Stephen Bassett could have just bought real Congressmen for Disclosure Hearing.

If he had just done some real lobbying. That's what real lobbyists do, they make political donations to politicians so that Congressional members shine a favorable light on their key lobbying interests and set forth with favorable policy. Lobbyists buy members of Congress. Think about it, for the amount of money that Bassett spent on the Disclosure Hearing, $20,000 per former Congressional member, renting out the National Press Club, etc. which is supposed to reach 1 million dollars, he could have simply identified key members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology wined and dined them, made political contributions, showered them with favors and he would have had them in his pocket to go forth with real Congressional hearings on UFOs. Of course a real Congressional Hearing wouldn't have been owned by Bassett and he wouldn't control the copyright. He also wouldn't have exclusive rights to make a movie with the material because it would be broadcast on CSPAN. So it would not have been controlled by Bassett. But it would be a real effort to get to the bottom of the question about UFOs. Actually if he had done that, it would make for a much better film. No, instead, we are treated to the kooky ramblings of Linda Moulton Howe, Steven Greer and Dick French.

reply to post by FlyingTeacup

You make a good point.

I am still not too sure what to make of Stephen Bassett, ...even though I have followed his work for many years.

Sometimes, he comes across as genuine.

But I often wonder what his true motives are, and what he really thinks in the silent chambers of his mind.

Does he perhaps know that he is fighting an impossible fight? A fight which he cannot ever win.

Cheers
QMask

reply to post by FlyingTeacup


But if he'd done that he wouldn't have been able to sell passes for people to watch the event live nor would he have been able to make a documentary about the hearings for us all to watch ... at a price .

Disclosure = $$$$$$

Well, and also, nothing at all would have came from his lobbying. Not that anything came from the event that took place, but if he had lobbied to real congressmen the effort would have produced a big ol' goose egg.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by FlyingTeacup

 

But if he'd done that he wouldn't have been able to sell passed for people to watch the event live nor would he have been able to make a documentary about the hearings for us all to watch ... at a price .

Disclosure = $$$$$$

That's exactly what's stated in the OP. Did you read it beyond the title?

And the OP's claim is spot on! I never thought about it like that. But in the spirit of fairness, how many of us would have tuned in to CSPAN to watch it? I personally find the idea of a documentary more appealing (it's a more accessible package)--even if it features Linda Moulton-Howl

reply to post by JayinAR


I disagree. Congressman can be bought and Bassett had at least 1 million dollars for the CHD and subsequent film. Congressmen don't care where the money comes from only that it is green and printed by the Federal Reserve. Bassett is also wrong about the time Congress investigated this subject, he claims the Congressional Hearing called "Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects" in 1968. In fact in 2001 Congress had hearings called "Life in the Universe" which also talked about UFOs.

Yes good point.
Seems in retrospect that these documentaries create a culture of speaking to the informed; who want to know, and not necessarily need to know for the disclosure to commence.
1mil seems a lot that could have be designed for greater aims then exclusivity and residuals...but lets hope he has a greater master plan...like marketing the dvd to congressmen instead...


LOVE

reply to post by FlyingTeacup


Yes, and what happened because of those congressional hearings?
Absolutely nothing.
I understand your point, but I am not gonna assign fault for Basset taking the approach he did. The alternative is a dead end from the get go.

why the need for government officials....seriously...why do we need them to tell us what we already know.

If the only reason a politician stands up and declares "UFO's are real" is for mighty Dollar then count me out.

reply to post by Soloprotocol

If the only reason a politician stands up and declares "UFO's are real" is for mighty Dollar then count me out.

But if ex politicians do it then its ok?

The only reason the ex-politicians did the mock hearing is they were being paid. As they were being paid by people who make a living off telling us that anything we cant identify must be a visiting alien their conclusions were more than bias.

The whole event was a sham.

1) How do you know he never made the attempt?

2) There is no way any of them would show up because of the fear of being politically crucified by the media. Politicians are interested in being re-elected and nothing else. They're not interested in attending a conference about ufos since ufos don't "exist"

3) Even the former members of congress stated that there is no way any of the currently serving members would show up to this event.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by FlyingTeacup

 

Yes, and what happened because of those congressional hearings?
Absolutely nothing.
.

"Nothing" is not quite accurate. The former members of congress have sent a letter to President Obama petitioning to release the medical files of the 2 former military employees so that they can have their medical conditions properly treated.

You can't disclose what can't be disclosed.

The OP makes a decent point, but how can the UFOlogy field compete with big tobacco? oil? etc.

The reason disclosure will never happen is this, nevermind, I'll post it in the future, I can tell this thread isn't the right place. I do have a stance on it, but the stance is so unpopular that most would reject it so why bother? Why bother indeed.

reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha

even if it features Linda Moulton-Howl

Correction: Linda Molten Cow

Ah, yes - a new bullying anti-disclosure thread with all the usual suspects who so conveniently avoided my thread about the RAF Bentwaters classified medical records. Nice dodge, fellas...

Originally posted by corsair00
Ah, yes - a new bullying anti-disclosure thread..

How can you say people are bullying Bassett?

Here's a nice example of what kind of guy he is -

I told Steve this time he had to be on a work exchange, considering he wanted to stay for several months, eat my food, drive my car, and have Kim stay for several weeks while my house turned into a fulfillment center for piles of books. However, one night, after two and half months of dodging my suggestions for what he could do for me, he snuck out. Not even a goodbye.

March 1, 2012 UPDATE
Steve has served a lawsuit on me. For a jury trial. In Maryland. It “concerns false and defamatory statements and writings posted on websites and sent via email for the purposes of intentionally embarrassing harming Plaintiff to try to coerce Plaintiff to pay money and/or provide some kind of service to Defendant…” Indeed, I am waiting for Steve ‘s to make good on his work-exchange. Here’s my favorite line from the summons: “…[she] became verbally abusive to Bassett while Bassett was living at Taylor’s Los Angeles house.” Living in my house?

December 15, 2012 UPDATE

Steve Bassett is bombing me. Having lost in two courts, he has appealed in both of them.

First is Maryland. He has a p.o. box there, and since his issue is my defamation of him on the internet, he thought he could sue from anywhere in the world. The court disagreed and dismissed the suit. Steve appealed.

Second court is Beverly Hills Small Claims. Suggestions were made that I counter-sue in Maryland, but that involves me going there and more money to a Maryland lawyer ($8,000 and counting). So, I sued him in my local Small Claims Court for work not performed plus small monies owed to me (plane fare to the X-Conference and interest on the loan). In court, he lied about having any obligation to me, but the judge didn’t believe him and I got a judgment. He appealed.

January 7, 2013 UPDATE

We were in Beverly Hills Small Claims court for Steve’s appeal. He lost again. The peanut gallery was laughing at the judge poking at Steve, asking if it was his practice, when he had an apartment, to let guests dictate the terms for staying with him. I got some insights this time. Despite his explicit agreement to help me for two hours a day, he thinks that positive energy behind my movie, as he mentions it to people who could help me, should suffice. An even trade. He left the court saying he’d be suing me in Los Angeles. His appeal of the Maryland dismissal is pending.

Source

Further details

The aggressor [Steve Bassett] is suing his victim [Suzanne Taylor] for blowing the whistle on what he has done to her. He has offered to withdraw the suit if she writes a check for $26,000 and issues an apology that exonerates him from any transgressions. In the meantime, while suing Suzanne for slander, he is slandering her, telling people in person and in email that she is difficult and disturbed.

Source

"Credibility is not an issue in the Disclosure process." Steven Bassett

source

Steve Bassett! What a guy!!

Originally posted by corsair00
reply to post by NarcolepticBuddha

 

even if it features Linda Moulton-Howl

Correction: Linda Molten Cow

Nice! I prefer "Howl" because the sound of her voice annoys me. But on the other hand, she does talk about cow mutilations a lot. Either way, I'm not a big fan.

reply to post by FlyingTeacup


I still think that was a useful meeting for few points:

- Some of the people there may have had something real to say,. not just made up stories for the public
- Despite the $ you have to pay, that is such a negligible price... I paid for it and I never pay for every little thing on the internet, in fact I pay for things almost never unless I need them a lot.

And the fact that he put money for you to watch absolutely cannot convince me that everything was staged because of that. It is like a remark that I made in another thread - just because someone is making money since he took the time to organize all that (and if he has used lots of money on that and has to restore the money invested...), or just because someone wrote a book, does not necessarily mean that 'someone' has nothing real to say and all is fake... I disagree with that statement that some are trying to say. And I am not talking about Bassett in particular, but about all the people out there,,

reply to post by FlyingTeacup


The guy is a money grabber. Nothing more, nothing less.