UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Nov > Nov 16

Re: Bassett on 'Strange Days... Indeed' - Velez

From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:00:31 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:47:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Bassett on 'Strange Days... Indeed' - Velez

 >From: Stephen Bassett <SGBList2@aol.com>
 >Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:58:10 EST
 >Subject: Bassett on 'Strange Days... Indeed' [was: William Cooper Killed...]
 >To: ufoupdates@home.com

 >>From: John Velez <johnvelez.aic@verizon.net
 >>Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 14:53:47 -0500
 >>Fwd Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:06:09 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: William Cooper Killed In SWAT Raid - Velez

 >>>From: Richard Hall hallrichard99@hotmail.com
 >>>To: ufoupdates@home.com
 >>>Subject: Re: William Cooper Killed In SWAT Raid
 >>>Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 16:18:30 +0000

 >>Hi Dick,

 >>Hope all is well with you. Haven't seen much of you on the List

 >>I hope you don't mind if I take this off on a non-William Cooper
 >>tangent, but you said something that started me thinking. You


 >>>Clear thinking, careful data analysis, exposure of fraud and
 >>>antisocial/paranoid behavior in individuals.

 >>You also mentioned CSETI which made me think of Steve Bassett
 >>and what he had to say Saturday night on 'Strange Days...

 >>He talked about George Bush reversing an order to make public
 >>all presidential documents after a twelve year period. Reagan
 >>administration documents/papers were due to be made public and
 >>Dubya just countermanded the order to release with a
 >>Presidential Executive Order.

 >>Now here's the kicker;
 >>Bassett (publicly) attributes Dubya's action as an act meant to
 >>contain any information relating to UFOs. He offered no hard
 >>evidence that there is even reason to suspect such a thing, much
 >>less to imply that there is any truth or validity to it. It
 >>makes much more sense that what Dubya is really trying to hide
 >>is anything that implicates his father in the Iran-Contra
 >>scandal. Never forget that George senior was the head of the CIA
 >>at one time and that the drugs for dollars scam could only have
 >>been executed by a combination of CIA and military

Hi Stephen,

You wrote:

 >[SB] Since 'Strange Days...Indeed' is archived, this can be
 >checked, but I did not state categorically that Bush moved to
 >block the Reagan papers for UFO reasons (EBK can perhaps verify
 >this). Rather, I raised this possibility.

When you go back and review your own statements, listen
carefully to the parts where you declare that, "It is believed"
and "It is strongly believed" in reference to the "reason" for
George Bush's action. You may not have "stated categorically"
that hiding UFO information was the main reason for the
Executive Order but you sure were 'selling it' pretty hard. I'm
a born and raised New Yorker Stephen, I know a 'sucker pitch'
when I hear one. I told someone else here recently that, "you
can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool
Mom!" ;) (Said Spanky to Alfalfa)

 >Why? More than a few journalists have jumped on this issue and are
 >generally perplexed why Bush would do this.

Of course journalists have "jumped" on this issue. It represents
an act of willful suppression on the Presidential level. Bush
has taken it upon himself to wipe away with the stroke of a pen,
the people's right to know, and to access presidential documents
of historical importance. Dubya "probably" did it to protect his
old man from being tied directly to the Iran-Contra scandal. (As
Reagan's VP) And not as you suggest/sell that it has _anything_
(at all) to do with UFOs.

Aside from yourself Stephen, how many of these interested
journalists that you speak of are putting forth the 'theory'
that Bush's questionable act had anything at all to do with

"Where" did _you_ get such a notion?

Do you have any documentary or other substantial evidence that
clearly shows a connection between Bush's presidential order and
repression of UFO information? Or are you the only one spreading
this peanut butter around?

Or is it (as I suspect) your own personal 'interpretation'? An
interpretation that maybe hopes to take advantage of all the
current media interest in the topic? An act of opportunism as
opposed to an act of contribution towards advancing the "cause"
of UFO disclosure. I gotta tell you Stephen, from the side-lines
it _screams_ opportunistic motives.

So, just what kind of 'attention' do you hope to get by peddling
such a far out and completely unsubstantiated (by you) theory?

How does your interjecting the 'UFO question', (your own
personal and unfounded speculations) into an issue that
threatens yet another one of our freedoms, (our right to access
the documentation associated with the administrations of our
elected officials) help to either; preserve our freedoms; or
advance the pawn on the UFO disclosure issue? Don't you have
better things to do (like compile and submit documentary
evidence to congressmen) as opposed to 'spinning yarns'?

It seems to me Stephen (as an observer) your artificial
"grafting" of the UFO question (without any documentation or
substantive proof or testimony) onto the the very important
issue of Bush's presumptive executive order does not help the
cause of those fighting to maintain our freedoms, or of the UFO
community in any positive fashion.

To the contrary:

You 'sound like' any other conspiracy advocate that sees a
'spook' in every closet. That is, unless you can substantiate
that there is in fact a connection. You just haven't offered
anything in the way of proof that would justify your outrageous
'theory'. Show me whatever it is that convinced you that there
is a connection and I'll help you spread the word. If not, you
have no business airing such theories in public - as the one and
only 'UFO lobbyist'. As 'yourself' you can express any theory
you wish.

That's what I meant when I said that you are making us _all_
look like a bunch of uncritical, thoughtless conspiracy nuts.
You have set yourself up as the 'UFO Lobbyist' in Washington. If
you're going to presume to represent the interests of the UFO
community, then you really ought to take into consideration how
your actions and proclamations reflect on the rest of us. At
least in the eyes of those people you speak to as; the 'UFO

Personally I'm not terribly choked up about your introduction of
this red-herring issue into something with as much historical
significance as this. I would really like to hear some
_specific_ answers to the questions I have raised, Stephen. I
didn't vote for you, or hire you. If you're going to 'assume' to
represent me - as a member of the UFO community - then you need
to answer to me and 'The People'. You need to be more than a 'PR
Man' for the likes of Dr. Greer - the videotape salesman.

 >There is enormous political
 >risk in trying to overrule an act of Congress by Presidential
 >decree. The 1978 Presidential Records Act was specifically
 >passed because of the actions of the Nixon administration toward
 >presidential papers and communications. Nixon's tenure was one
 >giant cover-up, which as we are all coming to learn, sat on top
 >of a host of other cover-ups, ad infinitum. The people were fed

 >It would be tempting to assume that Bush's decree, which was
 >signed after 911, was a national security matter related to the
 >prosecution of the "war on terrorism." But Bush began blocking
 >the release of these papers as early as January of this year.
 >Why? If, as some journalists have suggested, it was to protect
 >his appointees from the Reagan administration with ties to his
 >father, and looking ahead to 2005 when his father's papers also
 >come under the aegis of the National Archivist, then he would be
 >creating a political disaster, with the prospect of embarrassing
 >information coming out down the line about Cheney, Powell,
 >Rumsfeld, Armitage, Negroponte, Abrams, Reich - all suppressed
 >by a sitting President for purely political, party-serving,
 >self-serving, staff-serving reasons by OVERRULING CONGRESS.
 >This could destroy the Republican Party for years.

So what motivated you to attach/link the UFO question to all of

 >Why on earth would a President who came to office in the closest
 >election in U.S. history, not even winning the popular vote,
 >move immediately to take such a political risk? Well, it is
 >worth noting that:

 >If Reagan was briefed on the UFO/ET matter, regardless of the
 >extent, if George H. W. Bush was also briefed and was in fact
 >slated to be the "disclosure president," then the release of
 >such papers would compromise the disclosure timeline of the
 >sitting president. And whatever that timeline was, the 911
 >calamity could only have set it back, thus making the delay of
 >the release of these presidential papers more essential, and
 >thus the four page decree.

 >Why raise the point publicly? Easy. The journalists trying to
 >understand Bush's actions are in no way considering the UFO/ET
 >factor because it is not permitted or they don't know better.
 >Raising the matter publicly is one way to prod these journalist
 >to think outside the box of their "safe" protocols.

And without any evidence or proof that there is _any_ connection
at all, you make the whole of the UFO community look like a
bunch of yeowling uncritical boobs. My word Stephen, can't you
see that?

I wrote:

 >>Yet Steve Bassett, the one and only UFO lobbyist in Washington
 >>is running around in public trying to make it sound as if Bush's
 >>executive order has to do with UFO disclosure. A non-issue that
 >>only serves to act as dis-information. Not to mention making
 >>himself and those who support his beliefs on the existence of
 >>UFOs look like a bunch of un-critical conspiracy nuts.

 >>Other than nebulous remarks like "it is believed" that Bush is
 >>trying to cover up UFO information with his executive order, he
 >>never tells us "who" it is that "believes" what he claims, nor
 >>does he offer _any_ documentation or proof that UFOs have
 >>anything at all to do with President Bush's recent actions.

 >>I just can't see how it 'helps' our cause to have a lobbyist
 >>running around 'making up' what amounts to non-issues. How does
 >>that help us?

 >>We need to think very carefully about who and what we support
 >>before we actually go ahead and support it/them. If people don't
 >>become more thoughtful and critical in their thinking we're all
 >>doomed to ride this ufological merry-go-round that we've been on
 >>for over 50 years. Folks need to sober up, have a good look
 >>around at what's what, and then take some personal
 >>responsibility to correct the things that are wrong, or
 >>unproductive. If not, ufology will remain the butt of jokes and
 >>ridicule and _deservedly_ so.

 >>Strictly my opinion.

Stephen responds:

 >John's remaining comments are his opinion. I will respond to
 >only one part. "Dis-information" is a loaded word in the world
 >of UFO/ET research/activism.

What do you call it when someone, anyone, comes along and
arbitrarily attaches a distracting and unrelated issue/set of
theories onto an issue that is of tremendous and vital
importance to _all_ Americans? Someone who introduces un-related
information at a time when people are gathering the basic info
they will need to base their own conclusions and opinions on.
Someone who by their interjection of flotsam and jetsam only
serves to confuse an already complicated issue even more.

I call stuff like that "Dis-information" Stephen. What do you
call it?

 >I made a decision to devote the
 >remainder of my life to cutting through 50 years of
 >dis-information and mis-infomation by our own government on a
 >range of issues directly and indirectly related to UFO/ET
 >phenomena, as well as helping others with the same goals.

Yes, _you_ decided. Nobody elected you to represent the UFO
community before our elected officials. Which gives me the right
- as someone who is a part of the community you assume to rep
for - to asses your actions/activities in relation to the UFO

 >Anyone who believes I am spreading "dis-information" is invited
 >to debate this publicly in any reasonable forum straight up.
 >Under such circumstances it can be readily ascertained who is
 >and who is not capable of "critical thinking".

The reason for my comments, in the first place, has to do with
your public display of uncritical thinking in regard to the
unfounded nonsense _you_alone_ are spreading about some
connection between UFO disclosure and Dubya's recent actions.

Unless you have something to back it up, you really shouldn't be
out there espousing such off the wall theories. You make us all
look bad in the eyes of those we seek to secure open public
hearings from.

Concerned ufologist,

John Velez

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com