ours though ours in
beginning any statue, so it will be a with relations
to ASCO, the national security loss in the sense, a
loss of prestige, and it will elevate the country of
(40:10):
the head of state that doesn't That's what this stake.
And I have been saying this for thirty years on
over fifteen hundred interviews. I almost always get to it.
If less the leaders such as Ladimir Putin and she
Jinking name a few others are actually working for the
CIA and getting a W two every year. They could
(40:33):
do it at any time. And so the ones that
are dragging their feet over there at the DD and
coming up with ridiculous news statements like this recent article
in the Wall Street Journal, they are putting our country
at risk of being second in one of the greatest
events in history. And it's I just don't know why
they haven't figured that out, and don't take.
Speaker 4 (40:54):
That stand by Steven you we've got to take our
final break into exponation. I guess this hour is Stephen Bassett,
well known to everyone within the UFO community. His website
is Paradigm Research Group dot organ. If you go there,
be prepared to spend a lot of time there. It's
got newspaper clippings, it's got everything you want to do.
(41:15):
If you want to learn about what the truth is
behind the UFO cover up and why disclosure hasn't happened,
go to his website www dot Paradigmresearch dot org. And
we'll be back on the other side as we wrap
up this hour here in the X Zone with yours truly,
Rob McConnell from our broadcast center in studios in Saint Catharine's, Ontario, Canada,
(41:36):
on the Talk Star Radio Network, Mutual Broadcast Network, and
of course on the xone Broadcast Network.
Speaker 5 (41:42):
We'll be back.
Speaker 4 (41:43):
Don't go away.
Speaker 10 (41:46):
SOMEDAYZA can'tee much.
Speaker 6 (41:52):
My body's a memes?
Speaker 3 (41:55):
Did I try?
Speaker 2 (42:05):
In the heart of the night?
Speaker 11 (42:09):
Where are the shadowss play? On the X Zone we gather,
Come what May with Rob McConnell guiding us through the dark,
searching for truth hidden, igniting the spark whispers of spirits
(42:32):
both gentle and bold tales of the ancients in the
stories retold from haunted old houses to the echo in
halls we seek the unknown, where Misterry calls on the exone.
Speaker 4 (42:56):
Radio and welcome back everyone, see ambassadors, our guest, and
of course his website is Paradigm Research Group dot org. Stephen,
all right, let me ask you the question on the
other side of the of the sword that I did
on the other side by saying, what would happen if,
you know, if I Orussia was to release the information?
(43:19):
Having this this knowledge, why doesn't the President of the
United States just come out and say it? What are
you waiting for? It makes no sense because if somebody
else does it, he's screwed.
Speaker 5 (43:38):
Again. That's that's my point every president from Truman on Kuldo,
And as you move forward in time, given the circumstances, h.
Carter gave it a bit of a run, but there's
no chance. In seventy seven, there was an effort to
get Clinton administration involved, and he did it. He did
(43:59):
make an effort. He did engage Lawrence Rockefeller and others
and what we call the Rockefeller Initiative, but it was
the platform wasn't built, and that d. D was not
a fan of the Clinton administration, and so it really
didn't have a chance, but it was the logical thing
to do after the Cold War ended. Once the Cold
War ended, great deal of the national security basis for
(44:21):
maintaining some embargo just disappeared. And if they had gotten
the embargo done, if they had brought disclosure about at
that point, I think it would have changed the whole
course of the rest of the twentieth century. Instead, we
ended up going right back into a new Cold War two,
a new arms race, not of numbers, but of advanced
(44:42):
weaponry and plenty of wars. So one of the great
mistakes of history. So but every president could do it,
but there was some serious reasons that they couldn't. And
this time is different. This president is just simply cut
in a different law. He is the one president, frankly
could just do it, and and and his appointees that
(45:05):
it stayed, and U. C. I, A, and D O
D and and Homeland Security and National Intelligence, of all
that they're they're basically loyal loyalists to him. They're really
not likely to put up much of a fight. So
he's really gone. It's right there for him. And that's
why I brought it up earlier and let history decide
(45:28):
whether it was a good decision or not. So there's
a whole lot of reasons to do it. There are
limited and eroding reasons not to do it. And so
there you have it. The current president of the United
States could be the disposed president. It could happen tomorrow,
it could happen a couple of weeks, in a couple
(45:49):
of months. But there's no real barrier, as we've seen
in the past, other than of course, the d O
D is still trying to resist, which is why they
put out that they use the Wall Street Journal to
put out a grotesque new article that I can talk
about in a second. Sure, but that's the best answer
I'd give you. But before I go on, I want
(46:10):
to mention that there are a lot of people in Canada,
a lot of Canadians who have been part of this process,
the disclosure process and research as well over the years.
Grant Cameron, my good friend, certainly has been involved in it.
And then of course a shout out to the leading
disclosure activists Disclose your advocate in Canada, and that's of
course Victim with Johnny, who is as relentless and persistent
(46:33):
as I am. So I do hope that Canada will
share in what's coming as much as possible. So that's
basically my answer to that. But let's let's get into
the Wall Street Journal's happened. Is that because of a
huge amount of unrest internationally, there's something that the press,
a lot of a lot of chaos domestically, the whole
(46:58):
process is slowed down to something grace not reverse slowed down,
and those opposing disclosure decided to make a move they've
made others in the past, taking advantage of the situation.
And so I believe how this went down, though it
hasn't been vetted yet and it's heard of it. But
the Wall Street Journal, which has done something like nineteen
(47:21):
stories almost twenty stories in the last three years, was
going to do another story about developments, and they assigned
that story to two national security reporters, good good reporters,
Joel Sheckman and Aaruna. This went off of and so
they went about to put these stories together to do
(47:44):
an assessment of what's going on, and naturally they went
talked to about two dozen I just mentioned in the
article two dozen insiders, dug scientists. They were provided lots
of documents from these same people, and they spent three
lenks on this. In fact, Shechman even talked to me
three months ago. I helped him get in contact with
Bob Sallas, which is I think one of the only
(48:05):
people on the other side of this issue. Outside a
bit meant that they've talked to and I did talk
to him, but gave him information, but he was more
interested in salut. That's fine. When the story came out,
it was amazing. It was absolutely amazing, and it's a
testimony to, you know, the definition of insanity, which is
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
(48:27):
different results. What they did was the story has two parts.
In the first part, these insiders presented to these two
reporters essentially the assessment that, in fact, virtually all the
UFO stuff that's been reported over the years was in
fact government disinformation. We have been doing disinformation. We had
(48:48):
been playing with all of this information in order to
protect certain testing and so forth. That we're doing it
was for national security. It's the first time they formally
admitted to disinformation, which is interesting. They felt they had
to take that risk, thinking it'll pay off. It won't,
and so essentially the other papers are now writing these articles,
(49:10):
I guess it was us all along. It was the
government doing it all along and hoping they can grandfather
the entire phenomena and everything reported in the thousands of
hundreds of thousands of reports into government disinformation which is
completely bogus, absolutely wrong, totalize, and then I hope it
wasn't delivered. The second half of the story was devoted
(49:33):
to one thing, Robert Sallas and the nuclear shut down
witness testimony. And the reason they did that is because
they are well aware that the chances of a number
of former Sack based officer are testifying under oath to
the incidents where they were present and our missiles were
all shut down away. A giant object craft type glowing
(49:57):
object is holding directly over the base, over the the
large control center, rather being seen by all the security people,
is getting very close to being in a hearing. Nancy
Mace met with Bob Sallas. I was present for that
meeting was filmed by Tyler Roberts back in November last year.
I have delivered affidavits for all their witness testimony to
(50:20):
the thirty six offices, including the Senate Intel Committee, in
the House Under Oversight Subcommittee electronic copies and so forth.
It's definitely. But and they see this coming, and these
are the witnesses, They dread testimony, and so they gave
these two reporters a story that in fact, they have
always known what shut those witnesses down. It never acknowledged this.
(50:44):
It was a it was us. It was an EMP
experiment to see if the missiles were vulnerable to an
MT blast from another weapon by an enemy, and they
went to elaborate efforts to convince them of this. It
is a complete lie. Bob Sallas has already responded. Others,
(51:06):
Danny Sheen has responded, Mark vond Running Camp has responded.
Kevin White and the Internet in general is shredding this thing.
It is an absolute joke. And I have to wonder
and hope one day to be able to ask some
inside people about this. Were you aware that when this
article was going to be played out, that you would
(51:26):
have half the article saying everything you saw was not
true because we created all this disinformation. And then in
the second half of the article you provided an alternative
explanation for something that's been researched for decades to death
with books and everything else, with witnesses coming board and
ask the reader to believe you that you put those
(51:48):
two together. Did you see the irony there at all?
Is that delivered? Did you miss it? Did it not
occur to you that that's pretty outrageous. We've been lying
to you for seventy years this one thing. You got
to believe it. What can I say? That is an
example of pushback. There have been others, as it is
(52:09):
the case in this case. Kir Patrick, who was pushed
back on this issue, was involved. We think Kathlaski was involved.
Philips is involved, and many others, not just them. One
more shot to try to buy a little time to
keep the inevitable from happening. And it's so transparent now
in the age of the Internet. This is you don't
do this. It worked in sixty nine, it worked in
(52:31):
fifty two, but in the age of the Internet, hundreds
of millions of people talking about the issue worldwide, in
touch with each other, able to troll you in a
moment's notice. No, it was absolutely ridiculous, which is why
Anna Poline a Luna is set up, and so she
is called for the defunding of Arrow. Kevin Wright is
called to the defunding of Thattor, he writes for the
(52:53):
Roswell Daily Records. And I think Arrow has to be defunded.
It was put in place to just be a content
village to hold the fort. This whole thing, though, was
dragged on too long as a result against Arab was
kind of sucked in in a way to the whole process.
And now is a debunking entity. And so it has
to be it has to be defunded, eliminated and had
(53:13):
to start over as quickly as possible with the new organization.
And and and that's that's not just me saying it.
That had a poline alone of saying it. And I
think you're gonna have a few more members and cons
saying it. And so again the desperation and the desperate
attempts by the Pentagon like the Mogul balloon and the
crash test dummies, uh and other, and and the end
(53:36):
the the echos to try to dispel the UFO flap
of last year by calling it drones but not being
able to say whose drones they are. U are explained
the phenomena in general. They were our drones, by the way,
But the rest of that stuff, all those plasma orbs,
the food fighter stuff that was et one of the
biggest UFO flap of all time. These these are embarrassing,
(53:59):
they're demeaning, They degrade our national security structures. We lose
trusting government. These are the people that have defended us
risk their lives. They're not supposed to be pops in
a giant disinformation campaign that's still going on even after
they admitted it. And so that's just what happened recently.
(54:19):
And there have been other things that have happened, both
in our country and outside of our country that are
extremely concerning, and I'm just hanging in there. Activism is tough.
It is if the whims of history, anything can disrupt
the goal may be pure, but history is bigger than
a particular movement, and so as in the case of
other movements, we are now kind of back in a
(54:41):
holding pattern, but not going backwards. Luna has announced to
Matt Laslow that she plans on hearings in July. She's
going to get a skiff, so she doesn't care who's
evading who, who's bombing who. She is prepared to go
forward on this. She is ahead of the task Force
for classifying federal secrets. Jesus she's a pistol. Okay, I
(55:03):
mean this is a determinent, intense woman. She's she's probably young,
but she'll stand up to anybody on the hill. Got
to give her credit, Steve, I quite clear, Steve.
Speaker 1 (55:13):
I hate.
Speaker 5 (55:13):
I hate to do this. It is the most bipartisan issue, Steve.
Speaker 4 (55:16):
I hate to do this. Our times just run out.
I want to thank you so much for joining us.
Please come back again and keep keep it up.
Speaker 8 (55:23):
Steve.
Speaker 4 (55:23):
I feel that one day you're going to be right
up there with those people on the podium showing off
what ET really is. Take care of yourself, la stage.
Speaker 5 (55:31):
I'll settle for a nice party. Man. You got to
come all.
Speaker 4 (55:34):
Right, take care Steve, All right, excell nation. My guest
this hour has been Stephen Bassett his website Paradigm Research
Group dot org. I'll be back on the other side
of the short break as the xceone continues with yours,
Shirley Rob McConnell from the x ON Broadcast Network, Talk
Star Radio Network and Mutual Broadcast Network and streaming on
it Classic twelve twenty dot ca A. I'll be backed
(55:55):
on the way
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!