Disclosure Project 2.0

I was thinking the other day about how this whole Annonymous thing operates and the idea of an organisation or group with no central leadership or or individual.

My question is, could this be applied to a new version of the Disclosure Project to try and push it forward?

For those that don't know, the Disclosure Project basically assembled a bunch of high quality witnesses (military personell, NASA employees etc.) and attempted to gather them together to present a compelling case that all was not as it seemed. This culminated in a press conference in 2001 where they presented some of their testimony in front of the national press.

Now the problem with the Disclosure Project from my point of view is this:

1. They have always held back some of the information they claim to have.
   
2. Greer was the figurehead and motivation behind the project and took it off on a spiritual tandem.
   
3. They started charging money for courses and lectures.
   

I understand a need to fund something such as this but once you start charging money you bring your credability into question in this field. I also think that the 'UFO' phenomenon is strongly linked to spirituallity but I don't think that's the way to go with presenting it to the mainstream. Anyway, that's for another topic, one which has been discussed many times.

Could the Disclosure Project be taken out of the hands of Greer in order to be moved forward using the internet as the main resource? Could the witnesses be contacted individually based on their merits? (there has always been some discussion as to the inclusion of certain witnesses damaging the credability of the whole). Could the Disclosure Project become an open source project regulated by itself where no member is more important than the idea?

I should point out that I don't have the time or inclination to initiate such a project, I thought I'd just put it out there to see what people think.

For further information if you're not familiar with The Disclosure Project:

Official Disclosure Project site
Disclosure Project at Wikipedia
2001 Press Conference Video

Originally posted by Nova
Greer was the figurehead and motivation behind the project and took it off on a spiritual tandem.

Actually Greer isn't on a tandem. It is the right course of action. Greer has never hid the fact that this info was very personal to him. If you want to advance in your understandings you do have to go "spiritual".

Greer has handled it very well from my perspective. As well as such a thing can be handled.

Yeah, like I said in my original post I agree with that, I just don't think it's the right way to take it for mass consumption.

People need to be aware of the project from a purely factual basis first. They can take it in a spiritual direction if that suits them but by doing this Greer is muddying the waters.

reply to post by Nova


Completely agree. People haven't made the first step yet to fully understand and then get thrown in to the spiritual side. Not a good thing if you want people to understand i think.

greer started this quite a few years ago... and nothing has come of it.. because of one reason... they have nothing to disclose... the only ones that can do that.. are the aliens themselves. Anyone can claim they have seen them, been to the underground bases, communicated , It was funny that all those people got together to claim they would swear in front of congress that they were telling the truth.. but offered no physical evidence to prove there claims.. all they would of had to do .. is take the media to show them the aliens.. but of course they couldnt do that.. because its hard to film inside someones head.

That's fair comment but it's not really what I'm getting at. If the project was open source (a term usually used to describe software projects, but meaning that it's created by the community) then we could get to the bottom of what these witnesses know.

All evidence presented could be analyzed by the community and labelled as either "physical evidence" (which as you say there is likely none), "compelling testimony" or perhaps a third category.... "utter rubbish"

The problem with that would be sorting out the fakes and the genuine.

I don't know what process Dr. Greer used to gather his witnesses. If an 'open source' version took off, would it be restricted to military people like Greer's was? Or would testimony be accepted from every Tom, Dick, and Harry without a shred of evidence?

You talk about a peer review process which is a great idea. But as we can see on this website, the community can never come to a consensus on who's lying and who's telling the truth. John Lear, Sleeper, half the skunk works threads never reached any conclusion on their truthfulness.

Well I always think of Wikipedia as the best example of peer reviewed content but that obviously has its problems.

I guess the main thing would be that people would go through the 400 odd witnesses and filter out what they thought was the 'best'. Testimony could be added from other people but only after it's been approved by 10 people or something similar, and perhaps you could only join the project after you've been vouched for by a certain number of people.... or only have certain rights to vote on testimony after you've been vouched for. There are several sites on the internet which (although on completely different topics) operate on a similar basis. Good examples are Videosift and CouchSurfing.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Nova]

Originally posted by Nova
Yeah, like I said in my original post I agree with that, I just don't think it's the right way to take it for mass consumption.

People need to be aware of the project from a purely factual basis first. They can take it in a spiritual direction if that suits them but by doing this Greer is muddying the waters.

I completely agree with this. Spirituality is essential for true knowledge, and more importantly, true understanding. But we're not talking about knowledge and understanding here, we're talking about the greater population. Just the word 'spirituality' and they switch off. Spirituality is something intangible, and the alien phenomena is already intangible. How can we possibly help the public accept something intangible by tying it to something else that is intangible?

And I really don't mean to nitpick, but the word is 'tangent'. Greer went off on a tangent, not a tandem.

reply to post by Nova


A lot of us activists and researchers started giving Greer support up to five years before the National Press Club event in May 2001. I donated money and magazine space, contacted some potential witnesses, and was one of many people who helped out wherever we could.

To this day, I am not aware of any disgruntled participants in the project or the event.

After 911 it became obvious that the momentum was gone, and that it would be years before anyone in Washington would feel comfortable about touching the subject again, in any official capacity that is.

Little wonder Greer has moved his focus, and has set up new projects dealing with getting suppressed technology released into public domain.

If you read his book you would have seen straight away the whole UFO/ET thing has had a strong spiritual perspective for Greer - and this has been above board the whole time.
All this flack he gets for doing what people describe as 'bizarre' workshops - merely reflects the diappointment many outsiders feel at what they deem a 'lost opportunity'.

Sadly the opportunity was lost at 911, not when Greer started up his new workshops.

To start again, with Disclosure 2.0 - you are going to be faced the superhuman task of selecting a 'face' for the project. Just who will you find that has the respect and confidence of whistleblowers and witnesses?

Do you think the previous 'line-up' of witnesses didn't use their own contacts and resources to 'check up' on Greer? Of course they did. We all 'checked up' on Greer before committing support - and he came up 'clean' in terms of honesty, openness and integrity. I have yet to hear any evidence to the contrary.

Personally I think seeking disclosure from 'this end' as was tried before just isn't going to work. When people like former CIA chiefs, the Rockefellers, Clintons and other power junkies in Washington are not in the loop - then we are dealing with faceless power brokers who can and will choose their own shots on timing.

There has always been a school of thought in UFO groups - whereby people can get together and telepathically 'call' or summon any interested UFOs. Interestingly, most 'established' UFO groups vigorously oppose this idea within their own ranks.

If Greer wants to take the tack of educating groups of people about his way of calling down UFOs, then let him. I probably wouldn't do this as my first choice, but I am not in his shoes, and don't have his point of view.

It is a fact that Greer upset many people when he steadfastly refused to allow the Disclosure Project to be used a vehicle to deliberately spread a message that we should FEAR aliens and UFOs. This resulted in more acrimony from within the UFO community than most of you would realise.

As a result of this acrimony, there has been a clear disinfo campaign run against Greer for several years now. Rumours such as:
- Greer is a closet homosexual
- Greer has no medical qualifications
- Greer has embezzled money from his organisations
have been regularly circulated, and regularly die for lack of evidence.

On ATS it is 'known' by many posters and moderators, that Greer is a liar, fraud, and charlatan. When asked, the only evidence cited is "well, his workshops are so freakin weird that we don't NEED any further proof - I mean what sort of loony believes his rubbish".

After dealing with Greer, his organisation, his wife, and many of the witnesses, for several years, I can only say my own experience contradicts the accusations of his detractors. And they wonder why I don't take them seriously?

However the mud has stuck. If a new attempt at Disclosure is begun it will have to have a new 'face' in my opinion. And even then, it won't be long before we are talking about Disclosure 3.0.

peace

Duncan

I don't understand, what or where do you see this "2.0" going? As I understood it they brought it before government and got the belly up fish treatment.

I mean, they have factual stories from relyable sources, but the best they can come up with is a patchworks quilt of the real events taking place.

They have scientific theories without backing because the venture would be quite pricey and has a high rate of not paying off.

So then what do you think would be the next course of action?

Personally I'd love to see a high quality movie or documentary put out.

What do you want from the guy/ orginazation?

Greer is busy trying to make contact, first hand contact, but he's neglecting several aspects.

He's just a man.

Where do you think this thing can go?

In answer to your question, of 'where do we go'?

I think the original aim of the Disclosure Project was a good one. That was, to obtain indemnity and immunity from prosecution for whistleblowers to be able to come forward with their full testimonies in relation to UFOs and ET-related technology.

Duncan

James Fox who organised the Washington Press Club conference is still very much on the case and pushing for further disclosure.

I think that over the next 12 months we will see a lot more evidence coming into the public domain.

Ross Hemsworth
Presenter
Now THAT'S Weird
Saturdays 8 p.m.on Edge Media TV (Sky Channel 211)

reply to post by Nova

For those that don't know, the Disclosure Project basically assembled a bunch of high quality witnesses (military personnel, NASA employees etc.)

This is the part that lost me. I would suggest that someone's profession does not automatically make them "high quality witlessness" unless their profession somehow protects them from the human condition.

I have met many idiotic pilots, cops, doctors, and yes, even several NASA scientists and technicians...even met several astronauts...and one of them turned out to be a complete and utter fool......but hey, all these people are smart, right? That and the fact that they have "titles" automatically makes you have to believe each and everything that comes out of their mouths right? These superhumans must be smarter than us average joes...right?

You talk about a peer review process which is a great idea. But as we can see on this website, the community can never come to a consensus on who's lying and who's telling the truth. John Lear, Sleeper, half the skunk works threads never reached any conclusion on their truthfulness.

Yeah, I guess what I meant was you put their version of events out there and the public decides for themselves. The purpose of the community would be to verify the facts that are verifyable such as military service record etc. I get what you're saying though.

James Fox who organised the Washington Press Club conference is still very much on the case and pushing for further disclosure.

At the risk of sounding rude, he's not doing that great a job?

After dealing with Greer, his organisation, his wife, and many of the witnesses, for several years, I can only say my own experience contradicts the accusations of his detractors. And they wonder why I don't take them seriously?

However the mud has stuck. If a new attempt at Disclosure is begun it will have to have a new 'face' in my opinion. And even then, it won't be long before we are talking about Disclosure 3.0.

That's my point I suppose. It's become about Greer. With a non central organisation it wouldn't be about the individual, but the cause. With no central figure it's a lot more difficult to aim your mud at someone. Try to picture the way Wikipedia works but imagine it as a project designed at gathering, verifying and conveying what is the best of the testimoney and evidence in this field.

This is the part that lost me. I would suggest that someone's profession does not automatically make them "high quality witlessness" unless their profession somehow protects them from the human condition.

Agreed, Buzz Aldrin for example always struck me as a bit of an idiot, although that was just my impression from videos etc. I guess that is for another thread really, but certainly a NASA employee seeing something is a little more credible than some Texan who stumbled out of a bar at 3am and saw something whilst climbing into his pickup


Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is the solution to disclosure and is a perfect idea, I'm just putting it out there in the hope that some great minds will pick it up, elaborate on it and see where it goes from there!

Cheers.

reply to post by nomadrush


I completely agree that James Fox is the man we need at the helm to guide the movement forward. He has a nice clean image (always helps) and his "Out Of The Blue" Documentary was one of the most compelling I have seen in a while. He keeps it level headed without resorting to sensationalism, and tackles the UFO Reality problem buy presenting the most reliable of witnesses such as military men, government officials, pilots, astronauts etc, etc.

Most importantly, people tend to take him seriously!

IRM

Originally posted by Nova
Could the Disclosure Project become an open source project regulated by itself where no member is more important than the idea?

Could I suggest that this idea you are proposing sounds much like ATS to me.

Perhaps people don't actually see ATS has that 'organization' that you described, because it covers many topics, but if it only covered Aliens & UFOs wasn't it basically an open source project regulated by itself?

Members post their research/stories/etc, others members discuss and in fact 'review' the research and 'rate' it accordingly to their own views and opinions.

Granted that much on it are posts and stories that perhaps shouldn't be considered worthy of a "serious research organization", but that's because that was not the (main) goal of the forum.

But still, and only answering to that question of your post, I believe the best thing there is and close to the 'molds' you describe is ATS.

Personally, I believe that these guys have nothing to disclose. They had some agenda which either succeeded or failed, they know better. I conclude this from simple common sense. When you have something to disclose you don't go and talk about swearing in front of some politicians. Do you ?

You simply put forward the evidence and let the people judge. Its that simple.

To me, evidence counts. If its not evident, it doesn't matter who says it or how 'credible' they are. They were govt guys, let it be even the president of some country, who cares. People lie, get under pressure/fear, make mistakes....ranks don't matter.

If they are genuine they are total dumb asses. They failed, which was expected with the kind of approach they took. It was all downhill after that.

We know of a national geographic group, who recently discovered an unknown tribe in amazons. Did they collect some guys and went on with a swearing and cheap publicity drama ?

They simply presented the evidence. The tribe is there to see for all. And everyone accepted it, no questions asked...