The Disclosure Question


Thank you for reading this. I have compiled this CD because I feel it important that as many people as possible should be given a chance to review the information here and draw their own conclusions. I realise this takes time (after all, I have spent a considerable number of hours reading and viewing this material myself, as well as compiling it). I ask you to spend as much time as you are able to and go through the material on this disk. Clearly, I have already gone through this process, and come to my own conclusion – which has resulted in me writing these words…

Whether this disk is interest to you or not, please share it with anyone who may have an interest. I am also very interested to hear your own views on any topics covered here or related experiences you may have had. If this set of information I present seems in some way inadequate or wrong, I would be very interested to hear results of your own research and why you disagree with what is presented here. (Please be aware, however, that I have already considered many of the more sceptical standpoints and decided that do not explain well enough what people have experienced. Also, I am not especially concerned with arguing about the smaller details which are, in many cases difficult to pin down.)

In the text below, you will see links and you can click on these to learn more about whatever topic is mentioned. If for instance, I refer to a radio interview, you can click on the link to hear the actual interview (provided your computer has correct software installed).

So what am I talking about? I am primarily talking about something called The Disclosure Project which, in May (2003), I decided to become involved with, entirely on a voluntary basis and on my own initiative. What I mean is, no one came calling at the door!! Some of you will already be aware of this and some of you will not. I have no idea how many of you will care.

The Disclosure Project is a movement to try and obtain official disclosure of the knowledge about the Extraterrestrial presence on and around the Earth. Don’t get me wrong – it sounds unbelievable – I haven’t gone mad or joined a cult or anything like that. The fact that you just had this thought in your head after reading the last sentence is merely an indication of the scale of the problem – i.e. the problem of getting this topic any kind of credible exposure outside the "niche" in which it has been placed. And no, I don’t think it’s an illusion, or a statistical anomaly or some kind of massive mis-perception or illusion. Please study this material and come to an opinion.

Here, I present a selection of material in support of my "legal case", the bulk of which has been downloaded from the Web. I present it in this way to save you the time and cost of downloading it yourself. If you watch the Disclosure Press Conference Video on this CD (you may need to install some software, also on this CD), that will give you a broad overview of what some (formerly highly responsible) people are now prepared to say publicly.

I came across the Disclosure Project’s Web Site following some research (that’s the old-fashioned and "more serious-sounding" term for "web-surfing"). I was trying to find information after watching Britain’s Closest Encounter (aired in March 2003 on BBC 3). Because I had recently got a fast Internet connection, I was able to download a large video file (it’s a free download – included on this CD), which plays for nearly 2 hours. This video was of a press conference, held in Washington DC in May 2001. It covers something that has been in hot dispute since about 1947 – the reality of "UFOs". This is a subject I first studied in some detail about 20 years ago, as part of my General Studies ‘A’ Level Project. The press conference video had a considerable effect on my views – strengthening what I have always held as a suspicion into a more concrete, evidence-based, conclusion.

It now seems abundantly clear to me that we cannot rely on the mainstream media to provide good quality, balanced coverage of this topic, for reasons that may also become clear to you if you study the material presented here. Other factors, which I will discuss later, also seem to work against acceptance of the validity of this material, and what it shows as the most likely conclusion.

And if you’re now thinking "oh yeah – get real – there is nothing to this topic – it has no basis in fact", I would ask you to look at the information here and watch and listen to the numerous testimonies made – then realise that these are only "the tip of the iceberg". I am fairly well aware of the range of materials available on this whole subject, and the wide range of beliefs it encompasses. The scale of this issue is enormous – it affects all aspects of our lives – past, present and future. It crosses all boundaries – social, religious, political, technological, geographical and even spiritual – but bizarrely, few people seem to be aware of this and even less would care to think of it in this way. The reasons why this topic is so important are highlighted by the aims of the Disclosure Project, an overview of which can be read here.

It seems clear to me that one’s position or view on the subject of UFO’s and Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI) falls somewhere in the following categories:

  1. Has no real interest, no real knowledge.
  2. Has some interest some knowledge, but considers the subject largely irrelevant.
  3. Has interest and knowledge but considers UFOs to be "all in the experiencer’s mind", with no evidence of their "objective reality" (i.e. as real physical objects). Therefore the subject is only a curiosity, a mystery if you will, about which we are unlikely to find any real answers (i.e. fairly sceptical).
  4. Has interest and knowledge considers themselves open minded – there might be "something in it" (less sceptical).
  5. "Believer" – believes there is evidence that UFOs are real physical objects and perhaps one explanation is that they are intelligently controlled and possibly Extra-Terrestrial Craft.
  6. "Experiencer" has seen or had a UFO-related experience and knows of their physical reality, in one way or another.

Within each of these categories, there are a number of subdivisions which people might place themselves in. There is also a common perception that "no answers are available" as to "what is going on". This is simply not the case – some fairly coherent and rational answers are available to explain some things – but few people are prepared to listen to them, let alone accept them.

Although I regard myself as a fairly "grounded" person, I am actually someone who falls into categories 5 and 6. I have also had a long interest in the Paranormal Phenomena that, though well – documented, do not seem to fit very well into our current understanding of "the way the universe works", and are often (even "generally") regarded either as fantasy, delusion or the result of hoaxing or trickery of one kind or another. Alternatively, they get tucked away in that "way out wacky" arena of things where people often seize on phenomena and explain them in narrow terms and use them as some kind of basis for their "cult".

As a general comment, people who could be categorised in groups 1-4 (above) seem to hold a kind of prejudiced view against those in groups 5 and 6. On occasion, it seems, the level of prejudice between people in groups 1 or 2 and 6 can be as high as that experienced by those who have political views which differ strongly from "the majority" or prevailing view.

For those of you who have studied this subject before, you must forgive any statements I make which seem obvious or condescending. If any such statements are present, it is because I am attempting to get across ideas to people who may be "uninitiated" in the subject.

About this CD and Why I felt it Necessary to Put it Together

After discovering the Disclosure Project Website and watching the video of the press conference, I decided to buy their DVD, which contains further Video Witness Testimony and, just as importantly, a substantial amount of scanned documents that are presented to back up elements of the Witness Testimony. (And therein is another "rub" – people think that because things like the DVD I refer to are "for sale", then it is all just a money making bunkum-generating scam and therefore not to be taken seriously).

When I had worked through it (around 500 pages), I felt the information was so significant that I had to make every effort to bring it to a wider audience, and I signed up and was accepted as a Disclosure Project Representative. It is as part of this effort that I have decided to "risk" sending out this CD to friends and family. I am acutely aware of the prejudice etc in which this and similar subjects are often regarded and that what I write here probably adds little to the millions of pages that have already been written.

In summary, material in the Disclosure Project, I believe, offers some very persuasive and coherent arguments to explain some of the "mystery" of the UFO phenomenon. It is not merely a catalogue of sightings or mysteries, but a collection of 1st-hand witness testimony, from people in the US and UK military, civilian airline personnel and other people in other "government-related" professions (from various countries). In specific cases, there is highly significant corroborative testimony among military personnel. Additionally, the Disclosure Project presents a substantial body of official documents (some of which are freely viewable on the Internet now) that add weight to their arguments. Finally, their arguments tie together a number of things in a way that seems difficult to disregard as anything other than what it is purported to be.

Most people’s immediate reaction is to be fairly sceptical about any claims of UFO related phenomena. This is something of a natural reaction, and not without its merits. However, when diverse corroborating testimony illustrates things appear to have been happening which we do not fully understand, testimony is too often disregarded as describing something which has been misperceived in some way, or was simply not real. Later, I will try to explore what I think are some of the reasons for this, but for now, I will quote someone called Wilbert Smith, a Senior Canadian Government Communications Engineer, from a speech he made in 1958, regarding this whole subject:

It is not reasonable to assume that hundreds of ordinary, normal people, whose word we would readily accept under more mundane circumstances – for instance, as witnesses to an automobile accident – should suddenly becomes liars, fools, neurotics, and otherwise quite incompetent observers.

This is particularly true in the case of some of the Disclosure Witnesses who have, for instance, been in charge of Nuclear Weapons.

Common Reasons Why the Reality of Extraterrestrial Intelligence and its Fairly Frequent Visitation of the Earth is Denied or Just Ignored

There are quite a number of reasons why people reject this idea, which I will now try to explore. The "Disclosure" material (on the DVD – not included on here as these are not freely downloadable, but see the "Documents" section for sample) goes into more detail, offering wide-ranging (contemporary) witness testimony to explain why this is the case.

Lack of Balanced Media Coverage

It is stating the obvious, I know, but most people in Western Culture get their ideas about the everyday events through the Television and Newspapers. Though many would reject the idea that our media is "controlled", few would dispute that it is often influenced. For example, many papers print stories which they know will "sell copies". Particularly in recent years, papers seem almost obliged to print celebrity news for instance. This is, to my way of thinking, a kind of censorship in itself – i.e. the printing of stories which will "sell copies" is a censorship of stories which won’t "sell copies" (clearly, the "quality papers" are less guilty of this than the "gutter press"). Similarly, it seems to me that, over the last few years, television and radio news has, on many an occasion, exhibited a tendency to present news in a way which will "attract viewers" rather than simply sticking to presenting known information in a clear and concise way, without excessive repetition or speculation or "flashy" coverage.

Leslie Kean can be seen and heard on this disk talking about the subject of media coverage. She, as a "serious" journalist, had tremendous difficulty in getting her story about The COMETA Report (the "French version" of "Disclosure" – see Part 1 Here and Part 2 Here – which has some Government backing) published. It was finally accepted by the Boston Globe (in the USA). She has also written an essay which offers reasons as to why, in over 50 years, the UFO phenomena has not really been subject to proper scientific study. Again, there has to my knowledge, been no coverage of this story (do a search for "COMETA Report" on the BBC Website and you will find nothing).

Here in the UK, there was a recent story (in July 2003) in The Daily Mail about how the highly significant events which took place at The Bentwaters RAF base in 1980 were simply the result of a hoax by a man called Kevin Conde.

Why was it necessary to print this story in the Daily Mail, almost 23 years after the event took place, when Jo Public had largely forgotten about it? Curiously, only days before this story was printed, I read the testimony of Lord Norton Hill (a former Chief of Defence Staff and a Disclosure Witness):

"This should be the subject of rigorous scientific investigation, and not the subject of rubbishing by tabloid newspapers."

Was the story printed because anyone who watched the documentary (called Britain’s Closest Encounter) some weeks previously might have realised that the people involved were responsible and well-trained? Lt. Colonel Charles Halt’s memo to the MoD is fairly straightforward in the way it is written, but some people say it’s rubbish, and claim Colonel Halt didn’t know what a lighthouse looked like at night (they said he mis-took the object for the nearby lighthouse – and a tractor) and he got 1 or more of the dates wrong when he wrote the memo. (Halt’s explanation is that the event happened before New Year and he wrote memo after, so he messed up. I accept this as being a valid reason for the wrong date). Admiral Lord Norton Hill (a former chief in MOD) who interviewed many of the witnesses himself, also accepts this explanation. He has gone on record as saying (I quote):

What he (Halt) said is what I have just described. That is one explanation — that it actually happened as Colonel Halt reported.

The other explanation is that it didn’t. In that case, one is bound to assume that Colonel Halt and all his men were hallucinating. My position is perfectly clear — either of those explanations is of the utmost defense interest. It has been reported and claimed — and I, myself, have raised it to ministers at the Defense Ministry in this country — that nothing they have been informed about regarding UFOs is of defense interest. Surely, to any sensible person, either of those explanations cannot fail to be of defense interest. That the Colonel of an American Air Force Base in Suffolk and his military men are hallucinating when there are nuclear-armed aircraft on the base — this must be of defense interest.

And, if indeed what he says took place, did take place — and why on Earth should he make it up — then, surely, the entry of a vehicle from outer space (and certainly not manmade) to a defense base in this country also cannot fail to be of defense interest. It simply isn’t any good for our ministers — and the Ministry of Defense in particular — to say that nothing took place that December night in Suffolk, or that it is not of defense interest. It simply isn’t true.

As with most events of this type, people looking for a "logical" explanation can, often unknowingly, exhibit a high level of arrogance in disregarding the literal meaning of the actual Witness Testimonies that are made. One of the common phrases used in the media to describe people who are proposing the reality of ETI is "True Believers" – this kind of term tends to imply that there is no evidence for a belief in ETI. Disclosure Witnesses, and people like them, show that this is clearly not the case.


There Is No Reality In Any Of This Because You Just "Want To Believe It Is True"

This is not a very good basis from which to make an argument, because such remarks are directed personally at whoever is proposing a "different" or "wider" reality than most of us would readily accept. Additionally, having studied material that seems to have been released more recently, I really don’t "want to believe it is true". (Consider the case of Stan Romanek if you want to know why.)

Arguments of "you want to believe it" type, therefore, are not based on any kind of evidence. I e-mailed the reporter who wrote the Kevin Conde story (who had a similar view to the above) and he remarked:

I take the view that the people claiming an alien spaceship has landed have all the proving to do, not the people who believed that no such thing happened …

In this case, Colonel Halt’s memo outlines ample evidence that something did land (depressions, somewhat abnormal radiation etc). The Daily Mail report stated what it was:

‘There was a large helicopter which landed there the previous night – a helicopter with three landing skids.’

This is stated in the article as being the explanation of the object which landed, despite the witness testimony that this was not the case. I therefore asked the reporter further about the ‘helicopter’ explanation. I asked:

Was it an Army, RAF or Coast Guard Helicopter? How often do helicopters land in the middle of the forest, in trees, without being damaged? Who was the pilot? Has he been contacted to testify/verify that he landed there?

The reporter’s response was that he had "no idea". He had therefore not felt this part of the explanation worth verifying, even though the alternative ("spaceship" – his word, not mine) explanation would appear to be of great significance. It seems all too often to be the case that someone can say "it didn’t happen that way" and it is accepted as a valid, sound explanation – without any evidence of the validity of the "more prosaic" explanation being presented.

I also feel that the "you want to believe it is true" argument also equally strongly applies, in reverse, to the very people who make it.


"There is No Physical Proof of Extraterrestrial Life"

It is true that there is no publicly-exhibited physical evidence of extra-terrestrial life – or is there? Around the same time as I came across the Disclosure Project, I also came across the Starchild Project – which is centred around an unusual "deformed" skull, found in 1930. Again, some dismiss this item as an irrelevance – purely the result of cradle-boarding and hydrocephalus. This, however, does not explain the skull’s 40% of human bone density, unusual hardness of the bone and the vein structure seen inside the skull under X-ray (which differs from that seen with all other Hydrocephalics). Other deformities, when taken together, also seem difficult to explain. Only one member of the academic community who has been asked to study of this object has taken it seriously, everyone else has "turned their nose up" at it. The person who has studied it has not been able to explain all the deformities together. Unfortunately, DNA tests on the skull have not been conclusive, due to the degradation of the DNA in the skull in the 900 years since the skull was buried. I recently read a web page debunking the Skull as a Hydrocephalic. It omitted the 40% bone density and vein x-ray evidence, preferring to cast doubt on arguments offered because of the conclusion drawn and in doing so was rather hypocritical (i.e. the article states that "things should be judged by evidence" yet the evidence I mention above seems to have been ignored completely, and not even questioned). Additionally, the argument is deflected away from the data presented by introducing references to UFOs, bigfoot etc when this doesn’t really contribute to answering the questions that the skull presents. This is another common approach when artefacts of this type are analysed.

So Why Haven’t They Landed in Broad Daylight, for All to See?

This is a difficult question to answer. Evidence can be gathered that these craft have landed in broad daylight and people have witnessed them – even made contact with the occupants. However, most of the testimony to these sorts of events is dismissed as fantasy.

As has been discussed above, Witness Testimony describes 2 landing events at Rendlesham forest, but again this is commonly regarded as fantasy.

No, a saucer has not landed on the Whitehouse Lawn – perhaps because if it really did, it would be too shocking for us to bear. How would people react? However, there were significant events in the skies over Washinton DC in 1952, which simply were explained away and people quickly forgot about them, despite the fact that these objects were tracked on RADAR. (At least one was reportedly shot at as well).

Interstellar/Intergalactic Space Travel or Faster than Light Travel is Not Possible so no ET’s could be here.

Currently accepted laws of physics seem to dictate that FTL (Faster-Than-Light) travel (in a given medium) is impossible. However, some "rebel thinkers" in physics and cosmology believe that certain "models of reality" would allow this to happen. Again, there are literally thousands of solid witness testimonies which describe objects behaving in ways that we can not explain with our generally accepted models. Either all these witness testimonies are wrong or inaccurate or what have you, or our models are wrong/incomplete. If we state that all the Witness Testimony is wrong, we also have to accept that, in at least some cases, radar equipment has exhibited "faults" which show "phantom objects" whose recorded behaviour matches what is described by witnesses. i.e. both the witness testimony is wrong and the radar is faulty at the same time.

Also, for further comments about propulsion systems, see below. Things don’t appear to be so clear cut as many would have you believe.

But it Sounds Like Science Fiction – I’m Sorry. It Just Doesn’t Ring True – It Can’t Be Real

Again, this argument is based on the context we have experienced things in. Many people now have mobile phones – the latest of which are "video enabled", allowing 2-way video communication. Do we reject the idea that these can be real because we first saw devices like them in Star Trek in the 1960’s? For those that have seen and used a mobile videophone they are clearly a reality. But, for instance, for those people who do not come into contact with them (and aren’t likely to), their existence is known of only through Witness Testimony and possibly written materials – and there are certainly some people somewhere in the world that would deny the existence of a videophone without seeing it themselves.

Cultural Reasons for Non-Acceptance

These are several fold. It seems true that in Western Culture, we are usually exposed to the idea of Extra Terrestrial Intelligence in a "fantasy context" rather than a "factual context" – i.e. we know of the idea of ET’s through films, TV and novels as "just a story" of one kind or another. Coverage of the idea in any other "frame of reference" is quite rare, and few people are exposed to it. Consider this portion of an entry from the Grolier’s Encyclopaedia 2000:

The date of the earliest UFO sighting in history is unknown, and the evidence for such sightings is scanty and purely speculative, despite the claims of various books on the subject.

This entry is not really very accurate, as it tends to ignore the substantial body of Witness Testimony that describes something very different. It also disregards historical references to such things. You will see videos on this CD – of course, the possibility of trickery and hoaxing is ever-present and often difficult to prove or disprove, so one must be initially sceptical. In the final analysis, however, one has to consider the witness testimony very carefully, as I will discuss later.

We live in a "technologically advanced" society and there is something of an implicit view among many people that "we understand everything" and "anything which does not fit our understanding is not real". People whose job depends strongly on a "scientific view of the world" are normally the most guilty of this. (i.e. They have a general view that anything which appears to be an effect but that can not be reliably reproduced under laboratory conditions is not worth taking seriously.) Of course any leaders who were to admit that they didn’t understand something or can’t explain it are showing a weakness. In many cases, however, it is a weakness of not being able to tell the truth, however uncomfortable it may be.

Since about 1947, due to a deliberate policy of ridicule and misinformation, people who have UFO experiences often do not openly discuss them, for fear of being thought of as "strange". Whilst many UFOs can be explained as "natural phenomena" (and the list of explanations is quite long – I am not going to go over ground that has already been covered 100,000 times or more), it is sometimes the case that a "natural explanation" is applied where it clearly does not simultaneously cover all the features of the witness testimony, but when such explanations are offered, non-experiencers tend to accept them because it allows them to "keep their existing picture of reality".

Religious Views

In some cases, certain religious views preclude the idea of Extraterrestrial Intelligence visiting or being active on Earth. Most branches of Christianity tend to quietly ignore it. (But some religions appear to be based on this idea or have been influenced by it)


"World Views"

If one accepts that ETI visitation is a reality, it forces a complete change of "World View" in the most fundamental and far-reaching way and this, in itself, can be a subconscious reason for rejecting the validity of any testimony or evidence which is presented. (This is like when Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter, therefore proving that not everything went round the Earth. There were those who refused to accept his evidence by simply not looking through his telescope. Here, I am putting forward the view that we have to look very carefully through the telescope of Witness Testimony before refusing to change our "World View".)

There are So Many UFO and Paranormal Hoaxes, there can’t be real Phenomena involved!

It is true that there are a large number of "proved hoaxes" in the UFO and similar fields. Many people are quick to mention Von Daniken and George Adamski, for instance. But it is also true that other more mundane hoaxes, such as the Hitler Diaries, have been perpetrated; yet not all other historical personal diaries are then immediately and automatically assumed to have been falsified (as is often the case with UFO/ET related testimony).

Additionally, when there is testimony that someone has been up Mount Everest, and they offer photographic evidence, it is unlikely they are closely questioned or that we put a great deal of effort into disproving their story, even though there is some conjecture that at least one account of an ascent to the summit of Everest may not be valid (I refer to a 1960 ascent by a Chinese team).

My thrust is to say that just because one or more hoaxes have been carried out is not a good basis for automatically dismissing all the other Witness Testimony.


People who are Recounting/Dealing With UFO Experiences are Out to Make Money

Again, this is sometimes true, but is not the sole reason for Witnesses giving testimony. In many cases, their lives are changed – and usually for the worse. (Listen to Robert Jacob’s Testimony). Many UFO researchers and witnesses do not make any money at all from the evidence they present – and this includes many of those in "Disclosure" and its representatives (like me). Many would say the same accusation can be made against most prominent figures from any given walk of life anyway i.e. they are not doing what they do for the "common good", they are merely seeking to make a "fast buck".


If ETI Has Been Visiting Earth Then That Means There Must Have Been A Massive Cover-Up – I Can’t Believe The Cover-Up Would Be So Big. I Don’t Believe In Conspiracy Theories.

I too was considerably more sceptical of conspiracy and cover-up theories before reading "Disclosure" material. Whilst many say "there are no such things as government conspiracies" etc, certain Disclosure Witnesses testify directly to their involvement in a cover-up. The best way to cover something up is to create vast quantities of mis-information and mix this in with valid, legitimate claims. It then becomes very difficult to distinguish between truth and lies. This has probably happened to many subjects (including the Kennedy Assasination and the murder of Marilyn Monroe, both of which, from my research, are linked in some way to the Disclosure Subject). In most cases, the way information is covered up or distorted is quite subtle and difficult to see at first, but one also has to be wary of too much paranoia.

It is sometimes suggested that if the truth that "Disclosure" points to was "officially" revealed, there would be public hysteria (much as there was in the US in 1938 when Orson Welles’ radio programme was taken to be a live report of Martians invading New Jersey), and this is one reason why "official" revelation has been avoided. This is probably not the real reason for the apparent cover up.

"Disclosure" Testimony makes the link between UFOs/ETI and "free energy" and anti-gravity technology. For most of the 20th Century, various people have come forward to say they have discovered "free energy" of one kind or another – Nikola Tesla is probably the most well known example, though he is more commonly associated with "conventional physics". (He was the "inventor" of the "Alternating Current" method of transmitting power and the unit of Magnetic Flux density is also named after him). But many stories about him have also been snowballed in myth and legend, in much the same way as those in the UFO field. Moving away from Tesla, it is worth noting that one commercial product is available which appears to generate more energy than goes in – the Hydrosonic Pump.

If one accepts that some UFOs are real ET craft, then it seems clear they don’t run on petrol or "fossil fuel"! If one accepts that craft have crashed and have been recovered by the military, then it is likely they are in possession of advanced technologies. Disclosure testimony discusses the treatment of anti-gravity propulsion and "free energy" technologies.

US Air Force, NRO Operative, Sergeant Dan Morris – UFOs are both extraterrestrial and manmade…It’s not that our government doesn’t want us to know that there are other people on other planets. What the people in power don’t want us to know is that this free energy [from energy generators developed with UFO technology] is available to everybody. So secrecy about the UFOs is because of the energy issue. When this knowledge is found out by the people, they will demand that our government release this technology, and it will change the world.

Talk of anti-gravity technology is normally immediately greeted (like most of the topics mentioned here) with chucklesome incredulity. This hasn’t quite stopped Nick Cook, a former editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly from publishing a book (in July 2002) called The Hunt for Zero Point (Publisher: Arrow; ISBN: 0099414988), the result of 10 years research into this field, in which he concludes that such technology probably has been developed, with some success, in Black Projects. As he says himself in an interview, the technology involved is so "world-changing" that it has been kept secret by a combination of methods. It hasn’t been kept secret by the US Government per se, but by the Military Industrial Complex, whose vested interests – some of which we effectively share – now constrain us into the unsustainable way of living that we now, in the main, subscribe to.

If you don’t believe how large some of the Covert projects can be, consider the details of one project, which has recently been de-classified. Project Orion had considerable funding and planned to build a large ship to be "blasted" into space using atomic bombs.

At the other end of the scale, it is also possible to build, almost in "Blue Peter" fashion, a little device called a Lifter which appears to exhibit unusual behaviour in relation to gravity (I built and successfully tested one of these using an old PC monitor, some tin foil, copper wire, Balsa wood and Superglue.).

People who study/try to develop the so-called Free-energy technology are usually held in the same regard and treated in the same way as those who believe that UFOs are (in at least some cases) real objects and ET craft. Consider the treatment of Cold Fusion and the people involved and other figures such as Stanley Meyer.

Dr Steven Greer (a former ER doctor and the main instigator of the Disclosure Project) is involved in serious attempts to co-ordinate efforts to test and market devices which will run on free-energy technology, through a company he has formed called SEAS.


If the Reality of ETI Visitation is a given, then How Can the Existence NASA and, for instance, SETI be Explained?

The conventional, orthodox view is that "we still do not know for sure of the mere existence of any extra-terrestrial life". Additionally, the basic view is "there is no real proof that any extra-terrestrial life has ever visited the Earth". As we are all probably aware, views other than this, at best, have not been taken very seriously or just taken to be fiction, and, at worst, have been ridiculed and denied for over 50 years. Therefore, they are generally not accepted by orthodox thinkers (who make up the bulk of the scientific establishment). It does seem logical to suggest that a corollary of "non-belief" is that such bodies/projects as NASA and SETI will come into being. However, there does seem to be a basic human need to answer the question of "are we alone in the cosmos?" otherwise, why would probes have been sent to the moon and planets etc?

When you take your this question forward, you are basically saying this: "The SETI/NASA programme/body exists therefore all the Disclosure Witnesses and those people like them MUST be lying or mistaken about what they saw." Really, you are using one argument to try and disprove another, without a body of evidence to coherently link them. I am no longer prepared to accept that all the witnesses did NOT, in some instances, see ET craft or be involved with the events they say they were. I am therefore of the opinion that SETI has either been allowed to be set up as a "smoke screen", or it has simply come into being by itself because not enough people are aware of, or do not accept, the evidence and witness testimony which (it seems apparent to me) effectively already proves the existence of ETI – or something like it.

A topic more difficult to deal with relates to recent questions about the authenticity of the NASA Moon Landing films. Again, I was skeptical about the claims being made that they were hoaxed, but the video "Was it Only a Paper Moon?" (which has a low frame rate on this CD to keep it small) looks at some fairly fundamental issues such as the Lunar Rover being too big to have fitted in the available space in the Apollo Command Module and the Space Suits being too big to get out of the airlock of the Lunar Excursion Module. There seems little doubt that Astronauts either went into orbit around the earth or the moon and they may have even landed, but not quite in the way that we have been lead to believe.)


But All This Information You Present Has Come From the Internet, which is often Unreliable as a Source of Information

This is another argument which does have some validity – the Internet is a great medium for rapidly spreading rumour and mis-information. How many Virus warning messages have you had on your computer that were about non-existent Viruses? Yes – lots! E-mail scams? Yes – a bucket-load every week! So it is clear that all the information I present is probably not valid – right? Well, if believing that makes you feel better, stick with it.

There are many ways to refute this argument. Simply watch the Disclosure Press Conference Video. What does it matter that the Internet has been the mode of delivery as opposed to TV or Radio? The witnesses are still saying the same things…

Additionally, most of the accounts in "Disclosure" relate to events that happened before the Internet was in public use, so this argument does not really apply.


The Role of the Internet and World Wide Web

One big question which I have is this; "If this stuff is so highly classified then why can I find it so easily on the Web?" This is probably one of the more difficult questions to answer. My own view is that it seems likely that, whilst there seem to have been some attempts to censor or close some Web Sites, the majority remain unaffected. There could be several reasons for this:

  • The task of preventing them being accessed is too difficult to undertake – the growth of the WWW has been so rapid that those wishing to keep this information secret have not been able to keep up.
  • People can "Publish" their own information – people can read the written thoughts directly, with no intervening publisher or controlling body of any kind. This potentially limits the "filtering" that might otherwise be applied to this type of information.
  • There is an active policy of allowing the information to come out so that people will gradually learn the truth, therefore "lessening the shock" of "Official Disclosure" (which I feel will come, some time in the next 50 years or so).
  • Those like me, involved in disseminating the information in one way or another, are unwitting pawns in a "game" of actually spreading mis-information.

Clearly, the latter is a possibility (as several people have already suggested to me), but my answer to this is that I tend to take the Witness Testimony literally and believe that there are many honest, ordinary people who have had extraordinary encounters and experiences.

It is clear also to me, however, that with the advent of the Internet and things like Digital Cameras, Digital Recording and CD Burners, it is now much easier than ever before to share vast quantities of information directly and quickly. I.e. what I have produced here could perhaps be considered as some kind of encyclopaedia, yet the cost of compiling and producing copies of this is negligible, considering the amount of information contained herein. This sort of thing has only become possible in the last few years.


A More Conventional View…

"Conventional evidence" now being gathered re extra solar planets and e.g. water on Mars lends support to the idea of extra terrestrial life being more likely. And, even mainstream science now seems to mention "Panspermia" as a possible idea for the origin of life on Earth – because no scientific theory properly explains how it started on earth so early. (But it can, of course, be argued that this is because the idea is "in fashion" again at the moment.) Also, after several years of work, the SETI program (whose PC-screensaver I run) sent out this message. However, no follow up message indicating any success has been sent.


The Nub of "Disclosure" – Witness Testimony

Whole branches of Psychology are devoted to people’s perception of events and how they can be changed, distorted etc. It seems to be the case, as has already been touched on, that when witnesses describe unusual events, there is a basic (and/or subconscious) assumption that their testimony cannot be valid. Whole edifices of thought and conjecture are constructed to give reasons to suggest the literal meaning of the testimony may not be valid. Most of this edifice can, in many cases, be toppled with the simple statement of "Well, you weren’t there – you didn’t experience it."

Let us simplify the thought process behind judging the validity of witness testimony. When considering any witness testimony, you have the following "stages of acceptance" (or non-acceptance)

  1. Is this person "telling the truth"?
  2. Have they "correctly perceived" what they saw, i.e. not mistaken it for something else?
  3. If they do not seem to be lying and appear to understand what they saw, if I had been stood with them at the same time, would I have perceived what was seen in the same way as the person did?

If you feel you can answer "yes" to all 3 of these questions, then you accept that what the witness describes did actually happen, in that way, and it was a real event. In the list of 3 stages above, different people have different "jumping-off points". (Obviously a great many factors can come in to play in making a decision about point 1, but in quite a few cases, I would argue that too much emphasis is placed on the various factors and there is an undue unwillingness to say "yes – they really are telling the correctly-perceived truth".)

Psychologists and others can come up with a coherent and scientific explanation of why someone’s perception may be altered but again, I regard this as a kind of "cognitive safety net", because the honest and simple answer is often "This person is not lying and did not mis-perceive, they saw something which is clearly beyond our current understanding but it is, nonetheless, almost certainly very real." This sort of statement is rather unpopular because it is an admission of an inadequacy of understanding or an acceptance of a "wider reality" than we commonly experience. This opens up a curious paradox because science is supposedly a process of finding the answers to questions and yet the questions raised by the UFO and ETI topics I am discussing here seem to be actively discriminated against.

If one takes some of the "Disclosure" testimony literally, then point (2) – the "perception" issue is not really relevant. How can one "misperceive" an instruction to be "sworn to secrecy" etc?

In my view, if one can not accept the witness testimony given by the Disclosure Project Witnesses, the reason is either "they are all lying their pants off" or this: "The truth indicated is so radical and world-changing that it can not possibly be real and so even though all factors seem to indicate it as being the truth, I still can not accept it because I will have to change my views so much". (Of course, there are others who freely accept it as the truth and are quite comfortable with the implications of it.)

Here, I include below the main features of, and issues with which, the Disclosure Project concerns itself. Please look at this and give this material careful consideration.

Related articles...

Comments are closed.