I’m Kerry Cassidy from Project Camelot. And I’m
here with Bill Ryan from Project Camelot, and Stephen Bassett
from Paradigm Research Group. And Stephen, we’re here
to talk to you about Disclosure. We’re here
in Sedona. It’s a gorgeous day.
want to ask you some questions and go over the Disclosure
process that you think is gonna happen; and at the same time
give you some feedback from what we’re getting from our
witnesses, whistleblowers, and the like. And talk about that
Bassett (S): Sure. Let’s do that.
(B): The elevator-speech opportunity is to
explain in two sentences why you think Barack Obama will be
the “Disclosure President.”
S: Well, it’s that simple: When the music stopped,
he got the last chair. All right? That’s one reason.
other reason is, there’s pretty good evidence
that the Democrats at the “think-level”, at the
behind-the-scenes level you don’t really see -- not out
of the political front stuff -- that they, prompted, I think,
by the Rockefeller initiative that was launched at the Clinton
administration in ’93, started the wheels going deep
in the party to work it out so they would be the “Disclosure
party”. Meaning they would be the administration in power
when Disclosure takes place.
They weren’t able to do it under Clinton, for a host
of reasons. But after two Bush terms, they have won. They’re
in. And there’s evidence they’ve been preparing
And I think
one of the things that they’re gonna do
-- and there’s a lot of things they’re gonna do.
This is gonna be a major administration, for better or for
worse. Big stuff -- is they’re gonna Disclose early
in the spring of 2009. And so that’s why Barack will
be the “Disclosure President”.
you getting this from insiders? I mean, you know, whistleblower-type
people, at all?
This is based on assessing public information about the activities
of notable Democrats. Right?
S: So, there’s
no ambiguity here:
Podesta’s actions with respect to the Coalition
of Freedom of Information.
His statements on camera at the National Press Club on
writings of Bill Richardson, who was Secretary of Energy,
ambassador to the UN, a congressman, vice-presidential
candidate, and a presidential candidate, that the Roswell
explanation by the government didn’t hold water.
These, plus, of course, the entire Rockefeller initiative,
which involved the Clintons and which we have the documents
confirming, including Hillary Clinton, who also ran for president.
this activity has gone on. They have never accounted for
it -- meaning they’ve never come forward with a side
explanation: Here’s why we’re saying things
like that. They’ve never been asked about it.
other stuff which we don’t have the time
to get into, has convinced me that in fact they have decided: We’re
going to be that party unless the Republicans choose
to take the mantle -- which they did not do.
B: I heard you say that it could be just a 15-minute
process with a simple, sweet, sharp, concise, apologetic announcement
that there are disks, we’re not alone in the universe,
contact has been established for a while, it’s been a
national security issue, and now it’s OK to disclose
S: Not quite. Not quite. What I’m saying is, the “Disclosure
Event” as it’s defined by the activists, the advocacy
groups that are doing this, of which Paradigm Research Group
is one, is with a capital “D” and it’s carefully
defined for very good reasons.
It is nothing
more than the formal acknowledgement by the government of
the ET presence -- that they are here, they’re
real. That’s it. That’s Disclosure. Everything
else, whatever information, whatever else we learn… that
That’s the paradigm-line. That’s
the demarcation point. That has to happen before we get anything
B: But the problems are gonna be in post-Disclosure,
B: Because, what we’ve talked about off-camera,
is that the first 15 minutes are easy. The next hours of detailed
probing, smart questions from reporters all over the world
who are not fools, who’ll do their research, who’ll
talk to people as us and you…
B: It’s like… How
easy is that gonna be for any administration to deal with
S: The post-Disclosure process is not going to be easy.
It’s going to be complicated and difficult which is why,
like, a lot of smart people are involved. All right? With good
But the government is not stupid. They are going to handle
this in a way that is as orderly as possible and makes them
look as good as possible.
initial press conference at the Disclosure announcement may
go on for an hour or two. It obviously will leave everybody
wanting more. And then they’ll announce when they’re
gonna have the next one. Right? Say: Look, we’re
going to hold the next one with new information in 6 days.
And they’ll pace it. And they’ll do whatever else
they can to make it orderly. That’s exactly what any
reasonable person would do and what the government would do.
They’re not stupid, even though some people think they
are. But that’s not the…
difficult part is the total unfolding and all of the confusion
and all of the -- everybody acting at once. It‘ll
be kind of like the Oklahoma Land Rush. All right? Everybody’s
racing aboard, nobody’s really paying attention. People
are running into each other. Wheels are flying off of wagons.
There’ll be a little of that. It’s unavoidable.
Hopefully it won’t be too, too awful and nobody will
get seriously hurt. It will be complicated.
I have a question. OK?
do you Disclose? How does the government Disclose without
admitting that they don’t have the power?
S: Well, first of all, you Disclose. You don’t
admit anything right away. You Disclose the ET presence. Right?
Now, one of the questions…
K: Disclose where? How? In the skies?
S: Engaging our planet, as everybody has been seeing
for years. Remember, the Disclosure isn’t gonna happen
in a vacuum.
K: OK. But there’s
S: That’s an interesting call. Ah… [searching
you get into the issues of sovereignty the minute you get
S: Oh, there’s
all kinds of issues.
S: Look, the government has to decide, but one of the
toughest decisions they have to make is the threat issue. Do
they stay silent on it initially – meaning: We’ll
talk about that later -- because it’s complicated?
Do they go out and say: We don’t believe there’s
a serious threat?
they’re going to say something along the lines
of: There’s no reason for you to get overly concerned.
There’s no reason for you to panic or get upset.
But these are people that have seen the movies, you know.
read the books.
I mean, they just watched War of the Worlds,
K: And basically this is a government that they find
out has been actually -- I mean, I’m not sure how you’re
characterizing it, but what we know is -- lying to the people
for 60-odd years.
S: I call it a “truth embargo”.
S: OK? They’ve
lied to us about a lot of things. Like: Do you have a stealth bomber in development? No. The
line: “For national security reasons” is accepted.
K: And they’re
not going to be lying about the threat?
when they announced that they had a B-2 bomber, well they
hauled the thing out, you know?
I mean, maybe people could have said: Maybe
you’re lying about it. But here’s this bomber
No. Understand that the Disclosure event is not occurring
in a vacuum. There is 61 years of research and public engagement
of the issue, plenty of information. So, when they step forward,
people will know: Oh, that’s what you’re referring
the issue of threat is significant. I’m
sure what they would want to do, and I hope they can do, is
to simply say: There is no need for concern. Or: There
is no threat from the entities.
Now, if there is, and they say there isn’t,
then right away, you see, we’re into mendacity, and of
course that’s not going to sit well.
So if they don’t say
there is a threat – if
they don’t really go there – but they simply say
there’s no reason to be concerned right now, then that’s
a clue that there may be a threat. And of course we’ll
see how that goes.
don’t know all the details. They have significant
problems that they’re facing. This is the biggest event
in human history. Obviously it’s going to be complicated
Now, we have to also know: Why are they
gonna Disclose now?
S: I’ve talked about that extensively. There’s
S: The truth embargo itself, this ability to somehow
convince the institutions that there’s no reason to fund
it, teach it, or cover it, as the press, you know -- it’s
falling apart. I mean, it’s run its course.
Like the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had a good thing going.
They had the national security structure. They had everybody
under surveillance. They could send you to the gulag.
They had total control, a massive army. So why didn’t
it last forever? Because eventually it just ran its course.
apart under its own weight… mostly the weight
of lies. Lies don’t make good building materials. This
thing has run its course. It’s about unraveled. It’s
kind of like over-cooked chicken, to be honest with you. So
one reason is, look, the boat’s sinking. You gonna leave
the boat or are you gonna…
mean actually because of people like us, both you and I and
videos, networking on the internet, the laptop computer --
truth is out there.
S: But there’s
one more really powerful reason why.
S: There is ample indication that other nations that
are aware of the ET presence within their military intelligence
community have just about reached the end of their lies on
this. And if we don’t Disclose, they are. And then we’ll
be going: Oh man. Well, OK. France has just let you know.
I guess we’ll have to tell you, too.
sound like a “super-power” to you? Does
that sound like “the leader of the free world” to
Worse than that, China supports UFO research, has
no problem with it, encourages you do it. Want to practice Falun
Not a good idea. Want to be a UFO researcher? No problem.
They’re an emerging power. They’ve got a 4,000-year
history. They’ve got a 16% growth rate, and they just
launched people into space. They could very well Disclose and
therefore the legacy goes to Chairman Mao and his followers
and his, you know, those that inherited the Maoist…
I bet a
lot of people in our government don’t like that
idea. And so it’s now come down to this: Who’s
going to do it first? You gonna wait, gonna take a chance?
Why would you delay one more month if France could pop the
cork on that Chateau 1947? By waiting a month, you
lose the greatest political legacy of all time? How do you
explain that your handlers? All right?
is up. It’s only a question of who and when.
So that is why I believe that the Democrats must go
through with Disclosure. And given the fact that this is all
out there on the internet, and we’re all talking about
very possible that France may say: Well, monsieur,
if you’re going to Disclose in April, I think we will
Disclose in January. OK? [Kerry laughs] I’ve
got a gorgeous wife and people love me. They love her. I’ll
do the Disclosure. What is he, president of France?
S: And wouldn’t
that be a kick? You know?
would deserve that kick, in a sense.
K: OK. But you’re talking as though these people
actually act independently of one another. And what we understand,
what we’ve been told by a number of witnesses, is that
as a matter of fact, they’re all on the same team. That
means France, Britain, US. You know.
S: Well, if they’re all on the same team, why
were we re-naming our French fries “freedom fries” back
that was a political move to get the people to hate…
is not a political legacy. This is about history.
of the populace.
S: Look, there are plenty of treaties. We’ve had
NATO forever. There’s all kind of deals in the first-world,
all kind of arrangements. We know that. We cooperate and also
This issue has a 60-year history, where the first-world nations,
all the NATO nations including Australia, have basically said: You
guys won the Cold War. You spent 13 trillion. You won World
War II pretty much. We owe you. It’s your call.
Now they’re pretty much fed up. Right? Things are falling
apart and we’re still sitting on this truth embargo like
a hen on an egg. It’s trying to hatch, but it won’t
But you release…
least get off the egg!
release the ET question and you have to talk about free energy.
Now this is also a huge problem. And this is part of the
reason for Disclosure.
not a huge problem.
S: No. It might… It was a huge problem
in a sense.
killing people over it.
S: When they felt that the truth embargo had to be in
place during the Cold War, for instance, it was a real problem.
If they were to bring out that energy it would undoubtedly
lead to the end of the embargo because people weren’t
going to buy: Hey, we stumbled on the antigravity drive,
and we’re talking to you now.
People are gonna say: What
about all those UFOs we’ve
been hearing about? You didn’t get it from them, did
you? And they’ve got to make more lies.
knew that the tech had to be held hostage to the truth embargo.
Now the embargo’s falling apart. The world’s
falling apart. We need that tech. OK?
the way you’ve got to do it is, first you end
the truth embargo. Now people’re gonna cool. Then you
say… And some people are not happy with that. You know: Why
did you lie to us? Why didn’t you tell us sooner?
And you say: I
know you’re upset, but, boy, have
we got a present for you. OK?
is the tech we’ve been working
on from those crashed vehicles. It’s gonna change everything.
You like 50-cent gas? You like heating your house for 5 bucks
a month? That’s gonna happen pretty soon because
this tech is now available for all.
are saying: Thank you, thank you, thank
president goes one more notch up in the history of all great
leaders. The benefits now far outweigh the detriments. That’s another reason why it’s happening. And before,
Machiavellian thinking. But it’s true -- governments
tend to act in their best interest. I’m simply saying
the best interest of government now is to Disclose. And you
can make a very good case for it.
There’s some hardened guys in there. They’re
gonna sit there in the bowels with a gun, holding on to the
last classified file, saying: No! I can’t! You can’t
take this from me!
Eh! So what?
B: Now, in September 2008, two months ago, we interviewed
Bob Dean for the second time. He gave us this wonderful one-liner.
off camera. And he said that the problem with the American
president standing up in front of the people and revealing
the truth in some kind of Disclosure declaration is not the
admission of what they’ve known all these years but the
admission of what they have not yet discovered.
Would that be sort of like all the big financial gurus that
came on television shortly after the major market crash,
and saying: I don’t even know how these hedge
funds work. We didn’t even know where this was gonna
go. We’re into new territory now. We’re off the
charts here. [Kerry laughs]
Hey, we’ve been there before. We sailed off into oceans,
we thought we were going to fall off the end of the Earth.
We launched guys through the Van Allen Belt, maybe they’re
gonna get burned up. We’ve gone to the Moon. We’ve
sent craft to Mars. Yeah, is there not a lot of stuff we don’t
know? No big deal.
B: Do you personally think that the world’s
finest military leaders and the new president of America
is going to feel comfortable saying: You know what, there
are a whole bunch of questions that you could ask us that
not yet in a position to answer, despite over 60 years
S: There’s all kinds of questions they still won’t
answer. Right? But at least we‘ll kind of know the subject
matter that they won’t answer about.
be comfortable? No. They’re not going to be
comfortable. But I’m sure that Donald Rumsfeld wasn’t
very comfortable in any of the press conferences he gave. That’s
the job. If you don’t want the job, go open up a chicken
K: Right. I have to ask you this, and I understand you
sort of answered the question, but I don’t believe the
K: What I want to know is, who’s behind you? Who’s
walking with you down this road? Because you’re a very
brave man, Stephen, and we agree with your philosophy of Disclosure.
We want it just as bad as you do.
S: There’s a Disclosure movement underway. It’s
all over the world. Because of this movement and because of
the awareness factor, 90% of the public says the government
now, they know, is lying about it. 50% say UFOs are real. 20%
have seen a sighting. I think something like 14% in one poll
said: I’ve actually seen an alien. Or: I’ve
been in contact.
sites are opening up in multiple countries. We’ve
got all kinds of organizations and initiatives under way. Questions
are being asked of political candidates. Documents are being
dumped out of the UK, France. Brazil is cooperating with UFO
researchers. Mexico is doing the same thing.
just one guy in a movement who, because I have nothing better
to do, have spent a lot of time in front of the cameras and
on the television and have taken some of the leadership role
as a mouthpiece for the thing. And major and important research
is being done by others.
talking about insiders. Have you got insiders coming to you,
saying: Look, Stephen, now’s the moment…
K: …push it through?
The insiders talk to you, dear, not to me. Right?
S: Yeah. They don’t see me as the “someone
to go to”. They see you-all as “someone to go to.”
I’ve had a couple of meetings with people in government
that’ve confirmed the ET issue, yeah. But it’s
not like they sought me out. It was, like, something came up,
we got together, a question was asked. Yeah, it’s
true but I don’t want to admit it.
I had a command sergeant-major, really tough guy, total Bush
supporter, complete Republican, absolutely thinks the cover-up
is perfectly appropriate. He said: Yeah. Of course there’s
ETs. We know about that. Told me some other things that
were kind of interesting. But it wasn’t some insider/
whistleblower deal. He just confirmed it.
don’t think of it as insiders coming to me. As
you move along and talk to people, you’d be surprised.
Half the people on the Hill, including all the staffers, know
there’s an ET presence. They’re no different than
the full majority of the people. But they’re not going
to talk about it.
that’s embargo stuff. That’s part of the
surreality. Right? We probably have a certain number of abductees
sitting in Congress right now, based on just reasonable conservative
percentages. But they’re not gonna talk about it.
you ever talked to Hillary or Bill Clinton about this, for
S: No. But I asked some people that have… And
interesting responses. One person said Hillary was very protective,
claimed that she was very upset that they were talking to Laurance
Rockefeller about it. Bill Clinton was approached by a couple
of people, including… Paul Davids was interested in
kind of discussion you’re talking about? No.
We were ghettoized. The entire UFO and activist field was ghettoized
early, in the late ’50s. We’re still in the ghetto.
The mainstream’s trying to work this out.
They’re not gonna climb in the ghetto with us to settle
the issue. They’re gonna settle it on their terms. The
only question is whether the ghetto walls will come down, and
we’ll all be able to join in, you see.
know, we are missing some credentials. A lot of us don’t have that Ph.D. Nobody’s Skull and Bones
that I know of. And we may not have the contacts or the money
to be a player.
other hand, we have the internet. We’ve got a
lot of exposure, and a lot of time engrain. And I think this
time around they’re not going to be able to shove the
activists away, like they did after the Vietnam War and the
Women’s Suffragette Movement.
We’re gonna be here to stay. Because we’ve got
our websites; we’ve got our networks; we’ve got
MySpace, Facebook. We’re there.
And I think
the press is gonna come to us and they’re
gonna say: You know, you guys did a great job and we want
to know what you think about this. And books will be written
and conferences’ll be held and I think we’ll have
a pretty good post-Disclosure life. I’m looking forward
you have to earn it. Right? If you withdraw or you get upset
and throw a fit or act badly, you’ll get
subtracted out of the mainstream process.
But I expect to see a certain amount of inculcation of both
active UFO researches and exopolitical activists into the mainstream
world, including positions in government, in the post-Disclosure
K: OK. Let me throw something at you that’s
gonna, maybe, rock your boat a little bit.
boat is not rockable.
My understanding is that the different agencies -- which
is the Navy, the Army, Air Force…
OK. And agencies as well…
suppose that would be the NSA, and CIA, and…
But specifically, the Navy and the Air Force and the Army,
are lead by different ET groups, each of them.
S: Ah. You see… Now, that’s
advanced exopolitical theory.
K: Yes. Let me just… in theory… OK?
And I understand that, you know, this may be hard to even
S: Well, it’s
K: Yes. But the question here that I have is, behind
the scenes you’ve got ETs that look human that may be
walking around the Pentagon, as, according to some of our witnesses
like Robert Dean, you know, and others.
K: So you’ve got people in there that look human
that are ET. You’ve got ETS that don’t look human
that are involved, and they may not actually be friends with
each other. So you’ve got a more complex scenario behind
the scenes going on while Disclosure is theoretically happening.
K: And we’re
talking about the halls of the White House.
S: Let’s cut to the chase here. I’ve
been approached by lots of people in the last 12
right?... with a vast array of theories. All right?
As you have. And they’re all very interesting and every
one of them has potential impact on the process of Disclosure/
exopolitics/ a post-Disclosure world.
fact is, unlike the extraterrestrial presence, which has
been researched and developed to the point of absolute certainty
there is an extraterrestrial presence -- the fact that the
government is covering it up is an absolute certainty. All
right? Once you get past that… OK?... the certainty
level drops off real fast. And when you get into this larger
spectrum of theories, the fact is, we simply don’t know.
B: What you’re saying is, the core story is the
only thing that you’re concerned with.
mean, there may be extraterrestrials among us, or there may
not be. They may be in the Pentagon and they may not be.
given that, there’s only one appropriate course
of action -- and that’s to take all of that, put it over
to the side for review and consideration at any given time
at your leisure, and focus on the fundamentals -- fundamental
truths that you know are solid, that will hold up in a court
of law, primo; and pursue that course.
Because nobody has either the wisdom, the money, or the time,
to even remotely attempt to incorporate the potential validities
of scores of complex controversial theories into the larger
be done. We must, as Clint Eastwood said in Magnum
Force, know our limitations. And so, as an activist,
I keep focused and I let history and time sort a lot out.
Because to try to do more would be to fail the fundamental
that one of the reasons the truth embargo was able to be
maintained – no disrespect, now -- is that it was
extremely easy to keep researchers for the last 60 years, going
all the way back to the ’40s, chasing their tails day
after day after day.
And that’s not right! If they did that to physics… Let’s
feed the physics committee with all kinds of interesting but
not really valid theories so that all the physicists are chasing
all kinds of stuff… So we can slow physics down, you
see. That would be pretty damn cruel, wouldn’t it? Well,
that’s exactly what they did with all of us.
K: OK. But what about the idea that Truman put together
a band of people that are known as MJ-12? And we actually know
a producer that’s actually doing a history on that, that’s
sold to ABC, and will possibly be on television in the not
too distant future.
has got a lot of substance behind it. And if somebody said: What to you feel about the theory of MJ-12? I’d
say I have high confidence.
K: OK. But what I’m saying here is, those theories
that you said are “over here” and we can’t
deal with them?
K: They will know because they’ve
been assigned that task. They will, theoretically, know the
answers to those theories.
S: But that’s post-Disclosure. You see, post-Disclosure… As
soon as things grow appropriate, and as they start revealing
information, they will start assigning people as… and
departments, and things… to go-to places, because not
everybody wants to know everything. Certain deep researchers
want to know certain things and others could care less.
K: OK. We’ve
got to rap this up.
S: And we’ll start to get a bigger picture told
to us. We’ll start to be able to sort, but that sorting
process ain’t gonna happen till post-Disclosure.
S: It will be a lot of easier. In other words, post-Disclosure
could be done for a few mil. Pre-Disclosure, we’re gonna
need billions. It’s not worth it.
But I like
the fact that this information comes forward. I like the
fact that we’re engaged. I like the fact that
something is bubbling. But we must maintain focus and we must
understand our limitations and realize there’s only so
much we can do. We can’t prove everything, you know.
David Icke is an example of somebody who set himself a Herculean
task of literally trying to figure it all out before any government
would cooperate. Right?
K and B: Mm
S: Boy, that ain’t a job I would want to take
on. Right? But he gave it a hell of a run. And undoubtedly
a lot of what he found out will be proven true. And some of
it won’t be.
But I describe
it… Look. It’s like the Women’s
Suffragette Movement. The point of the Women’s Suffragette
Movement was to get the right to vote for women. It wasn’t
to somehow figure out and sort out every concern that women
have in the modern world and figure out how to make it right
and bring them into a proper… and solve… No,
it was to get the right to vote, hoping that once they had
the right to vote that they would be able to assert their own
influence and start to correct the issues and deal with problems.
is that way. You know, Gandhi‘s job wasn’t
to solve all of India’s problems or build a whole new
state. It was just to get the British out. Get the British
out and then we’ll see how things go.
K: So what you’re saying is that you have a focus,
you’re carrying out a mission, and actually your mission
is very close to realization.
S: Exactly. We are practically at the finish line, as
it turns out. That‘s why we’re seeing a lot of
motion; we’re seeing a lot of action; we’re seeing
a lot of press and media; people are getting a little worked
up. Understandable. All right?
It’s like all those football players -- they cross the
goal line, they start doing all those dances and stuff. They
even start dancing before they get to the goal line. So it’s
optimistic, but there are no guarantees. Expect surprises.
you think 2009 will be quite an interesting year.
S: I’m thinking 2009. The spring. If it doesn’t
happen then, we’ll just redouble our efforts to rattle
the government’s cage until they finally yield. Or China
pops the cork and we’ll all learn Chinese on a Rosetta
K: Absolutely. Stephen, it’s
been great. Take care.
Click here for
the original audio