An important disclosure event next year.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
This story has been all over the UFO radio networks so apologies if it has already been covered on here.

www.paradigmresearchgroup.org...


I think this could be of great importance and will be announced to the international media soon.




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 


executive director Stephen Basset claimed a few years ago he had information that would force Obama to admit in the cover-up.

Noting happened



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Here's what Bassett had to say about credibility a few years ago:


“The problem is not about our opinions about who is a laughingstock. It’s all about the government. Don’t worry about the individual aspects of people in the field. I don’t care about your background. Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process. I just don’t care. It’s not my concern and I’m not in a position to sort it out. I don’t give a damn."


Linky

It's particularly telling after the 1 hour mark. In view of his attitude it will be interesting to see who his 40 witnesses are. he's kind of one-upping Greer's conference of 2001 who had half as many witnesses.

Guess we should wish him luck.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Disclosure is always on the horizon...I gave up paying attention to these kind announcements years a ago. They usually are just a way for someone to make money and ALWAYS end up a disappointment.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 


Paradigm Research Group = Stephen Bassett

Known associations with charlatan Steven Greer.

From UFOWatchdog ...

Bassett wants so much to bring the issue of ET Disclosure in front of the public that he appears willing to do anything at all to further his cause. At an appearance on The Paracast he was asked by David & Gene why he gave credence to known charlatans. He stated that it didn’t matter if the people who took the stage were credible or not. All that mattered was to get the idea before the public. He said,

“The problem is not about our opinions about who is a laughingstock. It’s all about the government. Don’t worry about the individual aspects of people in the field. I don’t care about your background. Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process. I just don’t care. It’s not my concern and I’m not in a position to sort it out. I don’t give a damn."

He then became extremely upset and literally blew a fuse.

Listen to Bassett split a gut on The Paracast Here.


Legit?
Likely not.

EDIT: Seems Schuyler an I are on the same page, but, Schuyler is faster.


edit on 1-12-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Disclosure is always on the horizon...I gave up paying attention to these kind announcements years a ago. They usually are just a way for someone to make money and ALWAYS end up a disappointment.
In total agreement with you.Im begining to think one would have to crash land in Times Square or something and STILL be denied by the government.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Seems like the only type of disclosure we'd even come close to getting would be from the extraterrestrials themselves. I've been around a bit and saw quite a few articles and headlines that stated groundbreaking, earth shattering, monumental, and a variety of other keywords. Turns out a lot of them were either hoaxes or nothing that could be clarified to even full bring forth a disclosure. I say we have a better chance at this point of waiting for one the otherworldly (?) UFOs to descend and make themselves known which is sad to say :/.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 


I thought we already had one of those


I know Steven M.Greer have gone mad in the latest years, but what was disclosed in disclose project was good stuff from good people.

I welcome more of the same, but I don't think the elite that knows the truth ever will come to the table and disclose anything, but sure I hope they will.

I hope the E.T´s come and make the disclosure themselves



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I've given up hoping for disclosure especially from the likes of Mr Basset and Greer. I have to admit after watching the disclosure project in 2001 I was sure the ball of disclosure started rolling but, here we are 12 years later and are no closer to the truth probably even more far away now with ufology being the laughing stock and con artist haven it is now.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Just a thought OP. But you might find the following thread of interest. Don't let the title fool you, there's some good stuff in that thread. It was done by one of our former prolific, and sorely missed members.
There Will Be No Disclosure
edit on 12/1/2012 by Klassified because: punctuation



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 


EDIT: Seems Schuyler an I are on the same page, but, Schuyler is faster.


My own disclosure; I wrote that piece on Bassett for UFO Watchdog!


On "Greer going nuts these last few years" (in a post further down)

He really hasn't. He had his first OBE at age 17 and entered an alien craft at age 18 to establish his CE-5 protocol to "vector in" crafts by a combination of meditation, lights, and sounds. It's just that in the Disclosure Project videos he as seen as a straight up white shirt and tie kind of guy. For a long while early on he would not mention that his alien craft were invisible because he knew that would "strain credulity." The difference is that these days he doesn't care one way or another. It seems like he changed, but what really happened is that we got to know him a little better. He's always been this way.

On The Bassett event; It's not really Disclosure at all, of course. It's just a hyped up version of the original Disclosure Project press conference. The original was theoretically to get Congressional hearings which, of course, did not happen. THIS one purports to have a few ex-congressmen attending (Kucinich, anyone?) but doesn't seem to have any other goal but a dog & pony show, which has happened several times at the Press Club.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
I think this could be of great importance and will be announced to the international media soon.


Great importance?

We've been hearing about Disclosure for a very long time, and I don't expect it is coming any time soon. Following your link, it looks like Bassett has earned a pretty penny along the way though...

Who donates money to these people anyway? Pass a little toward the booNyFund.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 


EDIT: Seems Schuyler an I are on the same page, but, Schuyler is faster.


My own disclosure; I wrote that piece on Bassett for UFO Watchdog!




Well done!


Something that might be worthy of note; The original 2001 Disclosure Project Conference happened in May, where there have been some claims that the tragic occurrence that occurred later on September 11 stole all the thunder from the event.
I'm not an adherent to that belief, nor any conspiracies that suggest 9/11 may have been a purpose staged event specifically for all the attention grabbing it garnered.

From an extremely speculative extrapolation from said suggestions, it'll be interesting if there's any other show-stopper world-wide attention grabbing events that occur preceding or soon after this circus show.

Even if such, any dot connecting would still be in the extremely speculative bin since there's already adherents of doom banging their drums with Iran and/or Israel center stage, plus all the predictions, prophecies, and such flying about in regard to the big 2012 Dec 21 apocalypse.


All in all, I suspect this will come and go, and we'll have yet another Youtube video of some of the same people telling the same stories, some of them extremely dubious, even poorly vetted & easily found as completely fictitious, plus an extra lot of more of the same.

It'll come and go, where ATS threads will be made about it with all the usual arguments from all the usual personalities (perhaps myself included), and in the end, we will still be in the same spot we've always been; knowing no more, or less than we already did, none the wiser by much while some few folks parade around with new found validation for what they already believe.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that there will be "disclosure" soon I could afford to go out to eat somewhere nice complete with appetizer, dessert and after dinner coffee.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I like the one put on by Leslie Kean and James Fox at the National Press Club November 12, 2007. At least the quality of the speakers was far better, although some spoke through interpreters. One pilot had 1,800 witnesses on the ground standing in formation in morrning daylight, and the DIA marked the case unknown. Forget Greer and Bassett. Leslie Kean is the man.

It's on Youtube in 11 parts. Here's the link to part 1:

UFO Close Encounters Part 1



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


While I understand how you wound up with your interpretation. Don't you think adding context for why Bassett said what he did is important?

This makes much more sense to me...



Originally posted by eniac
OK it's May 31, and just about D-Day for the Disclosure Project.

In the embedded video, they claimed to have access to implicating evidence which will prove that the Earth is being visited by Extra-Terrestrials.
They claim that unless the US Government discloses what it knows about the ET presence by the end of May, they will release this information.


Wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

You're being overly simplistic with your analysis of Bassett's comment. I'll quote Stephen word for word,


If it does not disclose, by the end of ... May. This is not a threat. It's just a statement. You don't threaten the United States government they're heavily armed. But first hundred days plus 30, because I have to admit this gentleman came in to a rather extensive array of very profound problems. So we’re providing an additional 30 days.

If disclosure has not taken place, PRG has enormous, has a substantial network, and, and quite a bit of documentary evidence, uh connected to this, particularly politically, particularly to the Rockefeller Initiative and Clinton Administration and we are going to be extensively putting that out to the media. And, we’re just going to make it as difficult for them as possible. We don’t want to. But sometimes that’s necessary.


Notice he's not saying he has smoking gun evidence. Rather Stephen is insinuating he'll go out of his way to publicly call out John Podesta and Clinton, since both have spent considerable time and effort investigating governmental involvement into the UFO phenomenon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


And then further in ...


All that aside, there is one thing I really like about Stephen. He views the UFO movement from a historical perspective. Consider gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, AC vs DC, the negativity around manned flight, the Enlightenment era science vs. religion debates, all of these issues were eventually overcome through the continued pressure applied by individuals who believed strongly enough in what they were fighting for that they didn't give up advocating their position.

Bassett gets this. He also fundamentally understands that the UFO movement has no cohesive organization. Listen to the March 1, 2009 episode of the Paracast with Bassett, he is extremely clear in his statement @ 1:17:45,


This isn't going to get us anywhere. Until you finally understand that the problem here is not about our opinions of who is a laughing stock and who's not ... Soon as you realize that the problem here is the United States government, has been, still is, you're just going to continue to chase your tail round and round and round. Focus all of your concerns about legitimacy, focus all your concerns about image on your own government, and it's willingness to lie to you, manipulate you, ... [and] turn reality on its head.

...

Changing government policy is what counts. ... It's just keeping the pressure on the government. I will not chase my tail; and I will not play the governments game in this intellectual ghetto that they've created for us, where we're all tossed in here behind the ridicule walls and deprived of money and a lot of other things, and so we slowly decay and feast on ourselves like a pack of jackals. I'm not interested in that. You want to feast go ahead.


Bassett is trying to keep pressure on what he perceives as the "enemy" rather than doing what we're doing here; debating if one of our own has the character, integrity and intelligence to be considered a legitimate face for the UFO movement.

Stephen's right. We are not enemies. We simply have different beliefs and because of that we fight amongst ourselves over who's more sincere, who's in it for the money, and all that other garbage. That has to stop. We need to be tactically smart. That requires finding common ground and advocating that position as a group.

The establishment marginalizes the subject of UFOs. There is clearly something being observed. That's a good place to start.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Maybe we need a new area of UFO studies called the hermeneutics of UFOs.
edit on 1-12-2012 by TheMalefactor because: quotes messed up



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by schuyler
 


While I understand how you wound up with your interpretation. Don't you think the context of why Bassett said what he did is important?


He hoisted himself on his own petard. He was under pressure, to be sure, but it did not turn out to be a very eloquent defense of his issues. He kind of reminds me of recent elections where the end justifies the means. The object is to get elected, by any means necessary, and if that means cheating, well then, so be it. He said, quite plainly, that he didn't care about the credibility of witnesses, that it was not his job to do so.

So what does that do? In any of these dog & pony shows if you can impugn one witness, you've got them all. For example, there were 19 Disclosure Project witnesses. Most of them were actually pretty good. I know that's not the recollection, but when you go through the witness list and pay attention to what they said, they weren't all nutcases at all. many of them did not see anything much but lights in the sky, or their testimony was strictly hearsay, but they weren't obviously nuts.

Except Clifford Stone and Carol Rosin, who were raked over the coals. A lawyer friend of mine once told me, if you've got five arguments for your case, with two of the arguments being damn good ones and three being rather so-so, though still relevant, then don't even mention the three so-so arguments because it is those arguments opposing council will jump on. We were fighting a 270 foot cell phone tower the county wanted to put up in my back yard. We formed a citizen committee to fight it. One lady was convinced towers gave you cancer and she wanted to fight on that basis, but the thing was, we knew opposing counsel was ready for that argument, plus, even if she was right, she was shrill and emotional about it, so we froze her out and based our opposition on land use only--and we won our case. Was the cancer issue relevant? Hard to say. It's controversial, but the land use argument pointing to the comprehensive plan was iron clad. This was for 2.5 acre rural houses, not towers, which were an "exceptional use." We pointed out the rules the commissioners themselves passed and said, "No fair changing them."

It's the same issue here. If Bassett puts a few nutjobs up there as witnesses, it will completely undermine his case. When Bassett says he doesn't care, it's something people will remember and his reputation is less for it. Bassett is continually saying he's going to take the President to task and by God Obama better come across. Oops, that was the LAST election. Never happened because the President can safely ignore Bassett with no repercussions.

In my opinion the exo-politics crowd acts very much like a Cargo Cult, but I'll be interested in what they do this time.

.
edit on 12/1/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by schuyler
 


While I understand how you wound up with your interpretation. Don't you think the context of why Bassett said what he did is important?


He hoisted himself on his own petard. He was under pressure, to be sure, but it did not turn out to be a very eloquent defense of his issues.


So just because someone shot their mouth off they deserve to be eternally taken to task for it, even when it's obvious they meant something else?

I never liked rhetoric.

I would like to think people would prefer to try to get the core of what someone is saying rather than niggling over unimportant nonsense. In almost all of its forms rhetoric is a type of dishonesty used by people who want to circumvent or pervert the issue.

You know as well as I do, that anyone who has read through enough of your posts on ATS is aware you believe there is more to the human experience than what's physical. Should nuts-and-bolts ufologists rake you over the coals for degrading UFOs by injecting that into the debate?

Most people with good academic credentials would.

I think it's BS and I wouldn't condone anyone doing that to you because you are one of the very few good guys left in ufology.

Address the meaning. Not the words.

Everything else is just crap politics.

Now this isn't to say I disagree with you that putting a few bad eggs in with the good ones doesn't spoil the omelette.

I would *prefer* Bassett stuck with the facts. However when a person already believes ETs are already here (for probably personal reasons). It is hard to know what they use as a basis for determining which cases are good.

This link really sums it all up pretty well for me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

'To call a person a charlatan without knowing how the person got from "here" to "there" is assuming "any one of us knows the truth!"'
edit on 1-12-2012 by TheMalefactor because: grammatical stuff



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



In my opinion the exo-politics crowd acts very much like a Cargo Cult, but I'll be interested in what they do this time.


I think they are sort of like naive utopianists.



It's kind of sweet actually.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
So just because someone shot their mouth off they deserve to be eternally taken to task for it, even when it's obvious they meant something else?


You see, I don't think he "meant something else." That is not at all obvious to me. He knows the language. I think he meant what he said. He had a "clarifying moment" where he let the political facade aside and spoke what he really felt. I don't think he should be condemned for a single statement (After all, he was clearly goaded by Biedny in that exchange); it's just that this time it revealed an M.O. that is, to me, quite disturbing. No amount of equivocating after the fact is going to change that. He showed a blatant disregard over whether his witnesses were credible or not. Further, he doesn't seem to understand that this kind of disregard can hurt his credibility. All he needs to do is get someone like Dan Burisch on the witness stand and his entire gig will become a laughingstock. In my view, he absolutely must do the opposite of what he said and vette his witnesses.

I also believe his overall belligerent tone hurts him. He, like Greer, tends to raise his fist in the air and proclaim, "We're gonna get you! We're on the side of goodness and light, and you are going down!" (No, not exact phrasing, but that's the impression I get when I hear these guys talk.) Read my sig: I'm very frightened of people with a cause. Third, we really don't know anything about Bassett. His past is shrouded in secrecy. He's been asked, but he doesn't talk about it. Contrast that to Greer, who's life is an open book from the age of eight. Yeah, there are a couple of mildly murky areas, but there are no surprises. We know where he has been and where he is coming from.

So that's three red flags I see about Bassett. I don't say this with the idea of simply dismissing his fantasies and laughing at him with derision. (I've done some of that with Greer because I was so thoroughly pissed about Mothra, but I have pledged to reform.) I say it from the standpoint of telling him I think he ought to pay serious attention to what I'm saying. I think he needs adult supervision, frankly, and I already know how he would react to that.

The bigger issue is the whole Exo-politics "movement" in general. I'm not at all sure I believe it. It acts like a traditional Cargo Cult. The basic idea is that life is terrible here (Wars, climate change, NWO, Illuminati, etc.), but the Savior (Space Brothers, whomever) is on his way, so all we have to do is build a runway for them to land. They'll bring with them all the goods (the cargo) which in this case is a Zero Point Energy Device that will save mankind and everything will be peachy. We will eliminate poverty and we'll have 500,000 years of peace. Christianity is a Cargo Cult that kind of got out of hand, but it fits the basic parameters. We're still waiting for Jesus just like we are waiting for those nifty energy generators.

In other words, this whole thing is a religion. It has some technological overtones, but at its heart it is a religion where you must believe to see the light. To see the invisible spaceships that are "phase shifted" out of view (to avoid Earth's scalar weapons defense system) you must be in the right frame of mind. You have to meditate properly and have your heart be pure, then, and only then, will ET "manifest" to you because they, like God, can scan you and know how you really feel.

So the reality of this whole issue is definitely not certain to me. I hold out some hope that some of it is real, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if the whole thing were a sham.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join