Disclosure Project by Steven M. Greer: Reliability?

  • Thread starter eyesoftruth
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Project
In summary, the Disclosure Project by Steven M. Greer aims to expose information about extraterrestrial life and advanced energy technologies through testimonies from high-level government and military officials. The reliability of the project has been called into question due to lack of concrete evidence and the controversial background of its founder, Steven M. Greer. While some view the project as a valuable source of information, others criticize it as being based on speculation and conspiracy theories. Overall, the reliability of the Disclosure Project remains a subject of debate.
  • #71
flex,

i am not familiar with the event with which you speak. but from what you said, i am of the understanding that you are referring to ONE EVENT, with 100,000 everyday people.

there is a significan difference of that and hundreds of different events observed by trained people.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Physics-Learner said:
when i said it might be a hoax, i was referring to everyone lying, because they had an agenda.

It has long been proven that governments cannot keep secrets between a small number of people. Doing so en masse isn't even remotely possible.

It's akin to the moon landing hoax people, they truly believe the government could keep literally thousands of people quiet.
 
  • #73
Physics-Learner said:
when i said it might be a hoax, i was referring to everyone lying, because they had an agenda.

Yeah, we picked up on the fact that you're a conspiracy lover. Hoax simply means it was faked. Is makes no claim about the observation being real or conspired.

If I throw a hubcap and two people photograph it, one knows it is a hubcap and the other doesn't and they both report it as a "flying saucer" how would you count that? Hoax or illusion?
 
  • #74
Physics-Learner said:
flex,

i am not familiar with the event with which you speak. but from what you said, i am of the understanding that you are referring to ONE EVENT, with 100,000 everyday people.

there is a significan difference of that and hundreds of different events observed by trained people.

I gave you a link to it. You have no excuse for not being knowledgeable.

EDIT: I gave you a clear example of a single event with 100,000 witnesses; all wrong. Why on Earth would you believe any claim by a single person?

DOUBLE EDIT: No such thing as a "trained person." I also provided you with a link which includes police officers and military personnel that have misidentified Venus as an alien spaceship.
 
  • #75
FlexGunship said:
You're thinking of quantum mechanics. Relativity works on large scales. Both general and special.

Special relativity is the application of general relativity to things going at or near the speed of light. It is a special case, not something different.

the physics that i took said that special relativity is the study when there is no acceleration, while general relativity was when there was acceleration, or at least could be.

so, special relativity may be a subset of general, but it is not about things going near the speed of light. although granted, one needs to be going fast before things start to change.

however, someone on this site told me that special relativity breaks down at large distances, and it needs to be explained by general relativity. and his answer was about a question i had with regard to light itself.
 
  • #76
TRIPLE EDIT: Surely the more fascinating point here is how 100,000 people where wrong?
 
  • #77
Physics-Learner said:
the physics that i took said that special relativity is the study when there is no acceleration, while general relativity was when there was acceleration, or at least could be.

so, special relativity may be a subset of general, but it is not about things going near the speed of light. although granted, one needs to be going fast before things start to change.

however, someone on this site told me that special relativity breaks down at large distances, and it needs to be explained by general relativity. and his answer was about a question i had with regard to light itself.

Okay, your explanation of the difference is better than mine. I concede that point.
 
  • #78
jarednjames said:
TRIPLE EDIT: Surely the more fascinating point here is how 100,000 people where wrong?

Well, they were convinced to stare directly at the sun.
 
  • #79
Here are two RECENT cases of "trained people" misidentifying something as a "UFO." (I put "UFO" in quotes to point towards the more colloquial use of the acronym.)

http://www.necn.com/09/27/10/Shocking-revelation-Former-Air-Force-per/landing.html?blockID=319245&feedID=4213

http://www.livescience.com/space/etc/ufo-china-airport-delays-101005.html (Another thread shows my comparison of the imaged taken to that of a helicopter. The Chinese airport was shut down because of a helicopter.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
jarednjames said:
He defined interstellar travel. You aren't using correct definitions.

You cannot travel a million light years in a reasonable (there and back for dinner) time. It is physically impossible. The laws of physics do not allow it. This is not going to change no matter how far into the future you go.

the laws of physics AS WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE.
 
  • #81
Physics-Learner said:
the physics that i took

I think it's clear from what we've read that 'your physics' isn't up to scratch. You didn't factor in time dilation during interstellar travel and as such your assumptions regarding FTL travel are out by a significant factor.

I wouldn't focus too much on SR until you have the basics. I know absolutely nothing about SR and so shan't make any claims regarding it. But my general physics is enough to see the basic flaws at work here.
 
  • #82
FlexGunship said:
Well, they were convinced to stare directly at the sun.

Enough said.
 
  • #83
Physics-Learner said:
the laws of physics AS WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE.

Why would you start a discussion by disregarding our present scientific understanding of the universe IN THE PHYSICS FORUMS??!
 
  • #84
FlexGunship said:
Here are two RECENT cases of "trained people" misidentifying something as a "UFO." (I put "UFO" in quotes to point towards the more colloquial use of the acronym.)

http://www.necn.com/09/27/10/Shocking-revelation-Former-Air-Force-per/landing.html?blockID=319245&feedID=4213

http://www.livescience.com/space/etc/ufo-china-airport-delays-101005.html (Another thread shows my comparison of the imaged taken to that of a helicopter. The Chinese airport was shut down because of a helicopter.)

i recall the incident, but i had not heard that it was identified as a helicopter ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
Well, PL had a point about the technical difference between special relativity and general realtivity. The reason that it pertains so significantly to light is because light has momentum (and therefore, mathematically, inertia) but no mass (and therefore, in practice, no inertia).
 
  • #87
Physics-Learner said:
the laws of physics AS WE CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE.

Well on this basis we can claim what we like. If we're playing it like this, I'm a firm believer that the USS Enterprise will be tearing through space at warp 5 within the next 500 years.
 
  • #88
FlexGunship said:
Why would you start a discussion by disregarding our present scientific understanding of the universe IN THE PHYSICS FORUMS??!

to think that there may be a possibility that our understanding will evolve is not the same thing as disregarding it.

i have an interest in the disclosure project. i made a post in the relativity section, asking about the speed of light. i wanted to make sure that my thought process of going faster than light was as substantial as i thought it was. that was confirmed for me.

when i saw a thread on the disclosure project, i wanted to get some feedback.
 
  • #89
FlexGunship said:
Well, PL had a point about the technical difference between special relativity and general realtivity. The reason that it pertains so significantly to light is because light has momentum (and therefore, mathematically, inertia) but no mass (and therefore, in practice, no inertia).

But I don't see how this comes as relevant to the debate. Like I said, I don't know anything about SR but we aren't light and neither would our ship be. We would have to 'become' light in order to exploit such a feature...
 
  • #90
my question in the past was how could light from point b ever reach us at point a, if a and b are expanding away from one another at faster than the speed of light ?

and the reply was that special relativity breaks down at large enough distances. but it is explained by general relativity.
 
  • #91
Physics-Learner said:
my question in the past was how could light from point b ever reach us at point a, if a and b are expanding away from one another at faster than the speed of light ?

and the reply was that special relativity breaks down at large enough distances. but it is explained by general relativity.

You are thinking of frame dragging, I believe (the space around a quickly spinning neutron star or black hole experiences this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

The Alcubierre drive is an example of where real physics could intersect your thoughts. However, you will note that it is not feasible. Simply a clever mathematical trick you can play on paper.

Think of light speed in the following manner. There are four dimensions (as we presently understand them)x, y, z, and t. You always always always have a constant speed through them. The faster you go through x, the slower you go through y, z, and t. If you are using 100% of your velocity to travel through x, y, and z (like light), then you cannot travel through t (like light).

Relativistic effects are a reality. If we didn't understand them, then GPS systems all over the world wouldn't work.
 
  • #92
btw jared,

you do have some understanding of sr, as time dilation is part of that.

i had forgotten about that. i do agree with you that according to the theory, he can go back and forth in much less time than we would measure his time to be.
 
  • #93
hi flex,

there are objects in the universe moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. my question was how can the light still reach us ?
 
  • #94
Physics-Learner said:
hi flex,

there are objects in the universe moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. my question was how can the light still reach us ?

First of all, this is an oversimplification.

Galaxies that appear to recede from us at a speed close to light are not. Instead, the universe (not just the things in it) is expanding. The farther away you are, the faster it appears to expand.

Objects that exceed the apparent speed of light no longer appear to emit light. Hence the universe has a visible boundary (about 47 billion light years away). However, it didn't take 47 billion years to get there. Space is free to expand at any rate (even faster than light), but something cannot exceed the speed of light through space.

The most distant light we can see was emitted about 400,000 years after the big bang, but it is (again!) 47 billion light years away. This is due to spatial expansion, not things moving faster than light.

Please see the following link for more information.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)
 
Last edited:
  • #95
thanks for the discussion guys,

i am open-minded with regard to greer and his group.

the main reason for my interest is the claim that we currently have technology that could help the betterment of the people on this planet.

i will just have to wait and see, but i won't hold my breath, either. LOL.
 
  • #96
Physics-Learner said:
greer is claiming that these ets travel faster than light. that is some sort of substantial claim.
Well, that is half of what I had asked for 5 years ago: a concrete claim. The other half is compelling evidence to support that claim. Do you have any?

if a society is millions of years ahead of us, most anything is possible.
You have the role of science backwards. When we know nothing, anything may seem to be possible because we don't know what the limits are. As science progresses, it figures out limits, so in a way, the more we know, the less is possible.

The faster-than-light travel thing is a good example. It is explicitly forbidden by current scientific theory. So it can't just be something we don't know yet, it would have to be something we think we know (and, by the way, have an enormous amount of evidence for) that turns out to be badly wrong.
i totally disregard illusion, delusion or hallucination.
Well, it's a free internet so you can do what you want, but if you want correct answers, you can't disregard correct answers. It is known for certain that the vast majority UFO sightings are "illusions, delusions or halucinations" (or, to be nicer about it: misidentifications of mundane things). Not even the most die-hard of serious alien spaceship hunters doubts that. The only question is whether it is almost all or actually all. A die-hard alien spaceship hunter will believe that even if 95% are misidentifications of mundane things, that still leaves thousands of actual sightings of alien spacecraft .

And btw, you say you have an open mind, yet it seems to me that you have closed your mind to the most likely possibilities.
 
Last edited:
  • #97
hi russ,

if i personally had evidence, i would not be here asking - LOL.

regarding the rest of what you said, it might depend on how full one thinks our glass of knowledge actually is - LOL.

my suspicion is that we have a tremendous amount left unlearned, and that a million years from now, much of what we think we know today will have evolved into something different, much like gravity has evolved from Newton's explanation of it being an innate attraction of matter - to einstein's explanation of it as matter traveling in the direction of least resistance in a curved time space. my suspicion is that neither is correct.

and it may be that we are not necessarily badly wrong about light, for example, within our frame of reference of knowledge.

but there may be something dimensional that we have no clue about.

in any case, ets can come and go at less than the speed of light within their lifetimes, if they have a way of GOING REALLY FAST. LOL.
 
  • #98
Physics-Learner said:
if i personally had evidence, i would not be here asking - LOL.

And yet youve already drawn a conclusion. Like I said, drawing a conclusion and then looking for the evidence to support it is the place of religion, not science.
 
  • #99
what conclusion do you think i have come to ?
 
  • #100
hi russ,

i don't believe the claims by these high level people are illusions.
 
  • #101
Physics-Learner said:
hi russ,

i don't believe the claims by these high level people are illusions.

This conclusion.

You have decided they are not illusions and are now looking for proof to back it up.
 
  • #102
well it certainly has nothing to do with religion.

there are too many high level people making substantial claims, regarding different events at different times at different locations. and most of these claims involve more than one person.

instead of religion, i would liken it to probability.
 
  • #103
i think i admitted to flex that there are few things in the world with a 0 or 100 probability.

but i give it such a low percent, that yes, i am looking for a conclusion that is more likely.

right now, i can come up with it being true, or it having some sort of agenda that i can't figure out.
 
  • #104
Physics-Learner said:
well it certainly has nothing to do with religion.

No, it's just that this sort of thinking is the same as that employed by religions.
there are too many high level people making substantial claims, regarding different events at different times at different locations. and most of these claims involve more than one person.

High level or low level, quantity does not equal quality.
i think i admitted to flex that there are few things in the world with a 0 or 100 probability.

but i give it such a low percent, that yes, i am looking for a conclusion that is more likely.

right now, i can come up with it being true, or it having some sort of agenda that i can't figure out.

The likelihood of any of these sightings being actual aliens is slim to none. Not impossible, but so highly unlikely that discussion otherwise is futile.
The reason I say this is simply down to the fact there has been no credible evidence provided to substantiate any of the claims. If a million people all claimed that a spaceship hovered over london, and yet no pictures or video of said event existed, would you believe it? Conspiracy theorists will provide a whole number of reasons for there being no evidence, but they always seem to provide answers based on 'alien technology' which we just can't understand or answers that are so far fetched we just can't disprove directly. That doesn't answer or prove anything.
 
  • #105
Physics-Learner said:
my suspicion is that we have a tremendous amount left unlearned, and that a million years from now, much of what we think we know today will have evolved into something different, much like gravity has evolved from Newton's explanation of it being an innate attraction of matter - to einstein's explanation of it as matter traveling in the direction of least resistance in a curved time space. my suspicion is that neither is correct.
If our understanding evolves similar to the way Newton's theory evolved into Einstein's, FTL travel will still be impossible. That's exactly what you are missing about how science works.
 

Similar threads

How reliable is an Expert Witness?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
56
Views
9K
The Disclosure Project: Military & Gov't Witnesses Reveal UFO Secrets
    • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top