An important disclosure event next year.

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Excellent points Schuyler. I haven't read much around here yet, having just signed up today, but I see you mention here that you still hold out hope that some of it is real. Do you actually hold that hope? I once did myself, but I've long since decided that hoping for something like this isn't going to do a whit of good. I'm open to being shown that some of it might be real, but so far nothing I've seen is even remotely close to convincing; and I've looked at an awful lot.

So I'm curious on many levels, but primarily right now I'm wondering what exactly you're hoping for and what inspires that hope. If you don't mind my asking.

Cheers.




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by booNyzarC
 


Don't we all hope, on some level, we're not alone in the universe such that this really is it?

I'd love for friendly space brothers to show themselves, someone else to talk to, but, at the same time, if the Kzinti landed and started eating us, or some other scenario that isn't too entirely pleasant in a take your pick of Science Fiction thrillers roll of dice were to occur, I (personally) wouldn't be too unhappy about it, just for the fact that any kind of confirmation of non-terrestrial life, even if it's a catastrophic invasion of just dumb animals similar to the 2010 movie Monsters, it'd still be confirmation that we are not alone.

Confirmation, so long as we survived confirmation as a species, could be a potential game changer for how we currently look at space exploration, especially as to how much $$$ we invest into it.
Confirmation, so long as we survived it, would see us into the stars.

Monsters 2010:



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 


They have been talking about disclosure now for years, but it hasn't happened. I don't think our government will disclose anything to us anytime soon.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



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.


In the spirit of clarity lets at least present a wider swath of the transcript.


{{David Biedny giving an impassioned oration of why Jeff Peckman has "zero credibility"}}

Let me tell you something my friend, 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.

...

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.

...

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.


I think putting the three paragraphs together it is fairly clear that Bassett is saying credibility is separate from truth.

So interpretation #1 could be:


"We don't know what the truth is! We don't know if people have actually been abducted, we don't know if there are contactees, but we do know something's going on. To claim all these people are crazy is to claim any one of us knows the truth. The fact is we don't know! Not a one of us. That's why the government is the enemy for making UFOs a subject of ridicule! That's why any person that's willing to take a stand against the government is a friend fighting for the same cause."

www.abovetopsecret.com...


In comparison to interpretation #2:


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. His voice went up an octave and he became totally incoherent. Listen to Bassett split a gut on The Paracast here. It's especially telling from 1hr:15min on to the end. He also appeared on the show on April 6, 2008 and September 9th, 2007.

www.ufowatchdog.com...


So what's the "correct" interpretation? I think a little bit of both.

I think interpretation #1 is what Bassett actually meant with what he was saying.

On the other hand, interpretation #2 is an expression of being appalled at the idea that everyone should be given equal stage time.

Thing is I agree, and I am sympathetic to the fact, that not everyone is equally credible. Peckman is kind of flimsy. Romanek too.

Also I would much rather see Major General Wilfried De Brouwer in front of a camera over Sgt. Clifford Stone.

Just the same as I would much rather hear Leslie Kean on a public talk show over Carol Rosin.

At the same time though, I recognize clout doesn't translate to accuracy. I can't help but feel bad for Paul Hellyer when I hear him talk about Corso as if the man was a saint. Just the same as I think Edgar Mitchell was a bit naive to be so quick to accept the Roswell story.
edit on 2-12-2012 by TheMalefactor because: formatting



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I doubt Biedny would have been half as critical if Bassett had invited either man on as a panelist. Yet their perceived respectability doesn't change the fact that both Mitchell and Hellyer come across as uninformed to anyone who keeps up with the subject.

And that's the crux of the whole thing.

If a man who walked on the moon and an ex-Canadian Defence minister are uninformed about UFOs but still endorse the subject. Then who can the public trust?

You? Biedny? Kean? De Brouwer? Mitchell? Cooper? Hellyer? Schuessler? Sparks? Clark? Greenwood? Swords? Bullard? Jung? Mack? Maccabee? Corso? Romanek? Peckman? Aykroyd? Lennon? Bowie? Or maybe Quintanilla? Or Hynek? Ruppelt? Pope? Callahan? Salas? Zamora? Mannor? Goldwater? Podesta? Condon? Klass? Sheaffer?

Each and every name on that list is lacking in one way or another. None of them are perfect indefatigable towers of virtue.

This is why Bassett said,


Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process.


Bassett's solution isn't perfect, but at least he opens the floor to all of them because the whole thing is kind of absurd any way you cut it.
edit on 2-12-2012 by TheMalefactor because: more names



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 






Does this mean that 21. 12. 2012 is not happening ??


Have we had a reprieve!!



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Thanks Druscilla, but I suppose I was under the impression that Schuyler was talking more about hope for visitation and Disclosure than just life out there somewhere. As for life being out there somewhere, I'd be shocked if there isn't, just based on how incredibly vast the universe is. Whether or not said life has ever paid a visit to this pale blue dot is another question entirely.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by booNyzarC
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Thanks Druscilla, but I suppose I was under the impression that Schuyler was talking more about hope for visitation and Disclosure than just life out there somewhere. As for life being out there somewhere, I'd be shocked if there isn't, just based on how incredibly vast the universe is. Whether or not said life has ever paid a visit to this pale blue dot is another question entirely.


Well, I don't know anyone, online or otherwise, save my geology teacher in 1968, who has even suggested there isn't intelligent life elsewhere. In fact, despite claims to the contrary, people who suggest this are nowhere to be found. So it amounts to a straw man argument that is....simply unnecessary.

I believe that there have been a sufficient number of incidents reported by sane people to suggest some visitations have taken place. I know debunkers delight in taking apart anything from Walton to Roswell, and it disturbs me how superficial some of these criticisms are. If you remember how Glenn Dennis was dismissed as a witness for Roswell, you'll understand. It was more about Kevin Randle preserving his credibility than it was dismissing Dennis. Randle was attempting to be "iron-clad," but as you can see from subsequent events, that actually did not work out well for him. So as a result of this quest for absolute super-truth, a lot gets cast aside.

On the other hand you have people like Bassett and Greer, who on the surface look and sound like they are after a no-nonsense, straight-up, scientific confession from government for "Disclosure," now a capitalized word, of what the government knows and when they knew it. Yet there are a couple of huge contradictions in their approach.

The first is that part of their world view is that the government isn't in charge. Presidents, for example, if they are told anything at all, it is just enough to get them to do the "Secret" or "Phantom" Government's bidding. So here's Bassett, publicly berating both Clinton and Obama, demanding answers in this raised-fist method of his, from what amounts to the Superficial Government, while the Shadow Government is laughing at him. To demand Disclosure from the Superficial Government amounts to "digging in the wrong place." Clinton and Obama don't know anything.

So then you get the Bassett/Greer approach of trotting out witnesses, credible, or in the case of Bassett, who cares? And what do they say? We have Greer's 19 witnesses as an example. Only 31% of them saw a UFO, and we're not talking "alien craft" here; we're talking something they could not identify. 71% of the witnesses were told stories by others. 17% of them saw lights in the sky, and 24% saw radar blips. (In case someone is adding it up, many fit more than one category.) This makes for great theater, but when you mix in Clifford Stone announcing there are 57 varieties of aliens visiting Earth today and Carol Rosin shrieking that Werner von Braun, great hero of rocketry or nazi war criminal, you choose, did not want to "weapomize space," a rather nebulous concept, then this carefully crafted theater becomes a comedy.

The second problem is what these folks expect us to believe in terms of the nature of UFOs. This comes from Greer. I dont know what Bassett thinks, but he clearly worships Greer. In any case, these "alien craft" aren't made of welds and nuts and bolts. These things are alive and their occupants plug into them and become part of the craft. Being on them is like being in a dream. And people on the ground who want to see them must be pure of heart and worthy, otherwise they will remain invisible.

I don't know the nicest way to say this, so perhaps we can use Greer's own words to explain it. This explantion of invisible alien craft who will not manifest to you unless you are pure of heart "strains credulity." (his words)

Now if that's what you believe, if after this you still thing Exopolitics is a viable political movement soon to be embraced by the entire populace "taking over" and demanding Disclosure, by all means have at it. Knock yourself out.

But what really is going to happen is that Bassett is going to spend his million dollars to have his conference, twice as big as Greer's, and the MSM will be there filming, and a few of them will put a snippet on the nightly news as dozens of threads are started on ATS to great fanfare, and that will be that. We'll be talking about the event for years on ATS even as the Disclosure Project press conference in 2001 is still with us. We'll talk about it,

but no one else will.
edit on 12/2/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
This is why Bassett said,


Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process.


Bassett's solution isn't perfect, but at least he opens the floor to all of them because the whole thing is kind of absurd any way you cut it.


Doesn't such an attitude show a gross naivety,or even arrogance, on the part of Bassett? He is not presenting anything in the way of hard, empirical evidence, instead relying on the word of various witnesses to convince us that a non-human intelligences are visiting the Earth. Yet he tells us that credibility is not an issue. Credibility, at that point is the only thing he has. If he cannot present credible witnesses, then he cannot expect anyone to take him serious.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
This is why Bassett said,


Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process.


Bassett's solution isn't perfect, but at least he opens the floor to all of them because the whole thing is kind of absurd any way you cut it.


Doesn't such an attitude show a gross naivety,or even arrogance, on the part of Bassett? He is not presenting anything in the way of hard, empirical evidence, instead relying on the word of various witnesses to convince us that a non-human intelligences are visiting the Earth. Yet he tells us that credibility is not an issue. Credibility, at that point is the only thing he has. If he cannot present credible witnesses, then he cannot expect anyone to take him serious.


Thank you for the comment. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the Government, Shadow or Superficial, is not the real target on these dog & pony shows. Does anyone believe that the government, when faced with (this time) forty witnesses whose "credibility is not an issue" is suddenly going to caspitualate and tell us everything? This, in the face of the very real possibility that the Obama administration, not exactly a friend to the military industrial complex, knows exactly zilch about the whole thing.

The real target here is the citizens. Bassett and people like him are hoping to "raise awareness" enough to get a groundswell of people storming the congress demanding answers, opening hearings "demanded by the people" and "getting to the bottom of this thing." And all Bassett has to do is put one Clifford Stone claiming 57 varieties of aliens are visiting Earth today, or one Dan Bursich who can't even keep his own name straight up there as a witness, and people will laugh like their zippers are open, drowning out the other 38 or 39 who, if history serves, saw some lights, saw some message traffic, saw some radar blips, or were told some stories by other people.

In fact, hmm. this is a conspiracy site, right? This whole thing sounds like a train wreck. Wonder who is at the switch here? Who, exactly, is running Bassett?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process.


The problem I have with this statement is that it begs the question: Why go to all the trouble to even attempt to find and recruit the parade of personalities of (mostly) credible esteem?

It just seems hanky to make a statement like the above, and then seemingly attempt to at least half-way put together a respectable chorus.

It's puzzling.

It would seem anyone following with keeping in such a statement would be content to just grab up every schizophrenic in a 1000 mile radius on a day pass, put them in front of a microphone, and/or record video depositions for every character running around with their hair on fire that can be found.
One could have people lined up around several blocks waiting to have their say, telling whatever unverifiable story they want whether they believe it true or it's just a work of bad bald fiction.

Instead, a half-way effort is made to seem credible in seemingly carefully selecting a panel of speakers.
Why halfway?
It's self sabotaging to not just go all the way with rigorous vetting.
I don't get it.
The presentation can be just as effective with 10 solid testimonies as it would with 15, 20, 30, or more people telling incredible ridiculous stories interspersed with the 10 solids

Is there some masochistic kink or humpty-dumpty syndrome at play here?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Another day to watch on the calendar.
Goody.
More fear and wonder fo the otherwise unoccupied mind.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Oops. Nevermind.
Temporary amnesia.
Weird.

I must be getting attacked by scalar weapons and psychotronic rays.


edit on 2-12-2012 by Druscilla because: Temporary Amnesia in posting something already posted. ???



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:41 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.


+1

There is always talk of a disclosure in the near future, but it never happens. I remember reading that alien disclosure was supposed to happen this year (2012). We have a few more weeks left.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Thanks Schuyler. You don't have to convince me about Greer and Bassett, they're both full of bovine excrement if you ask me. This new effort by Bassett isn't likely to yield anything of substance, just like the Disclose Project failed to actually deliver anything more than fuel for the ETH Propaganda Machine.

I agree that the public response will likely be ho-hum, but I expect that response will be well deserved. I'd love nothing more than to be wrong about this assumption, and I'll review the information provided by Bassett and crew just as I've reviewed all the rest, but I'm not holding my breath.



By the way, and apologies for being off topic... but is there any kind of "read first unread post" link for the threads on this forum? I don't want to sound like a Negative Nancy, but either the interface here is really clunky and antiquated or I don't have something configured right.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Will the recent events in the U.S.A. make the mainstream media regard this project as unimportant meaning it will be relegated to a minor news story ?



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
This is why Bassett said,


Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process.


Bassett's solution isn't perfect, but at least he opens the floor to all of them because the whole thing is kind of absurd any way you cut it.


Doesn't such an attitude show a gross naivety,or even arrogance, on the part of Bassett? He is not presenting anything in the way of hard, empirical evidence, instead relying on the word of various witnesses to convince us that a non-human intelligences are visiting the Earth. Yet he tells us that credibility is not an issue. Credibility, at that point is the only thing he has. If he cannot present credible witnesses, then he cannot expect anyone to take him serious.


I don't think he really meant what he said, the way I interpreted it was that he was completely fed up with the constant BS and people acting like 3 year old children and not getting the point of the issue, that he just went irate to outline the point of the matter which is, something is going on in the government.
I am sure he is no idiot and agrees that haveing credible witnesses is important, but fighting amongst each other is exactly what the government wants you to do.
It's time to unite.






top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join