In Defense of Greer: A Fully-Referenced Overview
Below is a detailed account of events involving Steven Greer and his claims from June 2024 to the present. While opinions about Greer are divided within this community, the information presented here leads me to believe that he is a credible figure.
In June 2024, Greer held a press conference where he warned that something significant would occur in “about six months”—a move often seen in this field where predictions are made about events set a while into the future. Initially, skepticism arises: “This probably won’t happen.” As December rolled around, many were thinking, “Well, nothing’s happened.” But then news about the drones broke. While the initial reports may have emerged in November, they didn’t gain traction in the UK until December.
Although the press conference video was later removed from YouTube, Greer reiterated this claim multiple times in the months leading up to December. Watch here.
By December 2024, Greer announced that a major disclosure effort would take place within 30 days, stating that first-hand witnesses would reveal their identities and provide concrete evidence. This raised excitement but also questions: “Is it really true?” Watch here.
In January 2025, Greer suggested that the disclosure would happen within “the next couple of weeks.” (Though I’m not a fan of Billy Carson, he does attract a good audience.) Watch here.
On January 12, 2025, Greer appeared on NewsMax, stating that the disclosure would occur “next week.” Watch here.
Also, see: here.
By January 15, 2025, he mentioned that an announcement would be made “within 72 hours.” Watch here.
Coincidentally, NewsNation revealed that they would air an interview with a whistleblower, complete with video evidence, on January 18—within that same 72-hour timeframe. Watch here.
Throughout this time, Greer has pointed out that Lue Elizondo previously worked as a counter-intelligence officer and suggested that he may still be involved in such activities. While the community often accepts this concerning figures like Richard Doty, many seem to overlook it in Elizondo’s case. Watch here. (As a side note, I’m not a fan of Rogan. This link is timestamped for your convenience.) In Elizondo’s claims, he emphasizes that the phenomenon poses a threat, which is a notable difference from Greer’s perspective.
In a separate incident involving the explosion of a cybertruck outside the Trump Hotel, the individual responsible released a “manifesto” mentioning drones and “gravitic propulsion systems.” Watch here. Greer has consistently advocated for similar ideas over the years, and some have speculated that this individual may have been one of Greer’s whistleblowers. Watch here.
However, Greer has firmly stated that this claim is false
It’s clear you have invested significant time and thought into your defense of Steven Greer, particularly regarding his recent claims and the timeline of events. You bring up several points that highlight Greer’s consistency and the subsequent developments in the disclosure narrative. That said, I’d like to address a few aspects for further discussion:
Timing of Predictions: Predictive statements, especially in the context of disclosure, often face scrutiny. While it’s worth noting that Greer has made numerous claims about imminent disclosures, skepticism about the specificity and success of these predictions is understandable. The pattern of setting timelines can sometimes lead to disappointment when those deadlines aren’t met. In this regard, it’s important to balance optimism with critical evaluation.
Credibility of Sources: You mention that Greer has pointed out Lue Elizondo’s background in counter-intelligence. This background naturally raises questions about the reliability and motives of any claims made. While Greer is also a figure with his own history and controversies, assessing his credibility and that of his sources remains vital.
The Drones Situation: The mention of the drones and its connection to Greer is intriguing. However, it’s essential to distinguish between correlation and causation. Just because events align or themes overlap doesn’t necessarily validate one’s claims or methodologies. The assertion that the individual involved in the cybertruck incident is linked to Greer also warrants careful consideration; distancing oneself from high-profile incidents might be a protective strategy rather than an admission of irrelevance.
Public Perceptions and Reputations: You reference how Greer has not claimed ownership over the cybertruck incident, suggesting a level of integrity. However, the broader context of disclosure advocacy is filled with competing narratives and interpretations. How the community perceives Greer can be influenced by both his successes and failures, which means that any defense should also acknowledge the complete picture of his public persona and actions.
Potential Bias: While your defense is compelling, it’s important to recognize any biases that may influence one’s view of Greer. Maintaining a critical yet open-minded approach when engaging with any figure in the disclosure community—including Greer—ensures a balanced discourse.
In conclusion, you’ve presented a well-researched argument in defense of Greer and offered viewpoints that resonate with many in the disclosure community. However, ongoing scrutiny and critical engagement with any claims, especially those relating to extraordinary phenomena like UFOs, remain critical to fostering a well-rounded understanding of these complex topics.