Excellent (encompassing) recent presentation by Greer

[Morbid]

i too believe that information should be free. though its worth listening to every opinion out there, but still form your own in the end..
lots of shepperds are about. yet all the answers are inside of us.

[seehas]

I've just finished the movie "sirius" and its quite compelling to see that a rockefeller put greer in the position where he is today, so that explains a lot and the whole documentary reminded me a lot to the procter & gamble documentary "thrive" the message behind is very similar and i want to understand why this coin of documentaries are "allowed" to happen?

[Morbid]

thrive is not telling us the whole story.. this one would fix that:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=H4zniWIL_QA

[Ron Mauer Sr]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Flash (here)
Don't make him start|

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)
What are the general views of Dr Greer amongst PA forum members? I'd be particularly interested on Bill's thoughts.

Thanks.

Made me laugh.

If anyone wants to know, please send me a PM.

I am curious, but all I really need to do is trust how my solar plexus feels ... not good.

I look forward with great expectations for the time when humans become so smart, so clever, so intuitive that manipulation and lies are no longer effective.

[Aurelius]

http://exopolitics.org/was-un-secret...et-disclosure/

[norman]

Personally, I don't find it too difficult to parse out the info from the personality. Sure he's got an ego like his well Gym-worked pecks, but I can deal with that on an intellectual level. I found some interesting parts in that 4 hour splurge that made it worth listening to.

He's clearly under someone's thumb though. His farcical wobble when he was asked about 9/11 was embarrassing.

I can see more clearly what's been going on, as a result of listening to it. I don't need or intend to wander off down his dead ends that he tries to include with the raw info. His picture he paints for his own mind isn't as logical as I'd expect from a bloke as smart as he is supposed to be.

As a guy with his feet on a hot tin roof, he's as credible as anyone. Just don't read it all from cover to cover without using your noddle a bit.

[Hazelfern]

I listened to Dr. Greer's entire presentation and it followed up on the secret space program conference
word for word but with the meat of the story. Ghost Rider ? What do you think?

[Hazelfern]

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)
What are the general views of Dr Greer amongst PA forum members? I'd be particularly interested on Bill's thoughts.

Thanks.

If I may, just make up your own mind what you think after listening to this presentation.
I think there is more truth than falsehood.
He is under heavy attack.
What do you think?

[Nick Matkin]

Posted by Nonin (here)

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)
What are the general views of Dr Greer amongst PA forum members? I'd be particularly interested on Bill's thoughts.

Thanks.

If I may, just make up your own mind what you think after listening to this presentation.
I think there is more truth than falsehood.
He is under heavy attack.
What do you think?

I already had my opinions about Greer, but I was curios to read what others thought too. And now, after reading and watching quite a lot of fascinating stuff, including what Bill has written publicly, I still don't think I'm much wiser.

As I see it there are at least two issues.

1) Are we really being visited by beings from outside the Earth (be that from space, time or other dimensions) or not? Just because someone looks you in the eye and says we are doesn't make it true. Neither does an impressive list of senior politicians or military personnel prove this. However, I admit that the affirmations of such people are hard to dismiss. (I understand that there are plenty of people on PA who say they absolutely know some of this alien stuff is true. Well that's great, but I don't "know"; I just have to believe others - or not.)

2) Does Greer really have the ear of all the people he says he has? For example, has he really had dinner with and briefed the CIA Director, and not just exchanged pleasantries in the buffet queue? Although being in the same buffet queue as the CIA Director is quite an achievement - if true!

He keeps up this name dropping, and I'd love to get these names to tell us if these 'briefings' ever happened and if they did what they thought of Greer after he left. Unfortunately, even if these names were to be questioned about such meetings, they're unlikely to admit they occurred if the did, or disclose what was said.

Greer is no fool. You can see that. He clearly has some huge ego going on, but he also has a seemingly insatiable need to gather information and that is to be commended, but I have no idea how good his BS filter is.

Has he just stumbled into this subject which allows him (or his ego) to fulfil his need to be centre stage? If you dig around there are some disturbing aspects in his background, but there are also those who say that's being fabricated to discredit him because he's close to the truth! But it's also said that many of his team are deserting him. Then there are those who say he is being 'mind controlled'. Does such a thing even exist? (Again, there are those who say it absolutely does exist. I know illusionist Derren Brown has proved this on a small scale.)

As someone accessing this muddling multitude of contradictory information through the blurring lens of the internet, what am I to believe? (Hey - welcome the the weird world of UFO/alien research!)

Without knowing him personally, what are any of us to believe...

Nick

[jaybee]

Posted by Nonin (here)
If I may, just make up your own mind what you think after listening to this presentation.
I think there is more truth than falsehood.
He is under heavy attack.
What do you think?

Greer is always under heavy attack -

But he remains the Alpha Male of Disclosure - - IMO - and I wonder how much that Alpha position has got to do with the attacks? By friends and foes of Disclosure alike -

????

He must have surely come with good recommendations to have given the Disclosure Project witnesses the confidence to speak up and be part of it all..

He usually mentions his Uncle (think it was his Uncle, from memory) who worked on the Apollo project - I don't think that would be enough for the witnesses but there is always talk of Insiders who are hovering in the background trying to impart information to the public - - against the wishes of Insiders who want to keep the whole lot secret now and forever -

I've listened to the OP video (thanks Aurelius) and find Greer an all round fascinating character - the way he looks, the way he speaks, his mannerisms, what he says, people's reactions to him, the way he is loved and hated in equal measure- - -

.

[araucaria]

I think Steven Greer has said enough to deserve another look at his material. This is too hugely crucial to be wrong about. So let me play devil’s advocate. I cannot address the situation at the nuts-and-bolts level of individuals who may be involved, one or two of whom are forum members. All I can do is look at it from the theoretical standpoint of how organizations work. This is unavoidably a long post. For people allergic to long posts, I suggest you print it out or transfer it to your word processor and read it as a short article.

There is a message component to this issue, and a messenger component. A reappraisal of the former will inevitably lead to a reappraisal of the latter, so I will start with the message.

As we know, Bill’s main issue with Greer during that interview he did with Kerry was the idea that there are no bad ETs, because there are plenty of reliable witness testimonies to experiences that were anything but positive. Here Greer addresses this aspect of the problem in a way I don’t recall him doing before (I have not been following him that closely). He does not deny the reliability of such data, he distinguishes between ET per se and what he calls aliens and describes as “Programmed life-forms” (PLF), i.e. manmade AI. In other words, not only has the space vehicle technology been back-engineered, but the concomitant technological advances in other areas include the development of pseudo-lifeforms designed to simulate a threat from outer space.

This is the basic premise for which Greer opens up a number of lines of inquiry to explore. The first is of course Carol Rosin’s testimony regarding Werner von Braun’s prediction from the 1970s of the “last card” to be played, namely the threat from outer space, “and it’s all a lie”. When Carol Rosin quoted this in May 2001, it was still very much a prediction. It may be that in most people’s minds, the threat from outer space came in the form of negative or evil ETs enlisted to help the cabal take over the world. But if that were so, then the threat was very real and the prediction had to be false. This fresh slant explains how the threat from outer space would be “all a lie”. And the theory applies Occam’s razor to understanding what is going on. By this principle, any unidentified life-form found on planet Earth is much likelier to be terrestrial than extra-terrestrial. How many rocks are meteorites? And through it we form a seamless fabric of false flag, staged attacks extending all the way out from 911 or Sandy Hook to encompass the so-called ET threat. We know simulation occurs massively, to the point of imagining that we live in a simulated universe and losing all sense of reality. Thinking terrestrial rather than extra-terrestrial means applying actual experience (simulation) not speculation (putative ET involvement).

The question can be seen in the simple terms of credibility: why should we believe Werner von Braun? He was a former Nazi, for God’s sake! One of the purposes of this post is to show how his analysis is correct not only in the particular instance of his special case, but much more generally as a design feature of the entire edifice. (Maybe you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand the big picture, but it may help to listen to one.) Once this has been acknowledged, the facts of how Greer and others fit into the overall picture are minor details that can be worked out.

This also ties in with my personal thought expressed here, and committed to writing when Greer was furthest from my mind. This is not about stroking my ego; simply, it is useful to be able to combine an explanation of how it works with an explanation of why it works.

Another line of inquiry opened up by Greer is with regard to the degree to which various politicians are in the loop. If you have impulses to do good, and therefore attempt to thwart the plan, you are not given the info on which to base any action. If you started getting too nosey, back in JFK’s day you got killed. Later on, other softer methods were used. Greer tells the story of UN secretary-general Perez de Cuellar and other leaders in New York to sign some treaty in 1989: Perez was subjected to a supposed “alien abduction” which convinced him that the aliens themselves objected to what they were about to do. Again, keeping it simple, it makes more sense to see how the cabal certainly objected, and if it had the technology, then there is no need to postulate an intervention by evil aliens. Do/did they have the technology? Well, given that we have had our eyes opened wide in recent years, and learnt to backdate everything at least by several decades, then one would expect so.

The common conspiracist view is that all politicians are corrupt, i.e. in the loop merely by virtue of being in the positions they are in. This is very sloppy thinking that is actually made to work against understanding what is really going on. The thing about blind spots is that you don’t even know you have a blind spot. The higher up the chain of command you are, the less likely you are to imagine having an area that is a total blank. Greer’s politicians and military commanders as reported by him behave in ways that are consistent with their possibly being good people, and they are stymied in ways that are by no means compromising to them. In other words, you don’t need everyone to be in the loop for this bird to fly, and this alone is a huge obstacle to more people in the general public wanting to go near this whole can of worms. They often have some small personal experience of the people being slated that would be in contradiction with that, and understandably – and Greer is suggesting correctly – they prefer to go with what they know or feel they know than with outrageous theories. The idea that politicians as a class are corrupt as opposed to being for some unexplained reason rendered ineffective is obviously one that the cabal is happy to go along with. In other words, without realizing it, the conspiracy theorists are doing them a big service.

Which leads me to the messenger aspect of Greer’s work. But first a few general remarks on messenger-oriented info. First off, we are often told if your info gets too close to the truth, you get taken out. Greer is suggesting: not necessarily – you can also get taken in. Perez de Cuellar was taken in twice over, both taken into the experiencer community, and “taken in” or deceived. Alternatively, you can get simply taken out of the loop; Greer quotes instances of members of Majic themselves being overtaken by events as they get loopier and loopier. It makes much more sense to allow them to survive and even tell their partial, out-of-date stories, which would only muddy the water further. This is the state of total anarchy that they have reached; the myth of the “controllers” controlling everything is totally wrong and misleading: no one is control of anything, the situation is completely out of control. Notice this is the inevitable outcome of feuding factions of victim-perpetrators: everyone gets what used to be fifteen minutes of “fame” at the top of the pile before they are themselves overthrown; living in any kind of harmony is increasingly not their thing. The days of running an army of efficient Waffen-SS are long gone; we are approaching the stage where this can be taken no further.

So where does Steven Greer himself fit in with this picture? If any of this is true, why is he still around to tell us about it and take us through that stash of still classified documents? And how did he come into it anyway? I don’t have all the answers; heck, I don’t even have that many questions… But let’s take this basic situation whereby insiders are blackmailable, and outsiders can be smeared. Assassination is not necessary when character assassination will do. Smears are the gray area that exploits the fact the no one is perfect and, as Beaumarchais said, if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick. Some have even had limited success in smearing Bill Ryan, which just goes to show it doesn’t take very much human imperfection for mudslinging to be a useful tool.

The situation in Greer’s case however is slightly different. If his info is worthless, then there would be no need to attack the messenger. If the messenger is being attacked, that would suggest that his info has value. The thing is, while truth seekers don’t attack messengers but expose inconvenient truths about them, this can have the same effect as an ad hominem attack in deterring serious consideration of their material. All in all, then, this line of inquiry is not going to get us very far, simply because we are none of us perfect. Which is why I propose to look at structures: I suggest that Greer’s account offers a sound structural analysis of how large hierarchical organizations work.

This is the vital component that is lacking in most conspiracy theory. We are told indiscriminately it’s the Vatican, the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the Washington Cabal, the City of London mafia, and so on. Yes, but how do all these entities interrelate? Briefly, they are all carbon copies of the same hierarchical, pyramidal structure, and their mode of interaction is of the “dog eats dog” type. The Catholic Church is not necessarily first either chronologically or in order of importance, but it is a good starting point for this discussion. The Church sees itself as the earthbound wing of Christ in his cosmic war with Lucifer. The Pope is the vicar of Christ, at the head of a hierarchy of bishops and priests, called the “teaching church”, and the “believing church”, comprising ordinary people… and theologians. This is the definition given by the Jesuit Malachi Martin; I shall continue to use his material, but from here on it is mostly my own interpretation.

Christ as God is infallible. His self-appointed “vicar”, or deputy/second-in-command, is infallible on certain formal occasions only. The debate over papal infallibility is a sterile one, because the rest of the time (i.e. nearly all the time), like the rest of us, he is unfailingly fallible. He is in fact structurally fallible, if only because he is not his predecessor and will say different things differently. Being a “vicar” is to be one of multiple increasingly pale copies of the original; and below the Pope it is vicariousness all the way down the chain of command. No one ever really gets to speak to the big boss (Christ), or to any high-ups beyond their line manager. This is a business metaphor, I know; my point being that the military structure for God’s war with Lucifer filters down into every walk of life, including politics and business.

I don’t need to take this any further to note how Werner von Braun’s analysis is in fact much more far-reaching than even he claims. Cosmic warfare is not just the endgame: it is the only game in town, and always has been. That’s what we’ve got to change. The idea that Christ is at cosmic war with Lucifer is not just the final outcome, it is the initial – false – premise. The true picture would be that Christ consciousness is not engaged in warfare at all. Or at least not at the cosmic level. The devil is in the detail of structurally fallible vicariousness of multiple pale copies of the original, meaning that the Church itself is a satanic organization and the battleground on which Lucifer gets to fight his war. For anyone looking for hard facts, with pedophile priests and such you have something pretty solid to latch onto right there.

That is the basic fact of the situation as I see it. The rest is a matter of filling in the detail of how this plays out. You have an initial pyramidal structure led by God’s self-appointed second-in-command professing total subservience and obedience. Now, what Malachi Martin describes as Ignatius Loyola’s revolutionary invention of the Jesuits was not revolutionary at all, but a pure copycat reaction: the Jesuits were simply a second, embedded pyramidal structure led by the Pope’s self-appointed second-in-command professing total subservience and obedience. Unsurprisingly then, the Father General came to be called the “black pope” under the “white pope” in an initially perhaps innocent reference to the colour of their cassocks. Totally surprisingly therefore for Malachi Martin, he could begin his book The Jesuits by saying “A state of war exists between the papacy and the Religious Order of the Jesuits”, a war that broke out in 1965 and that few saw coming.

The problem again is this structural fallibility. Obedience was ideally blind, i.e. a voluntary alignment of wills; but failing that, unwilling obedience would do. Often Jesuit obedience was of the grudging kind, such as waiting for the present Pope to die so as to start over with a clean slate with his successor. In other words, the Jesuits had over the papacy the advantage of longevity, just as the British civil service (including MI5 and 6) outlives elected governments, as do the alphabet agencies in Washington. All these agencies have the same modus operandi, forming a shadow government, all the more shadowy because the notion is diverted to describing the elected opposition. So basically the Jesuits stayed in power all the time either because the Pope liked what they did or if he didn’t the next one would. Hence the Pope was always structurally a puppet, able to act freely just as long as he stayed in line with his ostensibly subordinate puppet-master. It was only a matter of time before this became plain for all to see. Any resemblance with western political leaders is no coincidence. There is no need to postulate someone above them: they are guided by someone below them.

The other side to this is that since the black and white popes are in the same relationship as Christ and his vicar, this means that Christ himself is no more than a figurehead for the Church, being made to serve its agenda and being overruled whenever he falls out of line. This is institutionalized blasphemy at the very highest level, and church leaders can be as genuinely holy as they like, that is what they are being forced to do and endure. When someone like Greer says that this is happening in government (thus far, only a few extreme conspiracy theorists will disagree with him and this notion of “white hats”), then we have institutionalized high treason at every level. In both cases, it is ultimately not a matter of the quality of personnel (although quality will inevitably deteriorate as dregs are stirred upward towards the top); it is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed with a systemic solution.

More detail: how Jesuitical “obedience” could be twisted all the way to what ordinary people would describe as insubordination is an extreme case of casuistry, the ancestor of double-speak.
This is the typical example of the breakaway society in action. The Jesuits were unlike other religious orders in that as the Pope’s “Rapid Deployment Force” (Martin’s formula), they were both priests and something else as well, “contemplatives in action”, which led to a brain drain: all the intellectuals and other talented people gravitated towards the Jesuits, this differential leading, one supposes, to a dissatisfaction with being governed by those supposedly less gifted than themselves. But ultimately the war was not won by being smart. How it came about in the first place, prizing the pontiff and his loyal deputy apart, was through more of the same: a third pyramidal structure infiltrating and outflanking the Jesuits themselves. This was the Freemasons, whose Enlightenment values gradually crept into the Church during the 19th century via the Modernist heresy. Secular humanism was heresy for saying “Man is the measure of all things”. The Catholic replied, “No, Christ is the measure of all things”. This is an argument with no right or wrong. The Catholic is not right, because when he says “Christ” he really means “Christ and Lucifer at war together”. The heretic is not wrong, because in saying “man”, he does not necessarily preclude the Christ consciousness in man, although he presumably does exclude the cosmic warfare.

There is a well-known pitfall of corporate expansion: a massive influx of fresh blood diluting the company’s – the “Company of Jesus’s” – philosophy, subversively so in the case of a concerted attack. As Martin says, the masonically influenced Jesuits had to bide their time and see off the three authoritarian papacies of the Piuses (X-XII), before they could seize the first opportunity that arose. Interestingly, this was also a time when American Catholicism saw fast growth: quite a turnaround for a nation that started out as dissenting Protestants. Again, I am describing a system, one in which many good people were operating but which also dredged up a lot of dregs. It is not a matter of taking sides when things came to a head after 1978 when John Paul II was elected Pope. His enemy was Liberation Theology, under which banner the Jesuits were engaged in their extra-ecclesial activities, notably as freedom fighters, and later as government ministers, in Nicaragua and more generally Latin America. Stepping over into politics like this was a big no-no, but the Polish pope was really in no position to criticize, since he was supporting and even funding the Solidarity trade union as a way of subverting the Soviet regime. So what you had was Church involvement on both sides of the Cold War: a pro-American Pope fighting the Soviets, and leftist Jesuits siding with the Marxists of Latin America against American imperialism. We have seen how there was little upward movement up the hierarchy to Christ; in the other direction, what was dripping down like champagne down a champagne pyramid was also unChristian – local episodes of the cosmic war with Satan, no doubt: a form of compartmentalization; some would call it schizophrenia...

Ultimately, we find the same mechanism as that described by Steven Greer, of increasing flaking-off of breakaways, with no one ending up in charge. Everything that started off as a good idea turns sour. The ideas may be good, the people may be good, but the system is bad. Jesus called it putting new wine into old wineskins. But what happened to the previously ultra-strict order of the Jesuits, starting in the mid-sixties, was something that makes beatniks, hippies, drugs and rock’n’roll look pretty tame. Although the last people one would expect to do so, they experimented in every type of modern (hip) behaviour, notably in sexual matters, and up to and including turning the Holy Mass, that solemn commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice of his life to redeem humanity, into such things as a muffin party. This is seriously deranged, save to the extent that it was making a mockery of something that is in itself not as spiritually wise as it would like to think. So when we bemoan the failed opportunity of the sixties, let’s not forget this altogether huger aspect of that movement which is still playing out to this day. We overlook it because it is not a phase of growth but a preliminary phase of necessary decay.

So where will it all end? When the bankrupt system finally collapses. We are seeing signs that the Church is in receivership. It so happens that the Modernist (Jesuit) message is a grassroots-up one, ultimately designed to make the top-down Church and its pope and its bishops irrelevant. Hence, with the arrival of a Jesuit Pope, the hierarchy has been disturbed and twisted. You have a pope who himself really wants no truck with popery. The white pope who commands the black pope is a subordinate of that same black pope. As Churchmen, their hierarchy is upside down, but as Jesuits, their upside-down hierarchy is the right way up, with the right-hand man actually in charge – except that his own organization is in total anarchy, meaning that the guys at the top are really in charge of absolutely nothing: more puppets, getting a taste of their own Ignatian “blind obedience” with a vengeance. So the increasingly unpopular Church is undergoing structural failure, being downsized basically to the Jesuit Order, which in turn has been diluted out of all recognition before also too collapses under its own contradictions, and so on, all the way down. What has already disappeared is the schizophrenia of the Jesuits themselves, working for both sides. For example, while the Modernist Jesuits were leaning leftwards, others were helping the Pope further American imperialism in various ways: e.g. the Federal Reserve (Jesuits allegedly sank the Titanic), the political elite (Jesuits reportedly created the Skull & Bones Society), etc. They now only have one agenda, and as I said, any subagendas are getting smaller and smaller.

This is how things get phased out, downsized towards total irrelevance.
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/21/the_...r_the_country/

But this is not the whole picture. We need to look closer at how this occurred. To sum up: the hierarchical structure is prone to self-similarity, a property of the hologram, whereby microcosmic parts are added to the whole ad infinitum. However, it is a cancerous or viral version of that mechanism, turned in on itself and creating destruction as it does so. Any resemblance with a suicide bomber or with what is described as an archontic force will not be coincidental. This takes us to the other side in this war. This symmetrical opposite is what Sherman Skolnick called “the Overthrow of America”. If the fall of the Catholic Church was achieved through the interaction of three pyramidal structures: the Freemasons infiltrating the Jesuits parasitically taking over the Vatican, the “Overthrow of America” is the story of the exact reverse: how the Vatican, operating through the Jesuits, hatched its revenge on the Freemasons. Look at it this way: the Jesuits were founded around the same time and place as Columbus had launched his exploration to America. The order’s aim was missionary work on a global scale, all the way to China in fact; in other words to put the universality (the Catholicity) into the Church: the original one world order. However, a century later, the early settlers, the PIlgrim Fathers, were fleeing persecution in England to New England; as dissident (Separatist) Protestants, they were two degrees removed from the Papist Stuarts then in charge. From then on, presumably, America for the Church became a target not for the carrot of missionary work but for the stick of more persecution – you cannot have a one world order with an “old world” and a “new world” divided by an ocean. This situation is not to be confused with the later one when the Founding Fathers, who were masons, declared independence from the crown, which by this time was Protestant again. Freemasonry, possibly one degree removed from Protestantism, and two from Catholicism, remained within the sphere of the war of religion on account of their common pyramidal structures.

So overall, what we are seeing is a war to the finish, i.e. the extinction of both armies. America and the Church are tied together like the bow and stern of the Titanic: once the ship has broken in half, both sections are doomed to sink. Conflict is the glue that both holds them together and splits them apart. Columbus’s Santa Maria made it from the Old World to the New, and so did the Mayflower. The Titanic didn’t quite make it; it actually materialized the divide by snapping in half.

This is the raw canvas onto which other strands can be woven. In this all too brief summary, I have said nothing about Nazis, Jews (Zionist or otherwise), the Rothschilds, bloodlines, nothing pre-16th century etc. etc. And I have said nothing about ET. But since the topic is Steven Greer’s material, I have to ask where does ET fit into this picture? And my – speculative – answer is: on the sidelines, somewhere beyond the native Americans. The native Americans, as bystanders, were innocent victims of this ongoing war of religion. ET, I suggest, is a bridge too far. After the New World, the Moon, the planets and the stars seem to be the logical next step in the expansion process. Well, perhaps not. Perhaps that has not been possible in any major way, and being earthbound, the cabal had to fall back on the final earthbound frontiers, Antarctica and underground bases. Everything else would be a simulation by earthbound science, a massive psyop. We can’t go to the Moon by conventional means, but with our massive resources in theatrical effects, we can fake it, and a lot more besides: we can fake Mars colonies and we can fake taking ET home; the bigger the lie, the easier it gets. We fake it all by building artificial life-forms, and by implanting memories in people we brutalize and then leave for the alternative media to pick up as witnesses. And we fake it, not by stealing all the real assets in the world money, but after doing that by stealing quadrillions of phoney money that is nothing but numbers on a screen – much more than could possibly be needed to pay for all the interstellar fleet that is supposed to exist. Meanwhile, the real ET is out there, in the same pristine condition as the native Americans before they were caught up in all the above.

Often, when we talk about the psychopaths ruling the world, we overlook one of the psychopath’s key characteristics: he loves lying, and once he gets started, he cannot stop telling bigger and bigger lies to cover the smaller ones. What I am describing is simply what will happen when you follow that logic way beyond anything we thought possible. We are still looking for truth long after truth’s bedtime. They say a lie gets round the world before the truth has had time to get its pants on. I rather tend to think it is the other way round: the lies only get going at night after truth has been put to bed.

So, following Occam’s razor, ET does not fit in with this picture at all; he is outside of the entire war of man against man simply because the entire business can be explained purely in terms of human involvement. ET has no active role to play in this drama, but he can be rolled on in a figurehead capacity – exactly like the Catholic version of Christ. Like Christ, he does fit in with the Christ consciousness aspect, but without the cosmic war with Lucifer, which is the manmade bastardization of the concept. That means that ET, the unknown quantity in the equation, can be identified with anyone standing outside of or above that conflict, ourselves included. In other words, this attempted hijacking of ET is another way of describing the attempt to win over souls – our souls. One way to do this is to envisage a negative ET roaming the cosmos and coming down to Earth. The real ET is by definition the indestructible pure spirit undergoing the testing process of human life on earth; or maybe a somewhat similar process elsewhere: no one is ruling out that likelihood. This negative ET on the other hand is simply Satan in another guise, and neither exist as real as opposed to illusory entities. Werner von Braun was too right: cosmic war is one big lie, from start to finish.

[Clear Light]

Oh Araucaria, thank you for the above ^^^^ !

(processing it now)

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Much food for thought Araucaria that I thoroughly "enjoyed" reading because of its balanced (IMO) and informative presentation

Now I shan't presume to make any judgements about Greer because his work speaks for itself however I will say he presents a very convincing case which I feel cannot be easily dismissed !

[Jake]

Not getting on my horse, but there's some next level non-physical types that do NOT care about the plight of humans. These are not back engineered alien grays... You can say devil, evil,,, whatever... they are extraterrestrial and they are dark and menacing!!!

It is not poosible that Greer knos the truth of all things, especially the very subject he claims he does!!


clearly he is very intelligent and connected.. I know something that is completely contradictory to his claims!!

I have no doubt that alien greys have been back engineered, and used to forward whatever agenda is forthcoming...

i have been held to my bed paralyzed whilst 3 glowing alien bastards invaded my space, my mind, and left me for dead... they were alive and grinning...

Greer SUPPOSES what he has BEEN TOLD is true...

What he espouses is not even possible! Has he met them all? Id bet a cheeseburger that hed piss his pants if he came face to face with one.. And not just a slow moving light in the sky... ive seen him freak out about those,, look into an audience and cheer! (While everyone looked around at each other confused.)

I am no dummy. Ive been in contact with Greers people, (back when i believed what Greer was saying.) I questioned Greers CE5 protocols and recieved a nasty response about how i will support Stephen or i can feck off... (paraphrasing)

As an experiencer of some next level things, i know that one thing you DONT do, is exhault yourself over others, claiming you know EVERYTHING.. i have friends who are into physics. Almost as much as me,, lol,, They went to school for it.... As a layperson, ive won manhmany cheeseburgers from them, betting on physics concepts... lol...

Greer has done an 'about face' on many of his lectures on physics after he discovered he was wrong... fair enough, but he didn't present the information as anything other than fact! So when he presents something as fact,, it falls on deaf ears to me...

Im skeptical! This multiverse has zero limits! Greer is to be commended for his work, but he needs some humble pie...

There are some nasty buggers out there... Humans are out there, no? Lol...

jake

[Jake]

On a more positive note.. i do enjoy his presentations.. Disclosure is a tough subject, and I definitely give him credit for his work!

Jake

[araucaria]

Jake, I am not denying anyone’s experiences. Clearly though, we need to refine our perceptions of what those experiences actually were. Why? Because otherwise it leads to cacophony, disagreement and all kinds of conflict. This is the hard part for all of us: accepting that there is a possible different understanding, or several, to what we experienced than we thought. Things are richer in meaning than any one person can handle. This naturally includes Steven Greer, me, you, whoever: no exceptions. We don’t like it because we feel foolish for being deceived by our own senses as much as by any outside agency; and we don’t like anyone saying anything because it makes us feel inferior as well. This is the emperor’s new clothes syndrome. We have to get past both the regal pride we all feel towards self and the awe we often feel towards others. We don’t have to feel foolish. We can laugh at ourselves or otherwise distance ourselves. Obviously the more traumatic one’s experience, the more impossible it becomes to laugh it off; that is the very purpose of the exercise. I think the difficulty here is proportional to the discrepancy between the “truth” of an experience on one level and the “falsity” of the very real impression created on another. You don’t even need to see it as being undeceived after a deception if you can see it as a process of enriching your understanding towards greater complexity.

William James explains his Pragmatic philosophy as follows:

Pragmatism, on the other hand, asks its usual question. “Grant an idea or
belief to be true,” it says, “what concrete difference will its being true
make in anyone’s actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences
will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were
false? What, in short, is the truth’s cash-value in experiential terms?”
The moment pragmatism asks this question, it sees the answer: True ideas
are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False
ideas are those that we cannot. That is the practical difference it makes to
us to have true ideas; that, therefore, is the meaning of truth, for it is all
that truth is known-as.
This thesis is what I have to defend. The truth of an idea is not a stagnant
property inherent in it. Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made
true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the process namely
of its verifying itself, its verification. Its validity is the process of its validation.

We all get things wrong all the time. We are not here to be absolutely right about anything. I tend to agree with James, truth is not a rigid abstraction, it is what works for us. As I explained, Greer’s overall idea works well for and within my understanding of a few other things. Another thing that would work better if we tried it a bit harder is getting on with each other, notably by avoiding anything remotely dogmatic like the plague. Dogmatism only works on an audience too keen to believe, i.e. take things too seriously. Again, trauma is one way of creating such an audience.

[Carmody]

Posted by araucaria (here)
I think Steven Greer has said enough to deserve another look at his material. This is too hugely crucial to be wrong about. So let me play devil’s advocate. I cannot address the situation at the nuts-and-bolts level of individuals who may be involved, one or two of whom are forum members. All I can do is look at it from the theoretical standpoint of how organizations work. This is unavoidably a long post. For people allergic to long posts, I suggest you print it out or transfer it to your word processor and read it as a short article.

... ... ... .. ...

So, following Occam’s razor, ET does not fit in with this picture at all; he is outside of the entire war of man against man simply because the entire business can be explained purely in terms of human involvement. ET has no active role to play in this drama, but he can be rolled on in a figurehead capacity – exactly like the Catholic version of Christ. Like Christ, he does fit in with the Christ consciousness aspect, but without the cosmic war with Lucifer, which is the manmade bastardization of the concept. That means that ET, the unknown quantity in the equation, can be identified with anyone standing outside of or above that conflict, ourselves included. In other words, this attempted hijacking of ET is another way of describing the attempt to win over souls – our souls. One way to do this is to envisage a negative ET roaming the cosmos and coming down to Earth. The real ET is by definition the indestructible pure spirit undergoing the testing process of human life on earth; or maybe a somewhat similar process elsewhere: no one is ruling out that likelihood. This negative ET on the other hand is simply Satan in another guise, and neither exist as real as opposed to illusory entities. Werner von Braun was too right: cosmic war is one big lie, from start to finish.

Or, as long as one externalizes and locks into conscious ego function.... it will remain an ever expanding and ever unfolding multidimensional condition of: Turtles all the way down. A form of 'time/differential/infinity hall' of manifold faceted mirrors. What quantified and quantized systems inherently -- are. As a small circle within a big one....in that context, no other option is possible.

Less than all... will always be the knowing, as the limits within the system make it so. Like a smashed piece of holographic glass, the image is blurred and indistinct on those individual bits... which is counter to the quality of the image previously whole.

The lock of physicality and ego dictates the existence of the smaller circle (time, distance, difference, etc) and thus the blur and indistinct view is the pattern, even at a given maximum of potential.

This plays out in the mundane idea of breaking the speed of light...how it is proposed that it would take the energy of the entire universe and infinity to get there...this is the final punctuation point. Which leads to an understanding of how screwed up such proposed logic - is.

To look inside is to find the doorway out, already in hand. All it takes is some dedication and breaking of the ego function, to break the conscious unconscious barrier .....and reform along those lines.

The beatings will continue until the morale improves.

[Hazelfern]

How in the world can a terrestrial being create technology that interlaces with the sleeping human? That’s my question. It does seem impossible.
I do prefer to think that the attacks come from the inside, ie: human technology.
It becomes a war we can win, yes?
If demonic or other worldly surely I am doomed, how to storm the gate and get them off?
Jesus is not around to do the job for me.

Just born, I am ushered off for cleansing and injected with my chips that are dormant and later interfaced with my ‘gray’ demon. There are pre programmed extractions of the soul essence that ramp up when the human reaches their 30’s, later to dwindle down and stop altogether in the 50’s.

Why would humans do this to another human? What is to gain?

[norman]

Posted by Nonin (here)

Why would humans do this to another human? What is to gain?

In that perspective, I don't think gain is what it's about.

If it's ALL human, it looks to me something like watching a piss-head falling down and cracking his head on the pavement.

[Hazelfern]

[Hazelfern]

^^^^^^ Fits the bill ^^^^^^

Art of David Dees