• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

I reregistered just for this thread, forgot my other user info...oh well, starting over. I also made it to about page 10, so I'm not sure where the tone of this thread has gone, but I want to post my thoughts and stop lurking.....

I've passively watched Greer from time to time over the last decade. Never considered much regarding his credibility until the last couple years. I'm pretty tolerant and open to eccentrics and non-conventional types, I'll listen to what they have to say (been fine tuning my BS meter as of late though). But really: Put-up or GTFO already Greer. No shit, I'm tired of the hearing the same broken record from him.

I've been a lifelong, casual yet passionate, student of many things under the 'paranormal' umbrella. This field must be cleaned up. Charlatans and kooks alike need to be exposed if we're ever to progress and eventually prove a damn thing or two. If you lose a few true believers and falsifiers along the way, good riddance.

Thank you for the show gentlemen.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

I'm listening to one of his speeches now, where he pulls out his typical throw-away-line-setup to grandiosity: "When I'm at the pentagon briefing generals and CIA agents..." and so on...QUESTION:

What is he briefing them about?

Has anyone asked that or has he ever said what information he has that no one else does, that necessitates--let's be generous here--more than one round table with generals?

Of course we know the answer is "Nothing. It's a lie," but man alive, it's such an obvious question I don't know if anyone's thought to ask.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

lancemoody said:
In reference to the earlier post on Stan Meyer (but mostly applies to the silly Greer as well):

Stan Meyer proved himself to be a fraud, like ALL other free energy inventors (as far as I am aware). The depressing story is almost always the same: big claims, big money, little evidence, no transparency, eventual obscurity.

As for the claim of murder--you realize that in most civilized countries evidence is required for such claims--unless you are just spouting em out on a intertube forum.
Click to expand...

You seem to speak with certainty, so tell us; How did Stan prove himself a liar? By dying?

Can you share with us how he really died?
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

I also found it funny when he told the Show's Host not to interupt.

I would love to have the opportunity to call this guy out and expose him for what he is.

I expose Liars for a living and would relish the experience.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

Live at the Witch Trials said:
I also found it funny when he told the Show's Host not to interupt.

I would love to have the opportunity to call this guy out and expose him for what he is.

I expose Liars for a living and would relish the experience.
Click to expand...

It was really hard to hold it in during this interview. He inspires anger. :)
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

Gene Steinberg said:
It was really hard to hold it in during this interview. He inspires anger. :)
Click to expand...


The wrap up for this show was quite Refreshing. I spent one hour listening to the so called master of Disclosure and learnt nothing.

The Host was a very patient bunny no wonder he sounded off at the end.

In effect it was a collective sigh of relief !

Cudos to the Host.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

Gene Steinberg said:
Remember, on this show, we're co-hosts. :D
Click to expand...

Oh forgive me but when i listen to the show you both indestinguishable and are simply just the Host. Its a collective thing and as i am a new listener i beg your indulgence.

If you see the first Starwars prequel Phantom menace during the podrace part o the film there is a two headed comentator type Alien in my minds eye i imagine this to be yourselves. :D


Fodeandbeed.jpg
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

Please let this be the last time you have Dr. Greer on the show. For one, it's obvious from your own comments and those of others, that he is largely not taken seriously. Greer is an unfortunate confluence of New Age "openness" and bureaucratic secrecy (how many organizations does he need to found and then hide behind?).

When I once asked CSETI how I could help, I was immediately pointed to "donate money" -- quite suspicious and disappointing, and I should have seen it coming. If it smells, walks, and talks like a cult...

The article by Alex Heard is great as well, thanks for that link!

However, I'm going out on a limb here to remark that I don't think Greer only deserves a heap of abuse, either. If it weren't for The Disclosure Project, I wouldn't have been lead to other, more fruitful avenues of inquiry, including this show.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

David lost control in the Greer interview. David was so obsessed with asserting his views he missed opportunities for analysis which would have been helpful. I understand David's need for credentialing, but I would remind him that the credentials of those responsible for the war in Iraq are quite impeccable. If David is the focus of the show, the show's title ought to reflect that. It ought not have been entitled an interview with Steven Greer. It ought to have been entitled David's attempted humiliation of Steven Greer.
I get that you guys don't like Steven Greer. I think you missed an opportunity to explore the implications Disclosure would carry for the ruling classes. I don't believe those implications would please them. I think there would be blood.
I get David sees himself as a scholarly expert on Tesla. But Tesla is a figure about which there are many bones of contention and it would be moronic to suggest any one person had such a thoroughgoing knowledge of him, at least knowledge vast enough to refute the fact that there is a great deal of smoke around Tesla.
I get that bows and arrows don't bring down 747s, but it is unlikely that even an advanced technology can have all bases covered or would not have nicks in it that allow for accidents to occur. Especially any first contact visitor.
I think there are ways to come at the subject matter that will prevent wastes of time. We can't say that aliens if they exist have conquest on their minds because they would have accomplished it by now. We can't say they are entirely friendly because the abduction phenomenon, if real, is not an entirely friendly scenario. If they are hostile, we'd have to conclude they are hostile in an incredibly subtle way and in a way involving the very way humans perceive things.
If David and Company were reacting to the moral implications of disclosure, its impact on the world, which would be a vast systemic shock, I would understand their fervor with regard to Greer. The systemic shock would be to the tectonic plates undergirding present power structures, not to ordinary joes. I think those power structures would go ballistic and their reaction to disclosure, not necessarily the reaction of the public or the visitors themselves, would threaten life on earth.
So giving Greer the benefit of the doubt, I can understand why a physicist working on his projects might deem the disclosure of his name a mortal threat because there are those who would deem "free energy" contraptions as a mortal threat. Conceptually, talk of free energy is talk of systemic murder. If you are going to strike a mortal blow at the systemic order, you ought rationally to expect that the proponents of that order would consider you a mortal enemy.
What we know, by your behavior and that of others in this field, that some people orbiting the UFO community don't take kindly to any kind of systemic shock. The people who take the words "national security" seriously interpret that phrase liberally and act on it quite pointedly. I would observe caution when demanding that names be revealed. I understand the emphasis on sourcing but with this phenomenon the only proof that could possibly be effective would be a systemic shock on a massive scale. Most sources are effectively nullified by association in this day and age. There is so much chicken littling going on that only massive shock will do.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

I'm sorry that you have the sense of the discussion completely confused. The issue with Greer is not the impact of disclosure. That is something we've talked about on the show with other guests.

The problem with Greer is simple: He tells tall tales! He makes claims he cannot back up. We're not about to take that stuff on faith alone. This is a scientific pursuit, not a new religion, although some may choose to think otherwise.

That is the beginning and end of it. Sorry you listened to a different show. :)
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

As a long time listener, here is my impression of David's brief history with Greer. You can go back to earlier shows, like the first one with Royce from Watchdog for evidence of what I speak of. And listen to the first Greer show etc.

David was open to Greer being legit. He wasn't sure. Had him on the show, treated him nicely. He (Greer) said some things that were red flags. David had also heard and read other things that put him on alarm about Greer. This time around, David was giving Greer a chance to clear himself. David was a little less pleasant than the first time perhaps (not much though, I woulda been a little harder on Greer I think), but Greer has done it to himself imo by making outrageous claims and not backing it up. Meanwhile taking money and speaking on behalf of others.

The great thing about the Paracast is they just don't play footsie with guests. Too much of that is going on. If you want that, go listen to C2C. There isn't a need for that here. If other shows dealt with guests like the Paracast does, we wouldn't have the Silvia Browns and con artists that abound to the extent we do.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

I get that you feel Billy Meier is a con artist. I get that you feel you're a scholar in the field of photo analysis. But, David, instead of tearing into the case so immaturely, why don't you concentrate on the Plajaren message of hope? There's a lot of material there about humanity from this point of view. This information could be vital in our discussion of where we're going and where we've been.

Wait, I know why you don't do that: It's because you're not mentally retarded. Never mind. Also, you don't feel you're a photo analyst, you actually are one. You don't feel Meier is a hoaxer, he actually is one.

Gee, I guess some things aren't up for subjective grabs. My bad.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

Why would anyone want to converse with someone once they have a reasonable understanding of their dishonesty. For all the people on this thread giving Gene and Dave a hard time its very simple. They and for that matter myself (thats why I listen) would rather not care to listen to someone talk about their opinions, experiences and beliefs for two hours if I dont believe they are honest, sincere and credible. I have better things to do with my time.

By Gene and David taking the guests to task it guarantees that my time will not be wasted discussing he merrits of a certain swiss farmer or an mysterious alien skull. Even when they do talk to these people its not just sunshine and lollipops shooting out of the guests ass. I feel the basic attitude is "If you want to discuss this subject matter in a rational and logical way you are welcome to come on; however, as soon as you start making claims you can't substantiate or building upon previous evidence that has proven to be hoaxed,faked or of questionable origins we'll tear you a new asshole.

Our intelligent, articulate audience deserves to see that (webcam). I for one momemnt wouldn't listen to this show if LMH was on all the time talking about alien blow jobs and the space brothers. No one can talk in absolutes about this. Whoo. Thank you :)
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

valiens said:
I get that you feel Billy Meier is a con artist. I get that you feel you're a scholar in the field of photo analysis. But, David, instead of tearing into the case so immaturely, why don't you concentrate on the Plajaren message of hope? There's a lot of material there about humanity from this point of view. This information could be vital in our discussion of where we're going and where we've been.

Wait, I know why you don't do that: It's because you're not mentally retarded. Never mind. Also, you don't feel you're a photo analyst, you actually are one. You don't feel Meier is a hoaxer, he actually is one.

Gee, I guess some things aren't up for subjective grabs. My bad.
Click to expand...

Jeremy,

You forgot the tree of life, duh!
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

You guys are scientists, hunh? Where are your findings?

You said yourselves there were those involved in the Disclosure Project worth attending to. Aren't you throwing Greer's baby out with Greer's bathwater? I think David descended into South Park type infantile rage at the end of that broadcast.

Look, David is a good radio guy. I think he has a hold on the problem with sources. I think there are real ethical issues with outing a source and some very serious conseqences can result. As long as everyone understands that outing a source incurs those consequences and is willing to accept them then I'm fine with everyone risking their necks. But I think we've got to understand that Disclosure might have very serious consequences. When you ask someone to name names there has got to be respect for what you are asking them to do.

You appear to alternate your level of respect with the type of guest you have on. I would recommend against this. But I think you ought to have a show on the ethics of disclosure.

I don't see a show on Charles Hall. I would like to see you examine his case.
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

You don't see the difference between doing a serious show on the ramifications of disclosure with someone who by all appearances means what they're saying and discussing it with Greer?
 
Dr. Steven Greer --> Here we go ...

I would like to filter the good stuff in Greer's activities from the bad stuff. You can't do background checks on radio and it would be a boring show anyway. What you can do is make an effort to carve out the nuggets from the nonsense.
I also think anyone in this field is subject to instant nullification. The very subject zeroes out your credibility, which researchers find existentially insulting. I think Paracast is doing redundant work trying to tough guy out the frauds. They are already zeroed out. Zero times zero is zero.

Credibility can only come from system shock.
 
Back
Top