Disclosure Project by Steven M. Greer: Reliability?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eyesoftruth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Project
Click For 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.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

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