The Disclosure Project
- Thread starter y2k
- Start date
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
A sock puppet apparently. Not a terribly nice one either.
(That's in response to the previous post O, doubled whammied me a bit there...
)
(That's in response to the previous post O, doubled whammied me a bit there...
)
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
... Yeah d, kinnda guessed but, y'know, does somewhat kind of take the steam out of an otherwise fine meant post. Details, they occasionally need paying attention to also.
shame you dont spot this with your buddies when it COUNTS, andnot just mistakin a user-name...!Mr Anonymous said:
me))errrm hows that? i MEANTit about Momentum7 (etc)...??
Details, they occasionally need paying attention to also.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Sometimes Duendy, you piss me right off. Where have I slagged off Meanwhile you drug addled turkey? Now those last words were was slagging you off - it's the same kind of language and abuse we read in at least a third of your posts.duendy said:
In contrast, I very politely called one of Meanwhile's statements poppycock. I did not attack Meanwhile. I did not attack his belief system. I did not attack his family, friends, acquaintances or chosen employment. I attacked a single stetement.
I even said, I can't believe you meant this, but if you did here is why it is wrong.
I then shared - yes shared Duendy, something you are always going on about but can never manage to see it being practiced by those on the 'other side' of the argument. I shared my viewpoint on ETIs and a little of why I thought things like the Disclosure Project were dangerous.
For me, Duendy, Mystery is nice, but solving the mystery is nicer. The Disclosure Project acts against that goal.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Which part of my post did you not understand?duendy said:
So, I don't want the evidence, when and if it does appear, rejected because it gets lumped with the mountain of spurious sitings. The evidence contained in The Disclosure Project that I have seen is of very poor quality. Greer is, as SW suggests, either a conman, or deluded. I do not have the entire project to assess, but I am working on a reasonable assumption that the tasters in his site would contain some of the better examples. What is presented is of such low quality that it does not auger well for the main mass of material.
And yet material of this sort is muddying the waters for what could be the most important event in humanity's history since we stepped down onto the East African plains. I do not wish to see that event obscured. I do not wish to see a search for robotic 'sentries', which may have been left in the solar system to observe, receive no serious consideration because of the nutters associated with things like the Disclosure Project. The Disclosure Project flies in the face of those wishing to see an openminded, scientific approach to this problem. I condemn it utterly.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Not at all. Some of my 'colleagues' here consider witness testimony unreliable to the point of uselessness. I do not go that far. The issue with eye witness testimony is that it is unreliable. We know this. It has been repeatedly demonstrated. That does not mean it should necessarily be discarded, but it must be very carefully weighed.duendy said:
When it is used, as it is with the Disclosure Project, apparently to make money then I have a problem with it on two levels: firstly it is a scam, taking money from the gullible; secondly, it 'muddying the waters' as I have described before. It is such poor quality of 'evidence' that even if Greer is sincere it is dangerous on this second count.
Of course it can. But, as noted above, we have to recognise that seeing should not be believing. You have previously utterly dismissed my shared experiences of seeing ghosts on two occasions and hearing the same one several times. Equally I have seen you accept similar sightings by others. The only difference I can detect between the two cases is that they believe they may have seen something supernatural, I believe I was experiencing a hallucination.duendy said:
duendy said:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45461
Eyewitness testimony without cooborating physical evidence is a waste of time. Particulary when other socio-cultural dynamics (the consistency of the "witness" demographic is telling) are evident. The phenomenon of UFOs is an anthropological problem. We're probably dealing with cultural and religious issues rather than a question for hard sciences.
And aliens are non-coporeal in that they don't seem to exist anymore than "ghosts" and "goblins." The ETI-UFO explanation is a supernatural one.
Out 'there.' But the anthropogenic/anthropomorphic idea of space aliens in popular culture is clearly terrestrial in origin in the same way as "ghosts" and "goblins." There may be solid, real beings elsewhere in the universe, but given that it is HUGE and given that the conditions that allowed for life to evolve elsewhere were not terrestrial, it isn't likely that they are visiting us. And if they were, it is less likely that they look like us, which is how they are depicted.
So, as you can see, Spookz, my two statements above are consistent. Clearly, your goal isn't discussion but disruption.
So, as you can see, Spookz, my two statements above are consistent. Clearly, your goal isn't discussion but disruption.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
duendy said:
... d, it isn't my mistake, and as far as I'm aware, it isn't actually anyone else's either - you seem, once again, to be implying collusion, as indicated by your use of the term "your buddies" where in practice no whatsoever exists.I haven't given comment on the subject of the Disclosure Project one way or another. Simply put, I haven't actually read it, therefore I don't feel I have anything practical on that score to offer. I did, however, notice Meanwhiles absence from the discussing as its stands and did, if you can be arsed to actually read for once, compliment you on a fine sentiment almost well expressed were it not for the somewhat obvious fact that in stating "i read Meanwhile's ever so patient posts" patently y'hadn't on account of how Meanwhile hasn't said a single damn word.
Naturally, there's no need to even pretend to take a compliment with good grace. That would, of course, be far too materialistic of you, I perfectly understand...
That's always a possibility. But your past behavior and lack of content in over 1300 posts is sufficient empirical evidence to conclude that your goals do not include actual discussion.Spookz said:
Start a new thread. This is, after all, a seperate topic from the one at hand. This topic is concerned wih the "disclosure project" and its validity or usefulness. To date, it has not demonstrated itself to be either useful or valid.Spookz said: