Disclosure Project by Steven M. Greer: Reliability?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eyesoftruth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Project
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the credibility of Dr. Steven M. Greer and his Disclosure Project, which claims to present testimonies from high-ranking military and government officials regarding UFOs and extraterrestrial encounters. Participants express contrasting views on Greer's reliability, with some defending him based on the number of witnesses willing to testify, while others label him a "crackpot" due to perceived lack of substantial evidence and claims of sensationalism. Critics argue that the testimonies provided are vague and lack concrete evidence, questioning the motivations behind the witnesses' statements. Supporters counter that the sheer volume of credible witnesses suggests there is merit to Greer's claims, despite the absence of definitive proof. The debate highlights a broader skepticism towards both the claims of UFO sightings and the methods used to investigate them, with some participants advocating for a more thorough examination of the evidence before dismissing it outright. Overall, the conversation reflects a tension between belief in potential government cover-ups and the demand for rigorous scientific validation of extraordinary claims.
  • #51
Physics-Learner said:
they may be lies, but they are not optical illusions.

when you look up, and see a spaceship shining light down at your feet, that is not an optical illusion. this is why it has gotten the interest of a previous skeptical person.

a crashed spacecraft with aliens inside is not an optical illusion.

There aren't any of those cases that I know of. There are claims; but a claim without evidence is like spaghetti and meatballs without the spaghetti and meatballs.

They are usually built upon speculation, or misunderstanding. In almost any case illusion, delusion, hallucination, or hoax are your best explanatory tools.

EDIT: Here is a link to a site that covers one specific topic: Venus. It lists several cases in which people has mistaken the planet for an alien spaceship... in one story a police officer reported that it was flying away from him and he made some humorous estimates as to its altitude. (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm )

Take it seriously. These reports come from members of the SAME SPECIES that is providing "reliable" reports.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
i totally disregard illusion, delusion or hallucination.

we are talking about many such claims. as i said, hundreds of high level people coming forward, all with substantial claims.

if it is a hoax, (which is the same thing as having an agenda), i come back to what in the world could it be for ?
 
  • #53
Physics-Learner said:
i totally disregard illusion, delusion or hallucination.

images-2.jpe


Physics-Learner said:
we are talking about many such claims. as i said, hundreds of high level people coming forward, all with substantial claims.

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

Which is more likely? That the entire solar system was torn asunder and the Earth collided with the sun and that only people in Portugal knew about it. Or that 100,000 people were wrong about the same thing?

100,000 people.

100,000 people swore the sun fell to the Earth.

Surely they can't all be lying!
 
  • #54
Physics-Learner,

If humans were good observers, we wouldn't need science. We come from a species that has believed in demons, ghosts, devils, and spirits. Only with the advent of science have we pulled ourselves out of the dark closet of superstition and ignorance. The problem is that when we disregard it, abandon it, and begin to accept unscientific propositions based on unscientific evidence we are thrust back into the darkened closet of superstition and ignorance.

So your plea for ignorance, your cry to disregard science and accept "eye witness accounts" in it's stead is falling on deaf ears.

The only candle we have to cast light on the mysteries of the universe is science. To snuff it out is intellectual high treason and to convince others to do the same is moral high treason.
 
  • #55
Physics-Learner said:
it is not rubbish.

You said:
to have true interstellar travel, either one needs to travel faster than light, or have access to some sort of dimension unknown to us,

What I proposed would give interstellar travel. Making your claim that you need one of the two above options rubbish.
I don't understand your whole "true interstellar travel" thing, if you travel at / near the speed of light you get time dilation which means you would only experience a few years but the universe would experience many if not hundreds or thousands. So no matter how you play it, the actual journey time is immense. Whether you experience the lengthy journey time or not, the rest of the universe still does so your whole "true interstellar travel" point is irrellevant.
a crashed spacecraft with aliens inside is not an optical illusion.

Proof such a vehicle exists please.
 
  • #56
i am not disregarding science. these people have claims that are substantial. they are not illusions.

i am on the fence. but i am not dismissing these claims. i do want proof.
 
  • #57
Physics-Learner said:
i am not disregarding science. these people have claims that are substantial. they are not illusions.

i am on the fence. but i am not dismissing these claims. i do want proof.

Could you at least admit to the possibility that they are seeing substantial illusions?

Look, you're going to have to actually tell a story or something. Put up a claim. Post a link. You're philosophizing on a topic which is clearly in the realm of science. These are not philosophical discussions. Either some UFOs are aliens visiting the Earth or they are not.

So far, not a single shred of evidence has indicated in the slightest degree that any UFO has been an alien spaceship. There is zero evidence. None. Nothing. Not a single iota of it. You seem to think there is. So let's see it!

I'm waiting for you to overturn the current scientific understanding of the universe. Hit us with it! YEAH!
 
  • #58
jared,

what i meant by true interstellar travel, is as i restated - going back and forth. not simply launching a spaceship that travels for millions of years before it reaches its destination. so once again, my statement was not rubbish. if you go back and forth between destinations thousands or millions of light years apart, you are doing as i described.

of course i want proof that this spaceship exists. this is what the whole disclosure project is about. the real wealth of the world is supposed to have the power such that they have control of the info, and the project is trying to get this info to be made public.

which is why i say i am on the fence. i would not be on the fence if we had true and definitive proof of said spacecraft .
 
  • #59
Physics-Learner said:
i am not disregarding science. these people have claims that are substantial. they are not illusions.

Proof they aren't illusions?

You contradict yourself. Saying they definitely aren't illusions and then asking for proof.

You have drawn a conclusion and then asked / look for the evidence to back it up. That is how religion works, not science.
 
  • #60
Physics-Learner said:
what i meant by true interstellar travel, is as i restated - going back and forth. not simply launching a spaceship that travels for millions of years before it reaches its destination. so once again, my statement was not rubbish.

S: (adj) interstellar (between or among stars) "the density of hydrogen in interplanetary and interstellar space" (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=interstellar)

S: (n) change of location, travel (a movement through space that changes the location of something) (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/per...WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=0)

You're using the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and you're doing it all wrong!

Your claim is rubbish. But if we accept it. Then all you've proven is that interstellar travel is impossible. Sadly, this is probably more true than we would like it to be.
 
  • #61
flex,

there is almost nothing that has 100% or 0% possibility.

so to answer your question, i suppose it is possible, mathematically.

but the percentage would be dismally small, such that the opposite would have such a high percentage, that one would certainly not be able to dismiss it.

i can't show you anything. i am not a high level military person that has had any access to anything. that is why i am here. if i already knew, i wouldn't be here asking - LOL.

i am just telling you what has been claimed by these high level RETIRED military.

you do have access to that.
 
  • #62
jarednjames said:
Proof they aren't illusions?

You contradict yourself. Saying they definitely aren't illusions and then asking for proof.

You have drawn a conclusion and then asked / look for the evidence to back it up. That is how religion works, not science.

i do not contradict myself. i said they weren't illusions. i did not say that it wasnt a hoax.

they are stating substantial statements. i want proof.
 
  • #63
1000 years to Alpha Centauri and 1000 years back or 4 years there and 4 back is irrelevant. Both are interstellar. The difference is, in the 1000 year trip, you and the universe experience the 1000 year time. In the 4 year journey you experience 4 years, the universe experience far more. You would get there and back in 8 years, by your perspective, not by anyone elses. Making any "you have to go faster than light" to travel interstellar argument null. You end up in a very similar set of circumstances regardless how you travel.

You are thinking of the Star Trek there and back in time for dinner.
 
  • #64
FlexGunship said:
S: (adj) interstellar (between or among stars) "the density of hydrogen in interplanetary and interstellar space" (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=interstellar)

S: (n) change of location, travel (a movement through space that changes the location of something) (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/per...WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=0)

You're using the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and you're doing it all wrong!

Your claim is rubbish. But if we accept it. Then all you've proven is that interstellar travel is impossible. Sadly, this is probably more true than we would like it to be.

this post makes no sense to me. let me repeat.

if the distance from a to b is a million light years (by our observation), and someone travels back and forth as we travel back and forth on a vacation, then one of two things must be true :

1) he travels faster than light, or

2) he is not traveling the same amount of distance from a to b, that we measure it to be.
 
  • #65
Physics-Learner said:
i do not contradict myself. i said they weren't illusions. i did not say that it wasnt a hoax.

they are stating substantial statements. i want proof.

Bare in mind the definition of illusion:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illusion
1a. An erroneous perception of reality.
1b. An erroneous concept or belief.
2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.

A hoax creates the illusion of alien spacecraft . Therefore, you are contradicting yourself and you are drawing a conclusion and then looking for evidence to back it up.
 
  • #66
Physics-Learner said:
this post makes no sense to me. let me repeat.

if the distance from a to b is a million light years (by our observation), and someone travels back and forth as we travel back and forth on a vacation, then one of two things must be true :

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.
 
  • #67
hi jared,

okay, now i see what you are saying. if someone was traveling close to the speed of light, he would make his journey in a rather short time, while we would measure it to be a long time ?

i do recall that in special relativity, someone on a light beam would measure no time elapsed, and no distance traveled, even though we would measure him to go from one end of the universe to the other.

but then special relativity supposedly breaks down at large enough distances.
 
  • #68
Physics-Learner said:
but the percentage would be dismally small, such that the opposite would have such a high percentage, that one would certainly not be able to dismiss it.

Wait, are you defending the claim that the sun "fell from the sky?" I literally don't understand your argument.

You say so many people can't be wrong. I show you a case where 100,000 people are wrong. And you say that they might be right?!

Physics-Learner said:
this post makes no sense to me. let me repeat.

if the distance from a to b is a million light years (by our observation), and someone travels back and forth as we travel back and forth on a vacation, then one of two things must be true :

1) he travels faster than light, or

2) he is not traveling the same amount of distance from a to b, that we measure it to be.

OR IT NEVER HAPPENED! EVER... AT ALL!
 
  • #69
jarednjames said:
Bare in mind the definition of illusion:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illusion
1a. An erroneous perception of reality.
1b. An erroneous concept or belief.
2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.

A hoax creates the illusion of alien spacecraft . Therefore, you are contradicting yourself and you are drawing a conclusion and then looking for evidence to back it up.

when i said it might be a hoax, i was referring to everyone lying, because they had an agenda.
 
  • #70
Physics-Learner said:
but then special relativity supposedly breaks down at large enough distances.

EDIT: removed by author; oversimplification and inaccurate
 
Last edited:
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

How reliable is an Expert Witness?
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
The Disclosure Project: Military & Gov't Witnesses Reveal UFO Secrets
Replies
3
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top