You are here

Disclosure With Dr. Steven Greer (2021) Season 1

Primary tabs

SizeSeedsPeersCompleted
4.55 GiB312295
This torrent has no flags.


Gaia Is proud to present a 10-part series with Dr. Steven Greer, renowned authority on UFOs and extraterrestrial contact. He is the founder of the CE5 protocol, the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Disclosure Project.
In these conversations with Billy Carson, Dr. Greer discusses the history of the UFO and Disclosure movements, as well as his personal experiences leading him to develop the CE5 (Close Encounters of the 5th Kind) protocols, a groundbreaking process that leverages advanced consciousness techniques to facilitate unmitigated human contact with ETs.
We explore Dr. Greer’s research into consciousness and technology as he shares his inspirational vision of our future as members of an intergalactic civilization.

https://anon.to?https://www.gaia.com/series/disclosure-with-dr-steven-greer

https://www.reddit.com/user/ConspiracyTorrents/posts/











Quote:

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Main@L3.1
Format settings : CABAC / 4 Ref Frames
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, Reference frames : 4 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 30 min 24 s
Bit rate : 1 754 kb/s
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
Minimum frame rate : 23.974 FPS
Maximum frame rate : 23.981 FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.079
Stream size : 382 MiB (90%)
Codec configuration box : avcC

Audio
ID : 2
Format : AAC LC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec Low Complexity
Codec ID : mp4a-40-2
Duration : 30 min 25 s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 192 kb/s
Maximum bit rate : 236 kb/s
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel layout : L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 kHz
Frame rate : 46.875 FPS (1024 SPF)
Compression mode : Lossy
Stream size : 41.8 MiB (10%)
Default : Yes
Alternate group : 1

Comments

Everybody's hero, Steven Greer - one of my favorites! Thanks for sharing.

p.s. Sorry for ripping you off Dr. Greer...

Dr Greer is far from being my hero, but I do plan to keep my eye on him, since I know that he's quite influential in certain circles. It's hard for me to put my finger on just what it is about the man. His ego is part of the problem for me, but it goes beyond that personality trait. I heard something from Richard Dolan recently where he expressed his own misgivings about the message Dr Greer is currently peddling regarding the "tic tac" incident, though Richard was careful in what he said, speaking in a fairly oblique way, and being more critical of the message than the messenger, who seems to want to convey a "benevolent space brothers" idea about what I tend to feel are likely a broad range of phenomena, not having anything like a single cause.

I do agree with Steven Greer that it would be a serious mistake to develop policies that place a value on defending air space above trying to carefully and as calmly as possible figure out what's going on and to not repeat the mistakes of the late 1940s and early 1950s when weapons fired from U.S. military planes were used in an attempt to bring down what those in charge assumed to be hostile invaders, which resulted in a number of tragic losses of life and equipment. However, I think we owe it to ourselves to take each case we find individually and to avoid assuming that all of the "visitors" are benign and have non-hostile intent. It's a very tricky business, to be sure.

The above having been said, I do value the important contribution that Dr Greer has made over the past several decades, particularly with regard to events he has staged and in which he has participated. Getting credible testimony from eye witnesses and collecting objective data is certainly quite valuable.

I have to say that I have "mixed feelings," which include that Dr Greer is an important member of the investigative community, but we would do well to listen carefully to what his critics have to say, and to monitor closely what he says and does.

Nice to see you around, Dr Martian! Appreciate your informed thoughts, as ever.

cheerio

Thanks for your very astute observations. My saying he was everybody's hero was somewhat sarcastic, given a prior incident here on ConCen when I uploaded his last documentary and Greer himself complained to the site host of ConCen - which is apparently totally the wrong way to ask to get content taken down. But anyways. I think Dr. Greer totally means well and is genuinely sincere in what he says and wants to achieve. He is probably missing certain key bits of information that would shed more light on the UFO phenomenon and the secrecy involved with keeping certain technologies classified etc. But I truly believe he is trying to do the right thing for humanity and the planet, and his team of over 1000 whistleblowers indicate others feel the same way...

TheCorsair00 wrote:

Thanks for your very astute observations. My saying he was everybody's hero was somewhat sarcastic, given a prior incident here on ConCen...

Ah - guess I failed to note the intentionally facetious tone of the comment. I'm glad to see, in any case, that I may not be alone in struggling to be able to place full confidence in any single interpretation of the events we are witnessing in the skies. I note that Dr Greer has lately been working with Daniel Sheehan, Esq., whom I respect, and had the pleasure of speaking with in person some years back when he attended the screening of a then-new film about the work of the late great John Mack, M.D. (who was also present), who got himself in a lot of trouble with the Harvard Medical School, where he taught, in connection with his apparent willingness to take seriously various "abduction" accounts presented to him.

Unfortunately, this whole subject, in addition to being quite complex, is one that is made especially difficult to speak about in a way that might have a good chance of attracting the interest of "ordinary" intelligent people due to what I take to be the fact that in the present time many of the investigators bring to their inquiries a lot of their own personal agendæ, and many lack the professional credentials and experience that might bring to examinations and analyses what would be required to attract mainstream attention. But, of course, if mainstream media remains as biased and irresponsible in many ways as I feel it is, and non-mainstream outlets are as random and often sensationalistic as many are, and the general public suffers to the degree that it does in making sense of what they learn about from media sources, such topics remain ripe for exploitation and the whole thing remains, on the whole, as confused as it is (which it would be in any case, of course, just given the overall complexity), it will remain very difficult to get as useful an understanding of what's going on than might otherwise be the case.

Going back to Dr Greer, having recently watched his CE5 movie where he describes the encounters-at-a-distance sorts of events he and his team seem to have become skilled at provoking, I don't see that they really prove anything that, at this point, at least, might be thought to be genuinely useful. It's a bit like what Robert Bingham, the UFO "summoner" has demonstrated. But maybe that's all we can hope for at this point, tantalizing and elusive evidence that "something" is going on -- which we've known for a long time, I think. (In searching for a reference on Mr Bingham, I found an item at https://tinyurl.com/yeutxrom suggesting that some or all of the phenomena he demonstrates may be hoaxed. Sigh)

Quote:

But I truly believe he is trying to do the right thing for humanity and the planet, and his team of over 1000 whistleblowers indicate others feel the same way...

I would really like to think so, but when you have that many people providing that much information, sifting through and considering what is presented becomes quite a task, eh?

Anyway, despite my reservations about him, I do agree with Dr Greer that there is danger in promoting a message that places emphasis on certain aerial displays amounting to airspace incursions that may require aggressive military action! Whether people like Luis Elizondo, David Fravor and Tom Delonge are being used as pawns by some more sinister machine that seeks to establish a new international enemy as the next in a line that has included a Communist threat (old or new) and global terrorism, or are in some way themselves more witting agents of this ambition, we could, as Dr Greer fears, be being set up to support a very dangerous game. So I think it's worth some effort to try to give what the whistleblowers whose message he has been promoting greater prominence and find ways to promote the type of public dialogue that would stand the best chance of reducing the sort of tension that popular cinema (like the War of the Worlds series being aired by CBC in Canada, and probably available elsewhere, portray -- a hostile and very threatening (and possibly creepy) adversary, for whose power our puny defences are no real match). Even if most viewers are wary enough to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality, as I hope they are, subtle and not-so-subtle associations can be established, which can bias perceptions and interfere with sound judgment.

I've just seen the first segment of this series and have a couple reactions. Though I find interesting what Dr Greer says about his own personal experience, starting with the out-of-body experience he says he had at age 17, I'm rather put off by what sounds a bit like a religious kind of faith in the benevolence of the entities Dr Greer claims to have communicated with and what to me feels like an overly-expansive way of describing what he feels to be required to take advantage of what he seems to be saying is on offer from these critters.

I'm also disappointed in the casual way he, like many who operate with a "new age" mentality, uses language. He goes from talking about our "3D reality" to making comparisons between "our dimension" and some other dimension. As far as I know, our physical spatial reality can be described conventionally as consisting of matter, empty space and whatever else is out there whose spatial properties can be defined by means of the sort of grid system we were told about in high school that uses length, width and height. That whole system exists with respect to a temporal "dimension" that can be used to talk about things like movement, expansion, contraction and other changes that take place within the spatial grid. If we want to talk about additional dimensions, we have, I think, to be able to describe how they relate to these four dimensions. Those dimensions are not alternatives to our famiiiiar four, so for me, it does not make sense to talk about things like something inhabiting some other dimension, just as something that has height does not sacrifice its width and length properties, simply by virtue of having that height, which, of course, may vary along different parts of its other two dimensions. If we can conceive of one or more additional spatial dimensions, they would, I think, still have to be able to exist and be perceived as existing within our familiar four-space.

What do y'all think -- am I being too picky here? Or am I right in calling attention to what seems like sloppy thinking, which one would think should not be evidenced in the writing and speaking of one trained in science and medicine? (I have similar complaints about people who talk about "vibrations" without bothering to concern themselves with just what it is that's vibrating. I haven't heard Dr Greer using that term in this series thus far, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it later.)

1martian wrote:

As far as I know, our physical spatial reality can be described conventionally as consisting of matter, empty space and whatever else is out there whose spatial properties can be defined by means of the sort of grid system we were told about in high school that uses length, width and height. That whole system exists with respect to a temporal "dimension" that can be used to talk about things like movement, expansion, contraction and other changes that take place within the spatial grid.

Well put. I don't consider time to be a 4th dimension, only another means of measurement. I think tying time to space tempts some very smart people to veer off into wild speculation, and a lot of non-physicists to be unnecessarily confused.

1martian wrote:

If we want to talk about additional dimensions, we have, I think, to be able to describe how they relate to these four dimensions. Those dimensions are not alternatives to our famiiiiar four, so for me, it does not make sense to talk about things like something inhabiting some other dimension, just as something that has height does not sacrifice its width and length properties, simply by virtue of having that height, which, of course, may vary along different parts of its other two dimensions. If we can conceive of one or more additional spatial dimensions, they would, I think, still have to be able to exist and be perceived as existing within our familiar four-space.
What do y'all think -- am I being too picky here?

No, you're holding new agers to reality; their escapist urges often get the better of them.

1martian wrote:

Unfortunately, this whole subject, in addition to being quite complex, is one that is made especially difficult to speak about in a way that might have a good chance of attracting the interest of "ordinary" intelligent people due to what I take to be the fact that in the present time many of the investigators bring to their inquiries a lot of their own personal agendæ, and many lack the professional credentials and experience that might bring to examinations and analyses what would be required to attract mainstream attention. But, of course, if mainstream media remains as biased and irresponsible in many ways as I feel it is, and non-mainstream outlets are as random and often sensationalistic as many are, and the general public suffers to the degree that it does in making sense of what they learn about from media sources, such topics remain ripe for exploitation and the whole thing remains, on the whole, as confused as it is (which it would be in any case, of course, just given the overall complexity), it will remain very difficult to get as useful an understanding of what's going on than might otherwise be the case.

Agreed. And well said.

To re-state the key distinction for the benefit of others, because it is very very germane to many conversations that grace these boards...

IF:

  1. mainstream media is biased and irresponsible in many ways, AND
  2. non-mainstream outlets are random and often sensationalistic, AND
  3. the general public suffers [I would say "struggles"] in making sense of what they learn about from media sources

THEN:

  1. such topics remain ripe for exploitation, AND
  2. the whole thing remains as confused as it is, AND
  3. it will remain very difficult to get a useful understanding of what's going on. QED

to which I can only reply:

Yep. AND
Touché. AND
D.S. al Coda.

:)

Quote:

I note that Dr Greer has lately been working with Daniel Sheehan, Esq., whom I respect, and had the pleasure of speaking with in person some years back when he attended the screening of a then-new film about the work of the late great John Mack, M.D. (who was also present), who got himself in a lot of trouble with the Harvard Medical School, where he taught, in connection with his apparent willingness to take seriously various "abduction" accounts presented to him.

Yes, actually Daniel Sheehan has been legal counsel to Greer's The Disclosure Project since at least 2001. From what I understand, it was Sheehan working with Greer and this network of military and government contractors/whistleblowers that allowed them to come forward to the National Press Club in 2001 without violating their so-called secrecy oaths, since the covert operations they had been a part of or privy to were all essentially illegal anyways. Since then none of these people have been prosecuted, so go figure...

Sheehan's legal work with John Mack has been extensively detailed in a recent book by journalist Ralph Blumenthal about the life and work of John Mack and the legal struggle he had with Harvard. You can get that book here: http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=49FB211EC797546CB4FE0EFD2234D274

Quote:

I do agree with Steven Greer that it would be a serious mistake to develop policies that place a value on defending air space above trying to carefully and as calmly as possible figure out what's going on and to not repeat the mistakes of the late 1940s and early 1950s when weapons fired from U.S. military planes were used in an attempt to bring down what those in charge assumed to be hostile invaders, which resulted in a number of tragic losses of life and equipment. However, I think we owe it to ourselves to take each case we find individually and to avoid assuming that all of the "visitors" are benign and have non-hostile intent. It's a very tricky business, to be sure.

Just posted the other day, about an upcoming press conference at the National Press Club: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/351444/usaf-officers-ufos-tam...

"A panel of former USAF officers will be presenting evidence that UFOs tampered with US nuclear weapons.
Set to take place on October 19th at the National Press Club, the event will be attended by four former US Air Force officers - nuclear missile crew commander Robert Salas, nuclear missile targeting officer Robert Jamison, nuclear missile crew commander David Schindele and missile test photographic officer Robert Jacobs.

According to the press release, the four men will "discuss their involvement in UFO incidents at nuclear missile launch facilities and test sites during the Cold War era."

Thanks to both ConCen and euxalot for their supportive comments. I do appreciate knowing that intelligent others see these difficult matters in ways that are similar to what I'm thinking and feeling.

I'm still struggling with the concept of dimension. Perhaps, as was stated by ConCen, trying to use that word to accommodate time and then extrapolate to doing something similar with regard to additional defining "properties" of whatever "thing" we might be considering just adds unnecessary complexity. I am coming to strongly suspect that we lack both sufficient conceptual sophistication and linguistic richness to be able to think and talk about such matters in a meaningful way. Mathematics is likely much better suited to such inquiries, though I suppose there are similar limitations in what can be meaningfully described by such means.

I have in watching videos of UFO/UAP phenomena that appear to "blink out," often with what appears like an electrical discharge (or "flash"), which I suppose could be talked about, simply for convenience, as something "leaving" our 3-space "reality" and "going" someplace else, but I think we would do well to remain aware that in using such terminology, we are applying our 3-space understandings (e.g. "existence," "movement," "location") to phenomena for which such terminology is very ill suited. Our experience lets us think we understand will enough for our ordinary purposes what it means for an "object" (a term which itself can be thought to be rather sloppy, for reasons beyond the scope of this presentation) to no longer be visible, either because it has travelled through 3-space to somewhere outside our local area, or through some form of dis-integration (meaning that the constituent parts of the object no longer have the association with one another that defines the structure of the object that they did previously). But to think about something being able to remain in some form of existence after having undergone some process completely foreign to what experience lets us perceive and comprehend is quite difficult to deal with. Thus I do understand what I think to be the primary reason for yielding to the temptation to state that the object has "gone" somewhere, and "into" another "dimension."

Actually, I think that it's not simply a matter of a particular case, such as the "winking out" of a UFO craft, exposing the inadequacy of language relative to a class of phenomena. Rather this situation can be taken as an illustration of a more general failure of language, which is merely less visible with respect to more "ordinary" phenomena. We don't really understand anything as well as we often allow ourselves to think we do, but that (suggested) fact is merely less obvious under more ordinary circumstances.

I've watched a bit more of this GAIA interview series with Dr Greer, and in doing so find myself thinking that "time will tell," as the saying goes. We're now at a point where lots of claims can be made about what we might let ourselves imagine is likely to happen next. But in "the fullness of time" we will (I hope) be able to identify which claims (e.g. that certain "alien" entities are monitoring manifestations of our most destructive tendencies, presumably with the intent of "stepping in" in some fashion if the situation gets too dangerous) be able to tell which of what is now being imagined and predicted have any real substance. I wish I could share what often appears to me to be Dr Greer's rather naiive optimism, and I tend to feel that even if we can only know what will happen after it happens, we still have what I would consider to be a responsibility, to ourselves, to what we care about, and to our planet (Gaia?) as a whole, to do our best to nudge things toward what we would, individually and/or collectively, consider to be positive outcomes.

I am not an authority on science or consciousness, but from what I understand the science that is taught in high school and university is incomplete and does not give a full explanation of reality. If you spend any time studying the paranormal, you will bump into resistance from the scientific establishment stating it is mostly all bullshit and can be easily explained away or debunked. Greer and many others are stating that there is a new paradigm of science that accounts for the paranormal that has already been developed by many scientists and apparently those in secretive covert operations that have mathematical equations and an advanced physics that can allow for things like so-called "free energy", anti-gravity and also explanations for telepathy, precognition, ghosts, UFOs etc and so on. New paradigm science, that is what we are looking for here. There is tons of information about this here on ConCen and certainly places like GAIA TV.

TheCorsair00 wrote:

I am not an authority on science or consciousness, but from what I understand the science that is taught in high school and university is incomplete and does not give a full explanation of reality. If you spend any time studying the paranormal, you will bump into resistance from the scientific establishment...

I'm finding this discussion to be quite useful in helping me, at least, to sort out aspects of various subjects I've been pondering. Especially valuable are TheCorsair00's references to specific resources, like Ralph Blumenthal's book about the life and work of Dr John Mack and notice of next Tuesday's event on presumed extraterrestrial "tampering" (a very unfortunate description, methinks) with U.S. nuclear weapons. I am eager to follow up both recommendations (I've already downloaded and begun to read the book)!

In return, I'd like to pass on information about the work of a psychiatrist (who, like Dr Mack, taught at Harvard University - but she is now in private practice in the U.S. Pacific northwest) with whom I've made contact in connection with a book she wrote a bit over a decade ago entitled The ESP Enigma. Among online video resources that are useful in learning a bit about the work of Diane Hennacy Powell, M.D. is an interview she gave to Rick Archer for his Buddha at the Gas Pump series - https://youtu.be/B9kuhJB09u0 , and her keynote address at a conference I attended recently sponsored by the Monroe Institute (which promotes knowledge about and practise of out-of-body experiences). Her talk, Telepathic Savants: What do they say about how brains might really function?, can be seen at https://youtu.be/-kOcv-bJITo . As a scientist and medical doctor, Dr Diane (as she likes being called) brings a healthy degree of rigour to a range of subjects that I feel are too often distorted by their being associated with wild speculative explorations and people who think and talk about such matters in semi-religious language, along the lines of what I think of as being belief systems, rather than as what can, and I feel deserves to be, looked at with as much objectivity as possible (though I do recognise that there is an important subjective component to many experiences that can and do produce important evidence).

Thanks to everyone who has been contributing to this lively, enjoyable and informative exchange!

Look, if it's science, show us.

Can you make a machine that creates anti-gravity? No? Let us know when you do.

I went to a mind body spirit exhibition where someone genuinely had a psychic computer. You give it your name, DoB, and with an octagonal scalar aerial it would test the universal field against various frequencies to find out what resonated with your energy. Very cool. It told me my top negative beliefs, what crystals I had in my pocket, and what medicines I'd been taking for the last couple of weeks. Objective science. Real, reproducible shit.

So I'm totally open. If it's real, demonstrate it, if not, come back when you can.

This confusion around dimensions is nonsense. Yes, you can take mushrooms or DMT and see the aliens. OK great. Yes, they affect our consciousness. We all need to learn to talk to entities and tell them to leave us alone. But psychically communicating with aliens is NOT the same as them flying here in physical spaceships. Stop confusing the two.

Very annoying. Shame on Gaia for polluting people's minds with junk when they could be training them to stand up against fascism under the guise of public health. Time-wasting distraction.

Again, according to whistleblower testimony - which is often used successfully in the court of law - people like Stan Deyo have come forward with the real science and mathematical equations necessary for developing so-called anti-gravity. The buzz in the mainstream news of sightings of UFOs by the Navy etc is also proof of either man-made or alien-made technology. It simply cannot be all nonsense just because it comes across as nonsense to the idiosyncratic way in which your particular ego has constructed reality by what you have personally experienced and researched on your own. Individuality is great in our society, but more often than not it can create huge intellectual barriers against eachothers. We all want everybody else to understand reality the way we do, and our egos fight endlessly to try to make the point to which we are completely convinced no matter what anybody else tells us anyways... Such as this idea of fighting fascism and vaccinations. This is just a new conspiracy theory wave of hysteria, perhaps it has a valid argument that you feel is necessary, but it doesn't negate the veracity of literally any or all other subjects just because you think it is the hottest topic currently ongoing in the world at the moment.

But if you honestly want to learn about anti-gravity from a real "whistleblower", if you even want to take that term seriously at all, then check this out (but understand that I am not really interested in arguing about the subject to those who have already made up their mind beforehand): https://archive.org/details/StanDeyo-TheTechnologyOfTheNewWorldOrder

"Stan Deyo has held Above Top Secret Security Clearance and worked undercover for the FBI. He was part of an exclusive "black project", headed by Dr. Edward Teller specializing in the development of "flying saucer technology"."

p.s. I am fairly certain that Gaia TV is just as anti-vaccination and pro-alternative health as many users here are. So I hardly find their entire website of hundreds of shows to be all "a distraction".

I have multiple memories of space programmes in past lives on different planets. This isn't from drugs, I just remember it.

I don't know, maybe there is a block on recalling anti-gravity.

I certainly remember ionocraft. Both saucers and giant craft that look more like miniature lifters that we have already. But mostly spaceships not really very technologically different than ours now, just advanced. More "The Expanse" than "Star Trek" etc.

We beamed fuel around the solar system, accelerating hydrogen into a particle beam and collecting it magnetically at the other end.

We bred androgynous midgets to staff space stations, which were all zero-gravity. Spinning to create gravity is impractical due to stresses and there is certainly no magical gravity plate technology.

Even robot technology never replaced humanoid life forms. Midgets save on air, weight, food and waste requirements. They were genetically altered to never physically mature beyond about a 12 year-old, but with adequate brains. Food was grown in bioreactors, based on algae and bacteria.

Interstellar travel occurred only with meditative hibernation states, nothing faster than about 1/20th the speed of light. Totally open to the idea they came here and seeded the planet. They might even be coming and going, but this is a big deal, not the cosmopolitan galaxy painted in Star Trek or the "leaked" military fantasists and the likes of Greer.

TheCorsair00 wrote:

...It simply cannot be all nonsense just because it comes across as nonsense to the idiosyncratic way in which your particular ego has constructed reality by what you have personally experienced and researched on your own. Individuality is great in our society, but more often than not it can create huge intellectual barriers against each others. We all want everybody else to understand reality the way we do, and our egos fight endlessly to try to make the point to which we are completely convinced no matter what anybody else tells us anyways...

Wow! Two lightning-strikes in as many days...it must be a good moon! :)

Thanks for that, TheCorsair. I think what you've said above is very true and extremely important. You've hit the right psychological tone, and putting that together with the media-tone I highlighted in 1Martian's comments, I think we are zeroing in on some really key aspects of many discussions here, not just the current one.

For me, those admixtures, that alchemical agent of mind and inter-media is *the* theme that repeats. It is a presque vu as the French say (as opposed to deja vu, as Joseph Heller introduces us to in Catch-22, that most vicious game that is not a game / conspiracy within a conspiracy). It is a glimpse of something that stands just beyond the limits of what we can consciously identify, name, and ever hope to quantify.

Very symphonic...more overture, less overman.