Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

Gennaro · 2005-06-01 06:40:19

Risking my good reputation here, I'll admit that during the last few days I've been around the Internet surveying the subject of extraterrestrial visitation.

I'd like to know if anyone here knows anything about it and if so what you think of Steven Greer and the Disclosure Project. This group tried to bring the subject up to a congressional hearing back in pre-9/11 2001, using several renowned and/or professional witnesses from the inside.

http://www.disclosureproject.org/]http: … oject.org/

Another looney from the land of Hookum? At least some of the people at the press conference which can be viewed from the site appeared both professional and credible to me with long careers inside various parts of the military and civil establishment. That's why I haven't been able to just let it go.

Thoughts? What might be the opinions of members of the scientific and/or engineering community on the board?

The subject seems to be interconnected with electrogravitics/antigravity/zero point energy research, the story of which was told by Nick Cook in the book below and which I've stumbled upon previously for other reasons (though never read):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ … ...8984965

Nick Cook is a long time editor and reporter for Jane's Defence Weekly. In other words he's not your average conspiracy theorist or blueberry.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-01 07:31:16

In order to remain intellectually honest I must file the whole UFO issue under "don't know".

What we do know is that people from all walks of life have seen something, some of those somethings can't be explained by natural or known man-made occurances, and that on occasion governments have given the impression of having something to hide on the subject. For example Roswell. Something crashed that was not a weather ballon, anything beyond that is total speculation. Does that mean alien visitors? Not at all, and I'd be far more inclined to believe it's super-secret military projects, natural anomalies or even Nazis from beneath Antarctica. Well, maybe not that last one.

That said, I'm of the (nearly baseless) opinion that (apparent) faster-than-light interstellar travel is possible and that life isn't altogether rare. Therefore I can't discount the possibility that UFOs are in fact alien spacecraft zipping around our little backwater of the cosmos. I'll need more evidence to go from "it's possible it is this" to "I believe it is this" and I suppose that's where disclosure comes in.

But there's the rub. If I'm a high-up government muckity-muck looking out for national security and I know that reptiloids from Alpha Draconis regularly stop by and we can't do much about it I could understand the reluctance to admit it. Even more so if some of the more outlandish stories of reverse-engineered alien spacecraft are accurate. "Hey, we got this little saucer that can fold space, we ripped it off from little spacemen, here's the plans."

So if there's something to it, they won't spill the beans and if it's really nothing and they tell us everything it still looks like they're hiding something.

Still, I'd like to see that press conference. Preferably after we've built a small fleet of our own. Dubya up there, all "we're invading the Centauri system, freedom is on the march." :laugh:

Palomar · 2005-06-01 07:45:09

*I checked the web site.

First impressions are truest, and what I saw was lots! of! exclamation! points!

That's not a good 1st impression.

Basically I agree with Cobra.

And I'm always leery of folks who strike me as urgently seeking to make a name for themselves in the public arena (which is what I think a certain man whose last name starts with "H" is doing) no matter what.

Basically I don't care. If there is something to it, there's nothing I can do about it. It can be mildly interesting occasionally to speculate...but then that's all it ever is: Speculation. :-\ If there are people "in the know" they're not going to talk. And, as Cobra points out, even if they did they'd still be accused of "hiding more."

And then of course there's my certainty that life is exceedingly rare in the universe (and so it's doubtful we're getting "buzzed" by aliens).

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-01 08:13:02

No aliens visit Earth.

People want to believe, and that makes it real enough.

Children want to believe in Santa Claus, and that makes it real (he is real BTW, jolly fellow).

Don’t buy the books, don’t feed the trolls.

And no, I don’t work for the CIA. Carry on.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-01 08:17:06

And then of course there's my certainty that life is exceedingly rare in the universe

Certainty based on what, I must ask? Not that I'm trying to start an argument, I can't really back up my own belief that life is relatively common in the places where conditions are suitable with anything more than faith or a gut feeling, but "certainty" seems too strong a word for such things.

But to elaborate on what I said about Gennaro's points. This disclsosure group may actually have very sensible people with very rational arguments and valid reasons for them. But such causes tend to attract kooks, and kooks attract attention. For example, Mars Society conferences have their share of wackjobs spouting nonsense, but there are also many very intelligent people making very good points. But guess which type is prone to get more attention? Everyone remembers the crazy guy going on about Deep Impact and antimatter, fewer remember the very interesting presention of our own RobertDyck.

So these UFO groups may have a valid issue but the crazies make it impossible to make any progress.

Or they might just be raving loons, it's hard to tell. A nutcase proven right is a genius. But by far nutcases who think they're geniuses are encountered most frequently.

Palomar · 2005-06-01 08:31:05

And then of course there's my certainty that life is exceedingly rare in the universe
Certainty based on what, I must ask? Not that I'm trying to start an argument, I can't really back up my own belief that life is relatively common in the places where conditions are suitable with anything more than faith or a gut feeling, but "certainty" seems too strong a word for such things.

*Hi Cobra. Apparently I anticipated someone questioning me on this, because when I posted that comment I "flashed ahead" as to my response if questioned.

Scientists have recently announced that, based on data they have to date (regarding exoplanets primarily), our Solar System is a genuine rarity. I posted an article pertaining to this specific in the "New Discoveries *4*" thread some weeks ago. Most exoplanets/systems (known to date) are composed of a parent star and one bloated hot-Jupiter in close proximity (which might also be a brown dwarf companion to the main star, and not a planet at all...there's still lots of speculation and unanswered questions in that regard). These hot-Jupiters are thought to be incapable of harboring life.

If our Solar System is indeed a rarity, we know for certain of only 1 body within it which contains life. Mars might have microbes. There is speculation that Europa might contain life beneath its icy crust (yet unproven of course).

If these ratios hold true throughout just our Milky Way Galaxy, then I doubt there are many life-sustaining planets "out there" -- particularly intelligent, higher forms of life.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-01 08:48:34

I see your reasoning Cindy, but I posit that it's flawed. Using Earth as the reference can imply that several factors important to life here are important to life everywhere. Admittedly we only have one data point at present, but some generalizations can be drawn from it and some reasonable efforts at weeding out the essential from the irrelevant can be made.

From a strictly physical standpoint there's no reason moons of gas giants couldn't harbor life, provided they're the right distance from their star for example. K-type stars look quite promising as host stars. Why couldn't life evolve on Earth-like moons, on tidally locked planets, or on worlds much drier than our own. All sorts of arrangements may prove viable. In short, we might well find that Earth is unusual but not because it has life.

But then my optimism for life in the universe might just be the converse of my cynicism towards humanity. I don't believe we're that special.

Need more data.

Palomar · 2005-06-01 08:56:37

I don't believe we're that special.

*Well, the sentiment of "being special" wasn't in my thoughts at all. I'm in a "coolly logical" frame of mind while discussing this.

Yes, I want more data too. And we'll get it, of course.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-01 09:11:24

Another way of looking at the available data:

We have enough data on exactly one planetary system to make any meaningful analysis. In it we have One planet with large, complex life. So far, one for one. Pretty good odds. Additionally, Mars may or may not have life now or in the past. If we find so much as a microbe or a fossil, that's 2 for 1. If we're real optimistic and throw Europa and Titan in, 4 to 1.

So even being rigidly conservative, based on our one data point it seems that one life-bearing planet per system is commonplace, at least based on what we know. Surely this is just as valid an argument as all those "life needs a large moon, life needs such and such a weather pattern, life needs a G-type star to shine happily upon it"?

A little off-topic, but worth a thought. Of course complex life doesn't imply intelligence, Earth was very much alive with no species we'd call intelligent for the vast bulk of its history. My preference would be for that to be the norm, it just makes things easier. And while I can't prove it, my gut and the spirits of the cosmos tell me that such is the case.

So was it written, so shall it be done.

Palomar · 2005-06-01 09:20:43

So even being rigidly conservative, based on our one data point it seems that one life-bearing planet per system is commonplace, at least based on what we know. Surely this is just as valid an argument as all those "life needs a large moon, life needs such and such a weather pattern, life needs a G-type star to shine happily upon it"?

*Better explain a bit more. I didn't intend to imply that life elsewhere is likely/mostly predicated on resembling our Earth and Moon, a star just like Sol, etc., down to many fine points. Sure, there can be variables (maybe even startling ones).

But it is true Earth orbits in a "paradise zone." And so far the data shows hot-Jupiters (which may also be brown dwarfs; scientists are not certain) are dominant if not -the- recurrent finding in exoplanet studies to date.

--Cindy

P.S.: And the norm seems to be 1 hot-Jupiter for 1 star; simply 2 bodies comprising the system.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-01 09:29:05

so far the data shows hot-Jupiters (which may also be brown dwarfs; scientists are not certain) are dominant if not -the- recurrent finding in exoplanet studies to date.

Of "hot-Jupiters", the "Jupiter" part is the result of our primitive methods, we can't find anything else, and the "hot" doesn't necessarily preclude habitable planets/moons in those systems. Further out there are most likely other terrestrial planets which we can't as yet detect. For all we know every one of those "hot Jupiter" systems might have a life-bearing planet or moon within it, our present methods are just too inept to draw any conclusions. Get terrestrial planet finder up, then we'll have something to work with.

BWhite · 2005-06-01 09:29:49

Another way of looking at the available data:
We have enough data on exactly one planetary system to make any meaningful analysis. In it we have One planet with large, complex life. So far, one for one. Pretty good odds. Additionally, Mars may or may not have life now or in the past. If we find so much as a microbe or a fossil, that's 2 for 1. If we're real optimistic and throw Europa and Titan in, 4 to 1.
So even being rigidly conservative, based on our one data point it seems that one life-bearing planet per system is commonplace, at least based on what we know. Surely this is just as valid an argument as all those "life needs a large moon, life needs such and such a weather pattern, life needs a G-type star to shine happily upon it"?
A little off-topic, but worth a thought. Of course complex life doesn't imply intelligence, Earth was very much alive with no species we'd call intelligent for the vast bulk of its history. My preference would be for that to be the norm, it just makes things easier. And while I can't prove it, my gut and the spirits of the cosmos tell me that such is the case.
So was it written, so shall it be done.

As we wish it to be, so shall it be.

Palomar · 2005-06-01 09:42:42

Of "hot-Jupiters", the "Jupiter" part is the result of our primitive methods, we can't find anything else,

As you know, it refers to the size of the body orbiting the star and its gaseous nature. In fact, some of the hot-Jupiters are 5 times larger than Jove (which is why it might be a brown dwarf instead). Hot because it resides so closely to its star and of course has its own highly gaseous nature.

Further out there are most likely other terrestrial planets which we can't as yet detect.

Are you referring to "further out" within the hot-Jupiter system itself, or further out into the Galaxy?

For all we know every one of those "hot Jupiter" systems might have a life-bearing planet or moon within it, our present methods are just too inept to draw any conclusions.

Sure, what data we have today isn't the be-all/end-all. But of all the reports I've read, only once has disc material within a hot-Jupiter system indicated "clumps" farther out beyond the hot-Jupiter itself -- which might be indicative of other planets. I can't recall the designation of that system nor "in/near to" what constellation it was found.

I wasn't trying to draw any conclusions. Perhaps a difference in definitions, but "certainty" isn't quite the same as "conclusion" to me.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-01 09:51:58

As we wish it to be, so shall it be.

In that case . . . <wills vision into reality>

Third star to the right, fourth planet. You'll dig it.

As you know, it refers to the size of the body orbiting the star and its gaseous nature. In fact, some of the hot-Jupiters are 5 times larger than Jove (which is why it might be a brown dwarf instead). Hot because it resides so closely to its star and of course has its own highly gaseous nature.

Sure, so we know with reasonable certainty that one planet in most of the systems we've discovered is not suitable for life. Beyond that we're guessing, whether it's me saying life is common or you saying it isn't, we have no data to back it up.

kinda like the UFO issue, just to give a nod to the topic we're supposed to be on.

Are you referring to "further out" within the hot-Jupiter system itself, or further out into the Galaxy?

The system itself.

The current state of exo-planet discovery is much like looking for animals in a house two blocks away with binoculars at night. Sometimes you'll see the dog, but you won't be able to tell the breed. Very rarely you might see something that let's you infer a mouse, but you'll never see the ants until you get some much better optics. Right now we're seeing lots of big dogs.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1117641166

clark · 2005-06-01 11:57:17

The thing though is that we can determine a relative size and mass of planets, which allows us to deduce orbital slots of other possible planets within the system. Then, taking the relative brightness/age of the parent star, we are able to deduce possible life zones for the system.

Just given our own backyard, we see that Jovian moons are bathed in radiation. That, and tidal forces between such masses lead to the smaller planet going through serious volcanic convulsions (not ideal for complex life development).

Sure, basic life *might* form on an earth sized moon of some super jupiter- but it isn't likely, and it isn't likely to be anything more advanced than that (come on, we want bug eyed critters to talk to, not more bacteria).

Generally, large jupiter planets are theorized to be neccessary to stabilize the inner system- creating stable orbital paths for smaller worlds to form within the habitable zone. Most of the Jupiter + planets have been to close to create the habitable zone for their systems. [shrug]

Gennaro · 2005-06-02 07:46:25

Cobra:

What we do know is that people from all walks of life have seen something, some of those somethings can't be explained by natural or known man-made occurances, and that on occasion governments have given the impression of having something to hide on the subject. For example Roswell.

Naturally, people can imagine all sorts of things, especially when they have vested interest of doing so, or show a desperate need for something to be true. It's when professional pilots are implied to confuse UFO's with planet Venus that it becomes strange.

But there's the rub. If I'm a high-up government muckity-muck looking out for national security and I know that reptiloids from Alpha Draconis regularly stop by and we can't do much about it I could understand the reluctance to admit it. Even more so if some of the more outlandish stories of reverse-engineered alien spacecraft are accurate. "Hey, we got this little saucer that can fold space, we ripped it off from little spacemen, here's the plans."

I know you had to put this down since it was part of mandatory protocol. Nevertheless, I must admit that I don't understand this sort of reasoning at all. *If* we were really visited by the scary reptiles from Alpha Draconis (good as any), then spreading alien technology around would in my opinion be the best long term strategy of countering eventual interstellar threats, apart from benefiting and empowering the human species enormously all by itself, that is.

If there is such a thing as a coverup, I tend to think of other explanations. One could be that intelligence compartmentalization has acquired a life of its own. Need to know is so restricted that heads of government cannot get access, or even heads of intelligence organizations. There are claims that president Carter asked for a full inquiry into the matter, but was denied access by his head of the CIA, for example. He lacked the appropriate security clearence.

Another, which could be combined with the first explanation, has to do with confidence. There might well have been valid security reasons for keeping it all a secret initially, especially when no one knew just exactly what it was or where it came from. I mean, heck, how much did the Russians know about it? As time went by and no reason to tell anything ever really presented itself, and ridicule and intimidation conditioning had already been put into effect, the effects of disclosure would simply have become too embarrasing. The sad story is that once you've started to lie, you must continue to lie. If such a huge absurdity, vehemently denied by everyone credible and responsible, was actually real, what conspiracy theory does not suddenly become entirely plausible? Say, things related to WWII, or need I say 9/11?

Gennaro · 2005-06-02 08:48:10

Cindy:

*Better explain a bit more. I didn't intend to imply that life elsewhere is likely/mostly predicated on resembling our Earth and Moon, a star just like Sol, etc., down to many fine points. Sure, there can be variables (maybe even startling ones).
But it is true Earth orbits in a "paradise zone." And so far the data shows hot-Jupiters (which may also be brown dwarfs; scientists are not certain) are dominant if not -the- recurrent finding in exoplanet studies to date.

I must say I don't agree with the conclusion implied. We have found over a hundred exoplanets to date. How many stars are there within 100 lightyears? I believe the estimate runs at above 14,000. Strictly speaking, we are finding so many hot Jupiters because they are the easiest planets to find due to star wobble, a lot easier than establishing outer gasgiants, I'd say. In my opinion, there is no reason by far to assume hot Jupiter systems are the most common.

BWhite:

Of course complex life doesn't imply intelligence, Earth was very much alive with no species we'd call intelligent for the vast bulk of its history. My preference would be for that to be the norm, it just makes things easier. And while I can't prove it, my gut and the spirits of the cosmos tell me that such is the case.

Yes, but please look at this a second time. Actually, Earth had nothing but single-celled organisms for about 86 percent of its history, since before then there was no oxygen atmosphere capable of handling the efficient metabolism required. So far I agree entirely.
But once this was in place complex life literally exploded and then it took the planet only 400 million years to produce us. Additionally, what we can discern over this time period, all in all, despite all the setbacks and extinctions, is an irretrievable trend towards greater nerve centre to body mass ratio. In other words, it seems like this is an inherent trait of multicellular lifeforms. We don't know why exactly, since there is no obvious evolutionary advantage in intellligence, it almost appears like adding complexity is a built in feature of life and nature itself.

Add to this the question how many stars have planets? If we rephrase the question to mean how many starsystems have bodies in orbit, I say all of them. Stars capable of sustaining complex life usually are believed to be in the K5-F7 range. There are a lot of those within 100 lightyears. If you need to posit gasgiants in the correct place, stellar age, metallicity, moons and of course rocky planets within the liquid water zone, you're still likely to end up with a considerable number not very far from here.

The end dilemma as I see it, becomes not whether life is rare in the galaxy, but rather where are they. Maybe we are already inside someone's interstellar territory? In that sense the Zoo hypothesis seems quite plausible and in such a case there is no real reason to dismiss visits to our solar system from time to time either.

In the end, I don't really see the objection to extraterrestrial visitation when viewed from the cosmic perspective.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-02 08:52:50

It's when professional pilots are implied to confuse UFO's with planet Venus that it becomes strange.

Absolutely, most UFO sightings can be attributed to ignorance, drunkenness or fabrication but there's that small percentage from sources who should know if what they are seeing is Venus or a balloon. In some of those cases something is probably up, though not necessarily alien visitors.

*If* we were really visited by the scary reptiles from Alpha Draconis (good as any), then spreading alien technology around would in my opinion be the best long term strategy of countering eventual interstellar threats, apart from benefiting and empowering the human species enormously all by itself, that is.

Sure, if you have some of that alien technology. Say you're some security honcho, been there for decades, rooted. Scary aliens keep buzzing around. If you have a crashed flying saucer then duplicating it and making all sorts of technological goodies to fight the . . . green menace makes sense. But if you don't have anything but the knowledge of visitation and you can't do anything about it, the fear of public panic isn't without foundation. "Guess what folks, aliens have been coming around for decades, evading our fighters and giving anal probes and there's nothing we can do about it. Thought you'd like to know." Not exactly inspiring confidence.

If such a huge absurdity, vehemently denied by everyone credible and responsible, was actually real, what conspiracy theory does not suddenly become entirely plausible? Say, things related to WWII, or need I say 9/11?

If, much virtue in if. And no, not really. If the US government announced tomorrow that it has all sorts of alien goodies and apologized for lying about it all this time I suspect only a very small percentage of the population would start thinking "Damn, they lied about that. I bet they lied about the Moon landing. And friggin' FDR knew Japan was going to bomb Pearl Harbor and George Bush planned 9/11 after consulting with the preserved brain of Adolf Hitler kept deep below the Pentagon in Jimmy Hoffa's car. They're all just puppets of Evil Elvis and that Mummy, that's what this is!"

But then if I were convinced of alien visitation I'd be pushing for full disclosure just for the entertainment value. I'm just not yet convinced that there's all that much to disclose, as cool as a hangar full of reverse-engineered flying saucers would be.

I'd paint flames and a grinning skull on them.

Gennaro · 2005-06-02 08:58:57

I'm just not yet convinced that there's all that much to disclose, as cool as a hangar full of reverse-engineered flying saucers would be.

Right. Biggest hurdle is definitely that is sounds just all too unreal and at the same time so mundane and typical of mythological beliefs and fantasies.

Palomar · 2005-06-02 09:26:53

Cindy:
*Better explain a bit more. I didn't intend to imply that life elsewhere is likely/mostly predicated on resembling our Earth and Moon, a star just like Sol, etc., down to many fine points. Sure, there can be variables (maybe even startling ones).
But it is true Earth orbits in a "paradise zone." And so far the data shows hot-Jupiters (which may also be brown dwarfs; scientists are not certain) are dominant if not -the- recurrent finding in exoplanet studies to date.
I must say I don't agree with the conclusion. We have found over one hundred exoplanets to date. How many stars are there within 100 lightyears? I believe the estimate runs at above 14,000. Strictly speaking, we are finding so many hot Jupiters because they are the easiest planets to find. In my opinion, there is no reason by far to assume such systems are the most common.

*Hi Gennaro, I wish you'd have quoted this comment by me instead:

If these ratios hold true throughout just our Milky Way Galaxy, then I doubt there are many life-sustaining planets "out there" -- particularly intelligent, higher forms of life.

I don't feel I'm making assumptions. I'm simply presenting the facts as we know them to be today. Could change tomorrow or next year, sure.

This is why I generally avoid speculation. There's always too much "what I'd like" within it, IMO. What we want or don't want doesn't matter, of course.

Yes, it'd be fascinating if life does exist elsewhere. Chances are it does; I find it difficult to believe we are utterly alone in the cosmos. But what life is out there is probably very rare. And I'm not uncomfortable with that, nor do I think of it in terms of "we are special."

More data needed, yep. But for now, I'm highly doubtful.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-02 10:57:01

But what life is out there is probably very rare. And I'm not uncomfortable with that, nor do I think of it in terms of "we are special."

In that case we, as one of the rare cases of life and even rarer cases of intelligent life have a mission before us. To spread the seed across the stars. Millions of years hence that life will devlop sentience and awaken to a far busier galaxy with many more voices.

Let there be life, and we saw that it was good.

But I'm still holding out for that first off-world goat-like roast. I expect we'll have a few locations to choose from before my time expires.

Palomar · 2005-06-02 11:23:22

But I'm still holding out for that first off-world goat-like roast.

*Okay. I'll bring the barbecue sauce.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-02 11:37:39

To spread the seed across the stars.

Typical male perspective.

Anyway, perhaps another way to look at this is to suggest reasons why we would want to keep alien visits secret from the general population.

Breakdown in society caused by panic? It is a real possibility as this knowledge may lead to mass suicides or panic of some sort- the concept does undermine certain idological tenets that are still pervasive.

National Security? Maybe we are afraid of alien tech or information upseting the status quo of national interests. Some nation finds out we have this ufo or that alien diplomat, and suddenly our neighbors want in on the action. Afterall, 'alien' reprensts a resource of sort, and it would be very very limited... and why are most conflicts started?

Aliens represent a threat we cannot deal with? Possible, which leads to panic and a breakdown of society.

Maybe aliens have visited, and maybe they have told some people in power to keep their exsistence secret, or else they will wipe out all of humanity. Why they would do that? Beats me, but then that would explain why the silence has been so successful for so long. The stakes. [shrug]

Rxke · 2005-06-02 15:32:42

Cindy, are we capable at all to discover Earth sized planets around stars?
If not, we still can't say much about probability, except x amount of obsered stars have gas giants.
But you mentioning a 'debris-disc,' .... is that simpler/harder to discover than Earth-sized objects?

re: UFO`s: there's still one thing that keeps hanging in my rather sceptic mind: some years ago (early nineties) in Belgium there was a wave of sightings, in the French speaking part, mainly... Common people, even police that got a call and verified sightings.... The usual mass hysteria I thought. Or tests with stealthplanes....

But then there was a 'good' radar contact, and a pair of F-16's scrambled, they got a weaponslock, repeatedly, but no visual contact, one of the pilots nearly freaked out.. Then Some high brass went on the national telly channel, showing footage, complete with the voices of the pilots, then some graphs of the impossible speedchanges etc. and officially saying they clearly 'had' something, but did not know what it could be. Official. And no Venus stuff.

(NAVO headquarters are in Belgium, BTW. So are a lot of breweries....)

Google belgium ufo f16 or something, I'm sure there will be some stuff up...

Rxke · 2005-06-02 15:46:21

FWIW:
Did a Google search for laughs.... wow, this is big news for the loonies! Gazillion hits!
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/do … doc409.htm

has the official thingy, I'm glad I remembered it correctly. Lots of eyewitnesses, more than I remember. (Didn't wah tv then, being student away from home and all that...)
Also there seem to be movies online, but I`m too lazy to go and find them. first three tries had broken link, so I didn't look further.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-06-01 06:40:19

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#2 2005-06-01 07:31:16

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#3 2005-06-01 07:45:09

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#4 2005-06-01 08:13:02

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#5 2005-06-01 08:17:06

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#6 2005-06-01 08:31:05

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#7 2005-06-01 08:48:34

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#8 2005-06-01 08:56:37

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#9 2005-06-01 09:11:24

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#10 2005-06-01 09:20:43

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#11 2005-06-01 09:29:05

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#12 2005-06-01 09:29:49

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#13 2005-06-01 09:42:42

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#14 2005-06-01 09:51:58

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#15 2005-06-01 11:57:17

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#16 2005-06-02 07:46:25

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#17 2005-06-02 08:48:10

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#18 2005-06-02 08:52:50

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#19 2005-06-02 08:58:57

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#20 2005-06-02 09:26:53

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#21 2005-06-02 10:57:01

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#22 2005-06-02 11:23:22

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#23 2005-06-02 11:37:39

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#24 2005-06-02 15:32:42

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

#25 2005-06-02 15:46:21

Re: Dr Steven Greer & The Disclosure Project - The UFO Phenomenon

Board footer