It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CIA Director Woolsey tells Steven Greer he's a liar in 1999 letter

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by The Shrike
I'll be honest with you, I have not read any of his books or briefing documents. But I have seen the videos, I have read extensively about him and everybody comes to the same conclusions about him. Even here he is not liked or respected except by a few who are "blind" and think he's the cat's pajamas or the cat's meow.


So, basically you just believe what everyone around here tells you to believe? Good boy!


Well, I actually have all his books, and have read them, and seen the documents and things in them. So my opinion is somewhat different from yours due to simply having done more research and being more educated.

The man has plenty of documents and evidence, that is fact.

A lot of people think his CSETI group is total BS, and that's fine. But his Disclosure Project and Orion Project stuff is very serious, I know it is.


You're being a bit harsh. I don't believe anything, I don't have a belief system. I'm clear-minded, i.e. my mind is my own and no one affects it, negatively. Greer's life is public and what one reads about him either makes you a supporter or the opposite. I'm on the opposite side. I don't accept anyone's claim of being a "contactee" and Greer claims it.

I don't support anyone who offers how-to training on initiating contact with extraterrestrial intelligence. Greer promises b.s. He also teaches the use of meditation techniques that he claims allow attendees to "remote view" locations and times (past and present), and develop "cosmic consciousness" and abilities such as precognition. He sells b.s.

He claims having evidence of extraterrestrial visits to Earth. He claims b.s. All of Greer's claims regarding government holding evidence of information relating to UFOs, aside from what is publicly known, are baseless. He can speculate all he wants and he has a lot of company. Speculation is defined as: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). Where is his evidence and if he has evidence why is he asking the gov't to disclose theirs.

You can say all you want in a positive manner about Greer, I don't care. In my book he's worthless.

edit on 7-12-2010 by The Shrike because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
(snip)
Greer demonstrably has high level contacts and sources.
(snip)
Apparently the director of the defense intelligence agency had time for him. Greer claims he had the reality of ET visitations confirmed to him. Edgar Mitchell was there also, and backed up Greer's claim.
(snip)
You think the director of the CIA really "knows" where all the bodies are buried ? It's a political appointment. You keep going back to the theory that this dinner party meeting was a coincidence. Naive.
(snip)
You are grossly misinformed. It's a fact the US Government treats the subject of UFOs as a national security item, and has gone to court to maintain the secrecy of UFO data. CAUS vs NSA ?


It doesn't matter, to me, that Greer has high level contacts and sources he still isn't going to get the kind of information that he wants "disclosed". It ain't going to happen.

There is no way that Edgar Mitchell can back up Greer's claim that Greer had ET visitations. Mitchell wasn't there! And Mitchell's mental state has been questioned here so he was a great astronaut but he's tainted.

Perhaps the dinner party was no coincidence but you sound as if you had inside information to know better. Do you?

The US Gov't doesn't treat UFOs as a national security. What they protect are the methods of getting the information, it's always been that way. When you see documents blacked out, the information that is blacked out are the methods not necessarily what they found out.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by WingedBull

Name one thing Greer has been right about. Simple as that. Not something that has to be twisted, stretched and looked at sideways but something that is irrevocably right.


He is right about the truth embargo on UFOs and ETs, the testimony and evidence provided by all his witnesses establish that.

For many years he has been talking about the "shadow government" - a secret trans-national government hidden within the governments, also often called the "NWO", "Cabal", "Illuminati" etc. He is also right about that. The evidence is all over ATS and many other sites.

He is right about advanced energy and propulsion technologies being suppressed. Some basic research into alternative energy will reveal that there's all sorts of technology already extant that could replace coal, oil and nuclear power; but the governments simply don't bother to roll it out. Thorium, for instance.

Greer really is quite a knowledgeable person and he is right on the ball about a lot of things; so it's really too bad that he sometimes does these dumb things and shoots himself in the foot by claiming to levitate, etc etc.


You know your comments in support of Greer are downright ridiculous. You're parrroting. Do you have anything original to contribute to the thread?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Okay, so you decided he has no evidence, without reading the books, where all the evidence is.

You decided his ET contact training is BS, without ever attending one to see for yourself.

I get it that you don't want to believe anything Greer says, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinion, right?

I just find it interesting that everyone on here just knows that the trainings are BS, even though no one has ever actually been to one. Or that people say things like "Greer has no evidence" without even reading his books.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but if that opinion is based on sloppy research methods like refusing to even read a book, then how much is that opinion really worth?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by Facefirst
I still can't believe people will stick up for Greer.

Why were Greer and Woosley both there? It was a social visit. Woosley and three other people who were there said so. I've been to many dinners with people I've never met before. Bet you've been too.


Wow, way to not answer any of my questions. What was the nature and purpose of this "dinner party"? Who organized and hosted it? When was it? Where was it? Why were Greer and Woolsey both there?

I still can't believe everyone just automatically believes Woolsey's side of the story, even though he has provided NO information about this alleged "dinner party" other than that the six of them were all there; oh and he was also the Director of the Cocaine Importing Agency / Al-CIAda.........

Why is a sitting Director of the Cocaine Importing Agency automatically more honest and moral than Greer, I wonder?




The burden of proof is upon Greer, not me.


And how would he prove it? Film the meeting and post it on Youtube?

I really don't think the CIA rolls that way......




I'm not the one making the claims and why did Former NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell ask to have his name removed from anything to do with Greer's Disclosure Project?


I don't know. The two of them seem to have had some kind of personal falling-out. And yet Edgar Mitchell still says a lot of the same things that Greer says.




That letter Woosley sent has four people essentially calling Greer a liar.


So what? People can put lies in writing and even affix their signatures to those lies, you know. I don't know about you but It's happened to me before!

Anyway, I understand why these four people did this. Because Greer was not discrete about the meeting but instead went around bragging about it to the entire world and using it to make himself look important. I already explained that. They didn't like it that Greer was so public about the meeting, so they gave him a little slap on the wrist.




Greer has done this other times. He went around saying a few years back that he was in the process of securing an actual Zero Point energy device, which would have been monumental if true. It wasn't. He suddenly went quiet about it and gave some dramatic explanation that made little to no sense.


I do think there are at least a few groups that have real free energy technology. Bedini and his supporters, the Alperen group.... But Greer never mentions them, so my guess is that they simply decided not to work with Greer and his people.

I know Greer was hoping that he would be the one leading the Free Energy disclosure again, with another big National Press Club conference and all that. But it looks like Bedini and others are leading the charge instead.

Which is great, I don't really care if it's Greer or someone else that gets it done, as long as it gets done, know what I mean?




There are entire threads dedicated to exposing this guy for the drama-queen fraud he is. Just do a search.


I'm well aware of all the other Greer threads. And it's always the same thing - Woolsey letter, moth picture, $1000 entrance fee, Non-Disclosure Agreement. People just focus on all the most negative evidence, while ignoring all the positive.

All I'm trying to do here is provide a bit more of a balanced view. Yes there is a lot of evidence against Greer - but there is also a lot of positive evidence.

Egotistical? Yes, definitely. Drama-queen? Yes. Saviour-complex? Absolutely. But he is not a con man or fraud. He has a good heart and the most positive intentions for humanity and for the Earth.


A guy like Greer who constantly calls for "Open Disclosure" by the Government but requires a non-disclosure agreement and a $1000 fee to hang out with him is laughable. That's called a CON MAN.

When I first came across the Disclosure Project around 2001 I was very excited. But the longer I followed Greer, the more something didn't seem right. And the more I looked into it the more I saw people distancing themselves from him.

I wasn't at the dinner. but I'm gonna go with Woosley on this one. Why would Woosley take the time and the trouble to write up that letter and get three other people who were at the dinner to sign it as well? Why not just ignore Greer? And if it was s briefing, why over dinner with their wives and guests present? I think Woosley has more important things to do than worry about Greer. But Woosley's reaction has not been singular so I must cast a very suspicious eye towards anything Greer puts out there.

Here's another question: why would the head of the CIA need to be briefed on UFOs by some doctor?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
all of them are liars until they can show me a undebunkable spaceship and alien...

I cant care less about the star you saw in the sky last night or your dreams.
edit on 7-12-2010 by AtruthGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

You know your comments in support of Greer are downright ridiculous. You're parrroting. Do you have anything original to contribute to the thread?


I'm not "parroting", I simply researched all the things Greer was saying and found them to be true. Greer said there's a secret government within the government, I researched it and found it to be true. Greer said advanced energy technologies are being suppressed, I researched it and found it to be true.

You may not understand this and think I'm just "parroting" Greer since concepts like reading books seem to be foreign to you.....



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
A guy like Greer who constantly calls for "Open Disclosure" by the Government but requires a non-disclosure agreement and a $1000 fee to hang out with him is laughable. That's called a CON MAN.


A non-disclosure agreement is simply a legal protection mechanism and it's used for all sorts of different things.

For example an inventor might require people he's working with to sign an NDA even though he fully intends to disclose the technology to the world later.

The CSETI training is a PRIVATE retreat, that means the identities of the participants must be protected. They would not want someone coming in and taking photos or filming the participants and then posting it on Youtube or wherever.

That is the purpose of the NDA, to make sure that CSETI can review any photos or film taken during the retreat, to protect the participants.

I have specifically asked the CSETI Coordinator about that before, and that was the response I got. Double-check it yourself if you like.

I do not think they would care if you managed to get some UFO footage during the retreat and then you go and post on Youtube. But if you post photos or footage of the other participants, then there would be a legal problem.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
And wouldn't you think a "Briefing" would have taken place at a CIA office rather than over a dinner table during a meal?


semantics

I find it amusing people could actually believe this was a chance encounter. And Woolsey was not there to get information from Greer. Yeah basically Greer didn't show discretion. And Edgar Mitchell may have tried to distance himself from DP, but he did vouch for Greer's story about a confirmation of alien visitors from an O-9 at the Pentagon. That Vice Admiral was tracked down and denied everything. By the logic of this thread, I guess you could say that makes Edgar Mitchell a liar, since he confirms he was at the Pentagon with Greer and got unofficial word that ETs are real but classified above our need to know.

I think Greer may have lost his mind. But I think his intentions were good.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
So one bunch of proven serial liars calling another liar a liar.... and your point is? Were you present at that dinner and party to the conversation? I guess not, so I'm quite sure exactly what you are trying to prove.


No doubt.

I think greer, for the most part..
is full of $#!^

but I know those in the CIA... are purely $#!^.

as much as greer spews BS~
id still take his word over someone in the CIA, anyday.


thread fail.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


As soon as I realized Greers words ( full disclosure) were different then his actions (disclosure only for those who will pay for it), I knew he was a scam artist. He is a smart man, he certainly figured out how to milk a lot people out of their money. This letter is just another piece of the puzzle that is Greer and again shows that he will twist any fact if it adds to his credability. He managed to get himself into a event where people of power were gathered, spoke his views, people polietly nodded and said "really? wow!" (the responce they usually reserve for small children and the very old) and suddenly he was "debriefed!" LOL



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
I find it amusing people could actually believe this was a chance encounter. And Woolsey was not there to get information from Greer. Yeah basically Greer didn't show discretion. And Edgar Mitchell may have tried to distance himself from DP, but he did vouch for Greer's story about a confirmation of alien visitors from an O-9 at the Pentagon. That Vice Admiral was tracked down and denied everything.

I think Greer may have lost his mind. But I think his intentions were good.

You're right. A lot of intelligence business does happen at the dinner table. Greer has certainly made mistakes but a lot of this extreme hatred bs is simply because folks HATE having their beliefs challenged so massively by important work like the disclosure project. There are STILL many unanswered questions.


Originally posted by The Shrike
You know your comments in support of Greer are downright ridiculous. You're parrroting. Do you have anything original to contribute to the thread?

Shrike, I find you at times simply act like some forum equivalent of an agent prevocateur. Minor insults, little contribution of your own and then ask a person who has genuinely engaged with the discussion whether they have anything to contribute. If you aren't pathetically attempting to just insult people and stop real debate then you're wasting your life buddy. Just saying what somebody says is not true or of no value IS OF NO VALUE! Contribute something original yourself. (He will probably just Shrike insults at me now and pretend to contribute and stop us debating lol)


Originally posted by Helmkat
As soon as I realized Greers words ( full disclosure) were different then his actions (disclosure only for those who will pay for it), I knew he was a scam artist.

The disclosure project included lots of publicly and freely available material and was a real attempt to force disclosure. He may be a profiteer but that is another matter and does not mean we should ignore the real questions raised by the disclosure project. There is a cover up. There is no doubt about it. Why?

Guys, at the end of the day, we should be mature enough to know that you do not have to be credible in every way to make a contribution to knowledge or society.

Sigmund Freud used to use his position to seduce his patients but made an important contribution to Psychology. I could make a discovery that turns out to prove the reality of ET contact. One of you could. Then somebody could discredit us. Or offer us lots of money to do something silly that will discredit ourselves (we are human, mostly lol). That would NOT make our discoveries or research of no value but prove that we are all capable of getting it wrong.

If all you have to do to keep a secret is discredit people then how could disclosure be possible even if ET contact is a reality? How will we ever be able to force governments to be open about alternative propulsion/energy or other military/industrial secrets? If there is a cover up then disinformation about witnesses, bribery to get key players to discredit themselves or threatening of whistle blowers will continue. Are we mature enough as a movement to see through these simple well known intelligence and propaganda techniques? It really isn't rocket science!
edit on 9-12-2010 by Pimander because: Some typo errors and grammatical corrections and added a little to the end



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
(snip)

Originally posted by The Shrike
You know your comments in support of Greer are downright ridiculous. You're parrroting. Do you have anything original to contribute to the thread?

Shrike, I find you at times simply act like some forum equivalent of an agent prevocateur. Minor insults, little contribution of your own and then ask a person who has genuinely engaged with the discussion whether they have anything to contribute. If you aren't pathetically attempting to just insult people and stop real debate then you're wasting your life buddy. Just saying what somebody says is not true or of no value IS OF NO VALUE! Contribute something original yourself. (He will probably just Shrike insults at me now and pretend to contribute and stop us debating lol)
(snip)
Guys, at the end of the day, we should be mature enough to know that you do not have to be credible in every way to make a contribution to knowledge or society.
(snip)


You ought to practice what you preach. I am an agent "prevocatur" (sic), I provoke the mentally-challenged to do think clearly. Are you provoked?

And don't challenge my contributions to the Aliens & UFOs forum 'cause you're gonna come out on the losing side.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


Hey agent 'prevocateur',

why aren't you using your Skeptical Ed account?



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by Facefirst
And wouldn't you think a "Briefing" would have taken place at a CIA office rather than over a dinner table during a meal?


semantics

I find it amusing people could actually believe this was a chance encounter. And Woolsey was not there to get information from Greer. Yeah basically Greer didn't show discretion. And Edgar Mitchell may have tried to distance himself from DP, but he did vouch for Greer's story about a confirmation of alien visitors from an O-9 at the Pentagon. That Vice Admiral was tracked down and denied everything. By the logic of this thread, I guess you could say that makes Edgar Mitchell a liar, since he confirms he was at the Pentagon with Greer and got unofficial word that ETs are real but classified above our need to know.

I think Greer may have lost his mind. But I think his intentions were good.



Semantics my ass.

I have had dinner with famous people that were friends of my friends. As well as had dinner with VIPs that are my friends. It's called having dinner. Socializing and eating. Nothing more than that.

With as much exaggeration Greer has done over the years, I can't take anything he says seriously.

Please show your proof that Mitchell "backed up" Greer. I would love to see it.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Pimander
(snip)

Originally posted by The Shrike
You know your comments in support of Greer are downright ridiculous. You're parrroting. Do you have anything original to contribute to the thread?

Shrike, I find you at times simply act like some forum equivalent of an agent prevocateur. Minor insults, little contribution of your own and then ask a person who has genuinely engaged with the discussion whether they have anything to contribute. If you aren't pathetically attempting to just insult people and stop real debate then you're wasting your life buddy. Just saying what somebody says is not true or of no value IS OF NO VALUE! Contribute something original yourself. (He will probably just Shrike insults at me now and pretend to contribute and stop us debating lol)
(snip)
Guys, at the end of the day, we should be mature enough to know that you do not have to be credible in every way to make a contribution to knowledge or society.
(snip)


You ought to practice what you preach. I am an agent "prevocatur" (sic), I provoke the mentally-challenged to do think clearly. Are you provoked?

And don't challenge my contributions to the Aliens & UFOs forum 'cause you're gonna come out on the losing side.

BREAKING NEWS

Big shock - Shrike has thrown in another minor insult LOL.

I'm not concerned about thinking clearly no. Many of your contributions are good. I was provoked to comment on how you needlessly resort to insulting members which is not a contribution - it frequently derails a proper debate.

In my experience the mentally-challenged often resort to pointless insults. If you aren't then why do it?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
The US Gov't doesn't treat UFOs as a national security. What they protect are the methods of getting the information, it's always been that way.


Protecting sources and methods maybe valid in some instances of keeping information classified but pertaining to UFOs, it's a ruse. A UFO report by a military unit was always classified. The Bollender memo demonstrates you are wrong. To paraphrase: "UFOs which could affect national security are handled by JANAP-146"



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
Please show your proof that Mitchell "backed up" Greer. I would love to see it.


dsc.discovery.com...


Subsequent to that, I did take my story to the Pentagon -- not NASA, but the Pentagon -- and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. And told them my story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true. IK: You mean what had been told to you was true? EM: Yup, in other words. There was a UFO crash. There was an alien spacecraft. This gentleman tried his damndest to get me in and like so many others in the administration over the last 60 years, since JFK's time, was unable to. He was told 'Admiral, you don't have a need to know, and therefore go get lost,' essentially. IK: Have you ever come out and said who this person was who briefed you? EM: No, I have not. IK: Would you at some point? EM: No, it is out and around but I don't feel like I have the liberty to do that. IK: When did you have your meeting at the Pentagon? EM: It was in the late '90s in Washington when I was there working with The Disclosure Project, trying to get all those opened up with another Naval officer by the name of Will Miller and Steven Greer, who you probably heard of. Steven and I don't really work on this anymore together, but we did at that point and getting to the Pentagon and seeing what we could do there to try to get this opened up.

edit on 16-12-2010 by Schaden because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join