UAP Unidentified Alien Podcast - UAP EP 85 "Doorstep of Disclosure" Stephen Bassett interview Part 1

Episode Date: September 25, 2024

One of the biggest voices of the disclosure movement, Steve Bassett, joins Stephen Diener to give his insight on why he believes we are closer to the truth about the UFO phenomenon being released than ever before. What are the two types of disclosure and who is trying to keep it locked up behind the scenes? And are the religious implications of disclosure misunderstood? All of that and so much more is discussed in this part one episode...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Everybody talked about it since I first moved to Oregon. The big one, the earthquake that trashed the whole West Coast, total destruction. Officially calling it the largest natural disaster in American history. I just didn't know what would help me next. So I took it all. Even the gun. It was time. Selo?

American Afterlife, presented by pair of thieves. The number one fiction and drama podcast in America. Listen wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Available now. Catch the NBA playoffs on Sling TV, the most flexible live TV streaming service, putting consumers in control to watch games their way with flexible subscriptions. Want to catch one game or a full series on ESPN? Grab a one, three, or seven-day pass.

If you want to catch as many games as possible, get a monthly subscription with our ABC, NBC, and ESPN combo package. Either way, Sling lets you watch the playoffs your way with no long-term contracts. more at sling.com. Welcome into episode 85 of UAP. I am Stephen Deiner. Happy and excited to be back with you here on the Unidentified Alien podcast and also happy and excited

to bring you this special interview between myself and Stephen Bassett and today is going to be part one and man is there are a lot of stuff in this. There is so much in this and that's why actually it is part one because when we spoke yesterday recording this interview,

spoke for over two hours. So I thought, you know what? Let me go ahead and split this up and that way you can kind of get everything in pieces. And it is absolutely worth it. I really think you're going to enjoy it because we go over, like I said, a lot. But we start off with why the sudden momentum. So you're going to hear us talk about that as we get into it. Kind of what has brought us to this point. And I think Steve really lays it out nicely with like the timeline of the movement really goes into detail there, talks about Congress, some of the knowledge and the gatekeepers, those with the knowledge in Congress and those who are the gatekeepers behind the scenes. And also he goes into his own background story, because Stephen Bassett, as you probably know,

is one of the, you know, really big names in this field of someone who has a major voice in the disclosure movement. He is the executive director of the Paradigm Research Group. and the only UFO lobbyist within Washington, D.C. So it's really incredible to be able to have him on the show and be able to talk to him and get his insight because he really is entrenched in this as much as anybody is within this topic. So we go over all those things. Plus, he mentioned something really intriguing that I thought was the difference between lowercase and capital D disclosure. and I thought that was really fascinating to listen to

and to kind of make those distinctions of what true disclosure is in his view from where he stands. So we get into all that, some dire warnings that he puts out there, thinking, you know, what's on the line, and really just overall, what I felt was a deep, thoughtful discussion

with a lot of scenarios put out there. We go into the religious implications, behind disclosure, which we know is a subject that is near and dear to my heart that I talk about a lot. And then we finish things off with an analogy he gives of how we're on the doorstep of disclosure or on the two-yard line, if you will. So we're going to get into everything there that sets the table for this part one episode of my discussion with Stephen Bassett. Really insightful stuff. One of the most fascinating conversations. I'll just want to say that right off the bad one of the most fascinating conversations i've ever had so i hope you enjoyed as much as i did part one

right now part two in a couple of days that will hopefully be coming out on friday is my plan there but without any further ado here is part one my discussion with stephen bassett right here on uap happy to have him on very excited to have on stephen bassett today the executive director of the paradigm research group and disclosure activist one of the leading names and voices in this field when comes to disclosure. Stephen, thanks for being on UAP today. I really appreciate it. Bad to be here. Love doing podcasts. Yeah, absolutely. A couple of fellow Stevens here just talking back and forth about disclosure in the UFO community. So I just jump right into it here, really. I mean, there's so much to get to, so much going on. Let me ask you first, why,

why now, Stephen? Do you think this has just been a natural progression when it comes to the UAP discussion that just brings us to this time of point where people, are really interested in it. You know, it's in the news. It's a main topic. It's, it's in main mainstream, right? I guess is the word I'm looking for. It's not behind the scenes anymore where you kind of have to whisper about it. Do you think it's really just been a natural evolution that's brought us here or is there something else behind this that's kind of pushed this to the mainstream? It's an activist movement that was not, was, there was all, there's always been a quote, effort, a movement to get the truth. But for most,

of the last 77 years this the effort was grounded in proof evidence uh reviewing cases interviewing people um creating organizations doing research research on research and it it didn't it moved the ball but it really wasn't an activist movement it was trying to be a scientific movement But unfortunately, it was up against a government that was determined to maintain the truth, as embargo of the truth, rather. And so all the evidence would pile up and the government would just ignore it. And the government had worked very hard to maintain a very high level of stigma, disdain, undermining, virtually interfering with the process of discovery, or certainly the public awareness. As a result, it just, it was very slow, very, very slow. It was not fair, was not right.

Governments do things like that all the time. So for the first up until about 2000, it was, there was no real political movement, but around, well, no, up until about 1990, but right about then, a political movement starts to come together. It wasn't easy because this is not a subject that people want to sign up on, meaning, yeah, let's go to the government and then demand the truth, come with me, right? No, no, the stigma, 70 or 60 some years just prevented that. The issue

is not something people go to the streets with signs, no. So it was a slow process, but it begins right around 1990. And by 2000, it was getting underway. And so the political activist movement, I think history will sort of look at as a 34-year process starting around 1990, ending right around now. So in terms of why and when, it's as simple as this. The barbarians are at the gate, right? One of those big giant wooden gates, you know, with the things behind them. It turns up in all the moves. And they've got this battering ram and they've got shields over their head, right,

so they can't get hit with arrows and they're just popping the door and they're popping the door. And in every movie like this, it varies, you know, 10 times, 15 times. It doesn't matter. But we all know the outcome. At some point, that battering ram breaks through the door. Everybody runs into the castle. People are dying. This is pretty much the analogy. We have been pounding the door to the truth embargo in a relatively defined way for about 34 years. and the door has busted. Now we're in the process of getting inside the castle in order to wreck havoc, right?

But that's still, you know, resistance, right? Remember in the movies, there's still, you know, everybody gathers behind the door from the inside and they're ready to take on everybody as they come through. That's going on right now. So it's that simple. You beat on that door long enough and eventually it breaks. So let me ask you this. Who's behind the door?

who is in the castle trying to hold the door closed with us barbarians coming at it trying to break it down. Yeah, they view us as barbarians too. It's just stupid people that don't have clearances and they don't have an understanding or what it's like.

They have to defend the country and so forth and so forth and they're trying to mess up our good thing. Yeah, we're kind of barbarians. Who are they? We'll call them, I like to refer to them as the managers of the truth embargo. everyone who either as their entire job or as part of their work, their job is to see to it that the truth, the information in government hands remains classified, remains unavailable, resisting every effort to get it, whether it's FOIA or the journalist hacking a question, whatever. And these managers are scattered throughout our government.

They're, I think, a substantial concentration of them within the Department of Defense, certainly in some of the intelligence agencies, armed services, Navy Air Force, maybe less so, the Army. And some politicians, I think there are some politicians, many, many politicians, people in Congress have known about the ET presence for a long time. And they do nothing. But there are a few, I think, that are more active, more willing to help keep the gate secure. So that's who are on the other side of that gate or that door.

It's not a single entity. It's not a monolithic thing. People like to think that way. It's convenient, but it's not that way. And they're putting up. They're putting up some resistance. Not all of them, believe me. Turns out we have allies inside the castle.

But they were limited in what they could do, how much support they could show. But now that we've broken through, some of them are coming over to our side, and that just accelerates the pace. And we'll get to some of those things actually in a little bit. But I'm curious, in your work in this field of, you know, you're a lobbyist. to try to get things going in D.C. An activist trying to change things. So, I mean, who have you come across in your time that has maybe stonewalled you the most? I guess who's maybe been like a bigger thorn in your side within Congress?

I mean, is there anybody that you can name that you're like, man, come on. Can't you just work with me here? I would suggest not viewing it that way. Okay. You're making it kind of about me. First of all, I'm a registered lobbyist. I had been for 24 years. But I've never had the resources to truly lobby in the way that people think about that.

You have very important causes out there that are lobbying to Congress. These causes oftentimes are spending tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring lobbying firms to get up there. They have money to donate to campaigns and what have you. I've never had that ability. So in the early, I registered a lot. That's what started, gave me credit. It's what got me going as an activist. Now, I've been up in the hill some.

But again, that was early on. We're talking about the late 90s, right? Yeah. And yeah. So I'm going to go up on the hill. I've got no money. I can't donate to any campaigns. I'm dealing with an issue that's still considered ridiculous.

Guess what? Nobody's going to talk to me. I get meetings with some aid or in, intern or what have you. I understood that. I got that right away. It's okay. By registering as a lobbyist in 1996, I essentially put a flag down. I said, look, this issue should have a lobbyist. Nobody wants to do it. I don't blame them. So I did it. I registered and the Washington Post immediately soon covered that and it went out and people were happy about that. Well, we got a lobbyist. And that gave me leverage. Now, I didn't know how long it would take

before maybe I could actually be a lobbyist. It turned out it was a long time. And by the time we reached a situation where, maybe I could be a lobbyist, there are already people who were in there. And some of my colleagues, they're lobbying. They're up there. But they're also, they've got money behind them.

They're involved in a significant organization. And so essentially, I moved into an activist role. And for most of the last 24 years, I have been an activist. Now, an activist is a different. thing lobby and lobbyist is kind of an activist but a basic activist you're going to do anything and everything that moves towards the goal whatever the goal of that activist issue is and one of the contributions that I made as an activist

like you have a menu of things you can do right so one of the things I did was to find the prize that this activist movement which really doesn't get into get going until again around 1990 around 2000 or late 2000 early 2001 I made my little contribution and not in a book so it's not enshrined historically but essentially you know I've done god knows how many interviews 12 13 1400 I've lost track I'm trying to archive them many there'll never be archived but I do have an archive and I need to update it with like 200 300 interviews but the point is is that is that in these interviews I started talking about the prize for the activist movement what is the prize there has to be one if you're going to have an

activist movement to get the government to do something it does not want to do you need to have a defined prize that people are seeking that will make that happen you just can't be generally saying look we got to get the truth in the government let's go get it right let's go get it no a civil rights movement women's rights movement women's suffrage movement the independence movements of the colonial countries all of them had a very defined prize what was ours we didn't have one And so I said, here's the prize. And it wasn't just picked random. It was, this issue is not going to truly advance.

And we're not going to get the truth until we get confirmation from the heads of state. It's not enough that an astronaut goes in front of a camera and says we're not alone. One of them has. It's got to come from the head of state. It's got that makes it official. It makes it authentic. It opens all the doors. No head of state has done it.

What that means is the first, is the first head of state of a country that's pretty substantial. I mean, there's some very tiny countries down there. I might not do it. But the first head of state of a major country, that would be, include us, that steps out in front of a microphone and tells the world that that that head of state is clearly concluded based upon what has just happened, that we are not alone, that we have non-human engagement in what some form or another, and by non-human almost certainly extraterrestrial. That is disclosure capital D and that's what I defined it. That's the prize. Disclosure small D is not the prize. It's the process. It's the revealing

process that's been going on since 47 and will continue on for the rest of our lives. That's small D disclosure. But capital D disclosure is a noun, a proper noun. It is a moment in time. It is a special thing. It is the formal acknowledgement by a head of state. Doesn't matter. it could be any number of heads of state. And once that one head of state comes forward, the rest will follow almost immediately. And so bingo, that is disclosure capital D. That's the prize. And by and large, over the last 20 years, actually, my 20 years, that concept has become real. And so when you hear the word disclosure turning up in like the legislation, kind of take a little credit for that because I do think that that that term as used is more capital D

disclosure than small D disclosure is really both so when you when you hear the term UAP disclosure act yeah which has now been submitted twice and it's turned up it's it's a double it's a double meaning it's meaning yeah this is the act that's going to get us more information is going to allow the the process of revelation to take place, it's going to open the doors, etc. I mean, it's going to bring it out. But it's also the act that's going to help prepare for the head of state to finally disclose, capital D, which really then moves the ball forward. And you see the term that used that way often. And so that was a simple example of how an activist can make a contribution, language. I've done it in several ways.

And then other things I do. So that's what I am. I'm a exo-political activist. or a disclosure advocate. I have one fundamental goal, and that's to end the truth embargo with the head of state confirmation. And then after that, and I'll talk about this later, I become a post-disclosure activist,

which, but that's a different situation. I have to, I have to adjust and change my work. And everybody else, every other colleague I have, is going to have to do the same. The post-disclosure world is paradigm shift in history. And so that's the way I ask people to look at, at my work.

Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names like Death Wish Coffee, Brooke Linnon, and Kylie. But what if people haven't heard about your brand? Well, Shopify helps you find your customers with easy-to-run email and social media campaigns. But what if you hit that wall and you get stuck somewhere? Well, no problem because Shopify is always around to share advice with their award-winning 24-7 customer support. Tackle all those important tasks in one place, from inventory to payments, to analytics, and more. No need to save multiple websites or try to figure out what platform

is hosting the tool that you need. Everything is all in one place with Shopify, making your life easier and your business operations so much smoother. So it's time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash UAP. Go to Shopify.com slash UAP. That's Shopify.com slash UAP. In a place like Los Angeles, people don't stop being who they are. Writers, thinkers, creators, people with stories still unfolding. That spirit lives on at Kingsley Manor, a community shaped by individuality, creativity, and lives well lived.

So when the conversation turns to what's next, it isn't about stepping away. It's about continuing the story. Explore your options at kingsley manor.org, a nonprofit month-to-month senior community within the Front Porch family. In California, staying compliant means watching the state laws and the city rules at the same time. And no wonder it feels overwhelming. Meal breaks, rest breaks, wage rules, constant up days, it's a lot. And that's why Southern California businesses rely on Guardian HR. They're local in L.A.

And they understand this community and they help you stay compliant to avoid costly missteps. You get accurate payroll software and a real HR expert who keeps you ahead of issues. Get your Southern California business protected at GuardianHR.com. Business owners in California know there's a lot to keep up with. The rules change constantly. Guidance shifts. Even a small payroll mistake can turn into an expensive problem. And that's why so many business owners visit GuardianHR.com for practical, reliable, HR help when they need it most.

Guardian HR is local in L.A. So they're part of the community, and they support businesses that keep Southern California moving. You get real people, not call centers. You get dedicated payroll support and a dedicated HR specialist who will understand your company, your employees, and the compliance challenges that you face every day. From wage and hour rules to meal and rest breaks to terminations and accommodations, Guardian HR guides you with the clarity and confidence you need so you can stay protected and be focused on growth. Don't wait for a problem, prevent one.

Go to guardian hr.com. GuardianHR.com. No, it's really good. I mean, that's great. And it's really interesting, actually, how you define disclosure, because that has been one of the main talking points within the UAP community, which is what is disclosure. And that's even something that I spoke about with Jason Sands.

And he said to me one time, you know, the whistleblower, of course, is going to be in the James Fox documentary. And he said, you know, pose this question. for me on Twitter. Ask people, what do they think disclosure is? And there was some really, and, you know, really intriguing answers from people. And some people said, well, we've already had disclosure or, you know, disclosure was more along the lines of what you're saying. And I agree with you, actually, Stephen, and that is disclosure with a capital D. That is disclosure to me as well. There is disclosure. I think you explain it perfectly. Honestly, there is the lowercase,

there are little D disclosure, which is everything we've been experiencing. And that is, is really just the evolution of the conversation within society and having that reach more into the mainstream and now working towards that capital D disclosure. So as we work towards that, what do you think, what do they, and by they we mean the people holding the gate back, holding the door back as we stormed through the castle,

what's the biggest thing they have to lose with true disclosure? versus the biggest thing that we have to gain as a society. What don't they want to lose? Why continue to try to keep this a secret? That's one way to put it. Well, what the human race has to gain is the biggest paradigm shift in history. And it's a good paradigm shift.

Some would disagree. It's absolutely an essential paradigm shift based upon the circumstances that the human race finds itself in now and has been in for quite a while, we have to have a paradigm shift. We have run out of time to muddle our way through this and eventually figure it out. No, no, no, no, no. We're out of time. We have pushed the envelope in countless areas and we're now a threat to ourselves or a threat to the planet and a whole lot of people are going to experience severe pain loss and it's going to be it's going to get ugly it's got to be a major change of worldview that will allow humans and

the leaders of humans to change their behavior change their priorities, take different actions, get things done, fix stuff. And you may say, well, why do you need a paradigm shift? It's the nature of being human, right? How, if you want millions of people or countless leaders to start thinking differently, you just can't order it, meaning, oh, you will think differently. No, you have to change their worldview. Something has to do that. Otherwise, they will continue doing the same thing. There's examples of this throughout all of history, okay, where, and something, some awful thing,

call it the troubles in Ireland. It goes on for decades and decades and decades, awful, awful things. And they're trying to stop, and they're trying to stop, and ultimately it finally is resolved because the worldview, the way people think,

the way the people dealing with those troubles think, allows them to take the actions that will bring it to an end. We don't have the luxury of decades and decades of this. We've already used up a lot of time. We haven't been able to trigger that worldview. Okay, so the disclosure, capital D, the confirmation will be the beginning of a very extraordinarily rapid worldview change. thanks to high technology, media, the global connection that the world has become,

the ability of hundreds, if not billions of people to communicate with billions of people any day they want, right? We all know this and we're aware of this, but we're not necessarily thinking about what the implications of that are. And so unlike any time in history, where there have been some, how would you say, shifts in worldview that

helped us get past some awful thing this one will be as fast as faster than anything even remotely comparable all right and it's going to happen really quickly and that means we're going to be able to maybe get to these issues and deal with the issues that are threatening our very existence quickly which we have to do so this is a non-trivial thing this is as big as it gets yeah there have been some big uh there have been some serious changes and and uh incidents and throughout human history where something profound happened and so forth. That's all great. We know about them.

None of them even come close to what we're going to see when the first, beginning with the first head of state who walks out in front of their people and the world on camera and says, yes, we're not alone. I have ascertained this. And by the way, you are going to get huge amounts of confirmation of that, some of which you've already gotten that has led to this moment. The other heads of state will follow. we're in the political and I'm world. And then it's a question of we could create as as as Philip

Corso said long ago, we can have a new world if we can take it. Right. And so that is what's at stake. That is what the goal is for us. What is the government lose? It's the usual thing. The government loses a significant measure of control over information. It loses some. temporarily some gravitas. It loses some respect. A lot of people as they get this are going to go, are you kidding me? You've been lying about this for 77 years. Not that the government hasn't done awful things. I mean, we know that. Every time our government or any government does something really terrible after we go, really, you did this. And it makes it a little harder to respect it. There are some repercussions often. So there's that, which is going to be a little more difficult for them to say,

that's what we did screw you no no there they're going to be a huge public relations problem in which very many elements within our government are going to have to answer very difficult questions yeah uh they're going to be embarrassed they're going to feel you know uncomfortable so there's that they don't want that i get it uh they're going to lose certain amount of power all right there are some people though in government that legitimately still feel because of their worldview that maintaining the truth embargo on this thing is essential to national security. They believe that the world learning,

the simple truth that obviously hundreds of millions of people have already figured out, but having it formalized will somehow destabilize the geopolitical status and resulting in a nuclear war. Collapse of agreements and what have you, and all hell will break lives. I mean, they really believe that. And so they are going to stand

in the gate there and try to stop people from coming through. I can respect that, but they're wrong. And in this case, they're being wrong and succeeding and blocking this process could be catastrophic. And the simple way I answer that go there is this. I don't know what destabilization disclosure might create. I can't, I don't have really much of a sense of that, though I imagine someone could point out a few things.

But I am, we are on the edge of nuclear war. We're on the edge of environmental collapses across the broad spectrum. We are on the edge of a whole manner of awfulness. And so I'm thinking, you're trying to tell me that given all of the problems we face, much of which comes from the secrecy, from the lies, from the misrepresentations, from the abuses of power, you're saying that this would actually make it worse. And I'm saying, I don't think so. History will decide ultimately.

We have to make a decision here. Maybe we'll be wrong. Maybe disclosure of the truth of an extraterrestrial presence formally to the world results in a nuclear war. And history will look back, whoever's left to write it and go, man, you guys screwed up. On the other hand, the probability of not doing it in history coming back and going, oh, my God. You had all that opportunity to end that thing, to get the truth out, to move into a new world, new paradigm, and you didn't do it. You fought it till the end, and then you blew the hell out of everything. Yeah.

So you got to make a decision. That's true of all activism. You got to make a decision. What is the right thing to do? And if one thing has got a 10% probability of going bad and the other has got a 90% probability of going well, it's not a hard choice. But the idea that you can make no choice, that's not even a consideration. We have no choice but to act. And so it's not hard for me to spend the rest of my life doing whatever it takes to give disclosure, which could happen within months, at the risk of maybe it was the wrong move.

That's well said. I wonder, what is your take on someone like Call Hillier, right? I mean, former ministry or defense minister in Canada, he came out many times tried to tell people, you know, there's different alien species around the world. we know of this one, A, B, and C. He named all, you know, different ones like the Nordics and things like that. He talked about the grays and talked about different agreements with governments and all these things that we've mentioned before in conversations surrounding the UAP issue. Paul Hellier discussed in an open platform in Canada.

Why isn't his testimony taken as disclosure, I guess if you will? Is it just because he's not the prime minister or he's not the prime minister? He came out in 2005 and made it clear that sources that he had access to, it pretty much confirmed Roswell was real, which confirms that we're not alone. That's all you need to know. And then he started speaking out. He's a great man. He's a wonderful man.

One of the most extraordinary men I ever met. And he fell down the stairs. He had years left at 90-something. He was 90-something. He still had years left. He just, he just, and then fell down. It was just such a tragedy. But he came out in 2005.

The end game on the truth embargo doesn't start until 2017. He was 12 years early. And so he was going out. Now, he was reading up on things and so forth and getting into some. He really was not on top of this issue and told that moment. And he jumps in. And I think he started discussing things that probably are not going to hold up. And that didn't help.

But there's many others. Edgar Mitchell said there was ETs here in 2009, well, in my press conference, but he said it in other ways. Again, early, not enough to flip the switch, but it's one more pop at the door. Okay. Every time of Paul Harry or Edgar Mitchell or anybody who has credibility and career and substance comes out and says that, it pops that door again. But now the door is a lot weaker, and so these blows are having consequence. So his legacy is there. He will be remembered, as Edgar Mitchell will be and many others who came out, stated the obvious, right? It didn't trigger disclosure, capital D. And he'd bring it about. And one of my jobs as an activist, a populist act, is I do what I can to make sure that these people are not forgotten as we make that transition to the post-disclosure world. It's going to be a lot of people say, well, you know,

You did. You said that. But let's move on. And there's a psychology behind that. I'm going to take advantage to mention it. Yeah. It was a psychology involved in this process, which some are aware of, some are not. But let me help here. And it goes like this. And it's not, it's not nice. But hey, what can I say? It goes like this. You are an editor, publisher, high-end person in the Pentagon. All right. Oh, a scientist at Harvard. And for years and years and years, you were just blowing this issue off, right? The people that think that there's ETs here, 1950, 60, 72, 580, whatever, they're crazy. They're diluted, they're irritating,

they're annoying, and in a sense they're crazy. And then, whoa, we get to this era, and we start moving toward disclosure and into the post-disclosure world. One, these people were completely wrong. Two, nobody likes to be wrong. Three, they want to be, they're defensive. All right.

And so this is the attitude they take. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Back in 1980, 69 or 70, you were pushing this thing. And it turns out you were right. But, hey, you're still crazy, right? And we want to forget about you. We want to move on without you. Why?

Because you, because you were pushing this. when the government and mainstream society said it wasn't true and you were still pushing it, that was kind of crazy. And so you're still crazy. You were crazy then and you're still crazy. And so let's this move on without you. And that is something I'm going to push back against big time. I don't care how uncomfortable some publisher is, Washington Post, editors, whatever, or scientists that have, in the scientific world at the academic level has been the biggest,

disgrace in terms of the truth process. I mean, they're they completely capitulated. I don't care how uncomfortable they are, how embarrassed they are. The idea that they're going to dismiss all of the people who didn't have PhDs or weren't rich or whatever the hell that were pushing this when it just wasn't acceptable and dismiss them and go forward and then claim the new the new post-disclosure world for themselves. Oh, oh yeah, yeah. I always suspected it was true. But hey, it's true. And boy, come to me, talk to me, read my books. I'm now that leading expert. I'm going to push against that as hard as I can, and I invite others to do the same. And I just want to get that.

I got that out of my system. No, that's good. There you go. Well, I can't help out to think of some names that might fit that mold. And forgive me, if you don't want to expound none of it, then that's fine. But I can't help out to think of somebody. And I'm not throwing shade here. I'm just, this is the fact of someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is looked at as a brilliant mind within science.

And he's probably the biggest name that pushes back in all this and says it's basically just hogwash. Why do you think he's so resistant against this? Someone like him of his stature, who is a brilliant man. Why do you think someone like him is so resistant behind this idea? That's really simple. I don't know. Right. In other words, his thinking, his rationales are his.

And I have no way of knowing that. But he's wrong. That I do know. All right. So he's wrong. And ultimately, at some point, down the line, he will acknowledge it. And he may provide an explanation for why he dealt with the issue the way he did, the things he said, and so forth. And this is true. For anybody else, you're going to – well, no, there's some people you might mention that I can give you a rationale, but in this case, I cannot. His view. Now, it takes Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan was far more famous than Neil DeGrefs Tyson. Sure. Carl Sagan was really into this issue and then he changed. Right. And so in his case, I have a feeling that, and I don't know for sure, but there's a strong sense that he made a made a deal toward the end of his life to turn away from supporting the extraterrestrial hypothesis in return for something else. And I don't mean monetary. He was a leader.

spokesman for science, he had a huge following. If he had done what Alan Heinek did and just turn around and go, wait a minute. Now, this is absolutely true. The government's not representing it correctly. It would have been a blow. And so he might have made some sort of understanding with the government or something like that. But I don't know for sure. His wife would know, but she doesn't, she virtually just doesn't speak about the subject or him publicly,

hardly all. She's been extremely reclusive since his death. Great. Brilliant woman. Help write the movie contact. Probably wrote most of it. Most cases, I don't know. Hey, guys. So before we get back into the conversation, I just want to talk about something that affects all of us.

And it's scary. Starting something new, right? It's hard, and it is kind of terrifying. Because you think about all the work that goes into it. Are you going to be able to succeed? What new challenges am I going to face? It's that uncertainty. But I know how that is, because I can think back when I started UAP,

I was just hoping for the best. And it's just like that when you're starting, your own business. That's why Shopify is so great and why I'm so happy to be able to talk about them. Because despite all the fears and hesitations when starting something new, it certainly helps to have a partner like Shopify on your side to help. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names like Death Wish Coffee, Brooke Linnon, and Kylie. But what if people haven't heard about your brand? Well, Shopify helps you find your customers with easy-to-run email and social media campaigns.

But what if you hit that wall and you get stuck somewhere? Well, no problem because Shopify is always around to share advice with their reward-winning 24-7 customer support. Tackle all those important tasks in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics and more. No need to save multiple websites or try to figure out what platform is hosting the tool that you need. Everything is all in one place with Shopify. making your life easier and your business operations so much smoother. So it's time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash UAP.

Go to Shopify.com slash UAP. That's Shopify.com slash UAP. There's a moment when you start to wonder, what's the right next step? Not about changing who they are. just finding the right kind of support. At Kingsley Manor, life stays expressive, connected, and full of character, shaped by people who have lived interesting lives and aren't finished yet. So it doesn't feel like a change.

It feels like a continuation. Explore your options at canesley Manor.org, a non-profit month-to-month senior community within the Front Porch family. With its abundant natural beauty, charming towns, and friendly people, South Carolina offers the kind of discoveries that stay with you long after you've left, like the realization you're good at something you never before tried, or your first oyster roast and a taste you didn't expect to love. And other times, it just hits, like the view on a wind-swept Appalachian Mountain Top.

So come find the undiscovered you in South Carolina. Visit discover south Carolina.com. I actually want to touch on this, Stephen, and that is, this is an idea that kind of gets stuck in my head a lot. And it's the question of how this conversation and how disclosure, capital D disclosure, relates to religion. And not just Christianity, but religions around the world. Sure.

What type of impact do you think that would have? Because some people theorize that, you know, maybe one of the reasons why, maybe it's not just the government, maybe the Vatican, maybe, you know, the leaders of the major religions have something. to do with trying to keep this under wraps because they feel like it's going to hurt the some different narratives or teachings and religion now i personally don't subscribe to that idea but there are some people who say maybe that's a reason why this doesn't come out i mean so what type of paradigm shift do you think that would take us to when it comes to the religious aspect of things well the paradigm shift as i say is is is the biggest worldview changer in

history religion is simply part of people's worldview It's an aspect of their world to do, a very important part of it. But it's simply part of a world bit. And I do believe that there is some built-in resistance amongst religious leaders about this. It's pretty difficult to, it's not easy to assess what this paradigm shift is going to do for religion. You can make a case that will undermine people's willingness to embrace a faith. you can make a case that would increase it. I happen to believe it'll increase it.

But still, unknown. Secondly, it is a national security matter. And national security is in the hands of the governments of nations, not in religions. And those areas where religion tries to take on the role of national security, generally don't go well. Now, as you go back in time, the Catholic Church has a number of examples in which they were extremely defensive

of the orthodoxy and did bad things. I get that. I understand. Again, that was the worldview at the time. Not like back now, and I'm not going to commit presentism by trying to judge the Catholic Church from 500 years ago.

But in the modern era, as this thing has unfolded, the one thing that is pretty easy to ascertain if you want to go from 47 to now, just the last 77 years, is all of this has not really upset religion much at all.

Religion's not done what religion does. There's still the vast majority of people on the world. I do have a faith of some kind. They practice it. And while there are problems, there are problems, religious-based conflicts, and none of them have anything to do with the ET issue. So, not surprisingly, we're not seeing serious pushback from the major faith. Now, and I've talked about this before, the Catholic Church, because of its nature and the way it's structured, is particularly, a matter of concern if they wanted to cause a problem. But no, the Catholic faith has been very

accepting and moving forward on this for some time. There's plenty of examples of that. Someone would say, well, then why doesn't the Pope, who has enormous power and influence simply come forward and say, there's extraterrestrials here, here's the evidence, is because the Pope is not a head of state. He is not responsible for defending a country against the that country's enemies. Certainly when you come to nuclear powers, not responsible for that. And so stepping into the role of I'll be the one that discloses this to the world is not a particularly good move. And that is true of the leaders of the Islamic faith. and they have basically stayed out of this.

It doesn't seem to bother them, too. And then when you go to the Asian religions, there are many, but overall, they're not troubled by this at all. It's obvious. It's the nature of Asian religions. It's the nature of the worldview that's embedded in those religions. The only area of religion that has indicated trouble with this process is what is often referred to as very, well, evangelicals, all right, radical Christians, whatever, whatever you turn.

Sure. And, okay, I get that. I understand. I'm not unfamiliar with their thinking. That's that worldview that they have is based upon a lot of things, how they were, who were parents, what parts of the world, they live in and what have you. And they are troubled by this. Now, is that a reason to, you know, and, but they represent a tiny percentage of the world's people. In other words, disclosure is about the planet, all eight billion, I assure you. And that,

it is the interest of that eight billion that holds sway, not the interest of any single segment. And that includes the U.S. government. But the evangelicals, and make a small, small, very small amount. All right. Now, so my view of that is one. We need to respect their discomfort. Again, this is the way you go. You respect their discomfort. You don't throw shade on them.

You don't criticize them. Their worldview is being challenged. It's not your worldview, but it's theirs, and it's being challenged. And they're troubled by it. And so you respect that. And to the extent that you can assuage their concern, you do that too. But disclosure is going to happen.

And those, for whatever reason, who are very uncomfortable by it, and all I can say is change brings that. It's part of our history. It's part of what it is to be alive. And hopefully it won't be too troubling and discomforting. Hopefully the few as possible people will do anything untoward or are really destructive because this worldview is more than they can handle.

There will be some. But planetary-wide, 8 billion, no problem. And I believe that, and here's the last thing else. I've said it many times. Religion has been around a long time. So religion is not going anywhere. And I happen to think that this extraordinary worldview change impacting so many people that many, many people will actually turn to their religious faith as a way to get some stability.

In other words, let me embrace a little even harder a faith as I deal with this extraordinarily changing world. So I anticipate that religious membership will go up, not down. Yeah. I actually agree with that point because I think what people will end up seeing is there's other life. Right. And that's that points to, well, if we're not the only race, then maybe there really is a creator out there. Right. And there's all this life out there.

And maybe they believe the same thing we do. Right. So I think it would really cause a lot of interesting discussion. And it actually kind of points back to something that the Pope in Pope Francis right now, he kind of spoke on it a little bit. He was asked the question at some point during a press conference in the past few months. And the statement was essentially that's kind of what we're saying, which is we think it would increase people's faith in God and in their beliefs

because we find out there's more life out there. So it's an interesting byproduct. that I think is going to be a very intriguing discussion and kind of real-time evolution to see how it takes place if and when we come to that point. Yeah, the Catholic Church is the most photogenic of all religions. It has all these very substantial ceremonies and what have you. And it's very prominent in these very developed countries.

So it matters the position it takes. and the Catholic Church has been on board for some time. And maintaining what I consider a proper posture, not trying to get out in front of it, because this is ultimately a very political decision to end the truth embargo. But one of the comments, I think that the previous Pope made, maybe one or two popes back,

was that confirmation that there's multiple life in the galaxy, whether they're visiting or not, and they are, is simply confirmation that the, God's creation is even more profound than we knew. Right. And therefore embrace the power of the creator and engage it, which is exactly what we're going to do. So again, one of the tools in the

in Truth Embargo Managers box was the religious thing. They play that card many times. It's going to in the background, you know it publicly, but in the background, yeah, it's going to disrupt religion. It's going to create religious wars, blah, blah, blah, blah. Therefore, everybody keep their mouth shut or you're going to be, you're going to be blamed for starting a religious war in the world. That tool is virtually gone. Yeah, I think I've noticed that too. And speaking of the politics portion, kind of moving into that side, Stephen, when it comes to, I guess, you know, right now, we're in the middle of a.

Pretty serious election cycle. You know, they tend to seem a little bit more contentious and even extreme as time goes on. And this one has definitely been that as we near election day within the next month and a half. What type? Because it has been brought up in different interviews, especially with former President Trump. It's been brought up with him a couple of different times. When it comes to the UAP issue and the question of, you know, NHI, the existence of other life. and if he would, you know, reveal anything if he became president again.

So do you feel that this is, this conversation is really kind of becoming an issue in this election cycle? It kind of seems like it's been coming up a lot. Well, it's in terms of the election cycle, which means not the election cycle. I mean, in this election cycle, the issue is all over the place. But if you mean directly in the campaign, the only thing that is turned up in the campaign is a couple of brief statements from the former president. It came up far more during the campaign of Hillary Clinton, which I was very much involved with, not in the campaign, but into getting the issue in play. And she and her and her team talked about it many times. And there were hundreds of articles written about it.

It was big time, far greater than now. But she lost. And so whatever her intentions were, I happen to think she intended to end the truth embargo, were gone. So, but the political situation in the United States now, going back some time, has played a role in the pace of disclosure. There's no question. There are a number of things that have slowed down the process. Okay. It's like the guys, you know, you got the barbarians at the gate and they're pounding the gate, right? And it's starting to make progress. All of a sudden, a giant storm comes in, right? Lightning, rain, everything else. And that doesn't help, right? So you got to back off, okay, because, you know, you can't, you're trying to do this.

And it's very difficult. Or an earthquake happens, whatever. So you have to back off. Well, that's what's happened. the process is now that the end game is seven years on started in 2017 December October December 2017 and I think we would have had disclosure already except for the fact that we've had some serious disruptions of the status quo big time huge not that there haven't been others in the past but these are pretty nasty whether or not the situation improves barring a nuclear war or an invasion of Taiwan, something really that big, or at that level. We're going to get disclosure. That's worth pointing out.

It's an irreversible process that could happen at any time now, and I kind of know what's going on. But it's not apparent to everybody. And so you have a lot of unease and discourse going on, particularly social media, about what's going to happen, could happen. People are angry, upset. I get it. I get it. But without going into all of the parameters, which is just not possible in the time frame we have. Yeah.

Here is an analogy that I will be using probably frequently. And it's a football analogy. Most people know that I am big on football analogies, particularly during football season. So with you that works. Here's a football. It's a good one, too. I love this one. Some of mine are not as good as this.

Here it is. Okay. I had the good fortune of living in Denver through the entire era of John Elway, the great quarterback of the Broncos, incredible player. I didn't go to the games. I couldn't afford it, but I watched it on TV. So I watched Elway's very first game, right? I think a very first play, he rolls out practically at the right side line and then rockets

pass across the field diagonally to the other. And most people just, they just sort of open their eyes and go, did he just do that? And we knew, oh, boy, this is going to be great. Okay. Moving forward, there was a particular game that I remember. And it's referred to sometimes in sports talk. We're up against, I forget Cleveland, I forget the team, but it was one of our real serious adversaries. And there's only about a minute left in the game, maybe 60 seconds.

I need to check it out to get the exact numbers. And the Broncos are on their opponents two yard line. Right? They got 98 yards. They got to get 98 yards to get the touchdown. It wins a game. And it was reported afterwards that when Elway entered the huddle, the first thing he said to is the other 10 guys is that we've got them right where we want.

He then proceeded and the team proceeded to March. right up the field, get the touchdown, win the game with a few seconds left on the clock. Okay. Pretty cool. Oh, yeah. I mean, everybody was huge and people loved it. From the standpoint of everybody watching the game in the stands and on television, the situation looks terrible, very little time, 98 yards to go. You can hope that your team wins, but overall, it doesn't look good at all. And you can think of all the reasons why you're not one intersection, one sack, whatever, it's over. And so you're, you're not happy. But from the point of view of the team on the, on the field, in the middle of the game, particularly John Elway,

Elway knew what was going on. Well, obviously, he played the game. So he knows how the other team was playing. He knows how they've been conducting their strategies. He knows the capability of his players. And so because he has this inside knowledge, he is able to walk in to that huddle and say we've got them just where we want and he was right and so to all the people who i love on the on in on on twitter instagram ticot facebook whatever right reddit all the people out there that that are you know upset then this is going to happen that's not going to happen and they're arguing about this and everything else i get it but let me make a simple statement as someone that's kind of on the field, doing nothing but pay attention to the game, right?

It's being played on the field. We have the truth embargo managers right where we want it. That's the analogy. Nice. And it's going to take something profound to happen before I'm willing to back off of that statement. It's just a matter. We're going to march up the field. We're going to score the touchdown.

Whatever the time is left and win the game. And that will do it for part one. See, I told you. you would understand that two-yard line analogy there that I gave or, you know, at the start of the episode. I just thought that was a great analogy. I always love using football analogies as well. So I'm glad he used the football analogy there to explain his take, his view from being on the field of where we are when it comes to disclosure. You heard it there.

I mean, he is convinced that we are right there on the goal line. We're on the doorstep of disclosure. And as you could hear, he feels that it is coming very, very soon. barring any unforeseen major circumstances like he laid out there during the episode. So, I mean, really exciting stuff, really thought-provoking stuff about, you know, the implications of all this. Like, could we really be on the doorstep of capital D, as he puts it, capital D disclosure, where the president, whether it's Biden before the end of his term or whoever the new president may be in January after the inauguration on January 20th, 2025, will we see that type of disclosure coming soon?

I mean, again, he seems convinced, and this is coming from someone who is enshrenced on the field, the quarterback, if you will, like Stephen Bassett is in this discussion. He's surrounded by it. So, man, really, really incredible stuff to consider there. And I can't wait for you to hear part two, because we go in to so much more. We continue with some of that discussion,

as well as going into the congressional hearings and just more of what's on the stake and timeline of things. Really, really fascinating conversation that I look forward to you hearing in a couple of days when I have part two outs of this discussion between myself and Stephen Bassett. But wow, I really enjoy that. So coming up, like I said, part two in a couple of days. That will be on episode 86. But until then, be sure to continue to follow along wherever you get your podcast right here on UAP.

It's Apple. It's on Spotify. It's on Amazon. and, of course, on social media, at UA Podcast 850 on Twitter and on TikTok as well, and at UA podcast on YouTube. Trying to get more videos up. I haven't been able to do it a while, but I do want to get that done soon. So keep an eye out for any new material coming out on those channels.

But Twitter, for sure, X, I always am active on there. And one thing I do want to mention, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it before we were done here, what did not come up, as I'm sure you noticed in part one. And also what does not come up in part two was the newfound picture that was released from the Canadian government of the supposed UFO that was shot down last February over the Yukon. So that actually, that story broke about maybe three hours after I was done with my interview with Stephen and just kind of unfortunate timing there because I would have loved to ask him about it.

So that is not brought up as you, like I said, you didn't hear it brought up in part one. we also don't bring it up in part two. So I just didn't want you to think I didn't know about it or I was ignoring it or decided not to ask him about it. It's really that it, that story broke literally like two or three hours after we were done talking. So I do plan on covering that story on a future episode. I will be speaking with Christina Gomez, who has a fantastic following on YouTube over

65,000 subscribers on YouTube and she does just a phenomenal job covering this topic. So hopefully that's something that I can cover with her next week as. we plan to get together next week here on UAP. But during this discussion, whether it was part one that you just heard or part two coming up in a couple of days, the Canadian UFO does not come up. But like I said, hopefully in the future I plan on covering that. So follow along everything for all the latest updates, everything that's going on in my head and on the show right there at UA Podcast 850s, where you'll see me talking about all that

stuff as things happen in real time and giving updates on the show. And you can also reach out to me directly on any of those social media channels that I just mentioned with direct messages or through email if you'd like. I know a lot of you'd like to do that and I promise you if I have not gotten back to you, I will. I promise I will get back to you. But the email is S-D-N-R-U-A-P at gmail.com. It's S-D-I-E-N-E-R-U-A-P at Gmail.com. So feel free to send me any messages there, your stories, your thoughts,

considerations, your gripes, if you hate me, whatever it is. I take all messages and I do my best to respond to every single one of them. And of course, check out UAPpodcast.com for everything having to do with the show. But on that note, I cannot wait for you to hear part two. I will have that out, like I said, hopefully within the next couple of days. And follow along on social media to get all those latest updates. But until next time, it's Stephen Dean are here on UAP, the Unidentified Alien podcast, saying, thank you again so much for joining me for all of your support.

It's incredible, and it means the world to me. So thank you so much. I'll talk to you again soon right here on UAP. Until then, be well. Thanks.