Steven Greer

[Atrayo]

Hi All,

I remember when Dr. Steven Greer first started the "Disclosure Project" he sought to get the US Congress to do investigations. After a few hard knock lessons he found out that the politicians are very curious. But lack the sufficient courage to run with this, due to them covering their own collective butts for a potential re-election. Unless a politicians district is really up in arms on such a topic, similiar to the scale of mass protest marches. The US Congress has no incentive to touch this radioactive topic.

In the last couple of years Dr. Greer has acknowledged perhaps trying to get another nation besides the US to admit such an ET existence. Perhaps that is how the Honourable Paul Hellyer stepped forward from Canada. Still i suspect it is by far still too ambitious to seek out a reputable foreign government to spill the beans.

What if a major military contractor like Boeing, Raytheon, etc... Went public that they reversed engineered ET technology and have produced reproduction crafts. It's easier to get a major military contractor to fess up than a national government to do so. Dr. Steven Greer has stated previously that there are many factions within this "Black World". That want this stuff to get out to the masses, but do not want to be in the limelight themselves as whistle blower individuals.

 

[Rick Deckard]

No - we seek the truth, wherever it may lead. We don't fit it into our belief system - it comes to shape our belief system. That's how it's supposed to work.

I can only assume from your post that you prefer another method, so often favoured in ufology today, where the belief drives everything else.

Err, our individual perception of reality is based entirely on belief - that's all we have.

It's the covert control of those beliefs by the elite that keeps the UFO reality on the fringe.

Good luck in your quest for the 'truth' - the fact is you'll never know when you've found it - you'll only ever believe you know. Once you've become accustomed to what you believe to be true, be prepared to throw it all away when the evidence starts to mount in favour of a different reality...

 

[TerraX]

No - we seek the truth, wherever it may lead. We don't fit it into our belief system - it comes to shape our belief system. That's how it's supposed to work.

You seek the truth by dismissal? Lets not forget for a moment that in your second post of this thread you basicly dismissed the entire DP witnesses. "They are tarnished because of they're linked to Greer", you said. Is that seeking the truth or is that arbiterily dismissing information. Personally I strongly suspect the latter.
You don't know me Paul but I did read a thing or two about you on UFO UpDates and your Redstarfilm blog. I seem to recall you got friendly with Rich Reynolds and his (debunking) associates who had some "nice" things to say about Wendy Conners. You're also friendly with Mac Tonnies who puts his weight on Cydonia/Face on Mars material. Now, conveniently for me I can claim your research is tarnished because you linked yourself with the Rich Reynolds group and Tonnies (who's research is unsubstantiated at best). Of course I don't believe the crap I wrote above. Guilty by association is cheapshot.

I can only assume from your post that you prefer another method, so often favoured in ufology today, where the belief drives everything else.

Really Paul, having seen UFOs myself (and a bit more ) I don't have to believe, I know.

Or maybe you're one of those types who, when faced with someone who disagrees with you and can back his opinions up with facts, falls back on the tired old trick of attacking them, and accusing them of distorting the truth - sometimes even going so far as to accuse them of being an "agent of the government", or some such.

Funny you should say that because if I had to make a profile of who would be most suitable as a disinformant agent in the field of ufology, 'serious ufologists' would make decent candidates with their superficial drive towards making the subject mainstream while dismissing the majority of information out there. Of course proving that beyond a doubt would be more difficult. What also amazes me Paul is that you seem somewhat unsettled about criticism coming your way, you showed far fewer problems dishing it out.

If that's the case, don't worry - in ufology, you have plenty of company. None of it good, alas, but you can't have everything, can you? Paul

In ufology you can have nothing. Thought you'd have figured that out by now.

 

[David Biedny]

No - we seek the truth, wherever it may lead. We don't fit it into our belief system - it comes to shape our belief system. That's how it's supposed to work.

I can only assume from your post that you prefer another method, so often favoured in ufology today, where the belief drives everything else.

Or maybe you're one of those types who, when faced with someone who disagrees with you and can back his opinions up with facts, falls back on the tired old trick of attacking them, and accusing them of distorting the truth - sometimes even going so far as to accuse them of being an "agent of the government", or some such.

If that's the case, don't worry - in ufology, you have plenty of company. None of it good, alas, but you can't have everything, can you?

Paul

Paul,

I don't think I've seen a more concise, and accurate appraisal of my own attitude and opinion regarding the current level of debate.

The TRUTH is the only thing I care about, the only thing that has any value to me, regarding this - or any other - subject. Belief is an exercise in mental masturbation, gimme the real thing anyday. One would think that knowledge is much more crucial than belief, not sure which is better business on this planet at this time. Greed and hubris seem to fester, a seedy, anxiously sweaty underbelly, reminds me of, uhm, any industry on Tierra.

Humanity can ill afford any further delusions, it's high time to cut the nonsense and grow up already. The carnival air around UFO research is, at worst, a triumph of actual disinformation efforts, but every system is shaky, and enough little tidbits might someday open the floodgates. Reality is weirder than we ever imagine. I have my doubts about aspects of Dr. Greer, but at the same time, much of the Disclosure Project testimony qualifies as smoking gun, IMO. As far as cutting through the junk to find nuggets of reality, hell, that seems to be the deal in just about any daily grind.

dB

 

[David Biedny]

Err, our individual perception of reality is based entirely on belief - that's all we have.

Dammit, I want MORE. I must have chocolate, the HELL with belief.



dB

 

[CapnG]

Err, our individual perception of reality is based entirely on belief - that's all we have.

I disagree. Reality is a basis of concensus. You can claim the sky is green if that's how you precieve it but the rest of us will call you crazy and insist it's blue.

But this starts to stray into metaphysics and there's far too much of that in the ufo field already. These are black-and-white concerns: UFOs either exist or they don't; aliens either exist or they don't; abductions are either real or imagined; the Disclosure Project is either our only real hope of exposing these realities or a complete waste of time.

 

[Rick Deckard]

The TRUTH is the only thing I care about, the only thing that has any value to me, regarding this - or any other - subject.

Me too - how do we recognise the 'truth'?

(I edited out a further question for David - I decided it wasn't really relevant to my point)

 

[Rick Deckard]

I disagree. Reality is a basis of concensus.

This statement baffles me - could you elaborate, please?

You can claim the sky is green if that's how you precieve it but the rest of us will call you crazy and insist it's blue.

S'funny you should mention the 'colour of the sky' - a couple of years ago there was a massive debate on AboveTopSecret.com about whether the pictures from Nasa's Mars Rovers were being deliberated saturated with 'red' in order to disguise the fact that the Martian sky is blue rather than the official 'pink'. The explanations from Nasa about the saturated red channel were quite baffling. I guess we just have to keep our faith in Nasa and trust that they're not conning us...

But this starts to stray into metaphysics and there's far too much of that in the ufo field already. These are black-and-white concerns: UFOs either exist or they don't; aliens either exist or they don't; abductions are either real or imagined; the Disclosure Project is either our only real hope of exposing these realities or a complete waste of time.

In an infinite universe why not assume that everything exists?

 

[CapnG]

This statement baffles me - could you elaborate, please?

Sure. Reality is what we agree it is. During my college years I took a course on propaganda and persuasion. It included a small section on brainwashing which taught me some things that were as eye-opening as they were unpleasant. To wit, the human brain can easily be decieved, reconditioned and reprogrammed, espescially if you have no scruples regarding the person you are reprogramming.

Now, we assume that our observations equate to what is real (ie if I can see it, touch it, taste it or smell it, it exists). The problem with that is the fact that what I see is not necessarily what you see.

The best example is a traffic accident. Ask the six witnesses what they saw and you'll get six different answers. How do you figure out what really happened? Well, most of the time, you'll do two things: apply occum's razor and then average out the witnesses testimonies taking the most common repeating elements and considering them as true. When the report is submitted to the courts it will become the official version of the event. It will BECOME reality by basis of consensus.

So, while you say reality is based on individual perception, I cannot wholly agree because that reality needs a frame of reference, an external reality, which is born of consensus.

In an infinite universe why not assume that everything exists?

We have no proof the universe is infinite. But I wasn't speaking in terms of the universe as a whole, I meant here on earth, NOW.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Ah, okay I see where we are.

We're talking about different reality types - you're talking about the 'consensual' reality and I'm talking about 'subjective' reality. The 'consensual' reality and the 'subjective' reality are interpretations of the 'objective' reality.

The 'objective' reality is 'how things really are'. The 'consensual' reality is a subset of the 'objective' reality - it's the 'official' version of 'what we know'. Our 'subjective' realities overlap with the 'consensual' reality - that overlap is maintained by our beliefs.

This is a personal theory and still 'work in progress' - I don't doubt that this stuff has been explored and illustrated by far greater intellects than mine, so I take no credit for these theories.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Greer commented on his SETI cover up claim since SETI commented on his claim?

For those not aware:
SETI urged to fess up over alien signals

"This person, if I were to say who he is, almost every one your listeners would probably know the name,"

Some disclosure. Does no good to make claims like that.

Aliens need to give Greer a better brain next time he vectors them in.

 

[Atrayo]

We have no proof the universe is infinite. But I wasn't speaking in terms of the universe as a whole, I meant here on earth, NOW.

Do you suspect that the universe is only linear? Or non-linear or a combination there of? The non-linear aspects creates the variables of a potentially Infinite Universe.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Do you suspect that the universe is only linear? Or non-linear or a combination there of? The non-linear aspects creates the variables of a potentially Infinite Universe.

Personally, I think the people over-use the concept of 'proof' - how can you prove the universe is infinite?

 

[Atrayo]

Personally, I think the people over-use the concept of 'proof' - how can you prove the universe is infinite?

Allow me to flip that question on you and ask.

How can you prove the universe is Finite?

 

[CapnG]

Do you suspect that the universe is only linear? Or non-linear or a combination there of? The non-linear aspects creates the variables of a potentially Infinite Universe.

Suspicions are irrelevant, the point is I have no way of knowing. The universe could be infinite, or it could be a finite amount of matter in an infinite void or it could be one of many universes or...well... anything. We don't know. We CAN'T know. Some things really are beyond the grasp of human comprehension.

 

[Atrayo]

We don't know. We CAN'T know. Some things really are beyond the grasp of human comprehension.

In an infinite universe why not assume that everything exists?

This is more in the realm of a paradox discussion, n'cest pas?

 

[CapnG]

I don't think so. In order to assme everything exists in an infinite universe, you must first assume the universe IS infinite. So in a round-about way, we're in agreement.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Allow me to flip that question on you and ask.

How can you prove the universe is Finite?

By finding the 'edge' and until you find the 'edge' the theory that the 'universe is inifinite' remains the probable one.

That's the best we can do.

I appear to have steered this thread 'off topic'...

 

[Guy.W]

Nice ThreadJack Rick ;D

 

[Paul Kimball]

You seek the truth by dismissal? Lets not forget for a moment that in your second post of this thread you basicly dismissed the entire DP witnesses. "They are tarnished because of they're linked to Greer", you said. Is that seeking the truth or is that arbiterily dismissing information. Personally I strongly suspect the latter.

Actually, that's not what I meant. I don't dismiss all of the DP witnesses - I made a point of naming one that I've interviewed for whom I have a great deal of respect, Bob Salas (even though I don't agree with him on everything), and who tells a credible story. There are others. My point was - if you'd been paying attention - that in the eyes of the general public, and the media, and casual observers in general, it taints them by association with the bad witnesses, and Greer. Hence the damage that Greer has done to the subject. I'm sorry you can't or won't see that.

You don't know me Paul but I did read a thing or two about you on UFO UpDates and your Redstarfilm blog. I seem to recall you got friendly with Rich Reynolds and his (debunking) associates who had some "nice" things to say about Wendy Conners. You're also friendly with Mac Tonnies who puts his weight on Cydonia/Face on Mars material. Now, conveniently for me I can claim your research is tarnished because you linked yourself with the Rich Reynolds group and Tonnies (who's research is unsubstantiated at best). Of course I don't believe the crap I wrote above. Guilty by association is cheapshot.

It's also a reality that has to be understood and dealt with. It's a very, very old political tactic, also used by the intelligence community, to taint people by association. To ignore that is to be naive, and live in some sort of fantasy world.

Of course, if what people think about UFOs, especially people who matter (i.e. those who could fund and support serious scientific research into the subject), doesn't matter to you, than all of the above is irrelevant I suppose.

By the way, you forgot one thing above - I've specifically and publicly repudiated Reynolds and his gang, once they revealed their true colours. Can you say the same about any of Greer and any of his "witnesses" that have been shown to be either questionable or outright frauds?

Nope.

Really Paul, having seen UFOs myself (and a bit more ) I don't have to believe, I know.

My evangelical relatives tell me the same thing when I try to explain to them my view that healthy agnosticism is the only way forward when there's no real proof. Lots of people have seen "things" - whether they're angels, miracles, or UFOs (far more people, by the way, have claimed over the years to have seen the former two than the latter) - does that make them real?

Funny you should say that because if I had to make a profile of who would be most suitable as a disinformant agent in the field of ufology, 'serious ufologists' would make decent candidates with their superficial drive towards making the subject mainstream while dismissing the majority of information out there.

Funny. I would word that paragraph as follows:

If I had to make a profile of who would be most suitable as a disinformation agent in the field of ufology, it would be the true believer types like Greer, who muddy the waters with crazy claims and bad witnesses, thereby undermining the credibility and legitimacy of the good witnesses in the eyes of the general public.

I'd say that, because that's how the intel communities operate elsewhere. They seek to compromise people, i.e. the old "honey trap".

Of course proving that beyond a doubt would be more difficult.

With something like UFOs, I can't see any standard other than "beyond a reasonable doubt" as being applicable, at least in terms of something like the ETH or the EDH, or any hypothesis frankly.

What also amazes me Paul is that you seem somewhat unsettled about criticism coming your way, you showed far fewer problems dishing it out. In ufology you can have nothing. Thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Puh-lease. I "take it" on a fairly regular basis, and expect to. My problem comes when the criticism is ill-informed, illogical, or outright personal. People are free to indulge in that kind of thing, but I'm just as free to have absolutely no respect for it, or them.

Best regards,
Paul