Sirius documentary: Reported project financial improprieties and "Dead Man's Trigger" fabrication

That will do thank you.

Who says this isn't all info to shut Greer down because he is about to become very dangerous for the people in control of the goodies we all want so bad..? Like many other people on this site i am not a big fan of Greer. But I must admit he has been poking in areas where it does hurt for the "elite" who desperately try to sit on their secrets.

Anyways..If Greer has an addiction or certain lifestyle which can be disapproved "they"will certainly use that against him and then it is important for the people to keep the eye on the ball and let the man do his job..l am convinced that it is a tactic to publicly discredit people if they are getting to close to the truth or when "insiders" are about to spill the beans. Worse case they will have a terrible accident and die..

Maybe it is the case here too, it will not surprise me if the UFO/Free Energy lecturers community is invested or infiltrated by spies who work for the (once) mighty dollar and occasionally are ordered to turn against their "friends".

reply to post by zatara


I highly encourage you to read the document of Steven Greer's testimony:
exopolitics.blogs.com...

reply to post by corsair00


Yeah..read it..thanks. That is what I suspected... But if any of it is remotely real there is an intelligence game going on with some serious smart people. We as outsiders looking in should be very careful what to belief, no matter from who it comes.

reply to post by zatara

Looks like a turf war to me.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

That's not entirely accurate.

Really. Eleven out of how many? That's a majority of testimony?

But off the top of my head, you need to take Salas of your list. He didn't see anything.
Callahan...nope. Didn't see anything.
Smith... nope...

Kolbeck... no

Willis? Are you kidding? He didn't see anything either but...
www.disclosureproject.org...

edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Your initial statement was that the witnesses testimonies were mainly based on heresay. This is entirely inaccurate, and slanderous.

While most did not see them with their eyes directly, they did however track them on radar and there were corroborating eyewitnesses to many of them.

The majority of the stories are not second hand or third hand accounts as you initially claimed

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

Your initial statement was that the witnesses testimonies were mainly based on heresay. This is entirely inaccurate, and slanderous.

Here is my initial statement.

But out of all of those people what is the predominant theme? "Someone told me something about something". Second and third hand information with the original source not named.

How is it slanderous? Is there something defamatory about saying someone did not have a first hand experience when they themselves do not say they did?

While most did not see them with their eyes directly, they did however track them on radar and there were corroborating eyewitnesses to many of them.

I said that predominantly the reports were second and third hand. The exceptions I pointed to your list were all second hand (at best).

The majority of the stories are not second hand or third hand accounts as you initially claimed

Yes, they are.
Not one of the exceptions to your list that I mentioned had first hand experience. And those are just the ones I bothered to check. Eyewitness or otherwise, none of them had first hand experience.

And that's the problem. They say "I will swear to it!" So what? If they don't say who they heard it from. If they don't say who the radar operator is. If the person that told them is dead. If all they do is swear someone told them something...so what?

reply to post by Phage


Callahan has radar tapes in his possession, hardly the back seat driver your claiming him to be.

He was also physically present at briefings where the situation was discussed and video displayed, again, not second hand testimony. He was also provided a large number of documents relating to the incident, which is in his possession.

Your making sweeping assumptions again. I thought you were a lot more diligent in your research.

reply to post by raiden12

Callahan has radar tapes in his possession, hardly the back seat driver your claiming him to be.

He was also provided a large number of documents relating to the incident, which is in his possession.

Where are they? Why hasn't he disclosed them?
He was not a first hand witness. He has provided no evidence.

Originally posted by Phage
But out of all of those people what is the predominant theme? "Someone told me something about something". Second and third hand information with the original source not named.

Looks like I have to quote you again.
This is BS, and you are spreading lies.
Everyone and anyone with half a brain can watch the video and see what you are claiming is not accurate assessment of the testimonies

reply to post by Phage


If your talking about physically present during the actual encounter then no, i guess he was not. But in a position to know about the incident, and there during the briefings and the relevant evidence in his possession, then yes.

Some video and documentation is already out there, including radar footage.

www.youtube.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...

To scoff and say "so what" at such incidences, just screams ignorance and bias.

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt


Yeah i was taken back by those comments too from Phage, i must say even some basic research into this phenomena would enlighten an individual enough to know that that statement is completely false.

I certainly would not take his opinions in these matters with any seriousness.

Without even trying, the Bentwaters case comes to mind, first hand encounters with the craft, corroborating witnesses, amazing case that one.

reply to post by raiden12

I'm quite familiar with flight 1628. I haven't seen any radar "footage".

To scoff and say "so what" at such incidences, just screams ignorance and bias.

No. It is called critical thinking. These people have opinions and formed their own conclusions about what they may (or may not) have been told. That's it.

Without even trying, the Bentwaters case comes to mind, first hand encounters with the craft, corroborating witnesses, amazing case that one.

Which Bentwaters incident are you referring to? 1956 or 1980?

Originally posted by corsair00
reply to post by zatara

 

I highly encourage you to read the document of Steven Greer's testimony:

Why? It's 3 years old and full of Greer's typical BS.

"It's probably the most important picture ever taken. Ever. Of anything." He says of this photo.
If it was the most important picture ever why wasn't it used in the "ground-breaking" documentary Sirius? Because it's nothing more than the branch of a Joshua tree, perhaps?

"They also know that recently on the Outer Banks a couple of weeks ago, we had trans-dimensional craft fully materialized right over the beach and we filmed them."
Again, why wasn't it used in Sirius yet known fake footage was used instead? Is the Outer Banks event just another Greer lie?

Like Greer, Webre is a propagator of BS so the allegations against Greer need corroborating by a more credible source if they are to be taken seriously. However, there's nothing there that doesn't have a sniff of potential truth.

Greer and Webre need to be thrown into a crop circle, naked and smeared with snake oil. Winner to be crowned King of the Shill. They can stream the fight for a $9.99 viewing fee.

If the same group of people got up and provided the exact same evidence but said they were Russian jets invading American airspace. No one here would be saying that the evidence is BS.

You have several radar witnesses both military and civilian.
You also have eyewitnesses.
You also have people that personally chased them in US jets.

Would this not be enough evidence to say Russian jets are invading US airspace?

Clearly people have an issue accepting evidence when it does not suit their belief system.

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

Would this not be enough evidence to say Russian jets are invading US airspace?

No.
Read up on radar jamming techniques. It can create false returns. It can create the illusion of great velocities.
Read up on anomalous propagation. It can create false returns. It can create the illusion of great velocities.

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt


Yep, we'd probably be at war over it.

And when it happens thousands of times, so many cases, so many witnesses, lots of radar data, lots of physical encounters with beings, on and on and on.

No, nothing to see here, move along....

Originally posted by zatara
it will not surprise me if the UFO/Free Energy lecturers community is invested or infiltrated by spies who work for the (once) mighty dollar and occasionally are ordered to turn against their "friends".

That's what the charlatans want you to think.

Go to Greer's Twitter account. You will see he's asking for donations towards a Free Energy Lab. He wants $8 million. He's been requesting and receiving money for decades but never provided a lab or a device (of course it's the fault of others that he's never come up with the promised goods).

That's what this game is about - accumulating the mighty dollar, and massaging the mighty ego!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

Would this not be enough evidence to say Russian jets are invading US airspace?

No.
Read up on radar jamming techniques. It can create false returns. It can create the illusion of great velocities.
Read up on anomalous propagation. It can create false returns. It can create the illusion of great velocities.

edit on 6/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I have experience in the area of radar so I know all about these sorts of anomalies.
Do you honestly believe these people or anyone for that matter would put their reputation, pride, ego on the line if they weren't absolutely certain about what they were claiming. You'd have to be completely nuts and the majority of them are clearly not in that category.

There is no way I would get in front of a camera and state anything like what has been stated by those men unless I was absolutely certain the radar data was accurate and not just some anomaly due to strange weather phenomenon.

I can't believe these guys could lack judgement in this matter. I work with people in this field and all of them take their job absolutely seriously, in fact they are some of the most professional and disciplined people I have ever come across.

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

Do you honestly believe these people or anyone for that matter would put their reputation, pride, ego on the line if they weren't absolutely certain about what they were claiming. You'd have to be completely nuts and the majority of them are clearly not in that category.

That's the problem. It isn't the radar operators we are hearing from. We don't know what they saw. We don't know what their interpretation of the data was. We are hearing a second hand report and interpretation. Often from people who are not particularly knowledgeable about such things.