Ufology Unplugged - Steven Greer: Disclosure

The second episode of "Ufology Unplugged" consists of a 2001 interview I conducted with Steven Greer, the controversial founder of the Disclosure Project, intermixed with a clip of Greer speaking at the 2001 MUFON Symposium press conference. Greer talks about the disclosure of what he claims is the cover-up of the reality of ET visiting Earth and reverse-engineered free energy that is being withheld from the human race by a secret cabal of government and corporate insiders. 

Paul Kimball

Steven Greer on the origins of the Disclosure Movement (2001)

Here is an excerpt from Steven Greer's lecture at the 2001 MUFON Symposium, wherein he talks about how the "Disclosure movement" got started. Recorded while filming my documentary Stanton T. Friedman is Real.

Paul Kimball

Major Tom and Contact

And now, having spread doom and gloom with respect to the prospect of disclosure / contact with an advanced non-human intelligence by humanity as a group, let's take a look at what I think is far more likely, indeed, what has probably been happening throughout human history - contact with individuals who are ready for it.

As always, this kind of analysis is best presented by puppets and 80s pop music - Peter Schilling's hit Major Tom (Coming Home), as imagined by Fluff & Such puppetry:

Frankly, this one song and video tells us more about what might be waiting for us than 60 years of books and videos about UFOs and the paranormal... or 2,000 years of priests and preachers standing in a pulpit.

Paul Kimball

P.S. Here are a couple of non-puppet versions.

In German:



The original video in English:



Finally, an interesting video that uses images from Stanley Kubrick's classic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey:

A.D. - After Disclosure review: addendum

Further to my review of A.D. After Disclosure, by Bryce Zabel and Richard Dolan, here are a couple of photos I took the other day whilst walking through Westwood, in Los Angeles, just a couple of blocks from UCLA.

 

Meanwhile, this lady was busily searching for some spare change to feed the meter where she had parked her Lexus, before she realized that she could use one of her credit cards - all while talking on her mobile phone.

A society that celebrates and rewards such conspicuous consumption, at the same time as it ignores abject poverty and human misery, is nowhere near ready for contact with an advanced non-human intelligence.

As Charles Bukowski wrote:

We are like roses that have never bothered to
bloom when we should have bloomed and
it is as if
the sun has become disgusted with
waiting.

If such an advanced non-human intelligence exists, I'm pretty sure it agrees.

Paul Kimball

Kevin Randle - Improving Ufology

Powered by Podbean.com

In this excerpt from an interview I conducted with Kevin Randle on 9 September, 2001, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for the documentary Stanton T. Friedman is Real, Kevin discusses frauds within ufology, Steven Greer (whose “disclosure movement” was still relatively new at the time), relations with the media, and whether or not UFO researchers will ever be able to find common cause with each other and present a unified front.

Paul Kimball

What Would ET Do?

One of the most annoying phrases I hear from Christians comes when they ask the question, in response to some dilemna (whether it's a biggie, like whether or not to go to war, or a small one, like whether or not to buy Captain Crunch or Fruit Loops):

What would Jesus do?

My answer is usually, "what a stupid question to ask".

However, in my current friendly "blog-war" with Mac Tonnies re: alien contact, I'll ask the same question, in a slightly different way, with regard to whether or not humanity is ready for knowledge of ET's presence.

In other words: what would ET do?

Let's assume for the moment that ET exists. Let's further assume that ET is here, and has been for some time. Finally, let's assume that ET is more or less benevolent (and if they weren't, I probably wouldn't be writing this). That's a lot of assumptions (all of which remain unproven to me, but as I said, "let's assume), but they're ones made by the supporters of the ETH as the ETFact, and those who advocate the government come "clean" about ET's presence on Earth.

Given those assumptions, and given the state of affairs vis-a-vis ET (i.e. no public revelation), one can but assume that ET agrees with me. In other words, by not yet revealing themselves publicly for all of the world to see, ET has indicated that, in their view, we're not ready for contact.

Perhaps they have some version of Star Trek's "Prime Directive". Who knows?

What I do know is that they show more common sense, and understanding of the state of affairs on Earth, than the "disclosure" advocates.

Besides, if ET is smart enough to get here, and wise enough that people are willing to pin their hopes for a better future on contact with them, who are we to argue with them when it comes to the question of when that contact should take place?

In other words, if ET is out there, we'll meet them on their terms, when they figure we're ready to do so, and not a moment sooner.

Good for them.

Paul Kimball

Greg Bishop's UFO Platform

Greg Bishop, 3rd party candidate for the Presidency of the United States, has set out his platform as it relates to the UFO-question. Here it is:

Obviously, the UFO subject is not very high on the list of anyone running for public office, and it never will be, unless the phenomenon itself decides to make it important to the vast majority of the public. Elected officials need to work within the structure of military and security establishments to find out what is going on, how much is known, and what the problem would be exposing this knowledge to the public.

The way to force disclosure, I believe, is to convince those who hold those secrets that it would be in their best interests to release the pertinent information. That
would be a tall order indeed–perhaps nearly impossible. For anyone whose life is the custodianship of secrets within secrets, ad infinitum, an open approach is dead on the launchpad.

No, the proper way to do it would be behind the scenes, assuring the parties involved that no one but yourself and the people hired to speak for you would be responsible for revealing whatever could be revealed. Perhaps a political runaround would be in order, where you placed the information in the hands of a political adversary or even an ally, letting him or her take the heat and/or acclaim. Working on elected officials from the outside certainly isn’t paying any fast dividends.

Because I believe (and this is only a theory) that those in charge of UFO information know little more about the origin or purpose of non-human visitors than the rest of us, I also think that a real “disclosure” is not possible, since those in possession of the story don’t really know what to do with it, except scare the rest of us into submission by leaking wild stories and controlling the rumor mill. Perhaps the best way to look into it is on an individual level–using a “bottom-up” approach, rather than asking for official permission to spout the things we claim to know already.

Most people reading this already believe that the human race has had contact with non-human entities, or at least their effects. Why do we need some “authority” to tell us something we already know, except to provide some needed data points?

I stumbled onto that by writing it. Data points (meaning officially sanctioned, reputation-on-the-line data points) may be a key. If the some of the disclosure people (and many other UFO researchers) push their “we told you so” egos out of the way, perhaps what they should really be asking for (quietly and with little fanfare) is more and better info, and not a release of the “truth” about UFOs. What you are looking for defines what you will find, and how you ask the questions.

I will now take questions from the press.

Well, that makes sense. Greg would get my vote, if I had one, and if I thought "UFO disclosure" was an issue worth devoting any serious political time and energy towards.

Paul Kimball