Based in the nation’s capitol, Stephen Bassett is a lobbyist working tirelessly for a single, unusual cause: confronting the US Government on the existence of extraterrestrials and their presence here on Earth.As a political activist and executive director of the Paradigm Research Group (PRG), Basset aims to end the 68-year embargo of classified information relating to alien activity while pressuring President Obama and the Executive Branch to disclose these findings to the public.
Following the statements made to me by Apollo 14 Astronaut Edgar Mitchell on government cover ups and claims of nuclear weapons tampering by extraterrestrials, I was contacted by an associate of Stephen Bassett who expressed gratitude on his behalf for covering those stories.
Seeing an opportunity to dig deeper into these claims, I decided to interview this unique D.C. lobbyist about his beliefs and mission.
Why did you decide to take up this fight and how did you get started?
I made an intellectual decision to engage the extraterrestrial phenomenon field in the winter of 1995 because I believed I could make a difference. My journey began in January of 1996 as a volunteer for the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research founded by Dr. John E. Mack in Cambridge, Massachusetts. While in Cambridge it became clear to me that the extraterrestrial issue could only be resolved by political means.
The government imposed policy of Truth Embargo had to end. In July of 1996 I relocated to the Washington, D.C., area and registered as a lobbyist on the extraterrestrial topic—the first person to do so.
Why? the presence of extraterrestrials is the most important truth in the world today with the greatest potential to alter the present course of human affairs – a course badly in need of a new destination.
What do you see as the ultimate goal?
The Disclosure advocacy movement has a very clear goal: formal acknowledgement by world governments of an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race. At this time the focus of the movement is on the United States and President Obama.
Why is it important that the government fully disclose the existence of extraterrestrials?
It would take a book to properly answer this question but here are some talking points: 1) trust in government has collapsed 2) truth is the antidote to fear 3) a vast military/intelligence/industrial complex has been created that threatens the Republic and this complex is partially a result of government’s desire to secretly address the extraterrestrial reality 4) extraterrestrial derived technologies are being withheld under the embargo that are badly needed to address the human condition 5) the executive and legislative branches of government are being weakened by the policy of embargo 6) a number of other heads of state could end the truth embargo at any time, and this would have serious geopolitical consequences for the United States.
How do you think the public will react to full disclosure?
Public response to disclosure will be overwhelmingly positive. For many, such an announcement will be anticlimactic. Over time, as the complex history of the extraterrestrial engagement emerges, some concerns will be raised. The Internet will provide the means for the human race to quickly arrive at consensus regarding these concerns and direct their governments accordingly.
There will be some negative response and perhaps acting out, but that will not be unusual. The idea that disclosure would disrupt economies, religion, governments, etc. is a concept put forward by the managers of the Extraterrestrial Truth Embargo. It is mostly propaganda.
Which branch of government is privy to the information regarding the presence of extraterrestrials?
The extraterrestrial history and engagement is most likely managed by cross-agency committees within the military/intelligence complex and working under the highest of security classifications. Each committee would address a major aspect of the issue and comprised of representatives from the appropriate agencies and services for that issue. In many or all cases the agency represented may not know of this committee. The committee may not know of other committees involved. Compartmentalization.
This approach is likely quite satisfactory for the military/intelligence community. The problem is politics. The executive and legislative branches of government have certain responsibilities regarding national security matters.
Beginning with the Johnson administration, the decision was made to remove these branches of government over time from the equation. By the time Clinton takes office, the president and the appropriate congressional committees no longer had access. They did not have a need to know and were shut out. Efforts to get information were stonewalled. Efforts to get congressional hearings were blocked. This, of course, raises serious constitutional questions.
What is the Rockefeller initiative and how are the Clintons involved?
The Rockefeller Initiative refers to the formal effort by billionaire Laurance Rockefeller to persuade the Clinton administration to release all documents in government files and grant amnesty to government witnesses who might come forward. This effort began on March 29,1996 and ended in October of 1996. Over 1000 pages of documents were obtained in 2000 by researcher Grant Cameron under the Freedom of Information Act confirming the Rockefeller Initiative.
These documents have been posted on the Internet for the past 15 years. President Bill Clinton, Secretary Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, Dr. John Gibbons and Webster Hubbell were directly involved in the Initiative. Others either directly involved or aware of the Initiative include Clinton’s Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, Clinton’s Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, Vice President Al Gore and Clinton’s Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson.
During the 25 years since the beginning of the Rockefeller Initiative none of these individuals has ever spoken publicly about it in service to their personal and political aspirations. No member of the media has ever posed a single question to any of them about it until April of this year. Since then, several queries have been put to John Podesta and Secretary Clinton by reporters. Neither have responded.
The Clinton connection to the extraterrestrial issue via the Rockefeller Initiative will be the trigger that sets the media free to finally engage and investigate the most important news story in history.
If Secretary Clinton is elected president, would that increase the chances of full disclosure?
Yes, but the Disclosure advocacy movement has no intention of waiting for that uncertain outcome. Barack Obama will be the Disclosure president.
You mentioned Nuclear Weapons tampering as the catalyst for a “media storm.” Is there hard evidence of this phenomenon?
Over the past 15 years considerable evidence has been amassed confirming incidents in which extraterrestrial craft have tampered with nuclear weapons in both the United States and the Soviet Union. The bulk of that evidence has been compiled in the book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites – by Robert Hastings. At the center of this evidence is first hand testimony by Air Force officers who were present during these incidents. One such officer, Capt. Robert Salas wrote a book about his experience—Faded Giant. More than a dozen such officers are prepared to testify before Congress under oath.
The fact that this evidence has been out in the public domain for fifteen years and no congressional committee has engaged the issue and no media venue has challenged the Air Force, the Pentagon or the White House to respond is both a disgrace and a symptom of major dysfunction.
Why do you think the term “UFO” is unacceptable when discussing full disclosure?
“UFO” is an anachronistic non-sequitur pushed forward early on by the skeptics and the government. It is as ludicrous as stating the focus of atomic physics is “ITPs”—unidentified tiny particles. The primary technique behind the Truth Embargo is the intellectual ghettoization of the phenomenon and the people who address it. “UFO” is part of the language of that ghetto designed to keep the public, the press, academics and political leaders at bay.
What has been some of the major obstacles in your mission?
The principal obstacle for the Disclosure advocacy moment is the Truth Embargo. Beginning with the early 1950s enormous time and money was invested by the government to create and maintain this embargo, which by the end of the Cold War was thoroughly entrenched. Another major obstacle is the lack of funding for advocacy projects, which is a direct result of the Truth Embargo.
Who are your most important allies?
Important allies of this movement include a growing list of intrepid reporters and editors willing to challenge the Truth Embargo, a number of countries that have proactively released tens of thousands of extraterrestrial phenomenon related files to the public domain, and some former member of Congress, The most important ally is the Internet and the access it provides to the entire world to build awareness and consensus.
Can you describe the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure and why it was so important?
The Citizen Hearing on Disclosure or CHD was an event in which 42 military/agency/political witnesses of rank testified for 30 hours over five days before six former members of Congress regarding events and evidence confirming an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race.
It had never been done before and it was filmed in high definition and webcast worldwide. It was a mock congressional hearing held in the main ballroom of the National Press Club two blocks from the White House and a dozen blocks from the Capitol. It was extensively covered by the media.
The Citizen Hearing on Disclosure was the key that could unlock the Truth Embargo. As planned it was the platform upon which to launch PRG’s Congressional Hearing Initiative. So on November 5, 2014, 10-disk DVD sets with the full video record of the CHD were shipped to every congressional office—535. What viewers of the Citizen Hearing Disclosure would see is very much how a real congressional hearing would play out. The kinds of witnesses, the quality of their testimony, how the committee members would react and what questions would be ask. In short, the CHD took most of the political risk out of a decision by a congressional committee to hold hearings. It has made possible all that was to come.