Camelot logo Stephen Bassett:
Interview transcript,
13 November 2008

Home Whats New Interviews & transcripts Round Table In Tribute The Big Picture Shorts
Our Goals High Praise About Us Get Involved Questions Contact


Hi. 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.

And we 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 some.

Stephen Bassett (S):  Sure. Let’s do that.

Bill Ryan (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.

And the 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 for that.

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”.

K:  Are you getting this from insiders? I mean, you know, whistleblower-type people, at all?

S:  No. This is based on assessing public information about the activities of notable Democrats. Right?

K:  OK.

S:  So, there’s no ambiguity here:

  • John Podesta’s actions with respect to the Coalition of Freedom of Information.

  • His statements on camera at the National Press Club on two occasions.

  • The 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.

All of 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.

That, plus 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 this.

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 is post-Disclosure.

That’s the paradigm-line. That’s the demarcation point. That has to happen before we get anything else.

B:  But the problems are gonna be in post-Disclosure, aren’t they?

S:  Plenty.

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…

S:  Sure

B:  It’s like… How easy is that gonna be for any administration to deal with that?

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 intentions.

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.

So the 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. Or whatever.

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…

The real 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.

K:  Well, I have a question. OK?

S:  Yeah.

K:  How 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 no threat?

S:  That’s an interesting call. Ah… [searching for words]

K:  Because you get into the issues of sovereignty the minute you get into this.

S:  Oh, there’s all kinds of issues.

K:  Right.

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?

I think 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.

K:  OK. But these are people that have seen the movies, you know.

S:  I know.

K:  And read the books.

S:  Sure.

K:  And, I mean, they just watched War of the Worlds, Steven Spielberg-style.

S:  Yep. Exactly.

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”.

K:  Right. OK.

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?

S:  Again, when they announced that they had a B-2 bomber, well they hauled the thing out, you know?

K:  Right.

S:  So, I mean, maybe people could have said: Maybe you’re lying about it. But here’s this bomber here.

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 to.

Nevertheless, 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.

Again we 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 and difficult.

K:  OK. Now, we have to also know: Why are they gonna Disclose now?

S:  I’ve talked about that extensively. There’s several reasons.

K:  OK.

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.

It fell 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…

K:  You mean actually because of people like us, both you and I and my partner.

S:  And thousands more.

K:  And thousands more.

S:  YouTube videos, networking on the internet, the laptop computer -- this is…

K:  The truth is out there.

S:  But there’s one more really powerful reason why.

K:  OK.

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.

Does that sound like a “super-power” to you? Does that sound like “the leader of the free world” to you?

Worse than that, China supports UFO research, has no problem with it, encourages you do it. Want to practice Falun Gong? 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?

The game 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 this…

It’s 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?

B:  President.

K:  Sarkozy.

S:  And wouldn’t that be a kick? You know?

K:  But…

S:  America 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 in 2004?

K:  But that was a political move to get the people to hate…

S:  This is not a political legacy. This is about history.

K:  …manipulation 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 don’t cooperate.

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 hatch.

K:  OK. But you release…

S:  At least get off the egg!

K:  You 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.

S:  It’s not a huge problem.

K:  No?

S:  No. It might… It was a huge problem in a sense.

K:  They’re 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.

They just 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? 

Again, 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?

Ba-da-bing! This 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.

B:  Yeah.

S:  People are saying: Thank you, thank you, thank you! OK?

And the 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, they didn’t.

This is 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.

S:  Yes. 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 we’re not yet in a position to answer, despite over 60 years of silence?

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.

Will they 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 franchise.

K:  Right. I have to ask you this, and I understand you sort of answered the question, but I don’t believe the answer. OK?

S:  OK.

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.

Exopolitical 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.

I’m 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.

K:  I’m talking about insiders. Have you got insiders coming to you, saying: Look, Stephen, now’s the moment…

S:  No.

K:  …push it through?

S:  No. The insiders talk to you, dear, not to me. Right?

K:  That’s it?

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.

Again, 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.

Again, 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.

K:  Have you ever talked to Hillary or Bill Clinton about this, for example?

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 his response.

But the 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.

But, you 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.

On the 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 to it.

But, again, 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 world.

K:  OK. Let me throw something at you that’s gonna, maybe, rock your boat a little bit.

S:  My boat is not rockable.

K:  OK. My understanding is that the different agencies -- which is the Navy, the Army, Air Force…

S:  Services.

K:  Services. OK. And agencies as well…

S:  I suppose that would be the NSA, and CIA, and…

K:  Yeah. 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 reconcile.

S:  Well, it’s theory.

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.

S:  Sure. Yeah.

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.

S:  Maybe.

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 years… all 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.

But the 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.

S:  I mean, there may be extraterrestrials among us, or there may not be. They may be in the Pentagon and they may not be.

And so, 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 picture.

It can’t 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 purpose.

I believe 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.

S:  MJ-12 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?

S:  You can…

K:  They will know because they’ve been assigned that task. They will, theoretically, know the answers to those theories.

S:  Who?

K:  That MJ-12 group.

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.

K:  OK.

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. Right?

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 hm.

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.

All activism 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 like that.

I’m optimistic, but there are no guarantees. Expect surprises.

B:  So 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 stone.

K:  Absolutely. Stephen, it’s been great. Take care.


Click here for the original audio



Support Project Camelot - make a donation:


Donations are not tax deductible for U.S. citizens.

Thank you for your help.
Your generosity enables us to continue our work.


Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy