Dr Steve Greer nails it!

[Dark_Grey]

Greed is a funny thing and anyone savvy enough to amass a fortune in the energy business would want to be 'in' on any new developments, not shut them down. That's how massive fortunes are made to begin with. I think it is conceivable that corporations would take the opposite track and invest deeply in new energies if the tech was viable. Greer likes to paint with a conspiracy laden brush, as do a lot of his fellow proponents. I'm just not sold on such a conspiracy having any relevance or credibility ( there's that word again! ) in a global economy. Perhaps in the 40's and 50's it might have been a legitimate concern but now with everybody and their dog looking for alternative energies? There is a ton of money just aching to be had for anyone with the ability to deliver on that front, up to and including greedy unscrupulous corporations. I doubt they would still be sitting on anything if they could be making money off of it.

I have to disagree, respectfully. The current energy grid is based on inefficiency. That's what keeps the money coming in, it keeps people paying and the energy companies can charge whatever they want. You need to think in economic terms - if every home had a device that produced FREE energy, how would an energy company make a profit from it? By selling the free energy devices? Sure, but once every person has one, that's it. I think the "Zeitgeist Movie" is largely b.s., but Peter Jospeh does have an interesting take on how industry works which is inefficiency. As long as something is inefficient, money can be drawn from it indefinitely. (Ie poor quality cars, electronics, etc).

Anyways, back to the main point: very efficient energy sources means less money spent. The wars we fight, the vast resource extraction, all of that goes away with the invention of free energy. The internal combustion engine, gas station, the hydro meter on the outside of your house, it all disappears man. If you really, honestly believe that scientific advancement is the biggest hurdle between the common man and essentially evolving technologically, you need to take a good hard look at the amount of cash that is at stake here.

[S2F]

I have to disagree, respectfully. The current energy grid is based on inefficiency. That's what keeps the money coming in, it keeps people paying and the energy companies can charge whatever they want. You need to think in economic terms - if every home had a device that produced FREE energy, how would an energy company make a profit from it? By selling the free energy devices? Sure, but once every person has one, that's it. I think the "Zeitgeist Movie" is largely b.s., but Peter Jospeh does have an interesting take on how industry works which is inefficiency. As long as something is inefficient, money can be drawn from it indefinitely. (Ie poor quality cars, electronics, etc).

Anyways, back to the main point: very efficient energy sources means less money spent. The wars we fight, the vast resource extraction, all of that goes away with the invention of free energy. The internal combustion engine, gas station, the hydro meter on the outside of your house, it all disappears man. If you really, honestly believe that scientific advancement is the biggest hurdle between the common man and essentially evolving technologically, you need to take a good hard look at the amount of cash that is at stake here.

That's assuming something like 'free' energy even exists. Even if it does it would likely still be generated centrally and routed to the existing grid with a monthly bill anyway. I doubt that there will be any individual free energy units in people's homes in the foreseeable future, even if it exists. That however, is free energy, I was speaking more along the lines of alternative energies.

[Quaentum]

Former CIA agent interview just posted on you tube. He said Eisenhower was about to invade area 51 after being repeatedly told it was none of his business what was happening out there. The higher ups at area 51 backed down and let Eisenhower in on mankind's greatest secret.

This officer also said he actually saw the crashed ship from Roswell and was still crashed and looked like giant tin foil. He also saw a being at S4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03jZEkTCSRI

And its funny how the skeptics tend to toally ignore the old man on his death bed and those that have come forward with EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY of having seen ships and beings in government custody. I guess these people just want to tell a bunch of lies before they go meet their maker.

Now we certainly don't want to ignore it.

Before I cover the interview, I have to say that there seems to be a purposeful misuse of the term death bed in relation to some revelation. A death bed confession/interview happens when a person truly is on his death bed, hours or at most a few days from dying with all avenues explored and death is certain. A person, such as the gentleman in the interview, who is going to have a procedure and if it fails will have a few months to live, is certainly not on his death bed.

The video:

First I have to say that for an undisclosed location it's funny that they disclose the general area in the first scene of the video. One of the signs on the door to the hotel says "The park rapids chamber of commerce" Less than a minute of looking shows it to be A city in Minnesota called the park rapids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Rapids,_Minnesota

The gentleman doesn't want to reveal his name but is more than willing to reveal all the classified information even though anyone from the CIA watching the video wouldn't know who he was

He says that in 1958 they refer to the Groom Lake base as Area 51. Perhaps this is true but my research points at the early 60's when this was done.

Eisenhower's plane was a Lockheed Constellation not a Lockheed Electra. Maybe we can chalk this up to a less than perfect remembering

Those things may not indicate much but there is one part that I deem important in deciding whether the information is real or made up.

Eisenhower instructs the gentleman and his supervisor to go to area 51 to get answers. The base, unwilling to give anything to the president, shows and tells everything to two low level CIA agents. Now these CIA agents do not return with reports and possible physical evidence. They only bring back a verbal report and the mathematical code for reversing gravity printed on a 3x5 card.

More importantly, the reason the base was so willing to reveal everything to the CIA agents was that Eisenhower threatened to use the First Army, based in Colorado to invade and take over the base. But wait, Eisenhower was a General in the U.S. Army before he was president so he would have known that the First Army was and has never been stationed in Colorado. It has always been located on the east coast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_United_States_Army

First Army returned to the United States in late 1945; first to Fort Jackson (South Carolina), then to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, returning to Fort Jay, Governors Island, New York in the spring of 1946. Twenty years later, in 1966, First Army relocated to Fort Meade, Maryland

I believe there is enough discrepancy in the video to label it as a story and not a historical accounting.

[psyche101]

I like hearing Dr. Greer's talk about his theory's.. He may pass them off as absolute fact/truth a bit much but i'm sure the reality is pretty close to what he's deduced from everything he's gathered.

Is it me or did he turn into a gym rat and got buff lately?

cheers mcrom

[mcrom901]

cheers mcrom

hehee... i nicked that from an ats thread i love this one....

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread661936/pg1

[ChrLzs]

Hi Chris, I had 2 minutes worth of them through the Zeiss glasses

You've got Carl's binos? Respect! But it's a pity that it wasn't a big SLR with an even bigger telephoto lens, on a tripod..

and they were extremely clear in view. They most certainly were not aircraft. I admit at first I thought they were a bunch of military choppers out on a flight, since that is what they first resembled at a distance in motion and spacing. However, when I could see there were no navigation lights or strobes I legged it for my front door and the bins. I drew a picture for someone else, I'll see if i can find it.

Not sure why you think my "question" should be on another thread though ? I was just using the sighting as a reasoning for the rest of my mutterings.

It's just that this thread is about the charlatan, Greer, and discussing your sighting in detail will de-rail it a bit.. It does sound interesting, although from what you have said, I'm not sure there is likely to be much of a useful result from attempting to analyse it.. Mebbe a flock of experimental drones in formation?

That may sound flippant, but I live near an RC club. One of these days I'll have to film some of the stuff those guys/gals get up to!

[bee]

Those things may not indicate much but there is one part that I deem important in deciding whether the information is real or made up.

Eisenhower instructs the gentleman and his supervisor to go to area 51 to get answers. The base, unwilling to give anything to the president, shows and tells everything to two low level CIA agents. Now these CIA agents do not return with reports and possible physical evidence. They only bring back a verbal report and the mathematical code for reversing gravity printed on a 3x5 card.

we don't know whether the report was only verbal...and I'm not sure what relevant physical evidence they could have brought back?

While 'anonymous' was a low level CIA agent he describes the other one as his boss...so that one wasn't low-level?

re. the code on the card...he doesn't specify when he got that. He doesn't actually say he presented this to Eisenhower.

More importantly, the reason the base was so willing to reveal everything to the CIA agents was that Eisenhower threatened to use the First Army, based in Colorado to invade and take over the base. But wait, Eisenhower was a General in the U.S. Army before he was president so he would have known that the First Army was and has never been stationed in Colorado. It has always been located on the east coast.

I've been having a look to see about this bit....

see this link (page 5) it says....

......Fort Carson is also headquarters for First Army's Division West...

http://videostar.osi...eralta_Army.pdf

Fort Carson is in Colorado...

While the HEADQUARTERS of the First Army might have been on the East Coast...perhaps there was a division at Fort Carson, Colorado in the 1950's?

I believe there is enough discrepancy in the video to label it as a story and not a historical accounting.

I think the jury is still out.....

.

[mcrom901]

[Macroramphosis]

Chrizs, PM sent.

[bee]

But wait, Eisenhower was a General in the U.S. Army before he was president so he would have known that the First Army was and has never been stationed in Colorado. It has always been located on the east coast. http://en.wikipedia....ted_States_Army

tried to put an edit on my last post but I was too late....

more info about the First Army in Colorado...

http://newsblaze.com/story/20090613060441zmil.nb/topstory.html

FORT CARSON, Colo. - First Army Division West, the unit responsible for the post-mobilization training of Army Reserve and National Guard Soldiers in the western United States, is moving its headquarters from Fort Carson to Fort Hood, Texas.

The move is part of the overall transformation of First Army, which is consolidating its subordinate commands and training brigades and battalions onto military installations where the training organizations are already operating.

.

[DONTEATUS]

[media=]

[/media]

Priceless ! good on you mcrom901 !

[mcrom901]

Priceless ! good on you mcrom901 !

heheee... we're not done with korton yet...

[Boris Gleeson]

The problem I have with skeptics instead of engaging in any proper debate they just shitbag anything they come across. Yes it's great to cast a critical eye over things and look for holes but sometimes on this forum I come across some outright hostility on the issue! There are some things that can't be explained and that doesn't immediately mean that 'ALIENS DID IT LOL' but it doesn't mean that they definitely had nothing to do with it either. You quite simply cannot ignore all the eyewitness accounts as it only takes one of them to be true out of all the many millions of sightings, alleged abductions etc. for it to be true and I don't understand why people would think that ALL these sightings are perfidious? Just baffling.

[mcrom901]

There are some things that can't be explained and that doesn't immediately mean that 'ALIENS DID IT LOL' but it doesn't mean that they definitely had nothing to do with it either.

http://rationalwiki...._from_ignorance

You quite simply cannot ignore all the eyewitness accounts as it only takes one of them to be true out of all the many millions of sightings, alleged abductions etc. for it to be true and I don't understand why people would think that ALL these sightings are perfidious? Just baffling.

which cases do you think are worthy of consideration?

Edited May 31, 2013 by mcrom901

[mcrom901]

Boris- well said. It's the easiest thing in the world to spew the old line "show me some hard evidence now or no way in hell it happened". That crap gets really, really, old.

what are you gonna counter that with? blind belief?

[bmk1245]

Boris- well said. It's the easiest thing in the world to spew the old line "show me some hard evidence now or no way in hell it happened". That crap gets really, really, old.

Not that old as 'You have to be "openminded"'

BTW, I'm selling Sydney harbour. Interested?

[ChrLzs]

The problem I have with skeptics instead of engaging in any proper debate they just shitbag anything they come across.

The problem I have is people who barge into threads and instead of bravely making their point specifically and contributing to the thread / offering some debate or reporting breaches of forum etiquette to the moderators, would instead prefer to generalise and handwave and label an entire group as incapable of reasoned debate.. It's called ad hominem...

Yes it's great to cast a critical eye over things and look for holes

Good, we are all agreed then.

but sometimes on this forum I come across some outright hostility on the issue!

Outright Hostility? Really?! Well, here's a little tip - see that little button that is labelled Report down at the bottom left of every post? How about you use it, instead of getting upset about what is probably just vigorous debate? Toughen up, I say (call me hostile!).

There are some things that can't be explained and that doesn't immediately mean that 'ALIENS DID IT LOL'

Again, we agree on that..

but it doesn't mean that they definitely had nothing to do with it either.

Can you not see the rather large difference between labeling something as unexplained/unidentified, and the huge leap to labeling it as the work of something of which we have absolutely NO solid evidence?

You quite simply cannot ignore all the eyewitness accounts as it only takes one of them to be true

Why use the term 'ignore'? Who's ignoring? And do you know which logical fallacy you just made? - it's a common one... And what 'truth' are you talking about? If you mean proven alien origin, then which account is it that you think truly contains irrefutable evidence of aliens?

Would you concede that there are indeed lots of things that fly in the sky, and that many might be very difficult to identify?

Would you also concede that some folks post ufo reports for s$$$$s and giggles or for monetary gain?

Would you concede that some folks who post ufo reports are genuinely deluded?

Have you heard of the saying "The plural of anecdote is *not* data.."?

I don't understand why people would think that ALL these sightings are perfidious? Just baffling.

Perfidious???? Good grief, talk about a perfect example of a strawman - be specific, and name the persons you think attribute all ufo sightings to deceit or nefarious intent. There are a MULTITUDE of reasons for ufo reports - would you like me to list them? Maybe slightly less reasons for ufo=alienz claims, but nevertheless, saying that anyone here (let alone all skeptics) attributes them to perfidy? I find that very insulting and a completely unjustified accusation.

BTW, 'perfidy' (and derivatives thereof), isn't a particularly commonly used term and sounds a bit silly, really. Were you hoping no-one would know what it meant?

[Lilly]

what are you gonna counter that with? blind belief?

I agree. I mean, neither blind belief nor automatic dismissal is the way to go IMO.

[Boris Gleeson]

which cases do you think are worthy of consideration?

After lurking this forum for awhile I don't think there's any use raising any cases as I'm sure they probably already have been, but you have to accept you just don't know the truth and applying Occam's Razor won't always give you the right answer. The problem with just about every single UFO case is that it's all based on anecdotal evidence and I'm not too sure if there's any evidence that as solid as a strange rash here and a burnt patch of grass there and when it comes to scientific scrutiny it just won't stand up. That said, you just can't come out and rubbish every single sighting or encounter if you will that people have come forward with and you have to remember these aren't all tinfoil hat wackos. Credulous people ranging from policemen to celebrities claim to have claimed to have had such encounters.

http://rationalwiki...._from_ignorance

Like I said before anecdotal evidence isn't a complete absence of evidence, it's just flimsy.

[ChrLzs]

Quote of the Week.

Credulous people ranging from policemen to celebrities claim to have claimed to have had such encounters.

[Boris Gleeson]

Outright Hostility? Really?! Well, here's a little tip - see that little button that is labelled Report down at the bottom left of every post? How about you use it, instead of getting upset about what is probably just vigorous debate? Toughen up, I say (call me hostile!).

Don't want to report anyone over such a trifling issue, don't be daft. It can be vigorous debate yes, but often it's ridiculing those that think aliens have visited us or are visiting us.(from what I've seen) Some of it is warranted, and some of it is just ridiculous.

The problem I have is people who barge into threads and instead of bravely making their point specifically and contributing to the thread / offering some debate or reporting breaches of forum etiquette to the moderators, would instead prefer to generalise and handwave and label an entire group as incapable of reasoned debate.. It's called ad hominem...

Better report me then! And thank you for helping me realize the concept of ad hominem.

Can you not see the rather large difference between labeling something as unexplained/unidentified, and the huge leap to labeling it as the work of something of which we have absolutely NO solid evidence?

One could say the same thing about the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution. They're just theories, although a lot more scientific attention is directed to these two.

Why use the term 'ignore'? Who's ignoring? And do you know which logical fallacy you just made? - it's a common one... And what 'truth' are you talking about? If you mean proven alien origin, then which account is it that you think truly contains irrefutable evidence of aliens?

Would you concede that there are indeed lots of things that fly in the sky, and that many might be very difficult to identify?

Would you also concede that some folks post ufo reports for s$$$$s and giggles or for monetary gain?

Would you concede that some folks who post ufo reports are genuinely deluded?

Have you heard of the saying "The plural of anecdote is *not* data.."?

I'm not too interested in hearing about you logical fallacies but yes there are plenty of 'difficult to identify' things that fly in the night sky, that's why they're called Unidentified Flying Objects after all. Like I said, people can post ufo reports for ****s and giggles but it's horrendously stupid to think that they're all made for ****s and giggles or by delusional folks.

Perfidious???? Good grief, talk about a perfect example of a strawman - be specific, and name the persons you think attribute all ufo sightings to deceit or nefarious intent. There are a MULTITUDE of reasons for ufo reports - would you like me to list them? Maybe slightly less reasons for ufo=alienz claims, but nevertheless, saying that anyone here (let alone all skeptics) attributes them to perfidy? I find that very insulting and a completely unjustified accusation.

BTW, 'perfidy' (and derivatives thereof), isn't a particularly commonly used term and sounds a bit silly, really. Were you hoping no-one would know what it meant?

Not sure what you mean here. It's a word of the English language so I'm going to use it.

[Boris Gleeson]

Quote of the Week.

Sorry, I meant incredulous. I thought you would have known what I meant.

[bee]

The problem I have with skeptics instead of engaging in any proper debate they just shitbag anything they come across. Yes it's great to cast a critical eye over things and look for holes but sometimes on this forum I come across some outright hostility on the issue! There are some things that can't be explained and that doesn't immediately mean that 'ALIENS DID IT LOL' but it doesn't mean that they definitely had nothing to do with it either. You quite simply cannot ignore all the eyewitness accounts as it only takes one of them to be true out of all the many millions of sightings, alleged abductions etc. for it to be true and I don't understand why people would think that ALL these sightings are perfidious? Just baffling.

well said.....and of course Greer's great crime (/sarcasm) was to get the Disclosure Project together.

from that day on he was a marked man on internet forums.

As evidenced in this thread.

Boris- well said. It's the easiest thing in the world to spew the old line "show me some hard evidence now or no way in hell it happened". That crap gets really, really, old.

yes it does....very boring.

.

[SHaYap]

credibility ? anyone ?

~ tea right about now would be nice .....

.

[bee]

credibility ? anyone ?

according to the 'stuff and nonsense' crowd here....(who believe themselves to be 'sceptical')

no-one who has anything positive/informative to say about possible ET connection to UFOs has any credibility.

Not astronauts.....senior research scientists....high (or low) ranking military....no-one.....

~ tea right about now would be nice .....

Indeed...I'll put the kettle on....

.