steven greer: new 4 hour talk, with insights into black projects, free energy & more

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: draknoir2

Do you actually trust the mainstream sources? Some are alright, but anything like large news corporations are a big no-no when it comes to believable info on anything unconventional. This goes both ways.

I think the biggest no-no here is automatically giving more weight to unconventional claims from unconventional sources using the above as justification. All the "whistleblowers" I've had the misfortune of encountering have been disgruntled, self-absorbed weasels who I wouldn't trust to give me the correct time of day.

And no, I do not trust any particular source. I trust myself to sift through the spin of multiple, diverse sources. This is why my first instinct is to vet the source of a claim, then the claim itself.

originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: urasoul

Um... I think you replied to me in error, there

ah yes, i deleted the wrong username in the quote. thanks for that

Mmm... Not so much more "weight", but I do definitely feel it should be given more attention.

Anecdotal evidence and all that. Still, did they lie? There motivations being impure does not matter so long as the information is correct.

What I'm most worried about is demonizations of whistle blowers. I consider the situation with Snowden, the person who revealed the torture under the Bush administration, and so forth, to be absolutely disgusting. Sometimes I wish I was a massive YouTube personality or something like pewdiepie just so I could get the awareness out there.

Interesting, then, that you seem to trust yourself.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Mmm... Not so much more "weight", but I do definitely feel it should be given more attention.

Anecdotal evidence and all that. Still, did they lie? There motivations being impure does not matter so long as the information is correct.

What I'm most worried about is demonizations of whistle blowers. I consider the situation with Snowden, the person who revealed the torture under the Bush administration, and so forth, to be absolutely disgusting. Sometimes I wish I was a massive YouTube personality or something like pewdiepie just so I could get the awareness out there.

Interesting, then, that you seem to trust yourself.

You're not going to get me on board with the Snowden hero-worship. As far as I'm concerned he can rot with Assange and Manning.

I trust myself far more than anonymous voices on a conspiracy website every day of the week. I've been wrong on occasion, but at least I self-correct, unlike the belief-driven CT'ers.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

What's objective evidence?
I can argue that nothing is objective. I can probably win.
You're better off saying "testable, physical evidence."

I think you are right that ultimately everything is subjective. But that's really a philosophical debate. But I think "testable physical evidence" IS objective evidence.

a reply to: draknoir2

I've been wrong on occasion

I was wrong once. Its a very odd feeling.

Heil to the government, right?
Mind sharing your reasoning? We can discuss it over PM. Though if it's something along the lines of "He revealed shady stuff that the NSA was doing, but they were doing it with our best intentions" or "He helped the terrorists out" don't bother.

How can you be sure?

Still, Greer is definitely fake. Fake as my Taiwanese Rolex, and that doesn't even exist.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Heil to the government, right?
Mind sharing your reasoning? We can discuss it over PM. Though if it's something along the lines of "He revealed shady stuff that the NSA was doing, but they were doing it with our best intentions" or "He helped the terrorists out" don't bother.

How can you be sure?

Still, Greer is definitely fake. Fake as my Taiwanese Rolex, and that doesn't even exist.

Do you know what they call what you just did there?

Think Wizard of Oz.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
I think you are right that ultimately everything is subjective. But that's really a philosophical debate. But I think "testable physical evidence" IS objective evidence.

Point. It's as close as we can get to it, anyway.

Tell me, how hard do you think it would be for you to obtain testable, physical evidence of my existence as a human?
Does the lack of such evidence preclude me from existence?
I might just be an AI, a ghost in the machine, after all.

It is a similar situation, with different parameters. You can say that I exist as a human with 99.9999999999% (not getting into the philosophical "nothing is real" type scenarios) certainty, but you cannot truly be sure. Not right now, at least.
In the case of extraterrestrial spacecraft, that probability just caps a lot earlier. At 10%, or 40%, or 0.05% if you're a die-hard skeptic. Your belief in something can be raised or lowered by subjective evidence, like your lack of knowledge with AI, or witness testimony for spacecraft, but to be truly certain? You need something concrete. Something you will, in both cases, find it extremely difficult to obtain. If possible, at all.

originally posted by: draknoir2
Do you know what they call what you just did there?

Think Wizard of Oz.

Not the slightest clue.

Smoke and mirrors?
Bluster?
Tomfoolery?
Wishing?
Fraud?

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Heil to the government, right?
Mind sharing your reasoning? We can discuss it over PM. Though if it's something along the lines of "He revealed shady stuff that the NSA was doing, but they were doing it with our best intentions" or "He helped the terrorists out" don't bother.

How can you be sure?

Still, Greer is definitely fake. Fake as my Taiwanese Rolex, and that doesn't even exist.

My age and my background have shaped my values. Some of my closest friends at least partially share your apparent view, but they have their own backgrounds. Two movies in particular inspired similar discussions with them: The Falcon and the Snowman [life imitates art] and Crimson Tide. I had no sympathy for the characters in the former nor did I approve of the actions of the character in the latter. Hindsight is 20/20, but mutiny is mutiny. The ends do not justify the means in my mind.

Anarchists who want to watch the world burn or self-serving spies are not worthy of praise regardless of the dialogue they inspire. That is my view.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

originally posted by: draknoir2
Do you know what they call what you just did there?

Think Wizard of Oz.

Not the slightest clue.

Smoke and mirrors?
Bluster?
Tomfoolery?
Wishing?
Fraud?

Heil to the government, right?

You Godwined me with a Straw Man.

This may clarify how I feel about it: I wouldn't want a whistle blower releasing US missile schematics, but I'd be very happy to hear them releasing this specific type of stuff: information on illegal torture techniques, human rights violations, war crimes, and so forth. Unarguably and objectively illegal.
I am more on the fence but mostly supportive of things like: Leaking TPP terms (a case of something the government is doing that is obviously designed to screw its citizens and has no real reason to be kept in secret regardless).

The issue is, as long as our governments are our governments, highly prone to corruption and wrongdoing, we need to celebrate whistle blowers in cases like the ones that I'm totally in support of, or we're heading for a very messy future.

Oh, I'm not an anarchist. 'Nor am I a self serving spy... Probably.

a reply to: draknoir2

I see. Heil doesn't have to be a reference to the Nazis, you know. ^^
I mean, that's how I used it, but...

In all seriousness, America is already dangerously fascist. I don't want it going the extra couple of steps.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: draknoir2

Do you actually trust the mainstream sources? Some are alright, but anything like large news corporations are a big no-no when it comes to believable info on anything unconventional. This goes both ways.

I trust them FAR more than I trust Alternative news sources. Mainstream sources have more eyes on them, so there is more of a chance for someone to call bs on a bs story and prove it.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

Oh, I'm not an anarchist. 'Nor am I a self serving spy... Probably.

Never my intent to even imply that you were, and I understand your views. Mine seem to be more anachronistic with each passing year.



Yes, anachronistic was the word I meant to type.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In a sense, that makes sense, but often they're geared to shift perspective without using objectively incorrect information. News agencies have been doing that pretty much since their creation, though, and they tend to be clickbaiters.

Plus, they tend to ignore a lot of stuff. Like Bernie Sanders when he first started running and was rapidly gaining massive support.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Tell me, how hard do you think it would be for you to obtain testable, physical evidence of my existence as a human?

Not very hard if there was reason enough to do it. But being that there is no reason and all the legal issues and time it would consume....People on the internet are easily traceable.

Does the lack of such evidence preclude me from existence?

No. Obviously you exist in some way as evidenced by you responding. However, I have no idea what or who you are. You could be the guy sitting next to me.

I might just be an AI, a ghost in the machine, after all.

That would be cool except that such an AI is not known to exist yet.

In the case of extraterrestrial spacecraft, that probability just caps a lot earlier. At 10%, or 40%, or 0.05% if you're a die-hard skeptic.

I am far from a die-hard skeptic, but since ET Spaceships, or even ET, or really life anywhere else hasn't been found, calculations for the probability of ET spaceships is impossible. Its an unknown. In comparison, people that type on internet forums are a known entity.

Your belief in something can be raised or lowered by subjective evidence, like your lack of knowledge with AI, or witness testimony for spacecraft, but to be truly certain? You need something concrete. Something you will, in both cases, find it extremely difficult to obtain. If possible, at all.

yes, we form our beliefs through subjective experience. Our knowledge is obtained from objective information. This is evidenced by the progress we have made in all areas of science. We are not able to measure ET spaceships objectively either by design or because they don't exist or we have no way of defining them. Either way, its the same as if nothing is there anyway.

a reply to: draknoir2

Honestly, I would like to see a world where whistle blowers aren't necessary, but that just isn't going to happen, thanks to the human condition that tends to elevate our suckiest members towards positions of power.

Just look at the US and AUS governments. Most of them corrupt. Most of them incompetent. Most of them total morons.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Not very hard if there was reason enough to do it. But being that there is no reason and all the legal issues and time it would consume....People on the internet are easily traceable.

Oh, I'm very sure you could trace me. But that isn't hard, physical evidence, is it? You'd need part of my body, or clothing, for that.

No. Obviously you exist in some way as evidenced by you responding. However, I have no idea what or who you are. You could be the guy sitting next to me.

So in some way too do UFOs exist as alien spacecraft, in the minds of those who see them as such.
Just because you perceive me, does not mean I am actually here... Just because you think you can hear me, does not mean I am actually real. Though I feel that is getting too philosophical.

That would be cool except that such an AI is not known to exist yet.

True, but there are many military black projects that you have no knowledge of, it merely lowers likelihood, not eliminates it.

I am far from a die-hard skeptic, but since ET Spaceships, or even ET, or really life anywhere else hasn't been found, calculations for the probability of ET spaceships is impossible. Its an unknown. In comparison, people that type on internet forums are a known entity.

I'd consider it impossible to "calculate" even if we knew those parameters. I should have said "likeliness, in your opinion" instead of probability, because probability implies hard, objective numbers.