Jump to content

Talk:Steven M. Greer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Disclosure Project)

Skeptism

[edit]

Removed for the following reasons:

1 Evidence for which claims:

Success of CESTI "training"? Already covered in the article

Evidence for claims made in the "Disclosure Project? he has provided much evidence at this conferences with, testimony, photographic, documents, etc. You might not agree with the evidence but it is there nevertheless. The7thdr (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not evidence, it's conjecture. This is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of guesswork. If it was actual evidence, the entire disclosure project wouldn't be required. Dave420 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there weren't people like Dave420, we wouldn't need the disclosure project -- signed by a skeptic who decided to treat this material fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.211.95 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greer has submitted a lot of evidence, and the people he talks about are also very relevant to the overall UFO disclosure movement. DarthHistorian (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is meant to serve the world with facts, not facts and opinions of them.

[edit]

Make sure the facts are being reported without assuming that they are assumptions, &/or making the facts seem questionable, &/or edits that serve the editors own agenda/own beliefs or lack thereof to make information seem not credible with careful selection of wording. Also make sure that things/people are not being labeled as something they are not.

Wiki is meant to serve the world with facts, not facts and opinions of them. It’s a disservice to the world to by not providing plain facts and instead manipulating the facts.

If this is not the case, then wiki serves no true use.


-

Make edits so that everything is true and accurate, without ones own opinions/beliefs. & without not changing any of the information. & not discrediting or trying to make facts seem not credible. just report. & again actually, not really changing any of the info/facts at all. Just edit for simple facts - remove critic wording. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. To critic the facts. 

Stop labeling people especially if that’s not what they say they are/identify as/actual certified profession.

What we do know is what has been reported by Steven Greer and his team and team of more than 900 military officials, and the most credible. & who most his team actually consist of.

Who’s a more reliable source - the news and online news/internet articles that are from random people/news/news reporters? or the people involved in the facts themselves/situations the military officials?

Steven Greer doesn’t identify as a “ufologist”. He has said so himself. What we do know and can say is that HE IS a retired doctor, he is a spokesman for military officials, & he is a researcher. & there’s so much more info that can be gathered about his life.

Isn’t that how info on all these famous celebs are reported here? Through what THEY say. Not what reporters say. We know famous people’s bios mostly because of what info THEY provided about themselves to the public & what we have physically seen of them. That’s how wikis are able to be written about them.

& if someone identifies as a female but they’re born male, you’re not going to come on here and says he’s female. You’re going to identify him here as female. But when it’s Steven Greer and people that are directly involved with military officials and operations/giving briefings to presidents, you’re going to call him a “ufoligist” & say every bit of info is “alleged” & “claims”?

Then go say that about the more famous people - that they “allege” they’re from so and so. & that they “claim” they have a brother & that they “claim” they went to this school & that they “allege” that they have met with other well known people when there’s clear proof and evidence of the meetings.

editors like this are either are not doing the research, frankly being ignorant, or purposely manipulating facts for their own agenda/beliefs.

Please have some common sense and ignore ignorance and manipulation of someone’s life details to appear as discredited just because you don’t believe in it/are a supporter or not.

Leave biases and discrediting out of ANYBODY'S life facts & info.

So stop saying he & his team and the military officials “alleges”. The definition of allege is to assert without proof/claim or assert that someone has done something wrong typically without proof that this is the case. 1. THE MILITARY/GOVERNMENT/SCIENTIST OFFICIALS (not just Steven Greer) have shown, confirmed, & are actually the ones WHO PROVIDED the proof & facts. 2. Steven Greer, his team, or the officials that have made the statements have done nothing wrong. & that is clear. Let’s discuss. I know what I’m doing. I don’t need to be a tech geek/tech professor to know how to operate here. The guidelines are clear and with my last edits I made sure (EVEN MORE than in my first edits) to make sure all the same info is still there. Resources & all. It’s actually keeping a neutral point of view, not a biased/negative/critic point of view that you and most editors here are providing. Again, leave your own limiting beliefs out of this and just report the facts, without attempting to discredit them. Your job is to just report the facts.

If you can’t report the facts NEUTRALLY, and just that, then follow this critic editors own advice. ⬇️

“If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics “

BTW, EVERYTHING is contentious. The world and life is contentious. OneTF (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OneTF: If I'm following the logic above, the article should be changed to say he's a researcher, but he denies involvement in research about UFOs? Since that's what ufologist defines out as per its article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say about a given subject. In this case [1], the majority of WP:RS unambiguously say he's a ufologist, so that's what we go with. Also see WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Just edit for simple facts - remove critic wording. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. To critic the facts.. Sorry, you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's Neutral point of view is not possible without including criticism from reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go check out the Washington Examiner, they caught him hiring a Duchess pilot to shoot flares as they meditated. I tried to include it but somebody reverted it. Seems like Wikipedia isn't really about facts. Mrgates (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk on and on and argue the facts, turn a simple truth into a complication, but the facts are what I said.

Nothing more.

I’m reading these guidelines and wiki is plainly just a site that wants to credit main stem news only. It says, “we say “neutral, but it’s not really neutral” - “If it’s not in the news, it’s not credible.” Etc etc. Wikipedia is a shame. It’s better for it to not exist.

“Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. “ - Wikipedia

So are you guys guilty of that?

FRINGE.

Be honest. It’s okay. It’s okay to be wrong. ACCEPTING what’s mediocre for enlightenment of TRUTH greater things and freedom is okay. For liberation from limitations and judgment, letting go of having fear of the labels someone might have of you, is good. You can do it.

So, what one particular point are you guys promoting on Steven greers wiki? That he’s not credible and everything about him is alleged and claimed, not facts.

Like I said, if that’s the case, then go do the same for all your favorite well known people.

Go dismiss their lives, their knowledge and experiences, and make them seem not credible in their life.

You can’t do that to someone just because you don’t like them, just because you’re close minded and want your brain and evolution to stay a certain limited way forever.

It’s okay child, the dark goes away with a light switch. It’s not going to kill you.

Don’t be afraid of the dark. Liberate yourself. You’re okay. You’ll live.

& in this case, society won’t kill you.

Pave the way for the majority to liberate themselves from cages of limitation of ways of thinking, and knowing.

BTW, You can’t edit out anything I’m editing due to wiki policy. I’m cooperating with it totally. You guys aren’t as you guys are promoting one idea/point instead of the other.

You must keep all reported FACTS, neutral. Keep your opinion and bias out of it.

Neutral point of view - IT IS TOTALLY POSSIBLE without criticism from ANYBODY credible or not.

THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF NEUTRAL Point of view! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Wow! So contradicting you and Wikipedia guidelines are!

How can a source be called reliable if they’re showing skepticism and criticism to an idea to favor another?! 🤦‍♂️

Neutral point of view my ..

It’s a shame our population relies on Wikipedia for true information when it’s ran in such double standard way.

Even if Wikipedia had some real integrity, people like you could just come along and change any definition/anything you want to fit your own agenda of disinformation and skepticism. OneTF (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Greer, conspiracy theories, etc.

[edit]

Good source material for Greer's beliefs: [2]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, academic Aaron John Gulyas devotes a whole sub-chapter to Greer's conspiracy beliefs: [3] - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

disclosureproject.org is gone.

siriusdisclosure.com site can be flaky for the long PDF downloads. So I linked to an archived version too of "Executive Summary of the Disclosure Project Briefing Document". At the Internet Archive.

Found a newer biography page.

Updated links:

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New scammy app.

[edit]

It should be mentioned he has a new app out, he has changed close encounters to include two new categories, including a FIFTH kind - but you have to pay $9 to sign up to become a 'CE5 operative' (even though he claims in 1998 CE5 operatives were hunting UFO's and seeking UFO contact) - the app is basically just a web portal to some HTML junk and some crude low quality videos of 'examples' including nonsense like rods and orbs (known optical artifacts) that he portrays as UFO's that $9 'CE5 operatives' can use to judge their experiences against. Under the guise of a distributed research project he's basically scamming kids and naive people into giving him $9 a pop. An absurd price for what is literally freely available information on a billion websites out there. This is the kind of snake oil / charlatanism that has marked his career becoming filthy rich by exploiting peoples naievity. It's kinda sick that he's doing that. But his 'app' and it's scammy 'fee' and invented new 'CE5' category are notable in the least for it's charlatanism. 124.190.192.47 (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources are reporting the above? —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greer apparently does have some kind of app for sale [4] but we'd need secondary WP:FRIND source that would show it's notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
his 'app' and it's scammy 'fee' and invented new 'CE5' category are notable See WP:N, wherein the nutshell describes notability as something that has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." All I'm hearing at the moment are crickets. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the references? --Hipal (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He advertises the app in the movie of the same. Where is the documentation of the above description of the app though?

Why is the picture of Greer out of focus?

[edit]

I wanna see whats inside that 2001:8003:2514:F700:4DA6:F617:5551:294B (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You "wanna see whats inside" what, exactly? Greer himself? Like an x-ray image? That would be slightly...unusual content for a Wikipedia article, but if you can find a reliable secondary source with such imagery, I suppose there is a first time for everything. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rogan's opinion piece as a ref

[edit]

I'm hesitant to use this given it was published as an opinion. - Hipal (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_M._Greer&oldid=1256659703"