Noble Realms — Is Stephen Bassett right?

Re: Is Stephen Bassett right?

null@example.com (Magical_Mongoose) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:32:24 +0000

He looks related to O'Reily, but that doesn't negate what he's saying.
With relation to the disclosure event, it would be important to catagorize the various ET presences, and not just "the" ET Presence as some mythic-cloudlike presence that has come to destroy, manipulate or to guide us. There's often the sense within any of these debates to add some mythical, spiritual attribute to ETs as being wholly evil or good...though there is much evidence to back up this conclusion. But a conclusion, even though it is rational and can be employed in various circumstances, is not always correct, though it may appear that way given our limited understanding of anything. But we can't allow that self-conscious knowing that we don't know the whole picture deter us from putting together the puzzle.
Essentially what I'm stating is that quite possibly, these extraterrestrials are rational actors that have the same needs as we do. Sure, once you get into 4th dimensional aspect of their presence, it becomes a bit more convoluted but essentially they want: 1) Resources 2) Physical power 3) Spiritual energy. They would attempt to employ significant techniques to obscure their motives, or more likely, would play upon the mental and spiritual weaknesses of humanity to achieve their ends. They would likely be governed by the same ideas of power increasement that guides our current un-elected "leaders" that call a lot of the shots. So we could learn a great deal of their methods through the study of significantly negatively polarized individuals in our history, both of yesterday and today.
However, there are certain realities and circumstances that suggest the opposite: that there are postively polarized alien factions engaging with certain members of society, and sometimes entire military bases when they shut down an entire series of missile silos. But, do you really KNOW the motives behind such a move, or do you deem their strategy beyond our comprehension? How do you know that's just not a PR move for all of us to believe "Hey, the aliens are gonna save us from these nutty politicians who want the world to go up in flames!"? But in reality, maybe they helped set this whole scenario up?
I think that largely positively oriented beings interface with our reality through subtle means whereby the individual experiencing this scenario is able to retain full consciousness without the perception of being energetically chained, whether it be the inability to move or a pressing sense of fear and confusion. In addition, they would be unwilling to reveal themselves, both those who could travel from 3D worlds, and those of 4D who could temporarily focus their vibration, etc. as this would cause fear, panic and confusion within the witnesses initially, yet more importantly, the establishment of an entirely dependent, unhealthy feduciary relationship. There are always exceptions to this rule as circumstances permit, but as a general rule of thumb, the ones that we will potentially see on TV will be of a negative persuasion, most likely resource explorers (according to Summers).
Furthermore, I sincerely doubt their current, direct physical involvement on Earth however, as I see them largely being expressed through what we've termed "Wanderers". I think we'll come to realize that disclosure (of the alien involvement and information) means nothing without realizing our own inherent capabilities to connect with our own sources of information...the disclosure of the soul.

Re: Is Stephen Bassett right?

null@example.com (mrmalco) — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:37:03 +0000

Thanks Montalk much appreciated - should keep me busy for a bit!

Re: Is Stephen Bassett right?

null@example.com (montalk) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:45:23 +0000

malco wrote:

Suggestions of other areas I shouls study on this will be really welcome. Thanks.

Books on negative alien and/or advanced human abductors:

* The Love Bite - by Eve Lorgen - http://alienlovebite.com/main.htm
* Lyra's book (hardcopy, free PDF) called Chasing Phantoms
* Three books by Dr Karla Turner - (free PDF) - http://www.karlaturner.org
* The Threat - Dr David Jacobs

Another source close to Phil Schneider, who was also murdered:

* Creston's "Alien Digest" material - (free PDF) - http://philschneider.org

Channelled sources that cover both positive and negative side of alien presence:

* Allies of Humanity - (free PDF for book 1) - http://alliesofhumanity.org
* Cassiopaean Transcripts - (html) - link
* Ra Material (Law of One book) - (free PDF) - http://llresearch.org/library.htm

Also:

* Extra-Terrestrial Friends and Foes - by George Andrews
* The Gods of Eden - William Bramley
* CE-VI - William Baldwin -
* http://www.borderlands.com/constable.htm - Trevor Constable

No source is perfect, but some are less imperfect than others, and some out there are downright wrong. The list above is "close enough" for me. The majority of UFO/alien/abduction books I've seen in stores are way off the mark, total disinfo, or try to stay so 'academic' and 'scholarly' that they end up being shallow and boring. To get outside that control system of information, you have to either go beyond (via good channeling) or around ( via personal experiences and evidence, including anecdotes from others). Credentials don't mean anything to me and I don't sell my mind to whoever lists the most acronyms in their name and bio. What matters to me is what makes sense, what matches experience, matches intuition, and simply fits.

Re: Is Stephen Bassett right?

null@example.com (mrmalco) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:19:05 +0000

I'm new here. So Hello. I was a kid when the Roswell thing happened, read about it and everything that came out then. Got interested again about 20 years ago and filled in the gaps since my previous interest. All the time suspending disbelief. Recently I've read and viewed many hours' worth and am convinced there's a phenomenon and who knows how many agendas - meanwhile increasingly credible stuff is leaking out. Thanks to Youtube and, until it was shut down just the other day, TVlinks. The Mexican phenomena, viewed by (perhaps) millions, certainly huge numbers, video-recorded from many different angles simultaneously etc .... It seems that any honest research makes it now impossible to reject the phenomenon. But interpretations are still really different. There's the Cooper, Schneider, Corso, Good and Lear wing - with a very politico-techno slant. And there's Collier and others on the more "chanelled" wavelength. Suggestions of other areas I shouls study on this will be really welcome. Thanks.

Re: Is Stephen Bassett right?

null@example.com (montalk) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:00:32 +0000

Thanks for the link, that was a good talk by Bassett. Was cool seeing him argue against the interviewer's suggestions that since aliens have not attacked us overtly, they are basically benign. That's one of those classic alien disinfo rationalizations, and not the only one the interviewer threw at Bassett.

SB: [...] Given the fact that there is still evidence that some untoward things are happening, particularly when you get into the abduction phenomena research which I've gotten into fairly well, as an observer not a researcher, you cannot dismiss that there may be hostile intentions here.
I: But even John Mack, who was one of the preeminent researchers in the area of the abduction phenomenon, even he came around to saying, you know it appears that there is a presence that does not ... in the people that have these experiences, ultimately have these feelings of often-times appreciation, often-times almost a celestial kind of feeling about the experience. There are others who may interpret it differently. There's so much to go in there, we're not even going to go there...
SB: He started out that way. Toward the end he was going the other direction.
I: Well everything I read it was almost ...
SB: Toward the end John was starting to take a more open-minded view that the activities of these extraterrestrials was not necessarily easy to ascribe benignity. He started out with a very broad-minded, open-minded, approach very much emphasizing on spirituality, consciousness expansion and so forth. That was his camp, but he received a lot of pressure [from counter-arguments] over the years and just before his death he was starting to consider the possibility that it wasn't c...
No pressure from arguments, counter-arguments. Remember there were other researchers out there. The three top researchers were Mack, Hopkins, and Jacobs, and Hopkins and Jacobs were not in Mack's camp. He was moving to their camp at the end.
So again, I want to make it very clear - I have talked to too many abductees that are not happy about this, and some of the actions of these ETs is unacceptable. And so I cannot take a position yet that "it's all good, let's party and have disclosure." My position is we don't know, and if it's bad, I can make a very powerful case why all of us need to be informed. Tomorrow, if ETs are coming to colonize us, I'd like all six billion of us to meet them at the gate [...]
---
SB: One of my concerns as a political activist on this issue is that a whole lot of very nice people, good people with good hearts, who wish the ETs well and wish the human race well and everybody else, who are getting interested in this issue, who are taking this view that, "You know I think it's all good, and since its all good I'm just going to kind of sit back and it will all work out. I don't need to press the press, the media, I don't need to press the political candidates, I don't need to caus a fuss, I don't need to support any activism because it's all good. And I'll wait for it all to work out." I think they're making a mistake.

Didn't know John Mack changed his mind toward the end. I always wondered what the motive could be for him dying so prematurely if he was mostly pro-gray. But if he was coming around to the truth, eventually putting out new books and lectures on what's really going on with aliens, that makes perfect sense that he would be taken out just like the others.

Lightningeye wrote:

Is it too late?
Or is disclosure of extraterrestrial presence impending within the next 5 years?

It's too late to prevent the changes (environmental, economic, political, spiritual) that are imminent, and the changes automatically force us into collision with disclosure of the ET presence. Five years? That sounds about right. I figure 2012 would be very convenient for the aliens since there is so much end-times anticipation building up and primed for hijacking.

I agree with Bassett that it's more likely that there would be some kind of disclosure and then several years of digestion and stabilization by the public before the aliens make their full appearance. The disclosure would be brought on by a major spaceship sighting or confirmed contact with aliens, just something little to titillate public interest and thereby open the floodgates of inquiry about aliens. Only, I think the disclosure itself is part of the alien agenda and will be used to disseminate alien propaganda (the same kind that is now being infused into the fringe crowd, and incorporated into popular sci-fi books, movies, and shows) on the global scale to a confused public hungry for convenient answers.

Bassett wasn't shy about discussing the possibility of malevolent alien intentions. He said he knows abductees who have had terrifying encounters. What I'd like to know is whether he acknowledges the possibility of malevolent aliens masquerading as positive ones. Because if not, then he would fall right into the alien agenda. Part of the agenda will include scapegoating all negative ET experiences onto a small group of negative renegade reptilians and/or negative grays, who are portrayed as predatory, aggressive, and who have secretly negotiated with "evil" human cabals for mutual collusion against the rest of humanity. By doing so, the masqueraders are given safe passage into taking over peacefully and integrating their cybernetic genetic programming vectors (alien hybrids) into the human gene pool. So even those who claim to be anti-cabal, anti-military-industrial-complex, or anti-alien, need to have their "antis" in precisely the right spot or else end up serving the human and nonhuman manipulators all the same.

Re: Is Stephen Bassett right?

null@example.com (LightningEye) — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:26:42 +0000

Thanks for the encouragement.

Long live the white-shirts.

Re: Is Stephen Bassett right?

null@example.com (Tinker) — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:12:38 +0000

LightingEye, thanks for the link. I believe Mr. Bassett is completely correct in his estimation. I once falsely believed that any race advanced enough for space travel would naturally be evolved enough to not be hostile. WRONG!!!!!!! The Colonization of our planet is underway and progressing quite well. When the majority of people realize it their wont be shit they can do about it.
Tinker

Is Stephen Bassett right?

null@example.com (LightningEye) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:29:33 +0000

Hi, guys. I've just finished watching Conscious Media Network's interview of Stephen Bassett. The interview is an hour long, but well worth it. It's here: http://consciousmedianetwork.com/members/sbassett.htm

For those of you who have watched the interview, what did you think?

Is it too late?
Or is disclosure of extraterrestrial presence impending within the next 5 years?