Talk:The Disclosure Project

Archive 1 - ended December 31, 2006

Criticisms Section

Made some grammatical and vocabulary changes to make the paragraph flow more smoothly. For example, "critical criticism" while not inaccurate is awkward, and is somewhat redundant. "At present" is better language than "right now" for an encyclopedia. Also the project makes "claims" supported by "evidence" (rather than "presenting evidence" supported by "evidence" etc... JimZDP 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Title part of name

I propose that the title of the people in the witnesses list be transferred to the occupation cell for visual clarity. __meco 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

From the archive

The human mind/soul needs 'ascension' and 'physical recycling'. Dec-22-2012 is supposed to be the date (end of Mayan calendar). Human minds/souls are in extreme disharmony with itself, with nature, and the rest of this 'physical' universe, and under suicidal worship of matter and physical. For sake of all the suffering (human) minds/souls (beyond comprehension and negating all possible definitions of justice), as well as the rest of the (consciousness in/of this) universe/infoverse..., humans need to be recycled. Whatever is willing and ready to ascend into pure-energy-vehicle (physical form) as one merged human consciousness (the mind/soul driving that pure energetic form in symbiosis with all the information, including that form itself) should ascend, naturally with the 'backup' of all the human morphic fields 'database', containing complete human experience through its entire 'evolution', and human bodies should all be destroyed not to abuse and pollute this planet any more. Ndru01 12:45, May 27, 2006 (UTC).

Let me eat your body. Genjix 23:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are who/what?... Demons DO 'eat' human bodies (matter=quantum energy, but fueled by orgones as all organic forms are) in certain ways, faster or slower, either indirectly, via 'polluting' human thoughts, or more directly... But that won't be possible anymore after Dec-2012... Ndru01

And ascension is not 'destroying' human bodies! Only the physicial vehicle (which is an 'informational illusion' anyways) is 'transformed'. The human race as one merged consciousness will after ascension continue to exist, in a significantly better way. All the previous experiences of human race are already preserved in the Akashic Records. There will be no more entrapment in numerous various physical forms/bodies, but only 1 pure energetic form (capable of manifesting itself in all kinds of superiour ways) as a 'vehicle' for the whole human race, and all new experience will count as OUR/MY/YOUR experience of One super-(new)'human' being (super-conscious entity), whether gained through that (energetic) super-vehicle as a whole, or as some part of it (but always conscious of-, and in harmony with- the Whole)... Ndru01

documentation

1. The specific quotes made in the table need specific documentation--it is not acceptable to make only a single general overall reference to an outside source--the original in each case should be found and cited. The quotes from the NPC conference must be documented either also by specific page numbers from a transcript, or from a specific 3rd party RS that reports the conference, or specific time reference from the video if there is no available transcript.
2. In the references section, references 1, 4, and 7 are unacceptable, and possibly ref 4 if it is self-published.
3. But in a more positive way, from the further reading, the Fox item could be used as a reference, and possibly one or two of the others. DGG (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Unless someone can fix them, I am about to remove the unacceptable material. I will also place a fact tag after each quotation, and remove it if unsourced. DGG (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOVing and trimming

I have conducted a massive purge of the article, in an attempt to make it respect WP:NPOV, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and WP:N. Some of the material I removed may be suitable to be re-added, but please discuss it here before doing so. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A preliminary question, why did you remove several obviously appropriate categories from the article, such as categorization by year of establishment? __meco (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of category changes: removed 'black projects', 'organizations based in the US', 'Advocacy groups', '1993 establishments', added 'conspiracy theories'. The Disclosure Project is very obviously not a black project and fits under conspiracy theory. I removed 'advocacy groups' because it isn't clear what the Disclosure Project's goals are - they may say they want Congressional hearings on UFOs, but since they've had no success in this, there's been a change of emphasis towards getting any sort of widespread recognition. You could make a case for adding back the last two, but remember that 'organizations based in the US' and '1993 establishments' are flagged for sub-category tagging rather than putting things in the main category. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the implication of that tagging. It should not be understood to mean that articles should not be placed into those categories if an appropriate sub-category cannot be found. In fact, having an aggregation in those parent categories are exactly how sub-categories are incepted. __meco (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well enough. Included 'organizations based in Virginia' and 'organizations established in 1993'. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links Section

Although in this article it states: "A complete list of people supporting the Project and claiming knowledge of UFO-related activity and their employment history and testimony, is available in the "Briefing Document" in the external links", this is not the case, as no external links are present in this article. 121.44.215.132 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the External Links section was earlier removed, (justifiably IMO), thus the sentence refers to a link that is no longer there. I might support including the link to the "Briefing Document" in the references, if only so a reader can find the list being referred to. Due warning, though, that list makes ludicrous claims as to claimed support for UFO's (quotes out of context, etc, etc). Thoughts anyone? The briefing document is here. Plvekamp (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is backwards

Why is that you take the word from that one man called James Randi, when Steven Greer has a list of over 400 withnesses in which a considerable amount of them relates or is directly connected to top government projects and high military posts, and also that the testimonies which has been recorded on tape is for everyone to see. I'll bet that most you who have written on this page hasn't even seen one of those testimonies yet, you don't consider the evidence and the status of the people who have told this, you have have just predetermined your mind like there isn't any evidence. This is what's called the status quo, and as long as you don't dear to look past what you've been told by the media and the politicans, you will newer be able to find the truth about UFO's and goverment cover-up's. Its up to you if you want to be open or not, if you want to know, you can do so. But if you don't, than nobody can force it upon you and you can continiue to be ignorant to the situation. --77.110.193.121 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) It was written by me :) --Nabo0o (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the testimonies. That is the entire total of Greer's 'evidence': testimonies of self-proclaimed witnesses who have some credentials. Now, just to be clear on this: these testimonies were not taken under oath, so under the law the speakers can say whatever they want, even blatant falsehoods, without penalty. That of course does not help us judge the validity of their testimony, because there is no other supporting evidence. That is Randi's point: anyone can say anything, but that doesn't make it true. If Greer would present a single functioning piece of alien technology, under conditions sufficient to reasonably exclude fraud, his claims might be believable. That he does not do so, despite claiming that there is such, is good evidence that he doesn't have anything at all. James Randi is an expert at debunking extraordinary claims, because he has spent much of his life doing so, and because he spent most of the rest as a stage magician, making him extremely good at detecting a fraud. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"If Greer would present a single functioning piece of alien technology, under conditions sufficient to reasonably exclude fraud, his claims might be believable." I agree with your point, but your reasoning is wrong. For instance, can YOU present a single functioning hydrogen bomb? No. Greer's not claiming he HAS alien technology, only that it exists. Still an extraordinary claim, but not the one you implicityl ascribed to him.68.163.65.143 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Googlegooglegoogle