The Disclosure Project

[Agitprop]

Hello.

You know, I don't know, really, what to think about CSICOP. Some of the positions they take and the "explanations" they parrot as gospel is more suitably entitled gossip! As we discussed earlier, they already "know" the outcome: it's NOT mysterious, and it's NOT unexplainable. That is their clear bias, compounded by the fact that some of them make their LIVING off of debunking anything they can get their hands on. And every argument they put forth is built on this bias, so naturally, it always arrives at a prosaic answer, even when it stretches the truth.
When you realise that entire livelihoods are based on the assumption that, with a little brainpower, anything paranormal can be explained away, and that the cost of being wrong JUST ONCE could endanger their livelihood, you begin to appreciate what drives them to make some of the most presumptuously pseudoscientific proclamations that have ever been witnessed.

Some people hold the idea that CSICOP and friends have a certain agenda. This may or may not be true. I couldn't say. Though sometimes the audacity of their tenacity is puzzling.

I have never seen "Eyes Wide Shut". Is it worthy of my time???

I think you're right about some members being motivated by the carrots of career advancement, etc... Debunking would work with the scientist's own belief system, in those cases. And yes, the downside would be fear of ruining one's reputation. Really sad that they present themselves as truth seekers when they clearly are anything but. Orwellian.

I have an intimate friend who put on a great conference about ufo's, supported by a prestigious institution, a few years back. During the question period, there were no queries from the audience that would suggest it was attende by any career debunkers, so I assume members of a certain debunking institution didn't attend, and if they did, they were there to observe and report back.

Shortly after the event, the board of the institution that put on the event, were summoned by the debunking group and told that if they ever dared to stage an event of this nature again, they would make things really hot for them and it would take the form of the institution being dragged through the mud in the media. Get that? They never asked any questions or criticized any info presented at the event, an open forum--they scurried around behind the scenes and did their dirty work that way. Really f'g shameful.

And that's as far as I'll go on a public forum.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Forgive my asking this, but in your statement:

Shortly after the event, the board of the institution that put on the event, were summoned by the debunking group and told that if they ever dared to stage an event of this nature again, they would make things really hot for them and it would take the form of the institution being dragged through the mud in the media. Get that? They never asked any questions or criticized any info presented at the event, an open forum--they scurried around behind the scenes and did their dirty work that way. Really f'g shameful.

One gets the impression that this, pressure, this debunking group as you describe them brought to bear in the story you relay had some sort of actual effect, albeit not exactly specified as such.

I have to ask, assuming such a proposition was infact made by such a group - what exactly do you consider the net result would have infact have been had they gone ahead with this particular series of "threats"? If the matters discussed by this particular UFO Group conference are infact genuine issues, surely there's nothing to either smear or infact debunk and the people concerned on the UFO side would surely know that - so why would these pro-UFO people back down at all if they know they're right?

 

[Giambattista]

Ran across this interesting comment about CSICOP and the like:

Unfortunately so many members of the UFO community have little knowledge of political realities especially in the area of UFO/ETs. I have followed the activities of the debunkers for some 30 years now and its always the same old story.
Thank goodness there are a few seasoned UFO veterans like Bob Shell
who know the score. If you have studied debunkers like CISCOP's Phil Klass
through this period you will have learned every trick in the book. The
problem then becomes how to counter these tricks.

It should be obvious that a fifty year old coverup must be maintained and
nourished. In order for a coverup of this magnitude to succeed requires
that UFO/ET truths be kept from the mainstream press and public awareness.
That means it does not matter if the truth in known by a relative few
individuals in the UFO community as long as their conduit to the public, the
mainstream press is confused and subverted.

CSICOP the debunking organization does not waste time on research but
focuses on inserting their propaganda into the mainstream press. The
debunkers know full well that this issue is about politics and psychological
warfare. Small wonder that Col. Byron the head of the CIA's psychological
warfare board was on the board of NICAP back in the fifties. I would not be
surprised if he did not have a hand developing the policy of denial and
ridicule so effective in maintaining the UFO coverup.

Words of Ed Komarek, ufologist (?). Don't know about him, but thought this fit perfectly with conversation about that professional skeptics organization.

 

[Giambattista]

If the matters discussed by this particular UFO Group conference are infact genuine issues, surely there's nothing to either smear or infact debunk and the people concerned on the UFO side would surely know that - so why would these pro-UFO people back down at all if they know they're right?

Personally, if it were me, I would tell those skeptics to take a sharp utensil, and cut "something" off in a timely fashion. That is, if they indeed HAVE that "something" or other... :m:

 

[Giambattista]

And that's as far as I'll go on a public forum.

Why exactly is that as far as you'll go? I'm interested to know more.

I read about this very same thing happening years ago with Philip Klass. He insinuated that a university allowing a ufological conference was somehow reminiscent of communism, or something like that. I remember there was talk of a lawsuit somewhere in there. If you want, I could find some more details.

 

[SkinWalker]

"Ufology" is a pseudoscience. It is a fake science. There is nothing about "ufology" that indicates a consistent willingness to accept scientific method in the "study of UFOs."

The woo-woo criticism of "the debunker" nearly always appears to be the bitching and moaning that there are those willing to question the blanket assumptions that "ufologists" (a term that exists only in the minds of pseudoscience proponents) keep making about unexplained, aerially observed phenomena. Assumptions that range from what was observed is an "object" and was actually "flying" to it was a craft piloted by space aliens.

If "ufology" were to be a legitimate field of study, it would be the study of people who believe ufos are space aliens.

I'm sure I'll get the routine response that it is *I* who am making that assumption, but it isn't. Someone sees Venus, and suddenly its a craft with aerodynamic capabilities that are "out of this world." Someone sees oil well fires on the horizon through the FLIR of an aircraft, suddenly its a plane being "chased" by aliens. Someone sees a blimp in the early morning on its way to a game, suddenly it was a "craft" that was piloted by "some intelligence" not of this world.

Every single book on UFOs that I could find on the shelf in two book stores (Barnes & Noble and Borders) mentioned "aliens" and "extraterrestrials" on the jacket. Every single website I visited after a google search of "UFOs" produced a site that either mentioned "aliens" and "extraterrestrials" in word or image (popular speculations of what "Greys" look like).

CSICOP and the late Phil Klass and others "debunked" UFOs because "ufology" is nonsense. I see plenty of criticisms of "the debunkers" but little counter-argument to their points. Woo-woo's hate Phil Klass with a passion. But where are the counter-arguments to his points? Klass wasn't "the man" with the government. He was a writer for a popular aeronautical magazine. His involvement in UFOs came about because it was an aeronautical phenomenon and he had the opportunity to investigate some of the cases. In every case Klass investigated, he provided plausible and probable explanations based on available evidence. In many cases, he was able to demonstrate that evidences and assumptions that were claimed by those that believed in the space-alien hypothesis were "bunk."

It all comes back to the "grand coverup" nonsense that the so-called "disclosure project" seeks to "uncover." The only things that silliness like "disclosure" has been able to demonstrate is that there are people of various positions in life (mostly white males) that have a belief in space aliens and want the UFO phenomenon to be the proof. Disclosure demonstrated that people have the propensity to take stories and events of the past and embellish them to fit their desires and hopes -their fantasies. But, ironically, "Disclosure" actually demonstrates that the "grand coverup" hypothesis is probably not valid because the so-called project demonstrated that there are hundreds of people that allegedly "know" about it that are willing to come forward. Leaving what must be many hundreds more that "know" about it as well (nearly every story mentioned several others that "knew"). Yet NOT ONE PERSON HAS SHOWN ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Our government is not that competent. It couldn't contain Iran-Contra. It couldn't contain Watergate. It couldn't contain Abu Ghareb. It couldn't manage two dummies that leak info about CIA operatives. It couldn't keep wire-tapping of suspected calls of foreign terrorists a secret. We found out about the Black Prisons and "rendition."

In each of those instances, far less people were "in the know" of the operations or actions than the hundreds, if not thousands, that the Disclosure Project has implied know about "the grand ETI-UFO cover-up."

To top it all off, its ironic that ufo nutters are so willing to dismiss the government as a source of information, but nearly every single "witness" that Greer had was connected to the government at some point. The UFO nutters want it both ways: the want to say the government isn't credible; and the want to say that these witnesses are credible because they were connected with the government. Poppycock.

Organizations like CSICOP have demonstrated themselves to be both public service oriented (providing a skeptical voice to nonsense) and trustworthy. On occasions when they've been wrong (which are very few), they've accepted their criticisms and even corrected their positions. In the monthly journal they produce, Skeptical Inquirer, there are often retractions and corrections printed as well as rebuttals pro/con a position.

Of course, there will always be those that are offended that organizations like CSICOP dare to question their beliefs and level unfair and unverifiable criticisms, but this is to be expected whenever a belief is challenged. Ufology is a belief not a "study." There are some legitimate attempts to approach the phenomenon scientifically, but these have all met with failure since no useful data are obtained.

Finally, I note with amusement the interjection of "crop circles" into the discussion. How does a man-made phenomenon (people have long since confessed to creating them) factor into the so-called "disclosure project?" Are we making the space-alien connection again? Whatever the reason, crop circles are clearly bunk and the BLT "studies" were bunk themselves. I read Levengood's "papers" on the subject several years ago and the material was quite lacking, mainly because there has been no independent or double-blind repetition of his work but also because his conclusions were about "plasma vortexes" being the cause of crop circles, a phenomenon that hasn't been demonstrated to exist. But assuming these vortexes to be the true "cause," what then do they have to do with "disclosure" other than the fact that both are topics of pseudoscience?

 

[Gustav]

If "ufology" were to be a legitimate field of study, it would be the study of people who believe ufos are space aliens.

yes of course..."The Treatment"

But a full decade before CSICOP came into being in 1976, Klass apparently recognized that the standard methods of UFO-debunking had not worked. Earlier would-be debunkers had attempted merely to explain sightings in conventional terms and had done little more than argue the merits of cases with ufologist proponents. However, Klass, possessed of an unusually acute political sense, saw all kinds of possibilities for point-making which his predecessors either had not thought of or had chosen not to use. To destroy the UFO "problem" Klass concluded that ufologists should be the target as much as the UFOsthemselves. If the ufologists could be publicly shamed or embarrassed on anygrounds (not just professional but personal as well), who would take their pronouncements about UFOs seriously?

So anybody who associated himself sympathetically with UFOs was fair game for The Treatment. The Treatment's operating assumption was that someone too vocally pro-UFO and/or critical of Klass was probably morally wanting in someway and Klass, in the name of "Boy Scout" ethics, took it upon himself to show the world just how and where

the lowdown on klass

 

[Gustav]

...but also because his conclusions were about "plasma vortexes" being the cause of crop circles, a phenomenon that hasn't been demonstrated to exist. But assuming these vortexes to be the true "cause," what then do they have to do with "disclosure" other than the fact that both are topics of pseudoscience?

sounds kinda familiar...oh, here...

Klass is no scientist (as he showed in his 1968 book UFOs - Identified, which sought to explain many UFO reports in terms of plasma physics but which was received coldly, if at all, by plasma physicists)

absurd, ja? what a crackpot

 

[Agitprop]

The debunking group intimidated the institution into a position where they were unwilling to host such conferences again, in the future. And this is not guess work. I was closely involved. I hesitate to provide direct quotes, out of respect to those involved.

 

[Agitprop]

Skin- We are dealing with science here, discovery science if you like, so you should refrain from tautologically driven, self referential descriptions that frame the subject in a ridiculous light. It is utterly transparent and likely disengenuous, though I have no way of proving that you're not sincere.

Giambattista--And that's why I'm not posting more. I would be delighted to correspond with you privately, but won't risk agitating these people to the point where I really get their attention. As I said, I'm very close to this subject, in more ways than one, and am likely on radar already. PM me with your email address and I'll fill you in, confidentially.

 

[Communist Hamster]

I hesitate to provide direct quotes, out of respect to those involved.

They do not read this board, we do not know them. Feel free to provide direct quiotes, and don't let the skeptics frighten you.

How interesting, you use "debunker" as a derisory term, yet surely the opposite would apply to you? the opposite being "bunker" which is either a large concrete structure designed for military use, or a person who spreads "bunk" ie nonsense

 

[qwerty mob]

"Ufology" is a pseudoscience. It is a fake science. There is nothing about "ufology" that indicates a consistent willingness to accept scientific method in the "study of UFOs."

Tell me, Skin, exactly when did the study of UFOs, a characterizable and objective phenomenon which is still of great concern to militaries and governments around the world, transition from science to pseudoscience? Now, I'm not talking about abductions, crop circles, healing crystals, and similar nonsense- I'm talking about genuine unknowns, of which there surely are some number, objectively.

It's past time we all *again* start thinking of UFOs in terms of hypothesis and theory, and tempering our understanding to whatever evidence on a case by case basis; yes, most reported UFOs are/were knowable/known natural phenomena and illusions, and some very few hoaxes, but not all.

...

Though I do agree that so-called "Ufology" is filled with incredible authors and kooks, and also many ordinary persons with no scientific training or experience, so are "Sceptic Societies" and just about any other branch of science and medicine (to a much lesser degree, of course); but Oh, hell, especially medicine; how I'd love to have chiropractic and acupuncture institutions declared pseudoscientific, legally. They are FRAUD, INCORPORATED.

When you understand how I can call chiropractice and acupuncture pseudoscientific, but not the scientific study of unusual ariel phenomena, you'll know why others would suggest that you're opposing a strawman of your own ideological design.

Is that what passes for skepticism these days?

Enjoying your posts otherwise, so if there's a compelling reason join the chorus of "you're a woo woo afterall" and beat the drum of debunking, by all means- share.

Thanks

 

[duendy]

thanks Gustav for givin that Klass link, and Agiprop, please stay on booard dude. te world needs ya....who knows may be i'm on radar too. sheeit. in UK EVERYfukin where is CCTV's cept MAYBE our local park!
maaaybe

OK complexity. i have read hat secret services infiltrate and take BOTH sides. as tey are supposed to do in most affiars
whats this M E A N?

if tru...?

that yes. there IS danger in beginning a religion of UF ETism. some argue that tis is leading to the creation of the 'final? 'ENEMY', courtesy of secret DREAMworksinc(?), courtesy of Hollywood?

is there TWo thangs going down. manmade and ?...?

what a trip hey?
so Skin would be 'unknowingly' partly right. that just seeing a UFO wouldn't mean 'ETs' but could hold men from EARTH.

and abductions? maybe a mix agin.

after all in our history its know people used 'magick' for good and evil-intent. why not with 'magical' technoloy also?

so speculating: what would differentiate manmade craft from othe-'species' craft?---weirdness?

i have actually seen several ffilm fottages of fomration craft--clear as a bell--staying staionary or longperiods?....wh? what for? were THE mendriven?

what the fuk

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Personally, if it were me, I would tell those skeptics to take a sharp utensil, and cut "something" off in a timely fashion. That is, if they indeed HAVE that "something" or other... :m:

... Y'know, personally speaking, I'd be inclined to follow through with more than just a mere suggestion regarding what they could do to what and where they could be stuffing it afterwards - I'd give them a 50 minute symposium including diagrams detailing how to undertake all the really truly excruciating bits in pristine detail - I can, on occasion, be a requisite son-of-a-bitch without really having to think too hard about it, and not all of that is necessarily bad necessarily all of the time....

Nevertheless, you clearly envisage the point more than accurately.

I'm not in anyway doubting Agitprop's account, nor necessarily doubting at all the upshot of the event - what I am questioning is what, exactly, detrimental pressure can any group, short of an armed tactical response, actually bring to bear when trying to suppress actual scientific fact.

The truth regarding the Earths place in the universe adjacent, not actually central at all, emerged and became accepted as fact quite despite a rampantly bloody minded Religious based autocracy running the show in Italy during the Renaissance - heresy equated actual torture and death, irrespective of the nature of the heresy involved - what the devil difference does a bit of name calling amount to as stick to beat the dissident over the head with in the face of what civilisation has deemed appropriate and just punishment for frankly far lesser heresy's in the past?

And the truth of the matter still managed to come out

What are these debunker's going to actually do, re-enact the Inquisition - apply thumbscrews to the genitals and hot irons to the eyeballs of the children of people who have actual proof of ETI visitation?

The worst that can possibly happen is a academic bun fight - hardly the stuff of Braveheart and Gladiator to overcome let alone endure.

People may scoff, certainly. People do that about everything, including man powered flight and trips to the Moon - that never genuinely ever stopped anyone going forward and succeeding with an idea providing the idea itself proves simply valid.

So where is this undue influence, exactly? The threat of the revelation that so-and-so believes in little green men and that disclosure getting out can somehow adversely effect a persons annuated pension? Without the thumbscrews and the red hot pokers at the ready, I just don't see at all how exactly this behind-the-scenes-supressing-thing in practice gets to work.

Anyone want to enlighten me?

 

[SkinWalker]

Tell me, Skin, exactly when did the study of UFOs, a characterizable and objective phenomenon which is still of great concern to militaries and governments around the world, transition from science to pseudoscience?

When was the specific study of "ufos" ever a science? It may have held a passing interest to the military during the earlier days of flight when jet aircraft made their debut, but once the prosaic explanations began to emerge and the pilots became more experienced, even this passed. I'm not talking about something "seen in the sky that can't be readily identified." I'm referring to the the ETI-UFO phenomenon in the same manner that MOST people who are interested in the subject think of it. Space aliens.

how I'd love to have chiropractic and acupuncture institutions declared pseudoscientific, legally. They are FRAUD, INCORPORATED.

When you understand how I can call chiropractice and acupuncture pseudoscientific, but not the scientific study of unusual ariel phenomena, you'll know why others would suggest that you're opposing a strawman of your own ideological design.

I'm in agreement with the pseudoscience of chiropractic "medicine" and other alleged methods of "healing." Indeed, this is a hotly discussed topic among organizations like CSCICOP and The Skeptics Society as well. I'm all for studying "unusual aerial phenomena," but I object to the claims of those that cite space aliens as the most likely cause. I think you make some good points over all.

 

[Agitprop]

Anyone want to enlighten me?---Mr. Anonymous

That has been one of the main purposes of this thread. Are you trying to exhaust fellow posters through repetition? This proves physical stamina, but not much else, I'm afraid. The idea of an EverReady rabbit of persistant denial comes to mind. What's even more cinematic would be a vignette of the EveryReady rabbit banging away on his drum while doing circles around the "elephant in the living room". Ufos, in this case.

Communist Hamster--"They do not read this board, we do not know them."

Who is "them" exactly? If you are describing a certain "skeptical" organization, it is in their mission statement to frustrate any attempts at getting highly credible information out there, through legitimate and respected channels. That's why they hit the institution I mentioned, so hard. They are also perusing the net, and interfering with the more credible posters, on forums like these. I would just expect them to be here.

If you want to make a general slur against people interested in legitimate inquiry, fine, just don't direct it at one person in particular. It's very poor form and undermines the point of view you have taken so much time to cultivate.

Duendy, Thanks Dude. I'm not leaving. Send me a PM if you want more info. I don't want my life and connections to be made available to a large number of people I don't know here.

BTW, I do agree with the skeptics that most sightings have prosaic explanations. Like others who have expressed their views so beautifully on this forum, I'm really only interested in those that have no easy explanations.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Anyone want to enlighten me?---Mr. Anonymous

That has been one of the main purposes of this thread. Are you trying to exhaust fellow posters through repetition? This proves physical stamina, but not much else, I'm afraid. The idea of an EverReady rabbit of persistant denial comes to mind. What's even more cinematic would be a vignette of the EveryReady rabbit banging away on his drum while doing circles around the "elephant in the living room". Ufos, in this case.

.. Well, indeed, I do quite take your point but it isn't repetition of territory already covered on my part I'm seeking at all to bring about - I've not played any part in this discussion to date, moreover, I actually do genuinely want an answer.

I suppose I could give you examples gleaned from life, but that avails you little opportunity to ascertain the veracity of any such claims as I might make -but the goings on of this humble forum of ours is well documented and extensive - you don't have to take my word for anything.

Simply because I don't display a willingness to go along with what I personally find to be dogma spouted about these issues we cover here concerning concerning UFO's and ETI visitation, etcetera I generally get cast as part and parcel of this whole "Materialistic Pseudo-sceptic" brigade I keep reading about and find myself being informed I'm purportedly part and parcel of - however, as debunker's go, I'm somewhat odd.

I blather, ad nausea as anyone will tell you, about how infact a thing such as a UFO, as a vehicular means, in practice would actually work.

I do this frequently, at any given opportunity, clearly disclosing for all and sundry to see that on some level or other I, Mr Anonymous, materialist debunker extraordinare not only thinks that craft conforming to UFO description are actually possible, I go that one step further than even the most obvious of lunatics will go and say right up front - actually, this is something physically doable and rat out the physics necessary in order to accomplish these particular goals.

Which, as I stated in opening, is fairly unusual behaviour for your average common or garden debunker, don't you think?

The point I'm getting towards isn't at all about the fact that I do this, volubly, with diagrams no less - the point is, I do this openly, volubly, I do it in the presence of all our little band of august regular members can wearily testify to - and yet never once have I ever encountered so much as one solitary sniff of either rebuke or disdain from a single one of our so-called resident debunker's - despite clearly being quite by far one of the most completely off my noodle individuals one could ever possibly hope to find.

I mean, you don't have to imagine this, a post search will reveal the fact - I spout on in real terms about what can only be described as being Flying Saucers and not a one shoots me down, castigates me, rips into me, brands me a moron, sanctions me in anyway.

I walk, as much as one can in such places where feet aren't actually part of the whole corporeal deal such as internet forums and so forth, with a degree of impunity others simply aren't afforded for often times claiming far, far less and nothing like as unreasonable as surely the claims I make must in practice actually be.

I claim I know how to build a flying saucer - and I tell people why and have actually being published on this subject. How nuts exactly does one have to be to get any goddamn attention around here?! :bugeye:

Yet I never get hauled over the coals for it, and it isn't because of the vast sums of money I secretly bribe people with either, certainly its not in the slightest because our more scientifically grounded members in anyway agree with the guff I drone on about - but I'm not ostracised despite this so-called climate of intolerance of counter institutionalised ideas and beliefs.

I'm not exactly a poster child for the UFO fringe either, but I can happily chew the fat with most around here and as far as longevity is concerned, despite my obvious and numerous foibles shortcomings, I'm perfectly tolerable as far as the so-called establishment apparently seems concerned.

My drawing attention to this might very possibly unduly change that - but the record up until such point more that adequately speaks for itself.

I voice conclusions which, if these perceived charges of collaborative institutionalised psudeoskeptical denial remained in anyway fact - I'd be being shot down left right and centre for giving voice to one fraction of the things in practice I readily do - but I'm not, never have been and unless I claim to be both Shirley Bassey and Leto IV, God Emperor of Arakis at the same time in real life and make like I believe it - it's not going to happen.

So I don't at all get this whole you lot and us lot thing in the slightest. This isn't denial speaking - my experience, as far as it teaches me demonstrates that, although I'm obviously as crazy as a barn owl, no one acts in anyway as if I'm a lesser individual because of it.

It never, ever happens.

So I'm curious, I want to understand. How come this apparently happens to other people and not me? I don't get it. Literally, on both scores. The boards and my own behaviour are here in black and white - something isn't adding up in this equation as its put but despite that, everyone seems to be perfectly content to carry on as if it does.

If what the UFO believers in this discussion remain in anyway correct in their summation of the situation that exists around here - then how on earth does any one of you account for me?

 

[Giambattista]

Giambattista--And that's why I'm not posting more. I would be delighted to correspond with you privately, but won't risk agitating these people to the point where I really get their attention. As I said, I'm very close to this subject, in more ways than one, and am likely on radar already. PM me with your email address and I'll fill you in, confidentially.

Since you're likely on radar, perhaps I shouldn't send you my email?

 

[Giambattista]

sounds kinda familiar...oh, here...

Klass is no scientist (as he showed in his 1968 book UFOs - Identified, which sought to explain many UFO reports in terms of plasma physics but which was received coldly, if at all, by plasma physicists)

absurd, ja? what a crackpot

If I'm not mistaken, he was the one who came up with Venus as an explanation for the multiple-witness Illinois UFO (triangle?) sighting from several years ago, which included among the witnesses nearly half a dozen police officers.

Based on my knowledge of the case, Klass' "explanation" for the event was one of his most brainless, I do think.

Probably due to encroaching senility. Must have been something he suffered with his whole life. Poor guy. He's dead, Jim.

 

[Giambattista]

Finally, I note with amusement the interjection of "crop circles" into the discussion.

I, as you do, also note something with amusement: how many threads have a habit of getting "off topic". One can only speculate.