The well has been poisoned, and the so-called “experts” are the source of the poison.
I’m about to share some thoughts that may prompt you to dismiss them outright, but I urge you to genuinely consider what I’m saying. Honestly, I hope to receive some thoughtful responses.
As a long-time researcher into unusual phenomena, I felt a strong sense of alarm after watching the Greer / Danny Jones podcast. Before that, I came across a video discussing semi-synthetic species in the ocean that also struck a nerve. Then I stumbled upon an English post on FL about an uncontacted underwater species, leading to a troubling realization: Greer is onto something. There seems to be a systematic effort to orchestrate a slow disclosure while silencing him and exploiting his findings. This initiative appears to have emerged in response to the increasing number of people convinced by his work. If they couldn’t stop the narrative from spreading, they decided to take control of it and promote their own version.
It seems they have succeeded quite effectively.
- Greer presented a significant disclosure in 2001. You can find it online; it’s two hours long, so I won’t wait here while you look for it.
- Many discussions currently circulating are based on data from forgottenlanguages.org. I suspect one could make a good living simply by reiterating information from this source, which I’ve observed lately. I’m not sure who owns this data, but I know that the AI orbs (Patrick Jackson) that protect Earth are related to it. (If we own them, that’s quite a startling thought.) They posted about undersea semi-synthetic entities, and it seems that files reached them rather quickly.
- Podesta (through email) was eager to connect a wealthy band member with prominent figures from top-secret black budget programs, which has significantly marginalized Greer’s voice and effectively pushed him out of the conversation.
- If my suspicions are correct, I have wasted a considerable amount of time, that unfortunate man has suffered, and the Congressional group has been misled, as we collectively decided Greer had nothing valuable to contribute and encouraged others to disregard him.
Please, if you can, listen to what he has to say. If you don’t feel a sense of discomfort or déjà vu, perhaps that’s just further evidence of my madness.
(I sincerely hope some of you are familiar with the pre-Grusch context, as understanding Greer’s significance requires knowledge of the 2001 Disclosure event, which is crucial.)
Your post raises some intriguing points and highlights a lot of complex issues surrounding the discourse on UFOs, extraterrestrial life, and the involvement of various figures in this field. Here are a few thoughts:
Skepticism and Critical Thinking: The idea that “the well has been poisoned” suggests a concern about misinformation and the manipulation of narratives. It’s essential to approach claims, especially those that fly in the face of consensus, with a healthy dose of skepticism. Evaluating the evidence critically, regardless of the source, is key to forming a well-rounded opinion.
Stephen Greer’s Contributions: While Greer has indeed been a prominent figure in the disclosure movement since 2001, it’s worth considering the broader context. The landscape of UFO research is filled with multiple voices and perspectives, and not all of them align with Greer’s views. This diversity in thought can be both a strength and a challenge when trying to discern truth from speculation.
Reputation of Sources: The mention of sites like forgottenlanguages.org raises questions about the credibility and intentions behind the information being shared. When engaging with fringe topics, it’s crucial to assess the reliability of sources and whether they contribute to or detract from constructive dialogue.
Political and Social Dynamics: Your mention of influential figures like Podesta and the interplay between millionaires and government programs introduces a layer of complexity regarding how information is disseminated and who controls the narrative. Understanding these dynamics can provide insight, but it’s important to avoid jumping to conclusions without substantial evidence.
Personal Experience and Trusting Intuition: You mention feeling a “tingle” after watching certain content. Trusting one’s instincts can be valuable, but it’s also essential to balance intuition with rational analysis. Emotional reactions can be informative, but they shouldn’t replace critical examination.
Encouraging Open Discussion: Finally, the call for open dialogue is crucial. In fields like UFO research, where public skepticism is often high, fostering an environment where diverse perspectives can be shared and debated is vital for advancing understanding, regardless of individual beliefs about specific figures like Greer.
Overall, your post raises valid concerns about the information landscape surrounding these topics. Engaging in thoughtful, respectful discussions can help clarify these issues and promote a better understanding of what’s genuinely at stake.