Blindfolds & cigarettes

Great Article covering the hottest ATS topic around... the dreaded "D" word and good old Stephen Bassett the king of "Disclose or we'll ask you to disclose again!".

My favorite Bassett quote from the article?

credibility “is not an issue in the disclosure process".

WHAT????

Here's your link. and source of the quote.

By the way, if you actually read the article and then plan on coming back here and saying some inane blather like "I think disclosure is coming I can feel it! It's really close!" then just keep on moving. Please? Really...


[edit on 10/6/2009 by whiskeypoet]

reply to post by whiskeypoet


Uhh, that makes no sense. Of course credibility is an issue. If you're a random whackjob on the street saying "omg I knoooooow UFOs and ETs exist! It's the truth!" No one will belive you. This guy is wrong, and honestly that statement takes some of his credibility away for me.

And I don't care if disclosure is close, haha, I know what I belive, if the government wants to lie to me...well, what's new?

reply to post by Heatburger



I absolutely agree. Everyone seems to be going gaga over Bassett because he threatened to disclose proof of ET etc if the government didn’t do so by 31MAY.

Where is that proof?

It seems that only people without credibility think that it doesn’t matter.

I see a connection here

reply to post by whiskeypoet
I don't really care about 'disclosure.' The implication is that who or whatever Government has known something about aliens and UFOs since the late 40s. This means that some people have been withholding information for decades. I'm a grown-up and can understand that there may be damn good reasons for the silence. I can also accept that there isn't anything to 'disclose.'

By extension, if there IS anything to disclose, it will come from the same interests that have withheld the information for decades. If people don't believe them now...why believe them if they 'disclose?' Whatever would be disclosed would be wide open to interpretation and question. Who's to trust?

I'm 100% convinced that there's maybe a possibility that a minority of UFOs are not of this Earth. Of that minority, some of them might be examples of ET. Colares 1977 and some of the classics (Gorman, Hudson Valley, Malmstrom, Nellis AFB, JAL flight etc) are pretty persuasive.

'Disclosure' is some fairytale BS people keep yacking about. It's associated with free energy, freedom, 'higher vibrations (WTF?!)' and spiritual make-believe. For me, I say screw the front-page news stories. Provide an international consensus of scientific research and evidence and I'll believe it. Without the science, it's a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing (credit to WS)

reply to post by Kandinsky


I think you may be preaching to the choir here. I find the subject interesting for the lather it can work people in to.

What I found most interesting was the current golden boy of the "legitimate" disclosure movement saying credibility isn’t important.

reply to post by whiskeypoet
On-topic...yeah, 'disclosure' is a matter of opinion.

Off-topic...nice avatar. Jamesons is a fine whiskey. Best Irish. Laphroaig, Jura and any Islay are fine Lowland single malts. Peaty

reply to post by whiskeypoet


That, in fact, is the only quote from Bassett in the entire article. By default I suppose it would have to be the favorite; and the least favorite too?

I don't know. By chance, did you listen to the Podcast the quote was taken from, as the Herald Tribune was not the original source of this quote?

Anyway, I think we're missing the point here. The article itself posits that the MSM are going to profile the witnesses with the least amount of credibility; or if not a lesser amount of credibility, those with some very controversial notions and ideas, thus alienating (no pun intended) the general population who might actually benefit from the profiling of a so-called credible witness, such as Salas or Pope.

Does Bassett have much credibility himself? Probably not. It's too bad that we never seem to have an insider leading these charges. It's always a Greer and a Bassett or someone else who gathers together a pool of folks.

Though if it were an insider, I don't think coverage (or lack thereof) would be any different. My two cents.

-Eleph

reply to post by whiskeypoet


Yeah. Honestly, someone releasing documents about what happened in New Mexico doesn't really matter to me. It'd be interesting to say the least, but full disclosure on something I already believe isn't necessary to me.

Its like if someone found solid scientific 100% irrefutable proof of God. Christians wouldn't need that documented proof to believe what they already do*

To me he's just another person trying to stir stuff up. If he's got the proof, he should release it for all, not give the prez an ultimatum and hold it for himself. I wonder if he has a book or is planning one or something that would make all this attention lead to a big monetary benefit for him...

*disclaimer, haha this is in no way saying I think of UFOs on the same scale as a diety. Just an analogy!

reply to post by Heatburger


You know, if I could have my way "disclosure" would amount to official recognition that the universe is overflowing with life and they have visited. And then I would like them to all go away until we tidy the house and learn to behave. If we want to play, we can figure out the means to get to the playground on our own.

On another note, in regards to your non-comparison of ET's and deities, I'm constantly amazed at the vigor, venom and outright lousy manners expressed by many here in regards to their beliefs. Many seem to approach it in almost a religious manner and cruise on faith. Though I suppose if I had allegedly been mistreated by ET's I might get a little indignant too...

I need the duck to look, walk, quack AND test positive for duck DNA before I pronounce it fowl