UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2013 > Apr > Apr 20

Re: Kimball & Maddow On 'Citizens Hearing...'

From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:27:46 -0400
Archived: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:27:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Kimball & Maddow On 'Citizens Hearing...'

>Dave Haith <visions1.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:17:34 +0100
>Subject: Re: Kimball & Maddow On 'Citizens Hearing...'


>The piece includes some surprises - to me at least.

>One paragraph says: I have burrowed down locally to become
>directly involved with local contactees who have become good
>friends and experienced indirectly communications from the ETs
>themselves. In one case my friends videotaped a craft and after
>I saw it, we had to erase the videotape as requested by the


>"Steven Bassett and the Citizen Hearing are taking controversy
>because his donor who is making another documentary using the
>Hearing, is paying former members of Congress $20,000 each to
>attend the Hearing. Excuse me, but considering the fear of
>ridicule and the corrupt nature of politics today, how are you
>going to get members of Congress at a hearing without a large

>If ETs want the video erased they are surely unlikely to be
>delighted about the two Steves' disclosure efforts!

>Is $4,000 a day the going rate to hire ex-Congressmen? It sounds
>outrageous to me but as a Brit but I don't know - you tell me.

As a staffer at the US House for over 25 years, I am amazed at
the claim that Members of Congress and their Staff have been
attending various Events sponsored by Greer and Bassett. IMO,
their claims are made to attract financial support from donors,
who are given a false sense that the money will actually have an
impact. In fact, most of those Events, as I understand it, have
not been money makers and the money is needed just to keep the
bandwagon rolling.

Bassett had claimed to be the only UFO Lobbyist on Capitol Hill,
when in fact I never found him to be registered as such,
officially. I believe that his heart is in the right place, but
claims made regarding attendance and interest have often been
exaggerations from all that I've been able to determine on the

In the 90s, but the Disclosure Project was holding week long
events in DC, one Staffer DID attend out of personal interest.
But when I contacted her via House email to ask her about it,
she was extremely upset and said she couldn't talk about it at
work. Now, if the goal is to get the Government to face the
facts, how can that happen if those who attend are afraid to
admit it? There are those (both Members and Staff) who have a
personal interest in the subject of UFOs, but it's a topic
discussed around the water cooler, unless a response to
constituent's letter is being formulated. That usually revolves
around how to respond without upsetting them, and whenever
possible the question is forwarded to another Agency for an
"official" response. You can guess how that goes.

I would be very interested in monetary payments made to Members
of Congress to attend an Event, since I believe that would
violate House and Senate rules. Indeed, in the highly charged
political environment we now live in, I would be surprised if
ANY current Member of Congress would admit interest and become a
target for criticism by an opponent. And the concept if their
taking money to attend, even if legal, would become the brunt of
political ads and ridicule. I should add that Members of
Congress do receive Corporate funds to offset the costs of
travel to special events, but that would have to relate to
Congressional oversight in some way and it would not end up in
either their Operating or Campaign budgets. One is not able to
pay a Member of Congress to support an issue.

A "former" Member of Congress is under different rules and
regulations and recently I've seen at least one former
Representative lend his support for Disclosure. But, they have
no Office to lose in the next election and one might argue that
it's a way to keep their name in the news. More importantly,
most former Members of Congress have little influence in
Congress, other than the contacts they've retained. And, given
the current turnover given the political realities of today,
those "contacts" often move on fairly quickly.

Those who believe that all they have to do is package the
information correctly to spark interest are fooling themselves,
IMO. Skepticism is difficult enough to overcome, but that
barriers are far greater than that when dealing with Congress.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.