Friday, March 19, 2021

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Steven Bassett , Disclosure and Death Threats

Steve Bassett, he of the Paradigm Research Group, was my guest this week. I thought we would talk about Disclosure and what it would mean. We did take a few excursions into other arenas, however. You can listen to the interview here:

Steve began with providing a definition of Disclosure, but then moved onto the possibility of Congressional Hearings that would lead to Disclosure. He believes that

Steven Bassett

the time is ripe given what is happening in the world. Disclosure is the goal now, though I wondered if there was any political benefit to Disclosure. To me, the government operates not for the benefit of the governed, but to retain their power. We’ve seen plenty of examples of this in the last several years.

We did discuss, briefly, the erosion in trust, not only in the government but in the mainstream media as well. Although I didn’t mention it during the show, I was thinking of the Washington Post recent admission that they had run with a story about telephone calls and what was said based upon, apparently, a single source. Other outlets picked up the story, suggesting that the had confirmed the information. Recent events showed that the story was not accurate and the Washington Post printed a retraction.

We also talked about the implications of full Disclosure and what that might mean. Steven cited our bombardment of alien stories, programs, movies, books, documentaries and various other cultural aspects filled with the idea of alien visitation. He suggested that it was now so embedded in our culture that there wouldn’t be a big shock if the government announced that aliens had been visiting Earth for decades, if not centuries.

I did mention that contact with a technologically superior civilization resulted in the destruction of the technologically inferior civilization. Steven thought that I was talking about conquest but I was actually talking about the impact of the technology on the civilization. The technology could undermine the civilization causing radically alterations to it. Steven wanted to talk about the Aztecs and the Spanish, which wasn’t quite the point I was driving at.

Steve brought up some of the testimony by Roswell witnesses, suggesting dozens had been threatened with death if they talked about what they had seen. I thought that some of that might have been overblown and was the result of soldiers, who had been exposed to classified information being reminded that, well, disclosure of that information could result in prison and fines. Others, such as Glenn Dennis had been discredited.

Steve did send an email about this, naming several witnesses who had been threatened in this fashion, including George Wilcox, the Roswell Sheriff, quoting the Anaya brothers. Although I find that somewhat problematic, I will note two things here. One is that Barbara Dugger, granddaughter of the sheriff reported the same thing, and that this testimony is second hand at best.

He also said that Mack Brazel told radio station KGFL minority owner Bob Wolf that “Those people will kill you if I tell you what I know.” This happened in 1963 not long

Mack Brazel

before Brazel died. But once again, it is second-hand information related to researchers Tom Carey and Don Schmitt years later. It does seem odd that in all our discussions with Bill Brazel, he never mentioned anything like that.

During the show, I brought up Frankie Rowe, but it didn’t seem, in the initial interviews with her, that the threats had been, well, deadly. Instead, she said that she was told that her parents would end up in Orchard Park, which had been a POW camp during the Second World War.

Dr. Lejeune Foster, another of these “witnesses,” was not in Roswell in 1947. She was a doctor in San Diego, supposedly called in because of her expertise on the spinal cord and her high security clearance related to her work during the Second World War. According to the family members and her housekeeper, she returned from examining the bodies a changed woman. She said that as she was debriefed, she was told that if she talked she would lose her license to practice medicine and that she risked being killed. But researchers did not get that information from her, but her family who aren’t specifically identified.

My point was that we have no direct quotes from those involved that suggest death as the penalty for telling what they knew. We have the stories of family members and friends told literally decades after the fact. As I mentioned, the military members would have been told that the release of classified information to those not cleared would result in severe penalties of imprisonment and fine. Over the years, in the telling of the tales, those penalties might have been exaggerated. We have seen the sifting of stories as they are told and retold. Steve did mention that he didn’t believe that the military would have carried out the threats, but I have to wonder if they had been made.

Steve did predict that would we see some changes in the government position of UFOs in the very near future, suggesting the possibility of Congressional hearings in the weeks to come. He was explaining how these things come about, which, in and of itself, might be educational.

Next week is Lawrence Spencer. We’ll be talking about his book based on his contact with Matilda O’Connell MacElroy who claimed to be a technician in Roswell at the time of the crash. Should be an interesting interview. 


Moonman said...

The guest seems naïve. He feels that the absolute affirmation by government that space aliens exist will not affect society in any negative way. Assuming anyone believes them, Kevin is correct that it most likely will disrupt things, likely more than a pandemic or questionable election.

No need to be so Draconian and say UFOs/aliens could destroy us at any time. Its more like they can (and probably do) whatever they want to us and we have no protection with our primitive technology from them taking away our rights. I suppose we should get used to having our rights taken away at this point. But for the government/military to admit that they have no way to prevent these outside forces from taking away our rights because they are outgunned makes no sense. Drives a society into a paranoid panic.

The guest seems to feel the government wants to get better poll ratings and to be trusted. This is a naïve assumption and we only need to look at the current society situation to understand this. We understand the guest is partisan in the Hillary camp so he is likely happy with the current environment. I think he said he was moving to Europe when the former President was elected. It is less a popularity contest than a Power contest. It someone has the power of absolute knowledge of space alien existence, it would be foolish to give this up for no gain. If the whole thing is some sort of smoke screen, then maybe a diversion such as fake space aliens could help further disrupt a very disrupted society. That might help cement Power over the people. Disclosure is a pipe dream.

John Steiger said...

Steve is Sir Galahad seeking the Holy Grail ... but might Monty Python and ET Disclosure come out first?

anon said...

Fleur here: Some people think we're going to have Disclosure and they're jumping up and down with excitement thinking that finally the truth that aliens from "out there" will be announced "to be here on earth". Sorry, but when has the govt ever been honest, open and trustworthy in the last 20 years (and longer)? You can be sure that sensitive items will remain in the keeping of secret alphabet agencies that we, the sheeple, don't even know exist. They will of course have redactions in many FOIA letters and decline to tell everything for reasons of "National Security". We've heard that before. I suspect this new, improved "disclosure" will be a lot of talk without saying anything of real substance. The last 20 years, and the last 4 in particular, have proven to most people who are critical thinkers that we are merely cash tax cows to most of the government who are a clique (and God help anyone come into a position of power whom they consider an outsider), and they will use Disclosure to THEIR OWN benefit. So I'm not holding my breath...

RWE said...

Kevin, I felt so sorry for you during that interview. I, for one, do not see the benefits of Disclosure, whatever that might mean. I think the real driver in disclosure is that many UFO enthusiasts want to stop being called nuts and be able to say "I told you so." And the idea of "political capitol" helping to rejuvenate our country seems absurd.

As you tried to discuss, I can see drawbacks to disclosure. I do not see how a formal announcement could avoid having to deal with the abduction claims, or for that matter, cattle mutilations, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot. The idea that there is life beyond this planet is no longer novel, but I can well imagine an outbreak of hysteria, as well as some people who will want to stand around UFO hotspots with signs saying "Welcome Space Brothers" like in ID4.

One of the advantages of not formally existing, such as the US space based recon program was for many years, is that you do not have to expend resources answering a lot of damn fool questions. When I was at the Pentagon we had to deal with people who wanted to buy a decommissioned ICBM silo (not our business for multiple reasons) and "make the people who run the spy satellites stop putting voices in my head."

The ATIP guys were concerned not with disclosure but with there being an established process for military personnel reporting unusual aerial phenomena and presumably for analyzing the reports, a sort of more muscular Blue Book. It is highly likely that such reports will uncover at least some information that should not be released, whether it is due to ET activities or more mundane ones.

Marcos said...

I am curious what to make of this interview in light of the recent interview with ratcliffe n fox news; basically confirming that something pretty incredible may drop in the next few months.

Basset always made me raise a skeptical eyebrow...

Erickson said...

What does disclosure mean? If the disclosure is that there is nothing to disclose, it would not be believed. Should the disclosure be far more limited than what some people are expecting, then again it would not be believed. If it was expansive, but different than what some are expecting. It would be seen as a false flag. In the end it is just another example of how confirmation bias affects what people are willing to accept. It is another trip down the rabbit hole.