The Disclosure Project
- Thread starter star.logic
- Start date
Didactylos
Scholar
The worst? Hmm, he could be tempted to start using ellipsis as the Universal Punctuation Mark, like a certain other poster (with an IQ of 150).
davidsmith73
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,697
Ok, I've read through this thread a little late but here's my penny worth.
Luke,
This is a possible interpretation. However, Smith says that the pattern of appearance at 80,000 feet, slow descent, disappearance for 10 min, then reappearance at 80,000 feet repeated itself several times. Would any natural phenomena that are expected to provide false radar returns show this repitition? The only physical phenomena I know of (which is very little) that causes false returns is temperature inversions. Have such phenomena been observed to show such patterns?
Also, I think its a bit odd that you think an air force radar controller would not realise something as elementary as changing the scale on the radar display! Can you justify that belief? Also take into account that Smith says he entered the room and "they" were tracking the UFO on radar. This would imply that other qualified people were observing. Could they all have been so naive as to not understand about scale changes? I don't think so.
Again, possible interpretation. But again, would Smith not realise that unidentified, normal man-made aircraft were to be expected during this time? Surely he would only make the jump to "UFO" if there was sufficient grounds to think this wasn't a normal aircraft? He doesn't give any details of these observations, but I presume they are included in the bundle of documents that the disclosure project has available (for a small fee!
).
Well, it certainly could be interpreted as a missile launch if we call misperception on the 7000 mph observation. However, this is another case where we should wait untill we see exactly what documentation accompanies this testimony. For example, the guy says that the report by the ship's crew was corroborated by radar. Does this mean that the radar also confirmed the 7000 mph speed or similar? Its not clear at all from the 2h video we are watching. If so, wouldn't that discount the missile theory?
Same as they get everyone else to keep quiet, by fear of repercusion I suppose. But apparently they couldn't frighten everyone.
I've cut the substantial portion you posted after this bit for clarity. I'm not sure what the point of all your calculations was Luke. Do you think that the witnesses on the disclosure video who are describing radar returns that display enornmous speeds are mistaken?
Mercutio,
The moth example seems very far fetched. If you'll forgive me, it has air of desperation similar to Hynek's swamp gas explanation. Could you provide any evidence that directly supports this explanation, ie, any experiments showing how people perceive distances of objects with that degree of error?
One thing that fustrates me is the use of this misperception argument. It can effectively be used in any situation where you don't agree with the interpretation of an uncontrolled observation. We often hear about "believers" who find excuses for contrary evidence. I think the misperception argument is the corresponding get-out clause for the debunker. That's not to say misperceptions don't happen. But Mercutio, you seem to be implying by your post that all of these witnesses were mistaken in their perceptions. However, we apparently have corroborated radar in some cases so the witnesses can be regarded as accurate enough in those cases.
My opinion of the Disclosure project;
On the one hand we supposedly have all these witnesses and documentation supporting some pretty wild claims. Can we really discount over 400 witnesses? We really need to see the details.
On the other hand we have the bizarre claims of Dr. Greer himself. If you listen to some of the radio interviews that are linked on the disclosure project website, you will hear him talk about remote viewing, "astral energy", and various claims that ET's communicate by interfacing electromagnetic energy with consciousness (somehow!). He also claims to have experienced "contact" with ET's on group outings with other members of the Centre for Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) and obtained video and photos of this. However, there is no video or photo evidence on the CSETI or disclosure web site, unless its in the members area. In one of his radio interviews, Greer was asked to distribute, for free, the video evidence on youtube or google video. He didn't exactly agree to this but just said "Oh, I'm just a country doctor, I don't know about all this technology stuff. You can certainly ask the webmaster to do it". I did a search for CSETI video and found this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-791319739855880998&q=CSETI
and this, on which I left a comment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3224921909451877011&q=CSETI
I'm not going to assume that this is a genuine CSETI offering of the proof that Greer was talking about in the radio interview, but if it is then its hardly convincing!
So I'm left quite puzzled by this man Dr. Greer. He comes across as a sincere, intelligent and objective person in the disclosure video, but then there are these bizarre claims of his that appear to be completely unsubstantiated. Does he not realise that people are naturally going to demand proof of what he is saying? A simple youtube posting is all it would take.
Luke,
This is a possible interpretation. However, Smith says that the pattern of appearance at 80,000 feet, slow descent, disappearance for 10 min, then reappearance at 80,000 feet repeated itself several times. Would any natural phenomena that are expected to provide false radar returns show this repitition? The only physical phenomena I know of (which is very little) that causes false returns is temperature inversions. Have such phenomena been observed to show such patterns?
Also, I think its a bit odd that you think an air force radar controller would not realise something as elementary as changing the scale on the radar display! Can you justify that belief? Also take into account that Smith says he entered the room and "they" were tracking the UFO on radar. This would imply that other qualified people were observing. Could they all have been so naive as to not understand about scale changes? I don't think so.
Again, possible interpretation. But again, would Smith not realise that unidentified, normal man-made aircraft were to be expected during this time? Surely he would only make the jump to "UFO" if there was sufficient grounds to think this wasn't a normal aircraft? He doesn't give any details of these observations, but I presume they are included in the bundle of documents that the disclosure project has available (for a small fee!
).Well, it certainly could be interpreted as a missile launch if we call misperception on the 7000 mph observation. However, this is another case where we should wait untill we see exactly what documentation accompanies this testimony. For example, the guy says that the report by the ship's crew was corroborated by radar. Does this mean that the radar also confirmed the 7000 mph speed or similar? Its not clear at all from the 2h video we are watching. If so, wouldn't that discount the missile theory?
Same as they get everyone else to keep quiet, by fear of repercusion I suppose. But apparently they couldn't frighten everyone.
I've cut the substantial portion you posted after this bit for clarity. I'm not sure what the point of all your calculations was Luke. Do you think that the witnesses on the disclosure video who are describing radar returns that display enornmous speeds are mistaken?
Mercutio,
The moth example seems very far fetched. If you'll forgive me, it has air of desperation similar to Hynek's swamp gas explanation. Could you provide any evidence that directly supports this explanation, ie, any experiments showing how people perceive distances of objects with that degree of error?
One thing that fustrates me is the use of this misperception argument. It can effectively be used in any situation where you don't agree with the interpretation of an uncontrolled observation. We often hear about "believers" who find excuses for contrary evidence. I think the misperception argument is the corresponding get-out clause for the debunker. That's not to say misperceptions don't happen. But Mercutio, you seem to be implying by your post that all of these witnesses were mistaken in their perceptions. However, we apparently have corroborated radar in some cases so the witnesses can be regarded as accurate enough in those cases.
My opinion of the Disclosure project;
On the one hand we supposedly have all these witnesses and documentation supporting some pretty wild claims. Can we really discount over 400 witnesses? We really need to see the details.
On the other hand we have the bizarre claims of Dr. Greer himself. If you listen to some of the radio interviews that are linked on the disclosure project website, you will hear him talk about remote viewing, "astral energy", and various claims that ET's communicate by interfacing electromagnetic energy with consciousness (somehow!). He also claims to have experienced "contact" with ET's on group outings with other members of the Centre for Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) and obtained video and photos of this. However, there is no video or photo evidence on the CSETI or disclosure web site, unless its in the members area. In one of his radio interviews, Greer was asked to distribute, for free, the video evidence on youtube or google video. He didn't exactly agree to this but just said "Oh, I'm just a country doctor, I don't know about all this technology stuff. You can certainly ask the webmaster to do it". I did a search for CSETI video and found this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-791319739855880998&q=CSETI
and this, on which I left a comment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3224921909451877011&q=CSETI
I'm not going to assume that this is a genuine CSETI offering of the proof that Greer was talking about in the radio interview, but if it is then its hardly convincing!
So I'm left quite puzzled by this man Dr. Greer. He comes across as a sincere, intelligent and objective person in the disclosure video, but then there are these bizarre claims of his that appear to be completely unsubstantiated. Does he not realise that people are naturally going to demand proof of what he is saying? A simple youtube posting is all it would take.
Well guys and gals, I'm back and guess what...I've got no 'facts' whatsoever. But I don't think the majority of punters I have met on this forum thus far , would deserve something as precious as a 'fact' anyway. All you do with them is mold and twist them into whatever shape suits your purpose. I am only stating myexperience up to this time. I'm not saying everyoneon here does it, but the ones that do will know who I mean, and anyway, let's just see who turns up to debunkme.l
So, the Disclosure Project! I only came across this video very recently, and checking through this thread, no-one seems to think there is anything at all significant about this event. I can't believe you all really have that little imagination to connect the dots between this and the events of 9/11.
On May the 9th, 2001 , a press event is staged indicating there may be sufficient evidence to gain a Congressional Hearing in front of...just how many press agencies were involved? Whatever your personal opinions may be, as the guy out of "Knott's Landing" said, if only one of the thousands of recorded cases turns out to be genuine , the whole debunking community will be left with egg on it's face , and how keen are you lot on that happening? And don't kid me this is an "educational" forum at heart. There is far too much of a personal slant taken in some of the attacks I have seen on a persons views. Your overall credibility as suppliers of informative answers doesn't look good from where I am sat and I am giving you a chance to rectify that by answering two questions without your personal bias being brought into it.
1. If the claims in this video were proven to be true, would you accept that as possible motivation for a 'shadow government agency' (And don't say where's the facts. That's the whole ****ing point of them!) to set up the stage for 9/11. Because if you don't think it looked like a blockbuster disaster movie, then I'm not listening to another word you say. Give us a shout when you've got something interesting, intelligent and pertinent to my query to add!
BTW. My comments above do not include Dave in the previous post!
So, the Disclosure Project! I only came across this video very recently, and checking through this thread, no-one seems to think there is anything at all significant about this event. I can't believe you all really have that little imagination to connect the dots between this and the events of 9/11.
On May the 9th, 2001 , a press event is staged indicating there may be sufficient evidence to gain a Congressional Hearing in front of...just how many press agencies were involved? Whatever your personal opinions may be, as the guy out of "Knott's Landing" said, if only one of the thousands of recorded cases turns out to be genuine , the whole debunking community will be left with egg on it's face , and how keen are you lot on that happening? And don't kid me this is an "educational" forum at heart. There is far too much of a personal slant taken in some of the attacks I have seen on a persons views. Your overall credibility as suppliers of informative answers doesn't look good from where I am sat and I am giving you a chance to rectify that by answering two questions without your personal bias being brought into it.
1. If the claims in this video were proven to be true, would you accept that as possible motivation for a 'shadow government agency' (And don't say where's the facts. That's the whole ****ing point of them!) to set up the stage for 9/11. Because if you don't think it looked like a blockbuster disaster movie, then I'm not listening to another word you say. Give us a shout when you've got something interesting, intelligent and pertinent to my query to add!
BTW. My comments above do not include Dave in the previous post!
Last edited:
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Well, here's a blast from the past!
Whatever happened to good ol' star dot logic?
Whatever happened to good ol' star dot logic?
A W Smith
Philosopher
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. But we already knew that.
Clever bit of editing there Mr.Smith. But not very useful.
1.If the claims in this video were proven to be true, would you accept that as possible motivation for a 'shadow government agency' (And don't say where's the facts they exist. That's the whole ****ing point of them! Do you accept that there are 'Black Op's Operatives , or not?' ) to set up the stage for 9/11? Because if you don't think it LOOKED like a scene from a blockbuster disaster movie, then I'm not listening to another word you say.
I'm still waiting for something interesting, intelligent and/or pertinent to my query to be added!
Why are you all so averse to answering a simple hypothetical question, I wonder?
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
IF steel wasn't so wimpy at temperatures above 600F, we could build boilers out of less of it.*
IF Aluminum and other metals had the "Knee" in their stress-strain curves like steel does, we wouldn't have to worry about metal fatigue in airplanes.
If Frogs had wings, they wouldn't bruise their butts every time they hopped
* We also wouldn't be able to form it, or even smelt it, so I guess it's a wash...
I am asking a hypothetical question that IF, just if there is any substance to, will affect the entire world...and you are giving me...What?
Last edited:
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
I'm not really sure what you are asking here. I notice you edited it at least once, so I can only assume it made less sense (if that's possible) at some point.
I don't watch internet documentaries that are presented by people I don't know.
Why don't you sum it up in your own words and cite the sources for later fact-checking.
Keep in mind the sources should be independent of each other. Not using each other as a source or tracing back to the same root source.
No longer a Lieutenant I see Mr.Columbo. This is the question I have asked for a honest answer to;
1.If the claims in this video were proven to be true, would you accept that as possible motivation for a 'shadow government agency' (And don't say where's the facts they exist. That's the whole ****ing point of them! Do you accept that there are 'Black Op's Operatives , or not?' ) to set up the stage for 9/11?
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
So you want to use something that is unproven to prove the existence of something else, and that will prove the original unrpoven thing and a third thing exists?
That is why I don't watch Internet Docs often.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
When you are writing the question, yes it is.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Fixed that for you. What is it about this thread that brings out the worst punctuation in people;."!,
Great to see the usual rational, bias-free, totally objective, free-thinking and highly imaginative thought processes that go on around here guys. And I've still not had one sincere reply. Do you people really want to learn new things in life, or are you just trying to keep a monopoly on the "How It All Works" manuals?