Oh I have knowledge of Greer. None of these individuals talk about your project and several of them have been shown to be liars. Others are mysterious individuals that go by names like "DR. B. and "AH". Looking at the list of people, I am unimpressed. I could pay to read their testimonies but I have already heard many of their stories and they are evidence of nothing significant. I will keep my money and not contribute to Greer's delusions.
Additionally, Greer is a snakeoil salesman that takes money from gullible people wanting to see UFOs. Have you spent your money to go see him and learn how to summon UFOs by thinking about them and flash lights at them? You can read about him at:
http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/outsidemagazine.pdf

After reading this article and some of the stuff Greer wrote about his trip to Mexico, I concluded that the man is completely out of touch with reality. If this is your source, then you need to look again at what you think is accurate.

And loses your tax returns.
And botches education.

__________________
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"The only way to explore the universe is to go and look." - Brian Cox
Well, the best way to find out is to go there and, find out. - Raven's Cry
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

Oh? How?

I wish the government would 'loosen up' when looking at my tax returns.

No not completely secret, it is just not official. It is a very different thing.

Yes, if it were completely secret, the UFO authors and speakers wouldn't have anything to allude to. If there were any real evidence, real historians would be interested and get something accomplished. But instead there's rumor, speculation, and innuendo -- that shadowy middle ground on which tabloid podcasts and late-night AM radio can subsist indefinitely.

So you don't have any knowledge of the disclosure project of Mr Greer ? Many people gave their testimony.

Of course I do. It's the same hodge-podge of testimonials that have been offered up since the 1950s in media circuses that always seem to open up commercial opportunities for some person. Of course you can't paint the witnesses all with the same brush. But the most interesting witnesses -- the ones who claimed to have been government insiders -- always seem to be exposed as frauds. Some people will do anything for attention, and UFO enthusiasts are not generally critical listeners.

Yes, Greer is out conducting UFO seances in the woods. I think the going rate for his rattle-shaking "seminar" is $700. It's not clear whether you get your money back if you fail to contact a UFO. You say you believe in people. Does he sound like the kind of person you should believe in?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That's very sweet of you. However, there are some serious problems with just believing eyewitness testimony. Namely that it has been shown, in study after study, to be unreliable. I have myself often said that I'd rather go to court with nothing but eyewitness testimony against me than with nothing but circumstantial evidence against me; eyewitness testimony is far easier to impeach.

Note that I'm not actually calling anyone a liar. I don't doubt that some people in the field are. However, I think most of them are mistaken in either what they saw, what they remember, or both. Human memory is malleable. It is well established that the testimony that you should rely on most is that closest to the incident, and if you actually do the research, you will discover that the testimonies of some of these people have changed pretty radically over the decades, allowing for aliens where they didn't before.

No, it's been told to us by somebody in whom you believe.

But let's look at that word "believe" a minute, shall we? I, for example, do not believe in evolution or Apollo. I am aware that the physical evidence backs up both of them to, in my opinion, a far higher standard than is applied in a court of law. In both cases, it is possible that they're wrong, but it's pretty mind-bogglingly unlikely.

But without physical evidence, all you have is belief. And, if you believe in the alien autopsy video, a pretty transparent hoax.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Are you serious??

Present evidence that advanced technology is inherently unorganized/unreliable or withdraw that claim.

Sheesh...

I wonder if galacsi has designed and built anything more complicated than a birdhouse.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

May be it cannot be good at too many things. It specializes on its best capacities. :

May be my english is not very good but I never say that. Read again my post.

It is easy to shoot at other people. But remember an old saying "Don’t point out the piece of straw in your brother’s eye, when you have a rafter in your own".

Ironic. You are the one with a rafter in your eye.

If an aircraft or spacecraft does not implement and obey the laws of physics, it will not work.



This crucial and pivotal point, will always elude the woowoo's.

__________________
And while with silent,lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
put out my hand and touched the face of God. JGM

The above quote has no religious significance whatsoever

I do not believe for one moment aliens are in our skies...but I don't think this comment proves anything one way or the other. What was it Clarke said? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To a person in the 19th century, we would be violating physics every time a 747 takes off.

I think it is terribly naive to imagine we have learned all there is to know about physics and/or technology. That said, I think it is even more naive to believe in aliens flying in our skies when we have no evidence for them.

May be my english is not very good but I never say that. Read again my post.

You've been asked several times to describe the method and process by which a non-"capitalist" race can produce interstellar technology without the benefit of hypothetico-deductive reasoning and empirical verification. So far you've given only short, vague answers.

You claim that this alleged unsophistication is what allows an advanced spacecraft to travel light years to Earth using an exotic, highly complex means of guidance, then fall to the ground helplessly under the influence of common electromagnetic waves. This selective weakness makes no sense (for reasons given) and serves only to try to glue together the haphazard fragments of your speculation into something resembling a coherent whole.

Please describe the process by which a "disorganized" culture can produce advanced aerospace technology.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Perhaps galacsi has in mind something like the ST-TNG episode that featured the think-in-metaphor aliens -- "Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra".

Personally, I couldn't figure out how such a society could dress themselves in the morning, let alone operate a sophisticated technology.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

It is easy to shoot at other people.

It is not "shooting down other people" to give reasons why testimony offered as trustworthy is shown by the facts not to be. That is, in fact, how such evidence is tested for strength. You seem to have accepted the testimony of the key Disclosure Project "witnesses" with no thought whatsoever to the possibility that they may be lying in order to get attention. Unfortunately not everyone is so careless.

But remember an old saying "Don’t point out the piece of straw in your brother’s eye, when you have a rafter in your own".

Dr. Steven Greer is a charlatan and a profiteer, as evidenced by his own advertised activities. His star witnesses have been exposed as liars. If that constitutes the "straw," then where is your evidence that I have a comparatively larger "rafter" in my own? You do realize, of course, that the sentiment behind your quotation is that the critic is far worse off than the subject of the criticism.

No, your approach here is entirely evasive and self-serving. Your "eyewitness" testimony has been undermined and its proponent discredited by actions to which he freely subscribes. This is not mud-slinging. You gave evidence and it has been parried. Now you're trying to insinuate that it is somehow wrong to test the validity of extraordinary claims and allegations. Why are you so afraid of having your evidence tested for strength?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I never say that You just read what you want in my posts.
I just try to explain , but it is lost on you, that there is a difference between scientific knowledge and organizational capacities.
By example our ancestors built pyramids , cathedrals , and many others prodigious thing without our present economical system.

But we can argue for years and nit pick words and ideas.
And i have no more time for that. There is a new year and some work to be done.

Perhaps you have a different definition than I do for the words unorganized and unreliable.
However, If you feel your meaning was misunderstood, then kindly post what you actually meant.

I have and my opinion hasn't changed. You flat out stated that advanced tech need not be organized or reliable...appearently in an attempt to justify the so called "saucer crash". It's an unreasonable inference, which you have absolutely no evidence for...so the "choices" you have are either provide the evidence (for your statement) or withdraw it.