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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.
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? 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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)." 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.
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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
