Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Debunking the Disclosure Project


drew hempel

Recommended Posts

Actually, some of those cases presented at the Disclosure Project are well known, and have been substantiated.

Substantiated as being unknown, not as being ET.

Best,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Substantiated as being unknown, not as being ET.

Best,

Badeskov

And, unknown simply means there were no earthly explanation for those flying saucers the aircrews and radar technicians were talking about, which were evident in the data evidence and performance characteristics.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, unknown simply means there were no earthly explanation for those flying saucers the aircrews and radar technicians were talking about, which were evident in the data evidence and performance characteristics.

No earthly explanation that we know yet. But that rules out neither ET nor atmospheric phenomena.

Best,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No earthly explanation that we know yet. But that rules out neither ET nor atmospheric phenomena.

Best,

Badeskov

Yes it does, especially since the aircrews described metallic, artificial flying objects that had nothing to do with natural phenomena, as noted by the aircrews themselves, radar technicians and experts, and meteorologist, and even the Air Force's own 1969 report, which effectively dismissed natural phenomena as reponsible for many UFO incidents, and in fact, in its own words; that it would have been "impossible."

"Quantitative Aspects of Mirages"

["According to a 1969 study by the Air Force Environmental Technical Applications Center, the conditions needed to produce the UFO-like effects attributed to inversions cannot exist in the Earth's atmosphere."]

Menkello, F.V., "Quantitative Aspects of Mirages," USAF Environmental Technical

Applications Center, 1969.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it does, especially since the aircrews described metallic, artificial flying objects that had nothing to do with natural phenomena, as noted by the aircrews themselves, radar technicians and experts, and meteorologist, and even the Air Force's own 1969 report, which effectively dismissed natural phenomena as reponsible for many UFO incidents, and in fact, in its own words; that it would have been "impossible."

I beg to differ! Sure, mirages or the like were not the culprit, we can agree on that. However, many other atmospheric phenomena exists that could be the responsible, some of these only recently discovered. Honestly, I don't give a report from almost 40 years ago to much value in that respect. The report concludes what it isn't (mirages), not what it is. And, obviously, the report does not include data on any atmospheric phenomena discovered later.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ!

I don't, and the reason being, so-called debunkers tried to debunk UFO cases as atmospheric phenomena, only to find that after investigations were concluded, atmospheric phenomena had nothing to do with the UFOs. That is what made CSICOP and Phil Klass the laughing stock in the media again, after their first failed attempt to explain away the UFOs as planets, they then claimed that ice clouds were responsible, which investigations had proved them wrong once again.

All they had to do was to review the data to see that they were wrong on all counts, in both instances, but then again, they were attempting to debunk an incident as they were doing on other occasions, which were met with utter faliure on their part.

Sure, mirages or the like were not the culprit, we can agree on that.

But, there were some skeptics who were still pushing mirages as responsible despite the fact that I told them why that was not possible.

However, many other atmospheric phenomena exists that could be the responsible, some of these only recently discovered.

I don't think that you are going to convince any aircrew members that the metallic, saucer-shaped, and domed, flying objects with portholes and rotating beacon lights, were plasmas nor any atmospheric phenomena for that matter.

That is like trying to convince yourself that the black and white car whose flashing lights are evident in your rearview mirror, is nothing more than atmospheric phenomena.

Honestly, I don't give a report from almost 40 years ago to much value in that respect. The report concludes what it isn't (mirages), not what it is. And, obviously, the report does not include data on any atmospheric phenomena discovered later.

Cheers,

Badeskov

There are very important reasons as to why atmospheric phenomena had been ruled out in the UFO case files in quesition and why the 1969 Air Force's study concluded that it was impossible, which would explain why commercial and military aircrews, and radar technicians were stating that the UFO incidents they were involved in, were those of artificial objects, not planets nor atmospheric phenomena.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
Wikipedia can't be trusted -- it's just whoever wants to submit stuff! There's no sources even mentioned.

That Wikipedia entry is WRONG -- it states 500 scientists. I told you 1,200 and here's my source:

Here this book proves that the U.S. hired some 1,200 Nazis as just scientists!!

Science, Technology, and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany (Hardcover)

by John Gimbel

Hardcover: 280 pages

Publisher: Stanford University Press (April 1990)

Now Professor Christopher Simpson who did most of the research on this stuff can not even get his books reviewed -- too radical!

This is so hypocritical... ANYONE can print a book based on misinformation, even one about disinformation. Until you can scan some "declassified documents" supporting your claims, your books are just as unreliable as that Wikipedia entry.

All I ask is that you stop quoting lengthy passages from books, and actually provide primary evidence

i.e. declassified documents straight from the source (not from a book commenting on them), video evidence, or audio recordings.

And don't reply to my comment with "ufoligists do the same thing," because two wrongs don't make a right. If we are ever to discover some semblance of the truth, we need to stop believing what everyone says and just look at the facts. I'm not saying that everything you're saying is false, only that you haven't provided any actual evidence to back your claims.

EDIT: I just noticed the OP is long gone, oh well... I needed to say something by page 8, he was really getting on my nerves <_<

Edited by OilFight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

It's been 8 years since the disclosure conference. Why are we not rolling in the benefits of what these whistle blowers of these alien secret that have been disclosed? Instead they offer a pittance of 200,000 dollars and 5 million over 2 years after someone comes up with an energy device. Why not get one from their alien friends?

This scheme was cooked up by a bunch of ex military men who werent satisfied with the pensions the military were handing out. Figured they would get in on the lucrative alien market. If they were disclosing any secrets they all would have been taken to guantanamo bay long ago before there was any talk of closing it.

I am sure if any of this energy stuff was true, the billion dollar oil industry would be offering a hell of a lot more than 5 million to keep it hushed up.

When I first saw the video I thought, great we are gonna have some proof finally. Instead more gobbly gook and after 8 years and practically no results of the break throughs that were promised, I can't believe anybody would take this stuff seriously. Sure there is a bunch of high tech stuff out there, but it is all owned and operated by the secret government (that part I believe is true). I think Bildeburgh is closer to the people that control this stuff than the US military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I watched the Disclosure Project video:

1) An M.D. is not a Ph.D. -- the standards are much less strict for getting an M.D. Greer's message is that technology will save the Earth. That the aliens are overall "good" and that current classified projects threaten the constitution so must be declassified.

Well drew, I'd probably take some exception to the generalized statement that standards are less stringent for obtaining an M.D. degree as opposed to another doctorate (Ph.D. or Sc. D.). I think it's more accurate to say that an M.D. degree or a Ph.D., or a Sc. D. is not really relevant to the Disclosure Project or its claims.

I think it is sufficient to say that Dr. Greer's Disclosure Project disclosed absolutely nothing, and I think you did a fine job of that. Dr. Greer's degree had nothing to do with it. There was simply nothing there that constituted the proof Greer promised.

And of course, he's fallen back on his M.D. degree and is doing what he was trained to do now...and the Disclosure Project has pretty much been a dead issue for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the Disclosure Project has pretty much been a dead issue for years.

Yep, pretty much like this thread... until someone dug it up and revived it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, he's fallen back on his M.D. degree and is doing what he was trained to do now...and the Disclosure Project has pretty much been a dead issue for years.

Actually not! It is alive and well.

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Whether these vehicles are "ours" or "theirs" is irrelevant to the hidden clean technology question.

If the military industrial complex has advanced technology that could be used to make oil redundant shouldn't the public be made aware of it?

Also shouldn't we be informed of advanced propulsion vehicles and their capabilities so that those in power cannot use this knowledge against us?

E.G. "An ET invasion" false flag event i.e. The latest Pearl Harbour would be ineffective if we knew that the military had flying saucers and black triangles in their hangers.

There may be ETs with incredibly advanced technology but obviously they're not a threat as they've had decades to attack but haven't bothered. Even if they did have evil intentions, there's absolutely nothing we could do to stop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The constitution has been null and void all along -- it's always been a joke! There is no evidence for aliens."

You must be quite young or old and jaded to think like this, IMO. And as others have already stated, all it takes is one of these people telling the truth and it changes everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Before I start I will admit that although many of Greer's witnesses make a lot of sense and are credible, most of them have supporting documentation, I can't go along with his assertion that ALL ETs are good natured. Clifford Stone, who, to me, stands out from the crowd says that although the vast majority are benevolent there is a rogue element amongst them but they are generally kept in line by the rest of them. Makes sense to me, isn't that how we try to run things here, although on Earth it's the other way round most are corrupt and evil with the civilized minority attempting to stand up to them with a few who try and keep a low profile.

In typical debunker fashion this guy's rant is full of opinion with very little fact, he even distorts the facts, e.g. Stone didn't say that he "SAW" 57 VARIETIES of ETs he stated that he saw a "government document" listing and categorizing them adding that it's probably been updated by the time of the interview.

Also why make a point about his stature as an MD and compare it to a PHD, Greer has never used his qualifications as an MD to prop up any of his claims, he's merely mentioned it when describing what he gave up to follow his heart to the Disclosure movement.

Another little straw man maybe?

The general tone of this rant is disrespectful, he attempts to ridicule rather than have respectful debate. This shows his bias right from the beginning. He's defending what he sees as an attack on his belief system which is a typical debunker stance. They need a secure world where nothing changes otherwise they feel tremendous anxiety, a symptom of the debunker's true condition, they suffer from neuroses and see our compliance as their only cure. The debunker mentality is merely a symptom of much deeper psychological problems. Let's hope that in time we can assist these poor people in their quest for mental stability and eventual happiness. I'm serious, we're not saved until we're ALL saved.

Edited by Flix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

The problem with anyone on this thread claiming that the UFOs witnessed are not alien craft are basically insane.

Look at the Phoenix Lights sighting in '97

How can you say that a craft 1 mile wide is a part of some big government hoax to militarize space??

Why would they need to militarize space when they have a ship that is a mile wide?

I don't ****ing understand people that think it's impossible for aliens to be here. The vastness of space is beyond the comprehension of any person on this thread, has been around for over 14 billion years, but there isn't a single alien race out there with technology to come to this planet? I think it's highly possible, and so does just about every single person in the scientific community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to UM darpinion. You picked an interesting place for your first post, and an interesting stance. But I'm glad you did because I'd very much like to read through this whole thread now. :tu:

The problem with anyone on this thread claiming that the UFOs witnessed are not alien craft are basically insane.

Which UFOs do you think are alien craft, and why exactly do you think so?

Look at the Phoenix Lights sighting in '97

How can you say that a craft 1 mile wide is a part of some big government hoax to militarize space??

The Phoenix Lights consist of two different sightings. One was around 8 PM, the other later at about 10 PM. There is still some debate about the earlier sighting, but the later sighting has been conclusively determined to be flares.

Wiki Explanations.

Skeptoid Explanation.

Arizona Republic Article.

Bruce Maccabee's Analysis

confirming the flares dropped behind the mountains.

The earlier sighting, if you read the wiki link, was reported by one person and corroborated by two others as planes.

Why would they need to militarize space when they have a ship that is a mile wide?

Huh?

I don't ****ing understand people that think it's impossible for aliens to be here. The vastness of space is beyond the comprehension of any person on this thread, has been around for over 14 billion years, but there isn't a single alien race out there with technology to come to this planet? I think it's highly possible, and so does just about every single person in the scientific community.

I don't think anyone is saying it is impossible, it is just unproven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What secrets did the Nazis possess to let them into the US cause we still do not know do we.

http://t.co/g24oZOx

As far as UFOs from Germany analyze the characteristics they must possess and all the

knowledge base set forth by investigators.

No Gs experienced by ship, crew and passengers.

Seat belts are not required for 90 degree turns at 300 miles per second.

Stable in wind and storm.

Works on pressure waves going the speed of light.

Kerr effect from voltage and electric field.

Nazis are tight lipped when it come to useless transportation in lieu of hour long

terrorist check out passenger lines so what good is fast transportation.

Individual FooMobiles just didn't make it past the WV Bug stage.

Go anywhere anytime in you very own merry FooMobile that would be confiscated

as soon as you made one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to UM darpinion. You picked an interesting place for your first post, and an interesting stance. But I'm glad you did because I'd very much like to read through this whole thread now. :tu:

The Phoenix Lights consist of two different sightings. One was around 8 PM, the other later at about 10 PM. There is still some debate about the earlier sighting, but the later sighting has been conclusively determined to be flares.

Wiki Explanations.

Skeptoid Explanation.

Arizona Republic Article.

Bruce Maccabee's Analysis

confirming the flares dropped behind the mountains.

The earlier sighting, if you read the wiki link, was reported by one person and corroborated by two others as planes.

Incorrect, There were no planes dropping flares outside Phoenix snd there were no operation logs stating that aircraft were dropping flares that night. That was the first clue there were no flares that night. . Any NOTAMS for that night? And, those lights were not flares.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect, There were no planes dropping flares outside PhoeniX. Any NOTAMS for that night? And, those lights were not flares.

Yes they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they were.

No they weren't. And, no operaton logs nor NOTAMs, to support any flare drops outside Phoenix that night. Those were very important clues, and the other clue was when the Air Force initially denied involvement.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they weren't. And, no operaton logs nor NOTAMs, to support any flare drops outside Phoenix that night. Those were very important clues, and the other clue was when the Air Force initially denied involvement.

Yes they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they were.

Nope. No flares from 50-60 miles at an altitude of only 3000 feet, which is clearly evident, and no NOTAMs, nor operation logs for flare drops by the Air Force either.

That is why the Air Force initially denied involvement.

Do the math and see that something was definitely wrong in the Air Force's back-stepping days later. Look at the elevation of those lights and, no smoke trails. Those lights are only a few miles from the camera, not at an altitude of only 3000 feet from 50-60 miles. That should have told you right there the Air Force was lying, especially when it was mentioned that additional flares were dropped on the way back to Davis-Monthan AFB.

Tell us all, how far is DMAFB and Tucson from Phoenix?

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. No flares from 50-60 miles at an altitude of only 3000 feet, which is clearly evident, and no NOTAMs, nor operation logs for flare drops by the Air Force either.

That is why the Air Force initially denied involvement.

Do the math and see that something was definitely wrong in the Air Force's back-stepping days later. Look at the elevation of those lights and, no smoke trails. Those lights are only a few miles from the camera, not at an altitude of only 3000 feet from 50-60 miles. That should have told you right there the Air Force was lying, especially when it was mentioned that additional flares were dropped on the way back to Davis-Monthan AFB.

Tell us all, how far is DMAFB and Tucson from Phoenix?

Yes they were.

Respond to the evidence already presented please. You seem to be ignoring the evidence presented. It explains it all quite clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they were.

Nope, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out those lights are not at an altitude of only 3000 feet from a distance of 50-60 miles. Simple common sense, you understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out those lights are not at an altitude of only 3000 feet from a distance of 50-60 miles. Simple common sense, you understand.

I am going to ignore your future responses regarding this because clearly you are incapable of understanding the very simple and clear evidence presented which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the later sighting consisted of military flares. Your fanatical blindness is disturbing to me, but convincing you is not my priority. Any unbiased observer who fully reviews the evidence presented will most likely arrive at the same conclusion that I and almost everyone else has. And if they don't they likely share in the same delusional fanaticism that rules your existence.

They were flares.

Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.