That's all just circumstantial evidence subject to interpretation, not proof.

I can't disagree, but at what point can sworn testimonies be allowed? 100, 200, 500? What about their 'respectability'? To dismiss such a mountain of evidence is unwise, I feel.

There are also hundreds of government documents on his website, discussing various et issues.

Most of the testimonies talk about how there is a systemic coverup going on. What if they can provide proof, but due to high classification, it can't be provided, except to Congress? This was ultimately what the disclosure project was about in 2001. Most of the testimonies attest to that fact.

What specifically is unwise? I don't see any negative consequences of being skeptical.

And the notion of some grand government conspiracy is just ludicrous on the face of it. No secret could be kept that long by so many people without some more reliable evidence leaking out.

Appeals to authority in terms of the respectability of various witnesses are meaningless. A more plausible explanation is that they simply misinterpreted what they experienced, possibly primed by the ubiquity of aliens and spacecraft in popular fiction going back almost a century. Look how many people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes based on sincere but faulty eyewitness testimony.

Skepticism is all well and good, but it can go too far if it's just a blanket denial. Dr Greer himself states that he's skeptical of 95% of what he's seen, but still states:

"we have 3500 cases where ET vehicles have landed and have left physical traces. We have 4000 cases where they have been tracked on radar and seen by pilots" ~ Unacknowledged doco.

> A more plausible explanation is that they simply misinterpreted what they experienced

If you watch 'Unacknowledged' you will see:

- multiple US Presidents hint at, or directly acknowledge their existence.

- Men who've walked on the moon, testifying.

- Top US government officials, air force pilots, etc, etc who've actually interacted with them, and and seen them stored in bases in the US.

- There was even a British Lord in there.

- Various government records (also available online).

> the notion of some grand government conspiracy is just ludicrous on the face of it

Yes it is, but doesn't mean it isn't happening. Apparently $100M dollars a day is spent on US military. $25B is unaccounted for each year. (The actual numbers may be out of date, but the scale of them is correct, from memory).

> No secret could be kept that long by so many people without some more reliable evidence leaking out.

This statement is directly addressed in 'Unacknowledged'

Fair enough, but you can't really trust what's posted as video/photo evidence these days:

https://youtu.be/Fm8FJ8la2VU

I'd go for sworn affidavits with independently verifiable credentials for things like this. Dr Greer has collected thousands of data points on this topic, however.

(Perhaps you haven't watched the 3rd link posted above, which is >1.5hr interview with a Richard Doty from OSI whose job it was to discredit/cover up/investigate all of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShZMgbXNSBs

Also, the news wouldn't get out anyway:

"So, every news agency, every television and radio station in the Albuquerque and Santa-Fe area had our snitches in there... we paid them good money" 1:24)

edit: added relevant quote from doco.

This stuff is very hard to wade through, especially Greer's documentary. I just picked out something to follow up on on Google scholar, the Atacama skeleton, and it immediately falls apart. I'm not saying all of this is necessarily false, it just seems to have a pro-extraterrestrial bias that he's trying to gather evidence for, rather than just analysing evidence without foregone conclusions. I've never seen material on extraterestrials that didn't fall into that trap.

And for all these characters being interviewed, how do you know they aren't just payed actors? Has anyone followed their references? The way it looks to me it's all just a bunch of people with trumped up or vague relationships to US government, including Greer himself having "briefed" intelligence officials (which he later corrects as a talk during a dinner party, who knows whether that's true). Just a personal note as someone who's done a PhD: I've come to the conclusion that if someone introduces himself with "Dr. XYZ", it's probably a person trying to trump up their importance. I've come to get skeptical immediately when someone is doing that.

Yeah, the atacama skeleton is tough to swallow. Ironically, Dr Greer makes no claim about what it is, other than to say (he's actually a trauma physician originally) that it's not human. He goes into details on why (and documented proof and papers by recognised DNA experts). He's also directly 'calling out' the papers you've seen and the journals that have published them, as far as I'm aware.

I'd still recommend watching Unacknowledged