Talk:Steven M. Greer

• This biography is fine. People are more then welcome to post data on him that shows he is a factual and legitimate person. Just check out other biographies, they always list papers and books they published. This article is simple and neutral, and that is what counts, its not biased or on one side, its based on fact only, not bias. -nima baghaei 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• No this biography is not fine, it certainly did not come across as neutral. I found it to be irritatingly ignorant of the basic facts that Greer has a large number of people who used to work for the u.s. government army, navy e.t.c. all testifying that the u.f.o. phenomenon is real. It would be very helpful to mention in this biography that countless researchers, military officials, military and civilian airline pilots e.t.c. have all come forward independantly of Greer to say the same basic things as he is saying about the u.f.o. phenomenon. His workshops and others enterprises may or may not be legitimate but that can in no way be used to colour people's perception of the work he has done with the disclosure project. Perhaps details should be given of high-profile u.f.o. sightings such as the phoenix lights, where HUNDREDS of eye-witnesses were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.60.73 (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• In order to adhere to biography article compliances, I replaced the Paranormal Researcher template with a neutral Biography infobox. DeltaT 00:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Cool (:O) -nima baghaei 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ETSU Quillen College of Medicine cite

Greer was class of 87 according to ETSU Quillen college of medicine AOA members web page. The address is: http://com.etsu.edu/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=1995

As one of the first several graduating classes from ETSU College of Medicine he helped to establish the standard of excellence. Many fine MDs come from ETSU and we are proud of them all. Jedtesta 17:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• wonderful! i will make sure this reference goes in -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lunar Module chief engineer

Hello: Just want to say that Macon Epps was an important engineer on the Apollo Lunar Module team, but not the lead engineer. Actually, Thomas J. Kelly was the chief engineer for the lunar module, and was referred to as the "Father of the Lunar Module". Please see the article that I have linked to: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/kelly_obit_020326.html If further research is needed it will be easy to confirm.

You may wish to revise that part of Greer's bio so as not to confuse readers. Hope this helps. Jedtesta 01:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• sounds good -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Reinsterted CSTI further information

Have reinserted the following which had been removed without comment AS part of its cited "educational" events, CSETI offers weeklong training events at DR Greers ranch. This consist of two programs: + He has also founded Space Energy Access Systems, Inc. (SEAS), and the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI). - - Ambassador to the Universe Trainings TM: 1 week

- - Cosmic Consciousness Trainings TM: 1 week

- - Attendance requires certain student preparation, including buying and reading Dr Greer's Books and videos. During these Sessions DR Greer promises to teach mediation and develop the ability of those attending to psychically contact aliens, ultimately giving attendees the ability to summon aliens and their craft at will. The Cost for these programs are US$ 995. As yet neither CSETI, DR Greer, or attendees have produced evidence of success."

I have reinserted this for the following reasons. Much is made of Dr Greer's medical qualifications and professional "standing". However, this article contains none of the points of his personal/career history which is just as provable and as important. The remote viewing training that he gives, together with "training" people to call "alien spaceships" at will (for what might be argued a high financial cost), is an equally important part of his biography and might indeed throw light on other aspects of his career, such as Project Disclosure. For example, if - as Dr Greer claims - he can indeed invite aliens by superluminal mental contact, perhaps he might be encouraged to do so publicly and thus negate the need for further disclosure conferences. It might also be appropriate to add his assertion that during one of his "remote-viewing" sessions he identified a friendly alien base on earth that was under attack from the US military. Really2012 (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question about Greer publicly summoning ETs is a good one, yet the answer is a bit complex. If you read his book Hidden Truth, Forbidden Knowledge, you'll learn why it has become increasingly dangerous for ETs to fully materialize in full view, and they do so more recently with extreme caution, and usually only fleetingly. There has been a history of hostile acts by our military, wherein these ET crafts have been targeted and shot down, using a number of high-tech weapons (scalar and otherwise).

According to Greers's contacts, there are increasing numbers of military and governmental members who support full disclosure and an end to this hostile stance against our ET visitors, but those intransigent few who still see all beings "other" as threats, and/or as means to support their own eschatological worldviews remain a potent threat to the safety of the ETs.

You need to understand that these off-world visitors are most comfortable (and make their means of travel) in non-local states (i.e. in non-physical realms, including the astral and etheric). These are realms not yet fully recognized and measured by current scientific methods, so they sound quite bizarre and preposterous to the average person, but indeed quantum physics studies are beginning to point to these aspects of reality that lie beyond the space/time continuum as we know it. Even so, there are still fully-visible sightings, in instances where the ETs have deemed it safe to appear fully in the physical realm.

Since Dr. Greer, as a high-profile proponent of ET contact, is always on the radar—so to speak—of these hostile elements of military and government agencies, the risks of summoning these ET visitors in full public view are great, and until those threatening elements are made to stand down, there is a high likelihood of hostile action (weapons, interventions, etc.) toward these visitors.

That being said, there is planning at present to actually make this (full public disclosure/contact) happen, so your suggestion will most likely occur—it's just a question of when.

The subtleties and strange new concepts surrounding the ET realities are difficult to fathom in one gulp, so my apologies if this all sounds too bizarre.

I strongly suggest reading Hidden Truth and take it one chapter at a time. I'm sure you find answers to many aspects of this issue that will be very illuminating. The ET/UFO subject has been infested with so much disinformation, ridicule and myth-making over the decades, that it really takes some unlearning to realize how distorted the common perceptions of the issue have become.

I have recently participated in one of the Ambassador to the Universe trainings offered by Dr. Greer, and it was the real deal. The basis of, and requirement, really, to understand and participate in peaceful contact is one's consciousness. This is the core of the training, and the various techniques taught — meditation, remote viewing, etc. — help you to access the energetic realms where these beings will meet you in kind, and real contact occurs.

Physical contact is icing on the cake, yet the crafts do appear in the sky quite frequently during fieldwork evenings. Mere curiosity-seekers and openly hostile individuals will have little or no luck in making contact, as the ET's main purpose here is to help us transition into a truly peaceful—universally peaceful—humanity, and to help us heal the earth as part of that process. They have little interest in providing a circus sideshow to skeptics.

Thousands already have had proof-positive sightings, and even face-to-face encounters, and the ETs are focusing on contacting and encouraging those of us who are sincere in working with them to help in the global healing process, as it is a necessary next step for humans to become true galactic citizens. We must evolve into fully conscious, spiritually awake beings in order to fully interact with these ET visitors. Increasingly, as we become a peaceful global society, the physical contact will become routine. This is a process for which we are witnessing the birth, and will continue to transition in this direction over the next several decades and centuries.

Dancingeyes (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-added the information about the cost and stated aims of this commercial venture. Also, included statement about the lack of evidence for its success. Despite the excuse above, surely at meetings evidence could be provided? Or are we to believe that none can be given because no "ETs" will appear either because the participants are "giving out the wrong "vibes" or because it is too dangerous for them to do so because of military opposition? If this is the case and the organization knows they will not be successful perhaps they should not be giving the "training".

Whatever the reason, this information needs to be included. If someone wishes to cite form a reliable source as to why it has been unsuccessful, then perhaps they should do so The7thdr (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tagging

I've just added an NPOV tag to this article. It seems to me that it requires some serious editing, on the grounds that right now it doesn't contain any of the criticisms of Greer or his projects. We could start by citing James Randi - [1]. Now I know that Randi is unsubtle and on occasion quite insulting, but he has an annoying habit of speaking the truth. It also occurs to me that the main Disclosure Project article is in need of a purge and re-write. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've purged most of the material from the page - it was excessive and largely biased. We don't need a play-by-play of the man's life, nor should we make it seem like he walks on water. Some of what I removed can be added back, but it must be added slowly and with justification. I've left the NPOV tag on the Disclosure Project section, which needs to be re-written and expanded. Again, the main article on the project needs to be re-done. I'd also like some more reliable information on the hunger strike from one of his supporters - that seems slightly more than 'trivia'. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the hunger strike was ceremonial at best (liquid diet, but plenty of calories) and not related to Greer except that the striker went to his talk, I've decided it isn't notable at all. The Disclosure Project section has been fixed for NPOV. I'm not sure if the article needs to be expanded much more. Please advise. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Additions made

I will be adding relevant material I have gathered about Steven Greer. I have already added his publications and a number of references. Don't hesitate to contact me if any parts needs corrections/additions.Richard.Lalancette (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you go overboard with this, you should read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If other editors (including me) think the article is getting unbalanced, they'd be very much in the right to delete redundant references. Edit wars are lame. Plvekamp (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I haven't used Wiki much in the past, but I'll do my best. The article is far from complete. Also, I don't understand why his books and websites are not all cited. Anyway, that's fixed. I'll try to get a list of conferences he gave; that should be some good material for the readers.Richard.Lalancette (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a PR site for him. It's beginning to look like one. Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard to understand what belongs and what doesn't belong to this article. Aren't we supposed to expose the work the man has accomplished in the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A good start would be to read WP:BLP. If you don't understand any of it, come back here and ask about it. Doug Weller (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Now, would it be good to solve this Deletion to add the conferences Steven did in the past.Richard.Lalancette (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Status?

Can we get a status update on this article. Is it now complete enough to keep? If not what else do we want to see appear on it.Richard.Lalancette (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sabotage

There have been a lot of changes made over the past year since I first started to view this article. Dr. Greer is obviously going to be the focus of a lot of controversy, debate and, unfortunately, cult of personality given that he and his associates are trying to do nothing less than change the world for the better. What they propose is not to simply expose a coverup that is destroying the very fabric of our society, but help bring about the next step in our evolution. It is a difficult transition, with enormous obstacles set in its path.

Greer and co. have rightly identified over-unity and zero-point technologies as a vehicle to bring about this change. Whether these technologies are alien in origin, or that our scientific minds have naturally arrived here is irrelevant. One can easily observe that this article is very important, and is thus drawing a lot of negative attention; it is being constantly vandalized by someone with a vested interest in suppressing this knowledge. Would somebody with enough courage to be impartial please repair this article with a factual biography and some links to Greer's various organizations, books etc. (and then lock it down?) so that we can judge for ourselves.

The truth will out anyway, so will the censores of this and related subjects please look for something more constructive to do with our taxes? Thank you. Vachementchien (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes! this would be wonderful :) --Zenxlow (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism

The person who added this unprecedented section should go to the following link and read it all of it [2], if they have not already done so.

A lot of the sources on the page for Dr. Greer are not at all credible! You might as well use a 6th grader's computer class web project as a source! I smell a lot of misinformation here on wikipedia... (no duh!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.183.69 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's no help if you won't be specific. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay Dougweller, how about this? [8]# ^ [2] http://www.ufowatchdog.com/greer_seti.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.183.69 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• ahem* Ufowatchdog is bias look at the other links on the site, such as: http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall3.html

Dr. Greer in a 'hall of shame'? Including cult leaders? What in the world? Dr. Greer is a wonderful compassionate person and highly intelligent I have had the pleasure of seeing him speak and he is surely a credible person. Obviously it is people linking to sites like ufowatchdog that are giving me a headache with wikipedia. Also, this link http://www.ufowatchdog.com/greer.html made me gawk at the stupidity of the author. Is it his business to lash at Dr. Greer for having a 'private workshop' on his own property for 15 individuals? There are many spiritual work shops which cost $100-1000, even more! It's not that the host is necessarily robbing anyone blind! That is completely unfound and rational. Ufowatchdog should not be used as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenxlow (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Activities

I noticed this section was - once again - edited to make this commercial venture seem more successful than it is able to prove. I place below and explain why I have re-edited it.

1 "The success of these trainings was filmed by television stations but never broadcast as claimed by the CSETI Team."

References needed. It also seems unlikely but even assuming that it is true why cannot CSETI itself film and release these events?

2 "At least one video [3] is available showing a triangular formation filmed during a CSETI training."

Videos posted on YouTube by individuals are not reliable sources for inclusion. Inclusion of this video would only be acceptable if it was reliably sourced - for example, back to the CESTI website.

3 The remaining footage and photos are owned by the CSETI organization and are under copyright.

So, let me get this right, Dr Steven Greer has campaigned tirelessly for many years now for disclosure from international governments regarding classified "proof" that earth is constantly been visited by extra-terrestrials? However, a company that he owns has this evidence, that it has filmed and could release but won't because the images are copyrighted? Interesting and somewhat contradictory wouldn't you say? Indeed, you have reminded me that I need to include a reference to the NON-DISCLOSURE Document each CSETI attendee must sign The7thdr (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to put this back in again. I am sorry if Dr Greer's "fans" are unhappy that it states that no evidence has yet been provided. I for one would be more than happy if evidence can be provided. Once this is done then this can be changed. The7thdr (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Skeptism

Removed for the following reasons:

1 Evidence for which claims:

Success of CESTI "training"? Already covered in the article

Evidence for claims made in the "Disclosure Project? he has provided much evidence at this conferences with, testimony, photographic, documents, etc. You might not agree with the evidence but it is there nevertheless. The7thdr (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Commercial activities" section

What ever your opinion may be, the fact is it had no citations or sources. If you can find these, feel free to reinstate the section. Clown666 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Clown666, Oddly I had only cleaned-up to this section and missed that it had no references for some reason. They have now been added with additional information also referenced and added to. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement

I started what I thought would be some simple cleanup. As I looked closer, I found more and more promotional information without any supporting independent, reliable sources. I ended up trimming the article back quite a bit before deciding to tag it and take a break to see what others think. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored the CSETI section. This wasn't an advertisement at all, but about his possible commercial gains from UFO research, which I and the other impartial editors who wrote this section think is important information. The CSETI section arose out of a seperate article, which was merged with this one. It has reliable sources for its existence as documented in the AfD below. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSETI&redirect=no (the history page)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CSETI

The references for the cost and nature of his programs don't need reliable sources; it's enough that we link to his page with his own information on the programs. They are a reliable source for that particular information.

I inadvertently removed the advertisement tag when I reverted; if you still think it reads like an advert then please put it back. Phil153 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Without independent, reliable, secondary sources, we have NPOV problems, if not outright advertising problems. I think it's worthwhile to find sources from the old article to rewrite the section per NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the current section *is* NPOV, so it'd be good to get other opinions. I didn't write the current version about his commercial activities, I just merged the CSETI article with this section. It appears the section was written by skeptcial editors who weren't trying to advertise.

I'll see what I can do to add some RS. The only reason I reverted is because the CSETI section needs to stay in some form, since there's no consensus to delete per the AfD. Please don't let the revert stop you from editing it further. Phil153 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with you about advertising. I'm going through the article now and it's a mess, with few RS. Phil153 (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some fixing up. Let me know if this is sufficient to remove the advertising tag. Phil153 (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

What a bunch of nonsense to delete all the entries made about the Orion Project, CSETI and AERO. It really seems that people just feel frustrated by the whole subject of UFO's, so they make up silly reasons to delete as much of the references to it as possible. Why silly? Because reasons like, "this is actually a advertisement" and "this is not a neutral point of view" are used to rigorously delete total sections, instead of editing them. The stories of the Orion Project, CSETI and AERO, really are part of the story of Steven Greer. You can find the UFO issue a bunch of nonsense, or you can be scared about, even insulted in religious/scientific belief.... still deletion won't bring you a solution.

Funny, those poor souls in the dark..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.48.160 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, why in the world is the information about the Orion Project, CSETI & AERO etc. deleted? I smell disinformation. This is really making me angry, and is why I don't consider Wikipedia a credible resource!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.183.69 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

CSETI is mentioned in the article in relation to its prominence in secondary sources, which is scant but existent. AERO has no notability, having not been covered in any secondary sources. The Orion Project is slightly better but similar. The last two organization are basically attempts to solicit donations to build perpetual motion machines or other devices that violate laws of thermodynamics. These organizations are no more notable than any others, who are also not mentioned. Phil153 (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the sections on CSETI, and the Orion Project. Just because these organizations carry out commercial activities we cannot just delete them on the assumption that - by including them - the article might look like an advertisement? I mean, come on... Guilt by association? I have also deleted the sentence which contained the word "fees" just to satisfy the anti-advertisement crusaders.. I-netfreedOm (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The changes aren't satisfactory. It's not the mention of "fees" that is advertising, it's the mention of his non notable non profit project in the top of lead that seeks to give free energy to the world. Pure advertising. You also inserted the text about his "sharing the platform with notables" twice. In addition, some stuff was removed that puts his beliefs in perspective; it looks like whitewashing to me. In short, nothing was salvagable from your revision. I'd certainly agree to including some mention of the Orion Project provided it's neutral and not in the lead, which was too long already per WP:Lead before it was scaled back. Phil153 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added neutral mention of the Orion Project and Aero in the appropriate section. Phil153 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise, moving them there. However, I removed the references, as they were self-published. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but your formulations doesn't satisfy the neutral language required in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Furthermore the re-inserted sentence about the signs of alien contact was written in a tone which discredits the subject of the article. Also, you have not provided source that the Orion Project aims to produce perpetual motion devices. I cannot find any references in the Wikipedia standards which prohibits the mentioning of someones commercial projects in the first section of his BIO on the basis that it could be interpreted as advertisement. I can understand your antipathy against the whole subject however you have to stay neutral and doesn't label/remove anything positive about the subject just because you think it is "whitewashing". I have intentionally not undo-ed your editing because my aim is a consensus which satisfies both sides. Absent of that we would only face a long and exhausting journey of undoes and redoes which would not bring the matter further.I-netfreedOm (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's what I did: [4]

• I trimmed the least notable information from the lead, per WP:Lead. The remaining version is still a bit long
• I removed the duplicate information about his presentations from the lead (this should be non controversial).
• I restored the bit about him charging a fee (it's extremely relevant that he's commercially active in the UFO community).
• I restored the bit about the signs of alien contact, which is from his own book, and offered as evidence of contact when you don't actually see an alien or spacecraft after trying a CE5. If he doesn't want it quoted, he shouldn't say it. If you think the words are discrediting, then the subject's own words discredit him; not anything written here. The sentence in question is actually used to balance the bit about there not being any photographic evidence; Greer is in effect claiming that absent actually seeing aliens, other signs of contact exist, which validate the success of CE5 contact attempts for people who take his workshops and read his books. In other words, aliens are "shy" and will show up but not give themselves away too readily.
• As for the Orion project, it's not notable at all, and doesn't belong in the already too long lead. It probably doesn't belong in the article, but it got added as a compromise. As for perpetual motion devices, this was the reference given. The entire reference, and in particular this sentence: "system would run utilizing only the heat from the environment" is plainly a claim of perpetual motion and contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I agree it's close to the line though, so I'll bring this up at the fringe theories noticeboard and see what they think. Phil153 (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the theory you've laid out all geothermal and solar devices are perpetual motion devices because they would solely run on the energy which they derive from the environment. Dr. Greer clearly states under http://www.disclosureproject.org/ES-DisclosureImplications-2.htm that he is not in the business of creating such a device nor violating the the laws of thermodynamics. I have to draw your attention to the fact that the version of the article after the second AfD discussion has been reviewed by the closing admin and found(quote) "...article portraying him in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism." As far as I can see you dispute these results. And no, the result of the AfD discussions was not only that the subject was notable but during the debate the whole article as such has been worked upon until a compromise was reached. What is your take on that? I-netfreedOm (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Geothermals runs on temperature gradients and solar devices run on incoming radiation. What Greer is proposing is an over unity heat pump. Also see Carnot_cycle#Properties_and_significance. This is obvious to any physicist. However, I agree it's close to the line as far as OR goes so I've asked for clarification here and I wouldn't object to you removing "perpetual motion device" until it's settled.

As for your comments about AfD, by my reading you have misunderstand the comments, as well as the purpose of an AfD. The closing admin of the second AfD did NOT say what you suggest. Nor did the closing admin of the first AfD, who said I'd like to point out that deleting an article about a man who is at best a kook, at worst a conman is not to delete the article but rather make sure that the man is portrayed in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism and there appears to be enough of both to construct a balanced article here. He made no mention of the current state of the article itself and did not endorse any particular verison. Even if they did, this does not prejudice further editing by consensus, such as that which has happened over the last 6+ months. Phil153 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits are a good compromise. I removed mention of heat pumps since he does more than that, and the organizations also research more than just allegedly suppressed alien technology, so I changed the text to reflect that. Hope that is ok. Phil153 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that we have found a consensus. Regarding the other deleted parts I have to add that the aforementioned admin was right when stating that there were balanced praise and criticism in the article. However Greer's BIO is currently unbalanced because various editors removed some of the praises by labeling them as advertisement. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The admin wasn't saying the article at the time of the AfD was balanced, merely that there was sufficient sourced information to construct an article that could portray him fairly. Anyway, what fair praise do you want to include? I had a look at your reversion and the only thing I can see that won't be contentious is the rewording of the section that beings with "Greer, along with people from either a military or government background". The other stuff about his programs is very advertising like - maybe some minor modifications would fly but I don't think they could be put back to where they were. As for "Greer is frequently invited" in the lead, if you can find a reliable source that states that, it can go back in. The bit about "sharing the podium with notables" that you reinserted was still in there, and hasn't been removed. The insertion created a duplicate, which is why it was removed. Phil153 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to include the section you've mentioned "....Greer, along with people from..." because there is enough evidence that people from military and/or government background came forward about the alleged suppression of this information(see video ). Regarding frequent invitations there are many articles under Google News which support the claim that he is an often invited guest. For the sake of consensus I accept that the Orion Project is not in the lead section however I disagree with that. You are right about "commercial activities" where a cleanup was indeed necessary. I strongly disagree with the section "dog barking, ... , hair standing up" section. I don't now whether this quote is correct or not. Even if it is correct it was taken out of context in order to negatively portray him.I-netfreedOm (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I agree the "barking" text could be prejudicial, so I've removed it. However, it's part of a long list of stuff he's said or printed that many might consider kooky; a fair article would include samples of that as appropriate neutral commentary. So something of his quoted claims are going to get put back in, and it may make him look worse than what's there now. The way I see Greer, he's making a good living off selling alien stuff to gullible people (this is an unreferenced opinion), and claiming everday experiences as evidence of contact is a good way to swindle who pay money for CE5 conferences and experiences and expect results. I wouldn't care if they were just idiots, but many are mentally ill, poor, or otherwise unfortunate.

By the way, I'm curious about your interest in this article; it's the only subject you've had anything to do with since you joined nearly a year ago. You don't seem like a strong fan either. You don't have to answer, just my personal curiosity. Phil153 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved my comment to the talk page of Phil153 (talk). I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved mine as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I added back the perpetual motion text, since this is supported. See [5] and Stanley Meyer. Phil153 (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)