4 ms·

Fair enough, but you can't really trust what's posted as video/photo evidence these days: https://youtu.be/Fm8FJ8la2VU https://youtu.be/Fm8FJ8la2VU I'd go for

Fair enough, but you can't really trust what's posted as video/photo evidence these days: https://youtu.be/Fm8FJ8la2VU https://youtu.be/Fm8FJ8la2VU I'd go for sworn affidavits with independently verifiable credentials for things like this. Dr Greer has collected thousands of data points on this topic, however. (Perhaps you haven't watched the 3rd link posted above, which is >1.5hr interview with a Richard Doty from OSI whose job it was to discredit/cover up/investigate all of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShZMgbXNSBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShZMgbXNSBs Also, the news wouldn't get out anyway: "So, every news agency, every television and radio station in the Albuquerque and Santa-Fe area had our snitches in there... we paid them good money" 1:24) edit: added relevant quote from doco.

m_mueller 8y ago
This stuff is very hard to wade through, especially Greer's documentary. I just picked out something to follow up on on Google scholar, the Atacama skeleton, and it immediately falls apart. I'm not saying all of this is necessarily false, it just seems to have a pro-extraterrestrial bias that he's trying to gather evidence for, rather than just analysing evidence without foregone conclusions. I've never seen material on extraterestrials that didn't fall into that trap. And for all these characters being interviewed, how do you know they aren't just payed actors? Has anyone followed their references? The way it looks to me it's all just a bunch of people with trumped up or vague relationships to US government, including Greer himself having "briefed" intelligence officials (which he later corrects as a talk during a dinner party, who knows whether that's true). Just a personal note as someone who's done a PhD: I've come to the conclusion that if someone introduces himself with "Dr. XYZ", it's probably a person trying to trump up their importance. I've come to get skeptical immediately when someone is doing that.
- timeseries2018 8y ago
  >> payed actors paid actors
- cmroanirgo 8y ago
  Yeah, the atacama skeleton is tough to swallow. Ironically, Dr Greer makes no claim about what it is, other than to say (he's actually a trauma physician originally) that it's not human. He goes into details on why (and documented proof and papers by recognised DNA experts). He's also directly 'calling out' the papers you've seen and the journals that have published them, as far as I'm aware. I'd still recommend watching Unacknowledged

m_mueller 8y ago

This stuff is very hard to wade through, especially Greer's documentary. I just picked out something to follow up on on Google scholar, the Atacama skeleton, and it immediately falls apart. I'm not saying all of this is necessarily false, it just seems to have a pro-extraterrestrial bias that he's trying to gather evidence for, rather than just analysing evidence without foregone conclusions. I've never seen material on extraterestrials that didn't fall into that trap. And for all these characters being interviewed, how do you know they aren't just payed actors? Has anyone followed their references? The way it looks to me it's all just a bunch of people with trumped up or vague relationships to US government, including Greer himself having "briefed" intelligence officials (which he later corrects as a talk during a dinner party, who knows whether that's true). Just a personal note as someone who's done a PhD: I've come to the conclusion that if someone introduces himself with "Dr. XYZ", it's probably a person trying to trump up their importance. I've come to get skeptical immediately when someone is doing that.

timeseries2018 8y ago
>> payed actors paid actors
cmroanirgo 8y ago
Yeah, the atacama skeleton is tough to swallow. Ironically, Dr Greer makes no claim about what it is, other than to say (he's actually a trauma physician originally) that it's not human. He goes into details on why (and documented proof and papers by recognised DNA experts). He's also directly 'calling out' the papers you've seen and the journals that have published them, as far as I'm aware. I'd still recommend watching Unacknowledged