How many people know about the disclosure project?
This is an important document redacted by Steven Greer (Cseti) after years of interviews to VIP witnesses, if the moderators allow me to post the link of the briefing (500 pages), i do it

I know about it. The fellow who introduced Greer to former CIA director Woolsey was a guest in my home a few years ago. Greer's an unusual guy. The work he's done on the project is exceptional, highly credible, the best one could hope for, considering the constraints he's working under. I don't necessarily agree with all of his conjecture about the nature of the phenomenon, but do agree that, yes, there absolutely is something strange going on.

I've seen it.
Great work.
Better than anyone on this site could do on this subject or any other for that matter.

What is the disclosure project, in a nut-shell?

That is either brilliant, or a very happy coincidence. The disclosure project does indeed belong in a nut shell. If it was coincidence, ask again and I shall enlighten thee.

i'm asking, i'm asking, i'm practically begging
please ophiolite do tell us

I shall take a risk here, since it's a Sunday, and answer without checking my facts. Live dangerously, eh. I say this because I could be confusing two organisations. If I'm not then this is the disclosure project.

The founder of the project interviewed over one hundred individuals who were government employees of one kind or another. This ranged, I think, from congressmen, to clerks, to air force colonels. They all had something to say, either about sightings they had made, or heard about, or concerning the alleged suppression of the evidence of those sightings.
These interviews are available on tape (I don't recall if it is sound or video) for a price. There is a website somewhere with tantalising ( :rolleyes: ) extracts from the interviews.
I have nor purchased the tape [I trust none of you thought I was that foolish.] I have examined what is on offer. I found it trite, simplistic and wholly unconvincing. You should try googling for the site and form your own conclusion.

for a price.
aha, a catch.

They're currently having a "sale." (http://www.disclosureproject.org/shop.htm) You can get the disclosure witness DVD for a mere $15 down from the $30 it used to sell at. At these prices, Greer's sales might put Walmart under. Then again, perhaps not.

The claim is that they are able to "reduce prices" because of increased donorship. I'm betting its overstock and the shit simply wasn't moving so they followed basic economic principles that any businessman would when stuck with high volumes of high priced product: cut prices and re-brand it.

Its a scam. Greer is a con-artist.

Its a fine body of work, the interviews are completely genuine and well put together.
I actually got a pdf of the material free from a guy who runs a ufo website. Otherwise you have to pay for the information, this does seem to be the one thing that counts against greer and leaves a sour taste in people's mouths. It offen leads people to label him a con-man (see above post) which he isnt, probably just greedy at best. Even so the information should be made freely and publicly available, it really doesnt help his cause when hes gathering important information and then using it to make money.

Its a fine body of work, the interviews are completely genuine and well put together.
I actually got a pdf of the material free from a guy who runs a ufo website. Otherwise you have to pay for the information, this does seem to be the one thing that counts against greer and leaves a sour taste in people's mouths. It offen leads people to label him a con-man (see above post) which he isnt, probably just greedy at best. Even so the information should be made freely and publicly available, it really doesnt help his cause when hes gathering important information and then using it to make money.This is truly a dumb post on two quite diverse counts. Therefore I applaud your diversity. Most people on these forums seem to be capable of only a singular foolishness. You are foolish in stereo.

Lunacy 1: You describe it as a fine body of work. I take it you have had no scientific training, no classes in technical writing, no experience of assessing evidence.
Lunacy 2:I have zero objection to him charging money. Do you really think he should gather this information at his expense as some form of charity? How presumptuous can one get? You are in danger of setting new standards.

Please do not take any of the above as a personal attack. I am simply attacking your rather quaint idea with a few well honed rhetorical devices. If you really want to put me in my place then prove the high quality of the work, or justify why it should be made available for free.

Its a fine body of work, the interviews are completely genuine and well put together.

Its a fine body of work? I suppose if you "want to believe," to quote Fox Mulder's poster.

However, when looked at with an objective and critical eye, the entire project fails miserably. It contains NO EVIDENCE. It relies only on the testimony of believers. The entire body of work appeals to authority and seeks to assert that quantity can make up for quality.

Testimonials are not evidence. They are merely testiments of one's belief. Take these testimonials for instance. (http://www.christiantestimonials.com/testimonies/) Are they evidence of a god's influence or just what people believe?

Here are more testimonials (http://www.healingtouchforanimals.com/testimonials.htm) for a program that claims to be the "Healing Touch for Animals® (HTA)[:] a bio-field energy-medicine modality combining philosophies, techniques and applications to promote energy balance and healing of our animals."

What about the testimonials (http://www.spiritual-healer.com/testimonials.htm) of Trinity Table ™ & Magnetic Sound Chamber ™? Notice they are trademarked.

Speaking of "healing," here are some testimonials for Reiki (http://www.reikithehealingpath.com/testimonials.htm), a method of healing that involves the "manipulation of ki." (http://skepdic.com/reiki.html)

If you don't want to be critical of the healing fantasies of others, perhaps you will consider the testimonials of colonic cleansers (http://www.hps-online.com/testimonial_fasting.htm), who claim their weight loss is a result of cleaning the fecal matter out of their colons. Not burning more calories than they take in -the only proven method of weight loss- but by cleaning their asses.

The thing that all these different types of testimonials have in common is volume. Quantity. There's no quality involved. No empirical evidence. Nothing that can be tested or reproduced.

It is the same with Greer's scam. His push is for the hyperbole not the evidence. His renting of the ballroom of the National Press Club demonstrated that believers spend money to make it. Look at any BFC (Big Fuckin' Church) in most any suburban community and this point is proven again. Filling the ballroom with 100+ old white guys with gray hair talking about aerial anomalies proved, unequiviqably, that there are people who believe in UFOs. Little else was demonstrated.

As a "testimonial" of sorts about Greer himself, read this short article (http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/greer.htm) about Greer's delusions. If that isn't enough, read or listen to the campfire tale that SGT Clifford Stone tells in the disclosure document. Delusional.

old white guys with gray hair talking Whoa! Easy there, Skin. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being a verbose old white guy with grey hair. I mean its a tough job, but someone has to do it.

I simply must wonder why the aliens seem to present themselves so prominently to one demographic over others. Barney Hill notwithstanding, there are so few African Americans, Hispanics, or Native Americans who come forward about their alien visitation experiences. There are relatively few accounts from women as well, though there are some notable cases.

The anthropologist in me recognizes that these are cultural divides and thus looks for cultural explanations where empirical ones that support the believer hypothesis are absent.

This is truly a dumb post on two quite diverse counts. Therefore I applaud your diversity. Most people on these forums seem to be capable of only a singular foolishness. You are foolish in stereo.

Lunacy 1: You describe it as a fine body of work. I take it you have had no scientific training, no classes in technical writing, no experience of assessing evidence.
Lunacy 2:I have zero objection to him charging money. Do you really think he should gather this information at his expense as some form of charity? How presumptuous can one get? You are in danger of setting new standards.

Please do not take any of the above as a personal attack. I am simply attacking your rather quaint idea with a few well honed rhetorical devices. If you really want to put me in my place then prove the high quality of the work, or justify why it should be made available for free.

Well honed rhetorical devices? i think youre setting new standards in self-delusion. You could have made a far better better post by discussing the body of work itself and your opinions on it rather than wasting your own time on thinly-veiled inflammatory remarks.
Im pretty sure at this point youre just trolling, if you believe debating is a two way battle in which people put each other 'in their place' then i think our ideas of debating probably arnt compatible. But i'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, if you want to prove that youre genuinley interested in conversing about this then...
Critically assess the disclourse project, what are it merits? where are the pitfalls? Simply attacking someones perceived lack of formal education just doesnt cut it if you want a serious debate, you need to tell me what you think about the work itself!
And to address the one real remark in your post, no it is quite reasonable for Greer to charge for access to his work, my point was i can well understand how people percieve him as being disingenuous in his cause when hes charging people money for information which he believes should be public.
It doesnt mean hes a con-man as i pointed out, but it doesnt make him look good either, and the fact that his body of work comes at a price is the one consistant point i see him being attacked on. I think the way forward would be to make the core information in his disclosure project publicly available while turning his attention towards giving talks/seminars as a means of income and prehaps even securing private funding.

jeeeezus Skin, i would caluculate outta of all the hardened materialist types at this forum, including even PHLO, you are number 1

I don't subscribe to your so-called "anti-materialist" mumbo-jumbo. You've not demonstrated that there is any conspiracy or danger to society in general. All you've done to date is bitch and moan about others who have "things" and rely on them from a perspective from someone who apparently hasn't any "things" beyond his primitive webtv.

The "anti-materialist" nonsense is clearly a cop-out argument by a believer who is pissed that there are those that dare question his/her beliefs. If a skeptic says, "show me the empirical evidence," the cop-out argument responds with, "you're a materialist and ignore other ways of 'knowing'." Never does the so-called "anti-materialist" suggest what these "other ways of knowing" are with any success.

I'm reminded very strongly of the anti-science argument of "scientism" presented by religious nutters who are offended that science dare question how H. sapiens developed as a species. They claim that there are "science extremists" who secretely subscribe to naturalistic views of world that leave no room for the supernatural. The fallacy of that argument is that it is science that rejects the supernatural since it cannot be tested and is therefore invalid as a hypothesis however possible it might be.

But thank you for ranking me as "number 1." From your bent, drug induced perspective on the universe, I take that as a sincere compliment.

But thank you for ranking me as "number 1." From your bent, drug induced perspective on the universe, I take that as a sincere compliment.I'm hurt that I didn't even make the final between you and phlog. :(

I don't subscribe to your so-called "anti-materialist" mumbo-jumbo. You've not demonstrated that there is any conspiracy or danger to society in general. All you've done to date is bitch and moan about others who have "things" and rely on them from a perspective from someone who apparently hasn't any "things" beyond his primitive webtv.

me))there is trememdous, unprecendeted danger al round because of tis opressive materialistc world view imposed on the world. but of course you cannpt see it. and where have i 'bitched and moaned' about not havine a 'non-'primitive' computer. more so others have bitched and moaned about its limtations, and i have to defend the fuker. annnd you'll be havin me livin in a cave next. that's part of your mattery repertoire isn't it. 'either materialism or CAVES'...!

The "anti-materialist" nonsense is clearly a cop-out argument by a believer who is pissed that there are those that dare question his/her beliefs. If a skeptic says, "show me the empirical evidence," the cop-out argument responds with, "you're a materialist and ignore other ways of 'knowing'." Never does the so-called "anti-materialist" suggest what these "other ways of knowing" are with any success.

me)))))that is the impasse. you are confused cause you dont even know your own fukin philosophy, nefer MIND reality!

I'm reminded very strongly of the anti-science argument of "scientism" presented by religious nutters who are offended that science dare question how H. sapiens developed as a species. They claim that there are "science extremists" who secretely subscribe to naturalistic views of world that leave no room for the supernatural. The fallacy of that argument is that it is science that rejects the supernatural since it cannot be tested and is therefore invalid as a hypothesis however possible it might be.

me)))))))go to here www.deepspirit.com open up 'Consciousness' and ope link 'Jesus or Darwin?'...he explains your predicament much better than i can. tell me your reponse

But thank you for ranking me as "number 1." From your bent, drug induced perspective on the universe, I take that as a sincere compliment.

oh my god. he is happy about it!!!!!

As usual, I'm not going to be arsed to read whatever duendy can't properly quote. If he can't accomplish such a simple task on his webtv, he should not bother with the internet at all. But yes, I'm a happy person.

As usual, I'm not going to be arsed to read whatever duendy can't properly quote. If he can't accomplish such a simple task on his webtv, he should not bother with the internet at all. But yes, I'm a happy person.
condescending profligate. you sho dont make ME happy

Condescending? Duendy, I wouldn't go to the trouble with you.

Its a fine body of work?
Sure it is, its the largest body of eye-witness testimony in the ufo community, and the witnesses (i think bar maybe one or two) are all ex-military, some of whom are pretty high ranking.
Its an icredibly valuble part of the jig-saw for those trying to understand what 'ufos' are and where they come from.


However, when looked at with an objective and critical eye, the entire project fails miserably. It contains NO EVIDENCE.
Eye-witness testimony within the context that its being used (to push congress for an investigation) can be used as evidence, and definitely counts a such.


It relies only on the testimony of believers. The entire body of work appeals to authority and seeks to assert that quantity can make up for quality.
What exactly do you mean by 'believers'? are you suggesting the witnesses had some kind of prior belief that influenced their judgement. And if so do you have anything to prove this is the case?


Testimonials are not evidence. They are merely testiments of one's belief. Take these testimonials for instance. (http://www.christiantestimonials.com/testimonies/) Are they evidence of a god's influence or just what people believe?
Again i dont think belief even enters into the argument, there is no faith-based need to 'believe' at all costs within the disclosure report. Its an erroneous argument. As is comparing a supernatural entity like god which is entirely illusive to ufos which are not; we already know they exist.
I think youre interpreting a testimony of seeing a ufo as part of a much wider belief in something else.

Here are more testimonials (http://www.healingtouchforanimals.com/testimonials.htm) for a program that claims to be the "Healing Touch for Animals� (HTA)[:] a bio-field energy-medicine modality combining philosophies, techniques and applications to promote energy balance and healing of our animals."

What about the testimonials (http://www.spiritual-healer.com/testimonials.htm) of Trinity Table ™ & Magnetic Sound Chamber ™? Notice they are trademarked.

Speaking of "healing," here are some testimonials for Reiki (http://www.reikithehealingpath.com/testimonials.htm), a method of healing that involves the "manipulation of ki." (http://skepdic.com/reiki.html)

If you don't want to be critical of the healing fantasies of others, perhaps you will consider the testimonials of colonic cleansers (http://www.hps-online.com/testimonial_fasting.htm), who claim their weight loss is a result of cleaning the fecal matter out of their colons. Not burning more calories than they take in -the only proven method of weight loss- but by cleaning their asses.

The thing that all these different types of testimonials have in common is volume. Quantity. There's no quality involved. No empirical evidence. Nothing that can be tested or reproduced.
Its a good argument and in many ways youre right, i think youre just looking it from the wrong perspective. The disclosure project isnt a repeatable scientific experiment (and doesnt even claim to be) and if you read the body of work as such its always going to fall short because its simply doesnt fall into that bracket of research. The project is simply of body of collected witnesses, if you read it expecting to have the whole ufo phenomenon explained and proven in some way again youre going to be disapointed, and again thats not what steven greer is claiming to do.
The evidence relies on the shoulders on the reputations it rests apon, disbelief can always come into play when dealing with personal reports because youre really taking someones word for it. But if you consider why such a large group of people offen from the same agencies, and offen with reputations to protect would go out of their way to tell bare-faced lies then i think offen theres more reason to believe that theres some truth to the matter rather than it all being a huge hoax and conspiracy of lies to make some retirement money.

It is the same with Greer's scam. His push is for the hyperbole not the evidence. His renting of the ballroom of the National Press Club demonstrated that believers spend money to make it. Look at any BFC (Big Fuckin' Church) in most any suburban community and this point is proven again. Filling the ballroom with 100+ old white guys with gray hair talking about aerial anomalies proved, unequiviqably, that there are people who believe in UFOs. Little else was demonstrated.
Again beleif doesnt enter into it, if youve seen a ufo youve simply seen a ufo, nothing more nothing less. You cant infer a whole belief system from someone seeing an object in flight. you wouldnt say a bird spotters society which specialises in spotting a particular rare bird have a 'belief' in that particular bird. Its an entirely erroneous position.

As a "testimonial" of sorts about Greer himself, read this short article (http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/greer.htm) about Greer's delusions. If that isn't enough, read or listen to the campfire tale that SGT Clifford Stone tells in the disclosure document. Delusional.
That is kind of worrying, although im not sure if his personal beliefs really enter into it, as long as hes not fabricated testimonies and put words in peoples mouth, which to date noone has claimed he has then i think the evidence hes collected still stands up. Greer does seem a pretty effective collector of testimony and should probably exclusively concentrate on that area. Everytime ive seen him try to theories or put the peices together himself i'll admit he frequently does seem to get it wrong.

If anybody wants, you can get the disclosure project film from the emule network (a 700mb download)
http://www.emule-project.net/
Needless to say that I won't waste any bandwidht on that bollox.

Sure it is, its the largest body of eye-witness testimony in the ufo community, and the witnesses (i think bar maybe one or two) are all ex-military, some of whom are pretty high ranking.
Its an icredibly valuble part of the jig-saw for those trying to understand what 'ufos' are and where they come from.

Those trying to understand UFOs and "where they come from" refuse to accept any balanced or objective view of the topic. Rejected out of hand by those that readily accept the ETI explanation of UFOs are the more prosaic, mundane and anthropogenic explanations. It would seem that the unproven, undemonstrated and untestable is preferable to that which has been demonstrated and tested time and again.

Then there is the UFO apologetic that seeks to give the air of objectivity by maintaining a plausible deniablity in their belief that UFOs are ETI based. This, they realize, is an outlandish and hokey concept and, rather than defend the position with any rationality, they respond to critics with things like, "you're the one assuming UFOs are alien, I'm saying they're simply unknown." This thin veil of intellectual dishonesty, while transparent, provides that "plausible deniability" in the face of reason.

But with regard to Greer's witnesses, volume and appeals to authority are all they contain. Indeed, many of his "witnesses" are carrying baggage of their own which severely limits their credibility. Others are simply repeating the second-hand stories of someone they know. Some are clearly embellishing facts with sensationalism and hyperbole. Some may even believe what they are saying. But none are credible. Rank and status does not imply credibility. Indeed, the trend I noted in a post above is a valid question: why is the demographic so consistent. If these were credible claims, we would expect to see the demographic of the "witnesses" reflect the true demographic of the military they come from. It doesn't. How many African Americans or women are represented? Are these people not employed by the military? Was not the military one of the earliest American institutions to de-segregate?

Eye-witness testimony within the context that its being used (to push congress for an investigation) can be used as evidence, and definitely counts a such.

Eyewitness testimony is useless and suspect without cooborating physical evidence. Of which there are none. No photos. Not one captain's log (from either a spaceship or a military source). Not one spaceship hood-ornament. No DNA samples. No alien implants. Nothing. Just fantasies of believers rallied around a cause. You can see that bullshit at any Pro-Choice/Pro-Life rally.

What exactly do you mean by 'believers'? are you suggesting the witnesses had some kind of prior belief that influenced their judgement. And if so do you have anything to prove this is the case?

I was assuming you actually read the document you claimed to have obtained. It is replete with the belief of others. Do a text search for Clifford Stone. Read about belief.

Again i dont think belief even enters into the argument, there is no faith-based need to 'believe' at all costs within the disclosure report. Its an erroneous argument. As is comparing a supernatural entity like god which is entirely illusive to ufos which are not; we already know they exist.
I think youre interpreting a testimony of seeing a ufo as part of a much wider belief in something else.

You couldn't be more wrong. It is ALL about belief. Indeed, Greer is a prophet or cleric of sorts. A cult leader within the religious framework of the ETI-UFO culture, albeit a proto-religious framework. In the absence of physical evidence to support the ETI-UFO hypothesis, it is exactly faith that one needs in order to maintain it. It would be erroneous, even intellectually dishonest, to discount belief in the argument for this hypothesis. Particularly when it is followed with phrases like "we already know they exist." I'm sure this will invoke the plausible deniability argument where you cry foul and say you "only meant unidentified flying objects." But this, again, returns us to the intellectual dishonesty: we all know what we're really talking about with regard to the so-called Disclosure Project is space aliens that the government is keeping secret. We aren't talking about UFOs as some unknown phenomena, we're talking about Greer's version of space aliens who are visiting the planet with full knowledge of world governments.

Finally, it is completely appropriate to compare space aliens visiting in UFOs to the supernatural. This is because they are. They are said to appear/disappear; abduct in the night; speak with their minds; fly with/without machines; move through walls/ceilings; etc, etc. These space aliens cannot be measured or quantified and are completely incorporeal. They exist, to date, only in stories and myths. They are as every bit supernatural as ghosts, goblins, pink unicorns, Ba'al, Yahweh, and astral projection. Indeed, UFO nutters like Whitley Streiber are fond of including supernatural feats like astral projection with their 'visitations.' They are supernatural. If they aren't, where is one that can be empirically examined or measured?

The evidence relies on the shoulders on the reputations it rests apon, disbelief can always come into play when dealing with personal reports because youre really taking someones word for it. But if you consider why such a large group of people offen from the same agencies, and offen with reputations to protect would go out of their way to tell bare-faced lies then i think offen theres more reason to believe that theres some truth to the matter rather than it all being a huge hoax and conspiracy of lies to make some retirement money.

The answer is as simple as the comparative links I gave you: belief. They believe in something bigger than they. Status and station, rank and position mean little with regard to the validity of evidence when it comes to eyewitness testimony. If either of these conditions validated belief or offered credibilty to claims, our world would be a quite different place. There are world leaders and dignitaries and people of high status all over the world who believe in the hokey and supernatural. Tom Cruise & scientology; Reagan &astrology; Hitler & eugenics; Bush & xianity; etc. I had a battalion commander when I was in the U.S. Army that I used to read tarot cards to (1992). He was a Lieutenant Colonel then and now a brigadier general. He bought every word I 'read' to him and even based some minor command decisions on it. I spent over 12 years in the military and have met soldiers of all ranks who believed in all sorts of things. Their ranks and status within the military did not validate their beliefs.

Again beleif doesnt enter into it, if youve seen a ufo youve simply seen a ufo, nothing more nothing less. You cant infer a whole belief system from someone seeing an object in flight. you wouldnt say a bird spotters society which specialises in spotting a particular rare bird have a 'belief' in that particular bird. Its an entirely erroneous position.

This is the plausible deniability fallacy that I was talking about with regard to the ETI-UFO hypothesis. We aren't talking about the strict definition of UFO as Unidentified Flying Object, where there is something in the sky and we all agree it is simply something that has yet to be identified as plane, bird, star, cloud, delusion, etc. We're talking about the 'Disclosure Project.' Its in the thread title. If you think Greer et al weren't talking about space aliens, then you aren't talking about the same 'disclosure project' we are.

That is kind of worrying, although im not sure if his personal beliefs really enter into it, as long as hes not fabricated testimonies and put words in peoples mouth, which to date noone has claimed he has then i think the evidence hes collected still stands up.

He has indeed been accused of that by one of the people whom he listed as a 'witness' no less. I'll have to dig for that reference, but I have a clear recollection of it. The individual was a high-ranking official and was misquoted in a clearly dishonest fashion. Moreover, his 'testimonies' fail on other grounds as well: many of the 'witnesses' simply have too much emotional and intellectual baggage to be taken seriously. Stone and Daniel Sheehan are two off the top of my head. The 'testimony' of Gordon Cooper is another. James Oberg has written (http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/cooper.html) a very good article on Coopers account in which he concludes, "Cooper has found himself on the receiving end of frauds and fabrications attached to his name. His usefulness to UFO proponents is based on his honest advocacy of serious UFO research (a desire shared by many serious researchers in the field, including myself)."

Greer does seem a pretty effective collector of testimony and should probably exclusively concentrate on that area. Everytime ive seen him try to theories or put the peices together himself i'll admit he frequently does seem to get it wrong.

As I've pointed out in a previous post, there are many people who have demonstrated the ability to collect testimony. Such is the function of belief not reality. In much the same way the devoutly religious believe in their god(s) and ritualize their lives accordingly, the devout ETI-UFO believer does the same. And, in much the same way individuals within religion use the beliefs of others to gain status and position, so, too, do individuals within the ETI-UFO culture.

That is either brilliant, or a very happy coincidence. The disclosure project does indeed belong in a nut shell. If it was coincidence, ask again and I shall enlighten thee.

How about we call it coincidental brilliance? Subconscious and all that. Thanks for the explanation of the project. That "sale site" for the project video kind of reminded me of the site for "The Blair Witch Project" before that movie came out. Suspicious.

My description of the Disclosure Project is a positive one.
For one thing, you cant really take the opinion of either "believer" with a grain of salt.
That includes those who "believe" that such a phenomenon could not be possible, and those who "believe" in spite of never having seen anything clearly with their own eyes.

Both are speculation.
You have to see it for yourself.
And even after you see it......so what.
Until you see something with your eyes in a very valid way, how can you really truly beleive, you cant.
All it can do is prepare you.
All you can do is keep an open mind on all incoming information.
Never coming to a conclusion,..........
If you how ever decided that you were going to take the neccessary steps and make the commitment that you were going to get to the bottom of this phenomenon, and seperate your self from all of the talkers and speculators on both sides of the fence.

This is not an area one should be on one side or the other.
With all of the sightings, controversies, eye witnesses, video tapes, media coverage, scientific attention, etc.....is it not possible that out of the millions of informational bits in whatever form they may take, that there may be something to it?

On a topic such as this, to gain the best view one should be on top of the fence at all times, until personal experience dictates otherwise.

I am not trying to convince you of anything.
If you were to belive me just because I say so then you are a clown.
Think for yourself.

Do not believe something because one person says it is and one person says it isnt.
The desire to know WTF is going on is great I know, but believe me, even after seeing something that I cannot change, I am no furhter ahead in any way.
My happiness has not increased because of it, my desire to get ahead in life, financialy, in my realtionships, personal goals etc have not been increased, in fact it has probly inhibited my resolve to reallly go for what I want out of my own life.
Just because it leaves so many more questions unawnsered.

However, fuck it, I'm going to make the best of my life whether or not it was alien life or government bullshit.

My advice to anyone on here would be to spend more time on what you truly value most in your life, and that goes to believers on both sides of the fence.
However, I also understand that I am also just a faceless string of words on your computer screen talking about the most taboo subjects in existence today.
Where even the mere mention of the possibility of life out there is frowned upon by the majority of the media...thus the general public.

If your pragmatic, watch it.
Do what ever you can to find it.
Its on the net.
However, if your already a believer on either side of the fence, dont waste your time.
Its already hucksterishness, or its already more proof and all the substantialbility you need to keep flouting this phenomenon even though you have yet to see something with your own eyes, and not jsut a maybe you saw something.

*deep breath*, ahhh, anyways, I'm done ranting for another couple of months.
Keep doing what you do.
Peace

Always a pleasure to read your opinions even when I disagree. Don't make your appearances here such a rare occurrence! :cool:

They're currently having a "sale." (http://www.disclosureproject.org/shop.htm) You can get the disclosure witness DVD for a mere $15 down from the $30 it used to sell at. At these prices, Greer's sales might put Walmart under. Then again, perhaps not.

The claim is that they are able to "reduce prices" because of increased donorship. I'm betting its overstock and the shit simply wasn't moving so they followed basic economic principles that any businessman would when stuck with high volumes of high priced product: cut prices and re-brand it.

Its a scam. Greer is a con-artist.

Where is your proof that it's a scam and he's a con artist?

Whoops, guess I wasnt done. lol
Seems like every one is trying to convince everyone else.
Believers on either side of the fence are just trying to convince the other side they are wrong.
Is it really such a selfless act on either side that you are really just trying to look out for the "other guy" with your views and communication?
Is it really the other persons interest you are looking out for when trying to convince another that "other life visitation" is either happening or not happening?

Lets not kid ourselves.
Each have entirely selfish motives.
Gaining value in whatever form is your goal.
Not a bad thing, however seems to go unnoticed.
On the one side, are you not really just trying to continually convince yourself that there really is "no such" thing?
And on the other side , are you not really just trying to convince yourself that there "is" such a thing?

If you knew with out a doubt, with absolute certainty that you were right, why would you even bother to debate with someone?
How long would you carry on a conversation with someone who said there was no such thing as the sun, while standing outside on a bright cloudless sunny day with beltering heat and wearing sunglasses.
How would you respond to this guy? How long would you carry on a conversation with this person? How much of your valuable time would you commit to try and change this persons mind?
Thats the problem with beleifs, both of you are trying to point out the sun to the other.
Look how obvious it is!
Thats the problem with believers on either side.
Howver, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you guys really do enjoy the debate.
Maybe its just me.
I see no use in it.
Just a way of communicating with others I guess.
K, I'm getting off my soap box.
I deserve some bashing for that debacle...lol
Peace.

Thanks Skin.
I respect you.
Which is rare on this board.
Peace

We cannot forget that there are a great many people that lurk and visit who are largely undecided or only decided slightly in one direction or another. These are the people who might be swayed by the most reasoned argument. It is for these people I write.

@Agitprop
Why do I think Greer is a con? Intuition mostly. He wouldn't be the first to try and take advantage of the beliefs of others to make a buck. His website is replete with products for sale. Moreover, I recall some criticism of his money-making ventures related to the Disclosure Project, which included "seminars" which were exhorbantly priced and could be conducted at dinner parties in your own home. Very 'new agey' and it gives me a bad vibe. I stand by my assertion: he's a con artist.

I understand Skin.
Plus your good at it, sometimes it shows that you are indeed getting sick of debating the same stories over and over and again when you seem to get short tempered and resort to the insuating woo woo calling...lol
Dont blame ya.
There has definitely been some wackos.
And your right, you defintely provide balance.

Its such a wierd place to be Skin, having seen what I saw.
I really do feel as though I'm watching froma different place, from those who have never seen and are more in favour of the phenomena being explained as natural circumstances, and to those who just merely want to believe or are purposely trying to convince others for or against the phenomena.

I really wish I could share the experience I had with you.
Why?
I'm not sure.
I guess, even through it all, its just nice to have certain understandings in common.
Also, its just that you have such a great mind, and that maybe you deserve to know or something like that.
Or maybe because I think you would be good at helping to figure out WTF is going on.
Dam Skin, for what its worth, there is something going on.
I'm not sure if you remember my particular experience.
Myself and a friend, Kewlowna B.C. Canada, noonish, cloudless day, saw at least 30 of these silver crafts in plain site, at least a half a centimeter in size at arms length, all moving in perfect formation in the shape of an 8 or a side ways sand hourglass.

No noise, surrounded by a clear field.
I swear on my mothers grave its the truth.
Maybe its my need to warn others, or to at least let you know.

Ya Skin, I think its been a couple years now since I first came to this site and I remember you being here as well.
I know if we were to ever hang out, the last thing we would talk about would be god dam ufo's!...lol

Anyways, your right, your keeping the balance for those who rely on others to make up their minds for them.
Thats a lot of responsiblity....wink
Anyways....Peace Skin

Government or otherwise.

Is it really such a selfless act on either side that you are really just trying to look out for the "other guy" with your views and communication?
Is it really the other persons interest you are looking out for when trying to convince another that "other life visitation" is [either happening or] not happening?

Lets not kid ourselves.
Each have entirely selfish motives.
Gaining value in whatever form is your goal.
Not a bad thing, however seems to go unnoticed.
On the one side, are you not really just trying to continually convince yourself that there really is "no such" thing?I understand why you are saying what you are saying, and I appreciate the measured way in which you are saying it. [Ready for the other shoe?]
However, poppycock.
Let us agree that probably all actions are in some way or other selfish. But you imply that one is either for or against. I doubt you actually mean this - if SW values your contributions you must have some sense - but that is very clearly what you imply. It is entirely possible to be open minded on the topic, yet to view the Disclosure Project with disdain.

I have no idea if other life exists in the Universe, though I think it is almost certain.
I have no idea of if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe, though I think it probable.
I have no idea if intelligent life exists in this galaxy, though I think it possible.
I have no idea if intelligent life has visited this planet, though I think it may well have happened.
I have no idea if intelligent life is still visiting this planet, though I think it is very unlikley.
I am pretty certain that all of the sightings that have been reported are explicable in terms of all the usual suspects.

Each day I hope against hope that I shall be proven wrong on the last point. But just as I may hope that those six little numbers show up on the lottery draw I know the odds are against it.

So, I don't want the evidence, when and if it does appear, rejected because it gets lumped with the mountain of spurious sitings. The evidence contained in The Disclosure Project that I have seen is of very poor quality. Greer is, as SW suggests, either a conman, or deluded. I do not have the entire project to assess, but I am working on a reasonable assumption that the tasters in his site would contain some of the better examples. What is presented is of such low quality that it does not auger well for the main mass of material.

And yet material of this sort is muddying the waters for what could be the most important event in humanity's history since we stepped down onto the East African plains. I do not wish to see that event obscured. I do not wish to see a search for robotic 'sentries', which may have been left in the solar system to observe, receive no serious consideration because of the nutters associated with things like the Disclosure Project. The Disclosure Project flies in the face of those wishing to see an openminded, scientific approach to this problem. I condemn it utterly.

Hello,
I have to say straight away that the postings on this subject seem to me to be generally under informed.
Unless the background to the phenomenon has been studied in depth , rubbishing the published statements of those persons willing to risk their careers and reputations ,seems to me to be entirely vindictive.

I have to say straight away that the postings on this subject seem to me to be generally under informed.Thank you for getting straight to the point. Can you give a couple of examples of what you mean, demonstrating that said postings are indeed under informed.
Unless the background to the phenomenon has been studied in depth , rubbishing the published statements of those persons willing to risk their careers and reputations ,seems to me to be entirely vindictive.Really. That sort of statement seems to me entirely foolish. Where does that leave us? Shall we start again? Seems best.

What makes you believe the background to these types of phenomena has not been studied in depth by one or more of the posters?

Note that many of the individuals who are speaking out are retired: they have no career to protect, but a knowledge of human nature tells us some of them may have an axe to grind.

An earlier poster said they had the complete CD of interviews. Perhaps they would like to select the best example they found in that and offer it up for objective analysis. I should prefer to deal directly with solid material than the emphemeral nonsense available on the public portion of the site.

Here is an example of Witness Testimony from a certain Sgt Karl Wolf of the US Air Force. He was shown something - we are never told what - by someone, - we are never told who - that he should not see - we are never told why. He then says this:
"I knew that I couldn't go anyplace for at least five years without telling the State Department where I was, after I left the military. Any time I traveled I had to notify and get permission, even in the United States. They had to know where I was all the time. As an example, if we went to Vietnam there was always someone there with us, with a gun, ready to annihilate us basically if we should fall into the hands of the enemy. They didn't want the enemy to get us; we would be killed instead."

There are two aspects to this: his requirement to notify the government of his whereabouts; the intention of executing him rather than have him fall into enemy hands. Let's deal with each of those:

I look to someone more familiar with the workings of the US military than I to correct any errors in this understanding. After completing active service military personnel are placed on Reserve Status, initially Active Reserve Status, then Inactive Reserve Status. They may be called up to serve at any time and at short notice. It is therefore essential that the military authorities are able to contact them rapidly.
If this understanding is correct, then Sgt.Wolf's requirment to let the government know where he was matched that of every other commissioned and non-commisioned officer following a move to the Active Reserve.
Big deal!

Now, the claim that he would be shot rather than allowed to fall into enemy hands.
1) If the information he has is so explosive in character, would it not make more sense to keep him in the US, rather than sending him all the way to Vietnam?
2) What ensures that the designated executor is not captured or shot first? If he is, is Sgt Wolf expected to do the decent thing and commit suicide.
3) Can the authorities allow the enemy to know that Sgt Wolf knew something so important he had to be killed rather than let it fall into enemy hands. Perhaps, there needs to be a minder on hand to kill the executor before he is captured. And one for him. Perhaps that is why the US had so many troops in Vietnam.
4) Did you have some independent evidence that suggested the unsophisticated, but militarily ingenious Vietcong had interrogation techniques focused on learning about ETIs?

I believe I have been around long enough to recognise the texture, odour and appearance of bull shit. Forgive me if I do not taste it to confirm the obvious.
4

oh deeear, i read Meanwhile's ever so patient posts. yet STILL he becomes under target. so: you cant reason wid mscientists if you are patient OR impatient. nuthin gets thru teir thick rind. an insight

Both Skin and Oph insist on calling AL people invlved wit DP, 'nutters'. how veeery scientific/...infact in Oph's ' friendly' reply to Meanwhile he tells M how all invlved with DP are nutters, tus implying Meanwhile is one also as Meanwhile justpreviously shard again HIS experience.....what sensitivity!

sulky SW said in oe of his recent ever so lon rants that the UFOs/ and or entities are 'entirely incorpreal'. Nooo they aint clever dick. they is BOTH incorporeal AND corporeal. as is defined by many WITNESSED/EXPERIENCERS reports.
and he furthe stats 'the exist to date, only in stories and myths'--and you forgor didny yu Skin---also in people's EXPERIENCES!---------

look the pair of you. when you begin slaggin people off---people you have never even met, 'nutters', it is YOURSELVESwho have ISSUES about this.
tis is clearly obvious for anyone wit any intelligence to so. apart it is obvious, for yourselves

oh deeear, i read Meanwhile's ever so patient posts. yet STILL he becomes under target....

Em, d? Although I believe you implicitly when y'say you've "read Meanwhile's ever so patient posts" to the letter, I can't help but observe the singular fact that Meanwhile doesn't appear to have posted anything at all in this particular thread...

What are talking about here?

Who is meanwhile?

Perhaps he is back at the ranch.

A sock puppet apparently. Not a terribly nice one either.

(That's in response to the previous post O, doubled whammied me a bit there... ;) )

sorry, i meant Momentum7

:) ... Yeah d, kinnda guessed but, y'know, does somewhat kind of take the steam out of an otherwise fine meant post.

Details, they occasionally need paying attention to also. ;)

:) ... Yeah d, kinnda guessed but, y'know, does somewhat kind of take the steam out of an otherwise fine meant post.

me))errrm hows that? i MEANTit about Momentum7 (etc)...??
Details, they occasionally need paying attention to also. ;)
shame you dont spot this with your buddies when it COUNTS, andnot just mistakin a user-name...!

oh deeear, i read Meanwhile's ever so patient posts. yet STILL he becomes under target. so: you cant reason wid mscientists if you are patient OR impatient. nuthin gets thru teir thick rind. an insight

Both Skin and Oph insist on calling AL people invlved wit DP, 'nutters'. how veeery scientific/...infact in Oph's ' friendly' reply to Meanwhile he tells M how all invlved with DP are nutters, tus implying Meanwhile is one also as Meanwhile justpreviously shard again HIS experience.....what sensitivity!

sulky SW said in oe of his recent ever so lon rants that the UFOs/ and or entities are 'entirely incorpreal'. Nooo they aint clever dick. they is BOTH incorporeal AND corporeal. as is defined by many WITNESSED/EXPERIENCERS reports.
and he furthe stats 'the exist to date, only in stories and myths'--and you forgor didny yu Skin---also in people's EXPERIENCES!---------

look the pair of you. when you begin slaggin people off---people you have never even met, 'nutters', it is YOURSELVESwho have ISSUES about this.
tis is clearly obvious for anyone wit any intelligence to so. apart it is obvious, for yourselvesSometimes Duendy, you piss me right off. Where have I slagged off Meanwhile you drug addled turkey? Now those last words were was slagging you off - it's the same kind of language and abuse we read in at least a third of your posts.
In contrast, I very politely called one of Meanwhile's statements poppycock. I did not attack Meanwhile. I did not attack his belief system. I did not attack his family, friends, acquaintances or chosen employment. I attacked a single stetement.

I even said, I can't believe you meant this, but if you did here is why it is wrong.

I then shared - yes shared Duendy, something you are always going on about but can never manage to see it being practiced by those on the 'other side' of the argument. I shared my viewpoint on ETIs and a little of why I thought things like the Disclosure Project were dangerous.

For me, Duendy, Mystery is nice, but solving the mystery is nicer. The Disclosure Project acts against that goal.

now YOUR going on about 'meanwhile'...!

forgET meanwhile, . i was talking about Momentum7, NOT A 'meanwhile'---goddit? good.

whay is DP 'dangerous'? is this why you called all involved in it, 'nutters'?

why is it dangerous. please explain?

my 2 cents are this
how long has this ufo business been going on? since at least '47?
that's 60 years
in all that time has any aliens appeared? so they obviously are not superior to us so why worry about it right?

Sorry, I meant Momentum7. ;)

why is it dangerous. please explain?Which part of my post did you not understand?

So, I don't want the evidence, when and if it does appear, rejected because it gets lumped with the mountain of spurious sitings. The evidence contained in The Disclosure Project that I have seen is of very poor quality. Greer is, as SW suggests, either a conman, or deluded. I do not have the entire project to assess, but I am working on a reasonable assumption that the tasters in his site would contain some of the better examples. What is presented is of such low quality that it does not auger well for the main mass of material.

And yet material of this sort is muddying the waters for what could be the most important event in humanity's history since we stepped down onto the East African plains. I do not wish to see that event obscured. I do not wish to see a search for robotic 'sentries', which may have been left in the solar system to observe, receive no serious consideration because of the nutters associated with things like the Disclosure Project. The Disclosure Project flies in the face of those wishing to see an openminded, scientific approach to this problem. I condemn it utterly.

so do you see ANY witnessed experience and statement a 'threat/danger' then?

why canno someone's reported experience be PART of scientific endeavour reegarding trying to understand tis phenomena?

so do you see ANY witnessed experience and statement a 'threat/danger' then?Not at all. Some of my 'colleagues' here consider witness testimony unreliable to the point of uselessness. I do not go that far. The issue with eye witness testimony is that it is unreliable. We know this. It has been repeatedly demonstrated. That does not mean it should necessarily be discarded, but it must be very carefully weighed.

When it is used, as it is with the Disclosure Project, apparently to make money then I have a problem with it on two levels: firstly it is a scam, taking money from the gullible; secondly, it 'muddying the waters' as I have described before. It is such poor quality of 'evidence' that even if Greer is sincere it is dangerous on this second count.why canno someone's reported experience be PART of scientific endeavour reegarding trying to understand tis phenomena?
Of course it can. But, as noted above, we have to recognise that seeing should not be believing. You have previously utterly dismissed my shared experiences of seeing ghosts on two occasions and hearing the same one several times. Equally I have seen you accept similar sightings by others. The only difference I can detect between the two cases is that they believe they may have seen something supernatural, I believe I was experiencing a hallucination.

why canno someone's reported experience be PART of scientific endeavour reegarding trying to understand tis phenomena?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45461

Eyewitness testimony without cooborating physical evidence is a waste of time. Particulary when other socio-cultural dynamics (the consistency of the "witness" demographic is telling) are evident. The phenomenon of UFOs is an anthropological problem. We're probably dealing with cultural and religious issues rather than a question for hard sciences.

And aliens are non-coporeal in that they don't seem to exist anymore than "ghosts" and "goblins." The ETI-UFO explanation is a supernatural one.

And aliens are non-coporeal in that they don't seem to exist anymore than "ghosts" and "goblins." The ETI-UFO explanation is a supernatural one.

which is quite nicely debunked by

The universe is extremely HUGE. Odds are that there are other intelligent civilizations out there, even those that have technologies more advanced than our own.

I don't rule out the "space alien" hypothesis, b

Out 'there.' But the anthropogenic/anthropomorphic idea of space aliens in popular culture is clearly terrestrial in origin in the same way as "ghosts" and "goblins." There may be solid, real beings elsewhere in the universe, but given that it is HUGE and given that the conditions that allowed for life to evolve elsewhere were not terrestrial, it isn't likely that they are visiting us. And if they were, it is less likely that they look like us, which is how they are depicted.

So, as you can see, Spookz, my two statements above are consistent. Clearly, your goal isn't discussion but disruption.

shame you dont spot this with your buddies when it COUNTS, andnot just mistakin a user-name...!

:) ... d, it isn't my mistake, and as far as I'm aware, it isn't actually anyone else's either - you seem, once again, to be implying collusion, as indicated by your use of the term "your buddies" where in practice no whatsoever exists.

I haven't given comment on the subject of the Disclosure Project one way or another. Simply put, I haven't actually read it, therefore I don't feel I have anything practical on that score to offer. I did, however, notice Meanwhiles absence from the discussing as its stands and did, if you can be arsed to actually read for once, compliment you on a fine sentiment almost well expressed were it not for the somewhat obvious fact that in stating "i read Meanwhile's ever so patient posts" patently y'hadn't on account of how Meanwhile hasn't said a single damn word.

Naturally, there's no need to even pretend to take a compliment with good grace. That would, of course, be far too materialistic of you, I perfectly understand...

skinwalker

really? misinterpretation is not an option? perhaps you overreact?

i like to know what space alien hypothesis you use. what data is utilised in your formulation?

it isn't likely that they are visiting us. And if they were, it is less likely that they look like us, which is how they are depicted.

interesting.
could you tell me why?
what factors are taken into account?

really? misinterpretation is not an option? perhaps you overreact?That's always a possibility. But your past behavior and lack of content in over 1300 posts is sufficient empirical evidence to conclude that your goals do not include actual discussion.

interesting.
could you tell me why?
what factors are taken into account? Start a new thread. This is, after all, a seperate topic from the one at hand. This topic is concerned wih the "disclosure project" and its validity or usefulness. To date, it has not demonstrated itself to be either useful or valid.

i am gustav now, fella
others might not know of old handle and could possibly get confused

Thank you for getting straight to the point. Can you give a couple of examples of what you mean, demonstrating that said postings are indeed under informed.
Really. That sort of statement seems to me entirely foolish. Where does that leave us? Shall we start again? Seems best.

What makes you believe the background to these types of phenomena has not been studied in depth by one or more of the posters?

Note that many of the individuals who are speaking out are retired: they have no career to protect, but a knowledge of human nature tells us some of them may have an axe to grind.

An earlier poster said they had the complete CD of interviews. Perhaps they would like to select the best example they found in that and offer it up for objective analysis. I should prefer to deal directly with solid material than the emphemeral nonsense available on the public portion of the site.

Ophiolite,
I meant that not all posters may be aware of the long history of the subject,as it is not widely known as a " serious" subject.
Now I feel a bit stupid because having looked up some of the posts of years ago,there is a lot of information already in this forum`s history.
Excuse my crassness, I`m getting on a bit ,the brain`s throwing wobblies!

Regards ,Awdsci

Don't let that keep you from chimming in with the discussion, awdsci. You seem to have an opinion, which may be of interest to the discussion, regardless of whether others agree or not.

That's always a possibility. But your past behavior and lack of content in over 1300 posts is sufficient empirical evidence to conclude that your goals do not include actual discussion.

your "empirical evidence" notwithstanding....

here is how it could be.

i will not indulge in any useless rhetoric towards you
you will refrain from making any emotional considerations, ie: geting caught up in battles not your own.

i find you a fair person. i like that you acknowledge stuff
the truce is there for the taking
your choice

i meant what i said. perhaps it is unfortunate i prefer debate over discussion but i am sure i can make the accomodation quite effortlessly. all you gotta do is to disallow past considerations to taint the present.

new thread it is
when sufficiently motivated

one of the talking points....But the anthropogenic/anthropomorphic idea of space aliens in popular culture is clearly terrestrial in origin in the same way as "ghosts" and "goblins."

suit up...just kidding :)

Window glass is quite transparent. Are other things equally transparent? Just an idle thought.

awdsci - think nothing of it.

Skinwalker---yeah, why ae you resorting to callin Gustav by a past username?
thaqt's childish. he is NOW 'GUSTAV'

also, he is very MUC contributing to the degbate. so much so, he shows you'll up/ the chinks in your 'logic'--you know who i mean. THA is why he disturbs you, know why?? cause you invest EVEYthing in 'logic' is why. so to haveyour shaky founations juddered ...ooooo it hurts. i can feel it.
btw, the reference to a past rant of yours. sheeit, i'd already answered it. please keep in presnt time. more fun

Ophiliolite--says, 'eye witness testimony is unrelible'---ie., your reasons for interpreting the Disclosure prokect testimonies 'dangerous'. well. for WHo are the unreliable? for te one's who dont believe them? i wold say yeah to that. i would add that your irrational accusations against these people are unreliable, taboot.
and Oph yu said: "you previously dismissed my shared experiences of seeing ghosts on two occassions-----eh what? that dont seem ME. where?

and Oph yu said: "you previously dismissed my shared experiences of seeing ghosts on two occassions-----eh what? that dont seem ME. where?Cut me some slack Duendy. I don't know where. I have mentioned my ghost sightings on a number of threads over the past one and a half years. I have no idea which one or ones you made disparaging comments. I recall thinking at the time that if I had waxed lyrical at this strange mystical experience and not been called Ophiolite you would have been all over me and thrusting my experience in skeptics faces as another example their materialism would ignore.
Instead, because I accepted them as hallucinations, with susbtantiating evidence, you just berated me for being a materialist. Some days it really does get old, Duendy. When one is trying to be honest and direct, then you just get kicked in the gonads.

Cut me some slack Duendy. I don't know where. I have mentioned my ghost sightings on a number of threads over the past one and a half years. I have no idea which one or ones you made disparaging comments. I recall thinking at the time that if I had waxed lyrical at this strange mystical experience and not been called Ophiolite you would have been all over me and thrusting my experience in skeptics faces as another example their materialism would ignore.
Instead, because I accepted them as hallucinations, with susbtantiating evidence, you just berated me for being a materialist. Some days it really does get old, Duendy. When one is trying to be honest and direct, then you just get kicked in the gonads.
ohhh myyyy daaays, SEE the irony HERE! you call others dangerous etc, and nutters, who give eye-witness testimony, yet..... OUT OF THE BLUE you accuse ME---not a likely canidate--as somehow discounting your ghosty mystical experiences, and yet---wait for it, have NO EVIDENCE to support your accusation.....?

mwhahahhhahHAHAHHAhhhhaahahahaha...till i puke.......heheheheh

The evidence is there. I'm not too happy about having to spend several hours to locate it, since google no longer works within sciforums. I thought you might, in line with your declared principles, be willing to accept my description of events. Apparently not. Is there a touch of hypocrisy in your approach Duendy? No, surely not.

Let us get something else absolutely clear - several things.
I do not call anyone who give eyewitness testimony a nutter. I call people nutters who choose bizarre explanations over the mundane, either because they lack intelligence, education, or discrimination.
I call the the unscientific approach to UFOs dangerous because it delays a more widespread scientific approach.
I did not have mystical experiences - I saw ghosts. I said that had I claimed them as mystical experiences you would have clasped me to your bosom, figuratively I trust.

Skinwalker---yeah, why ae you resorting to callin Gustav by a past username?
thaqt's childish. he is NOW 'GUSTAV'


Nostalgia. I remember him as 'Spookz.' He made an impression upon me then. Perhaps it was the same quality that got 'Spookz' "forever banned" by Porfiry. Who knows... but he *is* Spookz.

also, he is very MUC contributing to the degbate.


I'm not sure if you mean 'muck' or 'much.' Surely you mean the former, to which I agree. He serves only to muck a conversation. And if you notice, I only interact with him when he interacts with me. Such is the nature of the agreement we arrived at which he posted above.

btw, the reference to a past rant of yours. sheeit, i'd already answered it. please keep in presnt time. more fun


You responded, but you certainly didn't refute it. My 'rant' stands. The data I cited are valid and have not been refuted. The link I provided is also relevant and provides the answer to the question you posed. Though it seems likely that the information in that thread was not objectively reviewed by yourself, since it appeared contrary to your belief system and was thus dismissed out of hand. Not that I expect objectivity from you, though it is my hope.

But in the interest of keeping the thread more about the topic and less about each other, which of the witness accounts do you see as credible in the document? Some? All? If all, do you operate under the assumption that every single account is accurate and true without embellishment (intentional or unintentional) or deception? Or do you accept that some of the accounts (there's a total of about 400) are inaccurate? If you do, which ones do you feel are the most inaccurate and why? If some can be accepted as inaccurate, why not all?

How does one answer the problem of the demographic of the "eyewitnesses?" How does one answer the hypothesis that this is a function of belief rather than objectivity when the "testimonials" of other, questionable claims are considered? Do we accept that all testimonials of questionable claims validate the claims (new age cures, pyramid power, individual relgious cults, etc)? Or do we accept that people can allow their belief to override their critical thought processes and side with what they hope or want to be true? Do we accept that people of some perceived high status or rank in a society worry about their reputations while the rest of us are less concerned? Is the reputation of the individual who works a 9-5 job and lives pay-check-to-pay-check less important that that of the individual in the military? Or do we accept that those of elite status (of which there really aren't any in the 'disclosure project') are as capable of being as passionate or devout in their beliefs as the rest of us?

The so-called 'disclosure project' discloses only the beliefs of its membership. Its 'congregation' if you will.

You responded, but you certainly didn't refute it. My 'rant' stands. The data I cited are valid and have not been refuted. The link I provided is also relevant and provides the answer to the question you posed. Though it seems likely that the information in that thread was not objectively reviewed by yourself, since it appeared contrary to your belief system and was thus dismissed out of hand. Not that I expect objectivity from you, though it is my hope.

But in the interest of keeping the thread more about the topic and less about each other, which of the witness accounts do you see as credible in the document? Some? All? If all, do you operate under the assumption that every single account is accurate and true without embellishment (intentional or unintentional) or deception? Or do you accept that some of the accounts (there's a total of about 400) are inaccurate? If you do, which ones do you feel are the most inaccurate and why? If some can be accepted as inaccurate, why not all?

How does one answer the problem of the demographic of the "eyewitnesses?" How does one answer the hypothesis that this is a function of belief rather than objectivity when the "testimonials" of other, questionable claims are considered? Do we accept that all testimonials of questionable claims validate the claims (new age cures, pyramid power, individual relgious cults, etc)? Or do we accept that people can allow their belief to override their critical thought processes and side with what they hope or want to be true? Do we accept that people of some perceived high status or rank in a society worry about their reputations while the rest of us are less concerned? Is the reputation of the individual who works a 9-5 job and lives pay-check-to-pay-check less important that that of the individual in the military? Or do we accept that those of elite status (of which there really aren't any in the 'disclosure project') are as capable of being as passionate or devout in their beliefs as the rest of us?

The so-called 'disclosure project' discloses only the beliefs of its membership. Its 'congregation' if you will.

Duendy is a classic example of hypocrisy and someone who repeatedly argues against the very things she claims to stand for!

On one hand, she considers all science to be "materialistic" and distrustful. Yet she turns right around and is quite willing to take the word - unquestioned, even! - of a bunch of people who say they saw something and since they don't know what it was, why then, it must have been alien craft!!!

She also is opposed to ANY religion, yet as you've just pointed out, these people practically have their own "CHURCH of UFO BELIEVERS." No evidence of any kind, no real facts that can be examined - nothing but pure belief and belief alone !

Talk about confused, irrational thinking! She tops the chart in that category. (Her little tinfoil hat needs serious realignment - things are leaking out as well as in.)

Skin, the gist I personally got frm your latest post issss: how does one differentiate between bogus new age scams and whats going down at the DP?

without evidence.....solid

alright , in one of your critiqes you mentioned i think, Reiki.

two years back i was on holiday with a young woman friend. she had been--a year back--in a bad road car accident and her leg was shattered. there was threat she might have to have amputation

Her sister is a Reiki Master, and had learned it from her. she claims she healed it, and on holiday wa walking around this really frisky duns like any normal person, just needing a natrual stick for a sight crutch when it got dark one night and we were shrooming

Nw. i intuit how you look at this event. you throw out 'reiki'--but ALSo throw out te ACTUAl healing she has somehow happened for herself

altho not a Chaos magicikan. i dabbled once and have read a bit about it. they would interpret whats going on as this: 'reiki' is a MODEL. it is not 'the truth', but A way of --in this case--self-healing. and tat other ways could be used to just a adequate. including of course modern medicine if you so need/desire it....and of course in some cases, modern medicine is VERY much needed. yet not THE only way

Those trying to understand UFOs and "where they come from" refuse to accept any balanced or objective view of the topic. Rejected out of hand by those that readily accept the ETI explanation of UFOs are the more prosaic, mundane and anthropogenic explanations. It would seem that the unproven, undemonstrated and untestable is preferable to that which has been demonstrated and tested time and again.
It sounds like your problem with the disclosure project is in reality a problem you have with the ufo community in general. I think its a unfair blanket statement to claim that anyone interested in ufos has no interest in objectivity.

Then there is the UFO apologetic that seeks to give the air of objectivity by maintaining a plausible deniablity in their belief that UFOs are ETI based. This, they realize, is an outlandish and hokey concept and, rather than defend the position with any rationality, they respond to critics with things like, "you're the one assuming UFOs are alien, I'm saying they're simply unknown." This thin veil of intellectual dishonesty, while transparent, provides that "plausible deniability" in the face of reason.
I cant see what basis youd have to believe that people who are talking about ufos are simply using it as short-hand for 'alien spacecraft' unless you can read the mind of anyone talking about or professing an interest in ufos.



Others are simply repeating the second-hand stories of someone they know.
I havent come across any witness accounts recounting other people's stories unless youve come across any and can copy and paste some quotes for me.

Some may even believe what they are saying.
thats a rather strange thing to say, that comes across to me as 'anyone who sees a ufo must have a delusional belief since ufos dont really exist'
Reading between the lines in some of your posts thats the increasing impression im getting.


But none are credible. Rank and status does not imply credibility. Indeed, the trend I noted in a post above is a valid question: why is the demographic so consistent. If these were credible claims, we would expect to see the demographic of the "witnesses" reflect the true demographic of the military they come from. It doesn't. How many African Americans or women are represented? Are these people not employed by the military? Was not the military one of the earliest American institutions to de-segregate?
I dont think the project goes as far as to disclose information about race, its really irrevelvant i think and a complete non-issue.
But yes there does appear to be more male witnesses than female, prehaps due to the fact that some of these reports stretch decades back, before equal opportunities were as championed as they are today.
As for rank it certainly holds alot more weight to hear someone with status/position than without, who would you be more inclined to believe someone with nothing to lose or something with everything to lose?


Eyewitness testimony is useless and suspect without cooborating physical evidence. Of which there are none. No photos. Not one captain's log (from either a spaceship or a military source). Not one spaceship hood-ornament. No DNA samples. No alien implants. Nothing. Just fantasies of believers rallied around a cause. You can see that bullshit at any Pro-Choice/Pro-Life rally.
Eye-witness testimonies can always be suspect yes, that is if you have can think of a reason to suspect youre being lied to. If you cant think of a good enough (plausible) reason then suspicion starts to become a little baseless and more of trait within the person scrutinising the data.
As for testimonies being useless... definitely not, eye-witness testimonies are used every day in hearings and in courtrooms. Which is presicley the context that greer seeks this information to be used.


I was assuming you actually[quote] read the document you claimed to have obtained. It is replete with the belief of others. Do a text search for Clifford Stone. Read about belief.
The pdf ive obtained mostly contains witness accounts of what someone saw, ive come across few accounts where the witnesses delve into their ideas of where these things might be comming from. People like clifford stone seem to lie on the extreme end of the spectrum, even if he does believe or think/suppose what he says im not even sure that bares atall on his experiences or the experiences of others.




You couldn't be more wrong. It is ALL about belief. Indeed, Greer is a prophet or cleric of sorts. A cult leader within the religious framework of the ETI-UFO culture, albeit a proto-religious framework. In the absence of physical evidence to support the ETI-UFO hypothesis, it is exactly faith that one needs in order to maintain it. It would be erroneous, even intellectually dishonest, to discount belief in the argument for this hypothesis.
I never suggested we should discount belief but we should differentiate between an 1. 'experience' - which doesnt have to say anything tell us anything beyond whats been expeirenced. 2. An idea/theory - i.e. 'i had an expeirence i think xyz may be possibilites worth considering when trying to understand what i saw.' And 3. belief - 'i had an experience im now convinced that i have an explaination that fits what i saw despite not being in possesion of any full clear evidence.
You cant simply lump everyone whos seen a ufo into the third catagory and presume and that all ufo-witnesses have ended up as quasi-religious ufo nuts.

Particularly when it is followed with phrases like "we already know they exist." I'm sure this will invoke the plausible deniability argument where you cry foul and say you "only meant unidentified flying objects." But this, again, returns us to the intellectual dishonesty
Intellectual honesty or dishonesty is neither here nor there if youre when youre going to take a statement like 'we know ufos exist' and spin it in your head so youve heard what you want to hear. I could be as honest with you as is humanly possible but youd still convince your self youve heard something else. I sounds like youve created a fully fleshed out idea in your head of a generic ufo cult member, and if my ideas dont fit with the self-created charactrure then you'll make them fit anyway!


we all know what we're really talking about with regard to the so-called Disclosure Project is space aliens that the government is keeping secret. We aren't talking about UFOs as some unknown phenomena, we're talking about Greer's version of space aliens who are visiting the planet with full knowledge of world governments.
apparently thats what greer thinks yes, although most witnesses ive read dont even seem to believe in anything either way, be it government black projects, aliens, or natural phenomenon. Most are just there to report what theyve seen and heard. When it gets beyond that (which it does sometimes) then yes i think the reports tend to lose their purpose and impartiality.

Finally, it is completely appropriate to compare space aliens visiting in UFOs to the supernatural. This is because they are. They are said to appear/disappear; abduct in the night; speak with their minds; fly with/without machines; move through walls/ceilings; etc, etc. These space aliens cannot be measured or quantified and are completely incorporeal. They exist, to date, only in stories and myths. They are as every bit supernatural as ghosts, goblins, pink unicorns, Ba'al, Yahweh, and astral projection. Indeed, UFO nutters like Whitley Streiber are fond of including supernatural feats like astral projection with their 'visitations.' They are supernatural. If they aren't, where is one that can be empirically examined or measured?
supernatural means something that exists beyond the realms of nature or at least our understanding of it, if aliens do exist then theres absolutely nothing 'super'natural about them atall, they would be living entities with genes, dna, cells etc...they would be more than comprehensible to us.
As for empircal examination who knows, if aliens are visiting this planet then an examination may well have occured but i certainly wouldnt expect it to be publically available information.



The answer is as simple as the comparative links I gave you: belief. They believe in something bigger than they. Status and station, rank and position mean little with regard to the validity of evidence when it comes to eyewitness testimony. If either of these conditions validated belief or offered credibilty to claims, our world would be a quite different place. There are world leaders and dignitaries and people of high status all over the world who believe in the hokey and supernatural. Tom Cruise & scientology; Reagan &astrology; Hitler & eugenics; Bush & xianity; etc. I had a battalion commander when I was in the U.S. Army that I used to read tarot cards to (1992). He was a Lieutenant Colonel then and now a brigadier general. He bought every word I 'read' to him and even based some minor command decisions on it. I spent over 12 years in the military and have met soldiers of all ranks who believed in all sorts of things. Their ranks and status within the military did not validate their beliefs.
someone whos seen a ufo or had an experience of one doesnt have to 'believe' anything atall which is the point i keep making.
For example if im walking in the amazon and i see an insect ive never seen before, and describe to my friend the 'long translucent wings' the.. 'thin tapered blue body'. I dont suddenly have a belief in an exotic insect, im not a believer in small flying creatures with wings...ive mearly described my experience, nothing more nothing less.


This is the plausible deniability fallacy that I was talking about with regard to the ETI-UFO hypothesis. We aren't talking about the strict definition of UFO as Unidentified Flying Object, where there is something in the sky and we all agree it is simply something that has yet to be identified as plane, bird, star, cloud, delusion, etc.
No most (or at least a lot of ufos) that we're talking about in this context are offen spherical, saucer shaped, or triangular with a metalic smooth quality and seem to use a propulsion method relying on something entirely different from jet engines or what would normally be used to enable flight. We have plenty of these types of craft on film, long long gone are the days where a ufo is probably a weather baloon or a hallucination, or venus on a clear night. We know these types of craft exist, so its not simply a question of attaching the old labels wed useally attach to something we see in the sky. Its pretty clear theres a new type of technology in use in the form of these types of craft, and it has to be taken into consideration that someone may be seeing one of these when describing a ufo. Although yes some of the older more traditional explainations are still relevant when there is a ufo sighting.



He has indeed been accused of that by one of the people whom he listed as a 'witness' no less. I'll have to dig for that reference, but I have a clear recollection of it. The individual was a high-ranking official and was misquoted in a clearly dishonest fashion.

Yep post it up if you find it id be interested to see it.

Moreover, his 'testimonies' fail on other grounds as well: many of the 'witnesses' simply have too much emotional and intellectual baggage to be taken seriously. Stone and Daniel Sheehan are two off the top of my head. The 'testimony' of Gordon Cooper is another. James Oberg has written (http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/cooper.html) a very good article on Coopers account in which he concludes, "Cooper has found himself on the receiving end of frauds and fabrications attached to his name. His usefulness to UFO proponents is based on his honest advocacy of serious UFO research (a desire shared by many serious researchers in the field, including myself)."
If someone concludes that it must/or might be extraterrestrials then i dont think we suddenly have to disallow their experience. The conclusion isnt the experience, so id still be wiling to listen and take seriously a testimony even if the conclusion was 'aliens'. Although as ive mentioned i dont think this applies to all witnesses by far, the vast majority of witnesses simply describe their expeirence and shed no light on their beliefs theories either way.



As I've pointed out in a previous post, there are many people who have demonstrated the ability to collect testimony. Such is the function of belief not reality. In much the same way the devoutly religious believe in their god(s) and ritualize their lives accordingly, the devout ETI-UFO believer does the same. And, in much the same way individuals within religion use the beliefs of others to gain status and position, so, too, do individuals within the ETI-UFO culture.
As ive pointed out its entirely wrong to assume that everyone within the ufo community or has simply seen one is a believer of extra-terrestrials.

For example if im walking in the amazon and i see an insect ive never seen before, and describe to my friend the 'long translucent wings' the.. 'thin tapered blue body'. I dont suddenly have a belief in an exotic insect, im not a believer in small flying creatures with wings...ive mearly described my experience, nothing more nothing less.On the contrary, you have implied some very definite beliefs in the way you have described the object.
You state that is had wings: today we find wings on birds, insects/bugs, aeroplanes. In each case they are associated with flight. Stating that the object you saw had wings clearly implies your belief that these wing-like objects were related to flight.
In a similar way the body suggests a life form, or a constructed device that contains something. Again, belief is very clearly implied.

I have no problem with you saying you saw something with long translucent features that looked like wings. Or, that the thing you observed appeared to have a body. Then you would be describing your experience. This is precisely what most reported UFO observations fail to do: objectively describe what they have seen. Instead, from before they begin to vocalise the experience they are already interpreting what they see and assigning provisional meaning. That's what humans do.
That is why eye witness testimony is so unreliable, not because people knowingly lie, but because they make the same error that you did in relation to the 'novel' insect.

No most (or at least a lot of ufos) that we're talking about in this context are offen spherical, saucer shaped, or triangular with a metalic smooth quality and seem to use a propulsion method relying on something entirely different from jet engines or what would normally be used to enable flight.


Spherical or saucer-shaped, like what I witnessed that one time. As it has been for quite some time. Propulsion? Silent? Capable of propelling something to extremely high speeds, back and forth, barely giving time for it to change trajectory, yet seemingly not skipping a beat?
Brava, Mrs. Blank, BRAVA!!!!


We have plenty of these types of craft on film, long long gone are the days where a ufo is probably a weather baloon or a hallucination, or venus on a clear night.

All extremely tired explanations. YAWN! What?!?! ANOTHER UFO??? I don't have to get up for this one! It's Venus, obviously! After all, Occam's Razor tells us this!

I believe dear Gustav once said this not too long ago:

Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out.

No kidding?

From a short article about that case:

"Either there's something there or there isn't," says former FAA division chief John Callahan. "Is it a spaceship or not? Why would they say it's a spaceship if it's not? The radar ain't lying."
Radar reports were part of what Callahan investigated while working for the Federal Aviation Administration in 1986. The investigation stemmed from a report by a Japan Airlines 747, as it flew about 50 miles from Anchorage. An inexplicable image appeared on air traffic control and military computers, and the three pilots flying the plane claimed they saw a UFO.
"The pilot has it on his radar, and then the pilot and the other two guys in the cockpit look out the window, and they see him over here, and they see him over there, and they see him over here, and for 31 minutes," Callahan says.
The FAA said the incident was due to a radar malfunction. The CIA believed the pilots, Callahan says, but it buried the story. "The CIA said it was a UFO. The CIA said we're not going to tell the public, because it would scare the public. They told me that."

Of course, Occam tells us that Mr. Callahan is probably an exaggerator (Irish too? Probably a drunk!!!). Thanks, Ockham. You're such a knowledgeable guy!
CASE SOLVED! No need to look at the radar records! No need to take the pilots' accounts at face value! Let's just rest easy, shall we, knowing that ALL PEOPLE are either deceiving, or being deceived.

Again I say, CASE CLOSED on this one, folk!

Oph...what thelivin hell is you goin on with? do you write yur own scripts or what?
looook. WHEN a person sees something so extraordinary as a 'UFO' rst assured their percepive capcity will also be extraordinaly attuned

tink of some vital incident. you may haf eexperienced it, read about it, whatever. climbing---the prson is nearly on life's edge. and suddenly seems to acquire strength didn't know about, acuity of vision etc.THAT

what really pisses me orf about your camp. is your ptronizing attitude.............
you have he NERVE to say to people, eg: 'you didn't really see/experience what you did, cause xyc' if you could know how fukin annoying that stance is. not annoyng as in, there may bedoubt felt the annoyed. but annoying as in beneath contempt and wantin to strangle the silly dipstick who doesn't know the fuk what they is talkin

Absolutely. Just like you said.

i have seen video of of radar images that defied description

there are only 2 conclusions i can make about what i saw
1. it was a actual ufo
2. it was a simulation to detirmine the controllors reactions

now i ask which is more plausable?

you have he NERVE to say to people, eg: 'you didn't really see/experience what you did, cause xyc'

He follows in the steps of the "GREATS"!

"I wasn't there, I didn't see it! But they couldn't have seen what they say they saw, so here's what they REALLY saw, even though I wasn't there."

Pseudoscience? Does it apply?

You be the judge of that.

On the other hand what is so extraordinary about a UFO?
Duendy, I don't trust what people say they have seen because people are crap at understanding what they have seen.

In a somewhat earlier computer age, where an HP2100 with 8k of memory was the bees knees, cost several thousand dollars and whose only output and human input was via teletype I witnessed repeatedly a simple example of this.

Training people to use software on this beast I would hand them typed instructions. The typed instructions would tell them exactly what to type and note, in large bold letters, to type exactly that. I would back this up with strongly worded direction.

Despite this, time after time, they would fail to get the program to run. They would claim that something was wrong with it. I would look at their input, there for all the world to see on the teletype output, and it would be wrong. I would simply say its wrong, you've not typed it exactly as required. Look.
They would look and swear it was correct until I would point out the missing space, or the colon that had replaced a period.

Time after time this happened Duendy, with educated individuals, trained to look objectively at the world and many of them, consistently got it wrong. I don't trust eye witness testimony. It is not patronising. It is not dismissive. It is realistic.

Maccabee's First Rule of Debunking:

any published explanation is better than none.

In layman's terms?
As long as it sounds scientific, and it doesn't stoop to saying that something is truly inexplicable, then it's ALRIGHT!!!

Time after time this happened Duendy, with educated individuals, trained to look objectively at the world and many of them, consistently got it wrong. I don't trust eye witness testimony. It is not patronising. It is not dismissive. It is realistic.
computers are a picky lot when it comes to syntax

as a matter of fact syntax errors are the first errors to be experienced in programming.

On the contrary, you have implied some very definite beliefs in the way you have described the object.

what remained unasked of heliocentric....was actual flight observed? instead, an irrational assumption was formulated by ophiolite that the insect had to be at rest. a clue was even given..."small flying creatures with wings" (heliocentric). the implication favors motion rather than rest.

so what have we here?
a clue riskily ignored
an assumption hastily made
rash and very unscientific
just like the crackpots

why the need for such delicacy when we have enough observation and knowledge of insects to safely make the assumption that it is indeed capable of flight?

or that columbus had some knowledge of homo sapiens to safely assume the red indians were human and not some alien species at first glance?

long and transclucent? narrow body? i am almost certain it will fly even though actual flight had not been observed

the description also has to be taken in context
to whom/how/why are you communicating with?
are you submitting a thesis? making a police report? legal document? or chatting with a friend? all of these will influence manner of presentation.

On the contrary, you have implied some very definite beliefs in the way you have described the object.
You state that is had wings: today we find wings on birds, insects/bugs, aeroplanes. In each case they are associated with flight. Stating that the object you saw had wings clearly implies your belief that these wing-like objects were related to flight.
In a similar way the body suggests a life form, or a constructed device that contains something. Again, belief is very clearly implied.
I think youre stretching what constitutes belief way too far, and i think most would agree with me.
As a test you could ask the nearest person to you 'what do you believe in?'
id be willing to bet that theyd name something which is partially unexplainable and requires a certain degree of faith in order to except its existance.
You could ask people in the street the same question to people in the street all day and i dont think youd find one person who would name a self-evident truth learnt from birth like 'humans have legs' or 'cars are for travelling in'.
Those arnt beliefs atall, if youre going to read any common observation or mental note as a belief then everything becomes a belief...i believe im typing on this computer i believe im talking to you now, the word ceases to have any value or meaningful context.

I have no problem with you saying you saw something with long translucent features that looked like wings. Or, that the thing you observed appeared to have a body. Then you would be describing your experience.
But if ive seen nth number of wings or nth number of insect bodies and can mentally cross reference what ive seen to the other insects ive witnessed then why shouldnt i relate my experience with the knowledge that ive experienced enough other insects to accurately judge what ive observed?
Otherwise youre entering the realms of the absurd, meeting a friend down the pub... 'i saw someone that appeared to be our friend john earlier. He looked like he was holding what seemed to be a mobile phone'


This is precisely what most reported UFO observations fail to do: objectively describe what they have seen. Instead, from before they begin to vocalise the experience they are already interpreting what they see and assigning provisional meaning. That's what humans do.
That is why eye witness testimony is so unreliable, not because people knowingly lie, but because they make the same error that you did in relation to the 'novel' insect.
I see where youre comming from, but to return to the original point you cant imply a belief from what is actually a judgment call or assessment, its entirely the wrong word to be using. If you want to say any observation is open to interpretational errors then yes i'll accept that but i dont think you can enter faith into the equation every time as Skin Walker was atempting to do in his earlier post.

Spherical or saucer-shaped, like what I witnessed that one time. As it has been for quite some time. Propulsion? Silent? Capable of propelling something to extremely high speeds, back and forth, barely giving time for it to change trajectory, yet seemingly not skipping a beat?
Brava, Mrs. Blank, BRAVA!!!!




All extremely tired explanations. YAWN! What?!?! ANOTHER UFO??? I don't have to get up for this one! It's Venus, obviously! After all, Occam's Razor tells us this!

I believe dear Gustav once said this not too long ago:

Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out.

No kidding?

From a short article about that case:



Of course, Occam tells us that Mr. Callahan is probably an exaggerator (Irish too? Probably a drunk!!!). Thanks, Ockham. You're such a knowledgeable guy!
CASE SOLVED! No need to look at the radar records! No need to take the pilots' accounts at face value! Let's just rest easy, shall we, knowing that ALL PEOPLE are either deceiving, or being deceived.

Again I say, CASE CLOSED on this one, folk!

Ive got no idea what your post was about maybe you meant to quote someone else? :confused:

belief due to its association with god, has always existed in this particular forum as a weapon of denigration

i utter this in absolute certitude

You know, I saw the quarter-moon tonight, but I'm tempted to think it was actually Venus being distorted by a mirage low to the horizon.
I don't know. I'm such a poor observer. Humans are so easily fooled.
Do you think that will float? Like a bloated corpse?

belief due to its association with god, has always existed in this particular forum as a weapon of denigration

i utter this in absolute certitude

Atheists/materialists may not have a god, per se, but why is that they act wholeheartedly as if they were under the watchful eye of one?
I mean, they have this absolute religious zeal to smash any sandcastles of belief people should build around religion, paranormal experiences, etc, all the while acting as if they themselves will be held accountable to their own god for believing in such things, or allowing others to believe in them, whether these beliefs are founded or not.

i am sometimes struck by the similarity in argument propounded by the skeptics with the ones the right wing fascists present over in the political forums.

the themes appear to be the same

hmm
must google for any evidences of linkage

Perhaps they are gods unto themselves?

It sounds like your problem with the disclosure project is in reality a problem you have with the ufo community in general. I think its a unfair blanket statement to claim that anyone interested in ufos has no interest in objectivity.

That isn't what I meant to imply and, if this is what you inferred, I freely retract that sentiment. I mean to say that most people who have an active (rather than passing) interest in UFOs have deficits in their ability to process information objectively.

I cant see what basis youd have to believe that people who are talking about ufos are simply using it as short-hand for 'alien spacecraft' unless you can read the mind of anyone talking about or professing an interest in ufos.

One need not be able to 'read the mind' of members of the so-called "ufo community" to clearly infer that their meaning is that "ufo" refers to the space-alien hypothesis. But this point need not be made with regard to this thread since we are speaking of the "disclosure project," the cult-leader of which clearly states his beliefs: The Disclosure Project is a nonprofit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. We have over 400 government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testifying to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs, ETs, ET technology, and the cover-up that keeps this information secret. Clearly, anyone who "testifies" for Greer and his "project" are buying into his intent and beliefs. There may be an exception or two, but do you really think they are ignorant as to his beliefs?

I havent come across any witness accounts recounting other people's stories unless youve come across any and can copy and paste some quotes for me.

I certainly will. Once I'm able to access my own pc again as I'm currently away from home. I do have, however, the entire "disclosure document" in both pdf and Word format.

thats a rather strange thing to say, that comes across to me as 'anyone who sees a ufo must have a delusional belief since ufos dont really exist'
Reading between the lines in some of your posts thats the increasing impression im getting.

Your perceptions notwithstanding, the statement remains valid: some (perhaps even most) obviously believe what they are implying. They are implying, very clearly, that space aliens are among us and they are in agreement with <s>Prophet</s> Profit Greer who is asserting that space aliens are here; world governments know about them and have interacted with them; and that many advanced technologies are a direct result.

Moreover, delusion is looked upon by the believer in a given supernatural or paranormal phenomenon as a pejorative label. However, delusion is something that anyone can fall victim to. Delusion is a function of belief and the brain's ability to discern what its senses tell it. If one observes an extraordinary event, the brain's experience with what it sees is limited or non-existant. Belief of what occurred is therefore influenced by pre-existing beliefs and assumptions. If three people a half a mile apart see a light in the sky, one may see a recognized atmospheric or astronomic phenomenon; another might equate a sign from a god; still another might see an alien spaceship. -not that these are the only possibilities. The only way to know for sure which is right is to verify or test one of the three hypotheses, yet the only one of the three that *is* testable or verifiable (to date) is the first. The god and space alien hypotheses are, to date, supernatural and/or paranormal. While each are possible, only the first has any precedence and is therefore the most probable of the three.

I dont think the project goes as far as to disclose information about race, its really irrevelvant i think and a complete non-issue.

Someone not educated in social dynamics and culture might, indeed, dismiss cultural and social trends. So might someone who *is* educated or familiar with such dynamics but unwilling to accept hypotheses that run contrary to their preconceived belief. This is confirmation bias and not consistent with a true scientific perspective. If you've seen the video, you would see that "disclosure" of the "project's" socio-cultural trends was there albeit unintentional.

As for rank it certainly holds alot more weight to hear someone with status/position than without, who would you be more inclined to believe someone with nothing to lose or something with everything to lose?

Again, I must object to "something" versus "nothing" in what may be "to lose." This is a very elitist position and assumes that the livelihoods and social status among peers is somehow less valuable to those who haven't attained rank in society. This is demonstrably a false assumption, for if it were valid, public officials would avoid scandal and corruption because the have "something more to lose" than the average school teacher or gas station owner. The fact is, these people do have passions that get them in loads of trouble and it is often a matter of public record. Jeri Ryan's Senate candidate husband is a good example. This is an appeal to authority and a fallacy of the worst kind. Moreover, it would seem that many if not most of the "witnesses" aren't currently in their positions of status, so I don't see what they have "to lose" with regard to anyone else in society.

Eye-witness testimonies can always be suspect yes, that is if you have can think of a reason to suspect youre being lied to. If you cant think of a good enough (plausible) reason then suspicion starts to become a little baseless and more of trait within the person scrutinising the data.

The most compelling reason of all: bias to a belief system. Again, this is the very point I made in an earlier post and even gave examples.

As for testimonies being useless... definitely not, eye-witness testimonies are used every day in hearings and in courtrooms. Which is presicley the context that greer seeks this information to be used.

And these testimonies are coroborated by physical evidence. Rarely is an eyewitness testimony given that doesn't have other evidence. Indeed, I'd challenge you to show a single court case that included a felony conviction based solely on the testimony of an eyewitness. That having been said, science does not follow the flawed process of the law. It relies on testable and verifiable evidence. Courtrooms are places where opposing counsels work to sell their positions to a body of individuals. It is based on influencing or taking advantage of beliefs or pre-established assumptions.

I never suggested we should discount belief but we should differentiate between an 1. 'experience' - which doesnt have to say anything tell us anything beyond whats been expeirenced. 2. An idea