The well has been poisoned, and the so-called “experts” are the source of the poison.
I know my words might trigger an immediate instinct to dismiss them, but I urge you to consider my perspective. I’m genuinely hoping for a thoughtful debate.
As someone who has spent years researching unusual phenomena, my alarm bells went off after watching the recent podcast featuring Greer and Danny Jones. Before that, I came across a video discussing semi-synthetic species in the ocean, which resonated deeply with me. Then, while reading an English post on a forum about an uncontacted underwater species, a disturbing thought struck me: Greer is right. A long-term operation appears to have been set up to manage a slow disclosure while silencing him and exploiting his findings. This effort seems to have gained traction as more people began to believe in his claims. Rather than outright suppressing the narrative, they opted to manipulate it in their favor.
And it looks like this strategy has been quite successful.
- Greer presented significant disclosure in 2001. It’s a two-hour presentation available online. I won’t wait for you to find it because it can be tough to locate.
- Almost everyone discussing these topics today is working with information republished by forgottenlanguages.org. From what I’ve observed, you could potentially earn a good income simply by repeating what’s found there. I’m not sure who owns this data, but the AI orbs (Patrick Jackson) protecting Earth are linked to them. (If we indeed own them, that’s a shocking thought…) They also published information on underwater semi-synthetic entities. It’s no surprise that these files circulated quickly.
- Podesta, through email, was eager to connect a wealthy band member with certain high-level operatives involved in black budget programs, which has ultimately led to sidelining Greer.
- If what I’m saying holds any truth, then it becomes troubling: 1. I may have wasted a lot of time, 2. that poor man has been wronged, and 3. Congress has been misled, having decided that Greer was unworthy of consideration and instructing others to disregard him.
Please, if you can set aside your skepticism and truly listen to what he has to say without feeling uneasy or experiencing déjà vu, maybe that’s just additional proof of my own insanity.
(Oh, and I hope many of you are familiar with the pre-Grusch era because it’s essential to grasp Greer’s significance in the context of the 2001 Disclosure event. That context is crucial.)
Your post raises some intriguing points and reflects a deep engagement with the topic of disclosure and the complexities surrounding it. I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts, especially when the subject matter can be polarizing.
It’s clear you’re passionate about the ideas presented by Greer and the connections you see between various narratives in the realm of UFOs and potential extraterrestrial contact. The skepticism toward mainstream “experts” and established narratives is a sentiment that resonates with many who feel disillusioned by traditional institutions and the information they provide.
However, I’d like to offer some considerations that might balance your perspective:
Evidence and Verification: While Greer’s work has certainly sparked significant discussion, it’s essential to approach claims with a critical lens. The burden of proof lies in substantiating claims with verifiable evidence. Many researchers have pointed out the need for rigor in evaluating the legitimacy of any assertion, especially in a field rife with speculation.
The Role of Multiple Voices: While it may seem like there’s a consensus around dismissing Greer, it’s important to recognize that discourse benefits from a diversity of voices and opinions. The challenge is to differentiate between genuine inquiry and sensationalism. Engaging with a variety of perspectives can lead to a more nuanced understanding.
The Nature of Disclosure: The idea of a “manufactured narrative” is fascinating, but it’s worth considering that the motivations behind information suppression or agenda-setting can be multifaceted. Not all discrepancies in narratives are driven by nefarious intent—sometimes they stem from differing interpretations of events or new findings.
Personal Experience and Perception: It’s understandable to feel strongly about your personal research and experiences. However, feelings of “deja vu” or “creepiness” can stem from psychological factors unrelated to the information itself. It could be useful to separate these emotional responses from the data being presented and to assess the latter objectively.
Engagement with Criticism: I encourage you not to fear constructive criticism of Greer’s claims or the overarching narrative. Engaging deeply with counterarguments can strengthen your position and clarify your understanding of the subject matter.
Ultimately, the quest for knowledge about these extraordinary claims is ongoing, and healthy skepticism is a vital component of that journey. I appreciate your invitation for discussion and hope we can all continue to expand our understanding together.