The Changing of the Guard
Capitol Disclosure

By Stephen Bassett

 

Introduction: A Focus on Transition

In discussing the dynamics of social and scientific advancement, it is important to highlight the concept of the “changing of the guard.” This term refers not to specific individuals but to the broader shift in roles between those who first champion a cause or idea and those who later take up the mantle. The lines between the so-called “old guard” and “new guard,” as well as who ultimately participates in this transition, are matters of capability, perspective, and intent. The spirit of this discussion, without reference to any individual, is to acknowledge the contributions of all involved and to wish them recognition and success.

Parallels Between Science and Activism

Both science and activism share a significant trait: the pathway to major breakthroughs is often long and arduous, sometimes taking decades or centuries. The ideas or causes they pursue are frequently dismissed by the prevailing culture as irrelevant, misguided, or frivolous. Consequently, those who dedicate themselves to such pursuits are often labeled as unserious, disruptive, or even irrational.

For progress to be recognized, it is essential to persuade established authorities in the respective fields to acknowledge the validity and importance of the effort. Their support is crucial for broader acceptance and ultimate success. This process can be lengthy, with early advocates not living to witness the prize won, though they may be there for the “changing of the guard.”

Science and activism have some notable commonalities: major breakthroughs often require many decades, even centuries, to come about. The scientific research or activist issue being engaged is considered by the extant culture to be unimportant, misguided, frivolous. By extension, those involved in the process are seen as unserious, disruptive, even crazy.

Recent Developments in Disclosure Efforts

Currently, these themes are evident in the 80-year scientific quest to verify the extraterrestrial presence and the parallel 30-year activist campaign to end the U.S. Government’s truth embargo on this reality and related matters. The transition phase began in the fall of 2017, and within three years, much of the stigma and ridicule associated with these efforts was significantly reduced. The professional media, influential members of Congress, prominent scientists, and other establishment figures have increasingly supported the cause. Remarkably, more progress has been made in the past seven years than in the preceding seventy.

This ongoing transition naturally raises questions about the fate of the old guard, those who first carried the cause forward.

Recognition in Science versus Activism

The pursuit of truth through the scientific method - arguably humanity’s most critical invention - is deeply respected and institutionally embedded in society. Individuals who initiate complex, controversial, or even ridiculed research that ultimately uncovers profound truths are often honored; being among the first can lead to significant recognition. This system benefits both science and society.

Activism, however, occupies a different space. Major activist movements typically seek to change policies to promote justice, fairness, equality, transparency, and truth within governmental systems up to the highest levels of power. Governments, generally resistant to unsolicited change, may respond to activist pressures with varying degrees of severity, including ridicule, stigma, subversion, intimidation, propaganda, legal action, imprisonment, or even execution.

Such resistance has been evident in every significant activist movement of the 20th and 21st centuries. Some movements are suppressed while others succeed, and the stories of those who drove these efforts are well documented. Success in these movements invariably requires the changing of the guard.

The Unique Challenge of the Disclosure Movement

The Disclosure movement, while poised for success, faces a unique challenge: the U.S. Government has long denied the very existence of the phenomenon at the heart of the movement. This is akin to denying the existence of Cuba while dismissing protests against its embargo as the folly of the deluded.

This denial fueled a level of derision so severe that activists were relegated to an “intellectual ghetto,” not as state enemies but as pitiable outcasts. This harsh response - now thankfully receding - has deeply influenced the psychology surrounding the changing of the guard. Activists who persistently called for government acknowledgment of the extraterrestrial presence were branded as unstable, even though history has proven they were correct. Unfortunately, the stigma of being seen as “crazy” is harder to overcome than merely being wrong.

As the movement gains traction and new leaders emerge, there is often reluctance to acknowledge or include the pioneers who first championed the cause, even though they were right. The stigma lingers.

In other words, you’re still crazy.

Recognition and Legacy of the Old Guard

In the decades since Roswell, mainstream institutions have not offered awards, grants, or commendations to those who challenged official narratives, particularly on matters of national security. Recognition has largely come from within the movement itself. For members of the old guard wishing to join with the new, the path remains challenging.

The Enduring Value of Activism

The activist path has never been an easy one going as far back as history records. Merely reaching the mountain top and seeing the other side is quite the accomplishment and perhaps enough reward. But societies that choose to honor pioneers of social, political, or judicial change - even those they find particularly irritating —stand to benefit in both visible and unforeseen ways.

A serving political activist has observed: “When you are wrong about an activist goal (it happens), many will not like you. When you are right about that goal, many will really not like you.”

Eh, being liked is often overrated.

 

For an introduction of many who have passed, one can visit the In Memoriam section at www.paradigmresearchgroup.org/in-memoriam

December 2025 (Published January 2026)

Stephen Bassett is the Founder of the Paradigm Research Group and the Executive Director of The Hollywood Disclosure Alliance

To Contact Stephen Bassett:
prg@paradigmresearchgroup.org

 

 

Another Cautionary Tale

WSJ and the Pentagon’s Efforts to Disinform and Misinform

In Collaboration with MUFON and the Hollywood Disclosure Alliance

The Wow! Signal News

 

The Wall Street Journal’s recent article, “The Pentagon Disinformation That Fueled America’s UFO Mythology” (June 6, 2025), presents itself as an exposé of the U.S. government’s strategic use of UFO myths to shield classified weapons programs. But a closer reading reveals something far more calculated and insidious: a continuation of disinformation masquerading as disclosure.

The article acknowledges that the Department of Defense (DoD) seeded UFO stories, also commonly referred to as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), to obscure the development of stealth aircraft. But it also aggressively advances the idea that all significant UFO events, including nuclear missile interference and decades of whistleblower claims, can be explained away as mistaken sightings, Cold War pranks, or institutional misunderstanding. This dual tactic, admitting past deception while dismissing credible modern evidence, does not clarify public understanding. It deliberately manipulates it.

Nowhere is the Pentagon’s campaign of disinformation more evident than in the article’s treatment of the 1967 Malmstrom Air Force Base incident, where ten nuclear missiles went offline during a reported UFO encounter. Former Air Force Captain Robert Salas, who was on duty that night, has consistently maintained that a glowing object was observed above the facility and that missile control systems were inexplicably disabled. The Journal now parrots the Pentagon’s newly minted claim that the event was merely the result of a Cold War-era electromagnetic pulse (EMP) test. That ridiculous claim collapses under scrutiny.

EMP effects are not reversible. A genuine EMP capable of disabling missile launch systems would almost certainly destroy the internal circuitry. According to a study readily available on the U.S. Air Force’s Air University website, “the EMP effect... can result in irreversible damage to a wide range of electrical and electronic equipment, particularly computers and radio or radar receivers.”

And, of course, the government already knew what the effects of an EMP were at least five years before the Malmstrom event.

According to an article by the American Physical Society, the 1962 Starfish Prime high-altitude nuclear detonation 250 miles above the Earth’s surface “emitted an incredibly strong electromagnetic pulse, or EMP,” which “triggered street light blackouts in Hawaii,” which was approximately 900 miles away, and damaged at least one-third of the satellites in orbit at the time.

Starfish Prime itself underscores the severe and often irreversible impact of EMPs on electronic infrastructure. Given that the missiles at Malmstrom Air Force Base reportedly returned to full functionality shortly after the incident, it is implausible, ridiculous even, that an EMP, known for causing lasting damage, was responsible. This discrepancy suggests that the disruption was temporary and not characteristic of a genuine EMP event.

Even more implausible is the idea that the DoD would conduct such a test against live nuclear missile systems during a period of peak Cold War tension. If the DoD wanted to test EMP effects, it had vast, remote ranges for that purpose, not an operational ICBM silo network in Montana.

And there’s an even bigger problem: this wasn’t an isolated incident in Montana.

In 1994, ABC News’ Prime Time Live reported on a 1982 event near Byelokoroviche in the former Soviet Ukraine. At an intermediate-range ballistic missile base, a UFO reportedly triggered a launch sequence. For 15 harrowing seconds, the missiles were in full countdown before abruptly returning to standby mode. How does the Pentagon explain that instance? How does the Journal account for it? Both ignored the incident because it doesn’t fit the carefully crafted narrative

Consider also the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies’ 2023 UAP Pattern Recognition Study. Drawing from 590 rigorously documented incidents between 1945 and 1975, the study found statistically elevated UFO activity at nearly every stage of America’s nuclear weapons build-up and across the entirety of the U.S. “atomic warfare complex (radioactive materials production, weapons assembly facilities, stockpile locations, and weapons deployment bases).”

These facts thoroughly deflate the Pentagon’s narratives about UFOs and nuclear assets and reveal a clear pattern of intelligent, targeted surveillance by UFOs, not random sightings or misidentifications, over three decades. That this systematic and well-documented history is omitted from he Journal article is not an oversight. It is part of the strategy.

Additionally, the New Paradigm Institute has been informed through meetings with congressional staff that AARO has already delivered Part II of its Historical Record to Congress, which remains classified. If true, the timing of the Journal piece now appears less like journalism and more like strategic narrative priming, conditioning both lawmakers and the public to accept the report’s pre-scripted conclusions with the likely publication of the sanitized version coming soon. This isn’t transparency. It’s perception management.

In that respect, the article’s publication in a premier media outlet bears the hallmarks of Project Mockingbird, the CIA’s Cold War-era program that covertly infiltrated top-tier newsrooms to launder government narratives and suppress inconvenient truths. Through Mockingbird, intelligence operatives didn’t just influence news; they shaped reality for the public.

The Journal article, with its polished anecdotes and alignment with official narratives, functions in a similar manner. It downplays credible whistleblowers, dismisses decades of data, and omits corroborating international cases, all while presenting itself as definitive.

Ultimately, the Pentagon’s disinformation campaign, using the Journal as its mouthpiece, is attempting to achieve three things:

1. Discredit whistleblowers, casting them as dupes of institutional folklore rather than sources of critical testimony, using stigmatized language for ridicule.
2. Control the narrative by limiting UFO history to Cold War mythologies, pranks, and hazing, thereby diverting scrutiny from ongoing programs and secrecy.
3. Perpetuate ambiguity, admitting to deception without offering meaningful disclosure, leaving the public confused and oversight neutralized.
   

The American people deserve better than another managed narrative, more obfuscation, and outright lies. We deserve the whole truth. And we must demand it.

Join the call for accountability. Congress must investigate the Department of Defense for its sustained use of disinformation, over-classification, and perception management concerning UFOs. Take action today by emailing your elected officials in Washington: https://newparadigminstitute.org/take-action/disinfo-and-over-classification-of-uap/

P.S. The Journal’s article is only the latest instance in the DoD’s long-running mission to obscure the reality of UFOs. To learn more, read our paper: Disinformation: The U.S. Government’s Suppression of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena and Advanced Science.

About the New Paradigm Institute:

The New Paradigm Institute, a project of the Romero Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit interfaith law and policy center, is dedicated to advocating for the public release of information held by the government surrounding the issue of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), or what has commonly been known as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

For more information, please visit https://newparadigminstitute.org

 

 

 

In Collaboration with MUFON and the Hollywood Disclosure Alliance

 

The Wow! Signal News

Robert Salas’ (Captain, Ret.) Rebuttal to the Pentagon Disinformation 'Mythology' Article published June 6, 2025 in the WSJ

 

UAP-NHI Disclosure is Happening NOW

 

Australian Journalist Ross Coulthart brings more pertinent information about UFOs / UAPs / Whistle Blower Testimony and Experiencer Phenomena into the public domain than any other journalist in modern history via News Nation and his Podcasts Reality Check. He is the author of six books…. Ross Coulthart’s Website.

 

The Eric Davis / Admiral Thomas Wilson Document

(Excerpt from Keith Basterfield's Blog)

A document comes to light

A document has surfaced, dated 16 October 2002, which appears to be a copy of a set of notes, (not a transcript as so many commentators are saying,) of a meeting, on that date, between Dr. Eric Davis and U.S. Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson.

Introduction

The purpose of this post is to try and set out some known facts about the provenance of this document, and then make some informed deductions. I must firstly state, that I have not obtained any of these deductions from the anonymous source who advised me that he was the individual who supplied a copy of the set of notes, to which Grant Cameron has been referring. These deductions are purely mine, and based on public knowledge.
Known facts

After my first blog on the topic of this meeting, I received a blog comment from US researcher Richard Dolan which, in part, advised that:

“One important thing to add to your analysis is that I was shown two pages of that 15-page document back in 2006...I will never forget reading the statement 'not made by man - not by human hands’...”

The Davis notes, on page 13, contain the statement, attributed to a program manager, “...it was technology that ‘was not of this Earth- not made by man - not by human hands.’ ”

Read the Admiral Thomas Wilson Document Here

Read an Analysis Here

“Now that it’s out, why shouldn’t they do this? ...You take an airplane, the cost of one military airplane. The cheapest one we have. Give that money to this research. It’s more important than one airplane. We have enough bombs and bullets to take care of us for a long time, but not enough to understand the future?” – Harry Reid

 

 

Thank you Ryan Graves, David Grusch,and David Fravor for your continued service to our country. Our sincere thanks go out to these brave men and their families and to our friends and colleagues in the Exo-Political Community for making this incredible hearing possible.

 

 

Ryan Graves, David Grusch, and David Fravor testifying under oath at the House Oversight & Accountability Committee’s National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee’s hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena on July 26, 2023, in Washington. – Photo Credit, Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters

 

 

The media has an obligation to the American people and to the World to accurately report, and to provide equal airtime, regarding the topic of UAP, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.

Watch The UAP Hearing

 

David Grusch’s youtube video from News Nation

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zQJT4hvfMlU

 

 

Five Memorable Moments from The House Oversight Committee hearing on UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) / UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/are-5-memorable-moments-congress-ufo-hearing-rcna96476

 

 

DOD and HUD Missing Trillions: Supporting Documentation for the article below:

Trillions Spent by U.S. Government Without Accountability

UFO Study Catches Attention of Congress - Finally

Glowing Auras and Black Money, The Pentagon’s Mysterious UFO Program - continues into 2017 and beyond

PRG’s Partial Archive of Mainstream Print Media Coverage Covering ET Related Phenomena – Continually Updated

Nuclear Weapons Tampering – Why No Congressional Hearings or Campaign Questions?

PRG is seeking the answer to these questions in Washington, DC as part of a congressional hearing initiative ongoing since November of 2014.

Stephen Bassett is a leading advocate for ending the nearly 70-year government imposed truth embargo regarding an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race and the planet Earth. He is a political activist, founder of the Paradigm Research Group, Executive Director of the Extraterrestrial Phenomena Political Action Committee X-PPAC, author of the Paradigm Clock website, and a political columnist and commentator.

Presently he is the only registered lobbyist in the United States representing extraterrestrial-related phenomena research/activist organizations; and X-PPAC is the first political action committee to target the political implications of extraterrestrial-related phenomena. In 2002 he conducted an independent Congressional campaign for the 8th District of Maryland. It was the first instance in which a congressional candidate on the November ballot in a federal election addressed the matter of an extraterrestrial presence and the 5-decades plus government imposed truth embargo.

On January 13 of 2003 he launched a new initiative, Citizen Hearing, which ultimately led to a week-long hearing in Washington, DC before former Members of the US House and Senate. The motto was and remains: “If Congress will not do its job, the people will.” And now, Bassett is taking it one step further with his Make It Rain on Congress campaign.

In April of 2004 he produced the 1st Annual Exopolitics Expo – the X-Conference – held at the Hilton Washington, DC North/Gaithersburg. It was produced by Paradigm Research Group. The 2nd Annual Exopolitics Expo was completed in April 2005 which ignited a staggering number of Disclosure conferences over the following decade. Even more encouraging is the Disclosure Movement in Europe which is gaining ever increasing momentum.

Since 1996, Stephen Bassett has assisted many other organizations and initiatives which have been making the case for (1) an end to the government embargo on the truth surrounding an extraterrestrial presence, and (2) open congressional hearings to present the testimony of former military and agency employee witnesses regarding the extraterrestrial presence.

His work has been referenced in the Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Legal Times, Christian Science Monitor, National Journal, Pravda, London Sunday Express and O’Dweyer’s Washington Report. He has appeared on hundreds of radio and television talk shows, in numerous documentaries and continues to bring the message to millions of people of the likelihood and implications of “Disclosure” – the formal acknowledgement by the United States government of an extraterrestrial presence about the earth – not maybe, not someday, but NOW.

The Language of Disclosure

By Stephen Bassett

It will not be easy, but it is time to move on from the language that developed during the first half-century of the truth embargo. First and foremost is the acronym “UFO.”

Unidentified Flying Object was pushed forward and maintained by the Air Force and other agencies. It is now an anachronistic non-sequitur. It is ludicrous. The phenomenon involves piloted (usually) extraterrestrial craft. It is not about flocks of geese turning up on radar or pie pans being thrown from college dorm windows. It is about non-human created machines operating antigravitically in the skies. This term is no less absurd than a government sponsorship of UTP’s - unidentified tiny particles – to describe the research into the sub-atomic world. And, of course, in a context where the government claims there is no evidence whatsoever for sub-atomic particles. The term “Ufologist” is perhaps even more offensive. A professional studying the unidentified – forever.

UFO? No. Extraterrestrial craft.

Ufologist? No. Extraterrestrial phenomena researcher.

Which brings us to perhaps the most offensive term in the embargo lexicon – “Believer.” If you have concluded the evidence amassed confirms an extraterrestrial presence, you are a “believer.” This is no less absurd than introducing a particle physicist to an audience by saying, “Dr. Jones is a believer,” and everyone in that audience understands this means Dr. Jones “believes” protons and electrons are real.

Pushing a universal tag on anyone who disagrees with state policy or ideology is common and ancient. More recently those who have challenged the official government conclusions regarding the events of September 11, 2001 are called “truthers.” It is not meant to be a compliment.

There is a bonus for the truth embargo with “believer” as this is a tag often used for those with religious convictions, thus pairing extraterrestrial phenomena research with religion. This pairing was particularly useful during the Heavens Gate fiasco.

You are a researcher, investigator, journalist, activist dealing with extraterrestrial related phenomena, you are not a “believer.”

As for “alien?” Lose it. The term should be “extraterrestrial.” Suck it up and deal with the syllables. “Alien” has a great deal of baggage, much of which was not innocently attached.... Continue Reading top right of page

This article is published with the expressed written permission of Stephen Bassett for publication on alienjigsaw.com

 

Update on the Bentwaters UFO Case

 

“As you may have heard, the CITIZEN HEARING played a significant role in the huge win for wounded Veteran John Burroughs. Burroughs’ heart was damaged by an ‘Officially Acknowledged’ UFO encounter, while serving in the U.S. Military. Due to the efforts spearheaded by Congressman Cook, Senator John McCain’s office fought to secure the release of Burroughs’ military medical records, which in turn led to Burroughs finally receiving FULL medical disability for his injuries from his exposure to prolonged U.A.P. (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) radiation…John Burroughs and his lawyer claim their victory represents the ‘U.S. government’s de facto acknowledgement of the existence of UFOs.’ ”

Film Director, Jeremy Corbell, was featured on the OpenMinds Radio show with Alejandro Rojas. Additionally, as premiered in Corbell’s 2015 UFO Congress presentation, you can now view both of his recent short films, one being Bob Lazar: Cosmic Whistleblower

 

Top of Page